Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

[Music] [Applause] [Music] Hallelujah. [Music] Hallelujah. [Music]

Heat. Heat. Heat. [Applause] Heat. Heat. [Music] Heat. Heat. Heat. [Music] Hello and welcome to the August meeting of the Carpentry of Planning Commission. I have a roll call.

Yes. Thank you, Vice Chair. Commissioner Van Antworp here. Commissioner Lef Fevers here. Vice Chair Allen or excuse me, Chair Allen. He is absent. He indicated he may not be able to make it tonight. Uh Commissioner Benfield also let us know she was out ill and would not be able to make it tonight. And so that leaves Vice Chair Moyer here. Here. Thank you.

U please join me in the pledge of allegiance. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Uh do we have any introductions? Sorry, vice chair. I was trying to bring speaker slips up to you, but yes, we do have uh one item under presentations and introductions, and that's a brief presentation from Bob McDonald with the Carpenter Valley Water District.

Okay, we'll go ahead and do that now.

Perfect. If you want to Thank you. Thank you uh honorable thank you honorable commissioners for hearing uh just a brief presentation on a project that Carpondria Valley Water District has been working on for some time and um I wanted to do sort of a highlevel uh look at the project uh given that this project will be coming to you in the future for consideration of a cupd permit. Who are you in charge? Next slide, please. So, just a brief uh description of the water district here in Carpondria. You can see the map shows the city boundary and uh the yellow is the water district boundary includes portions of the county as well as the city. Uh the district has three water supplies, local groundwater, Lake Kachuma, and state water project. And our mission is uh to provide a reliable, safe supply to the communities of Carpandria. Next slide. So you know, one of the one of the questions I get very often is why are we doing this project? And I think uh this fact here uh that during extended dry conditions carpenter faces a shortfall of 2500 acre feet per year just to give you an idea our annual demand is 35. So that's a pretty big shortfall. Um and we actually saw this come uh come true in in fact you know in 2016 if we would have had one more dry

winter we would have essentially run out of water. So that was a wakeup call and uh 2016 we started looking at this project and of course here we are uh 10 years later um trying to get it off the ground. So next slide. So kind of along that uh vein uh why are we doing this project? Um so the project is designed to treat and purify waste water to create a new sustainable water supply for Carpenter Valley. As I said uh the project was initiated in response to growing water scarcity concerns which were very um uh pointed in 2016. Um but the cap you know in the end once we get it up and running we'll reliably supply a baseline of water supply for carpria of a thousand acre feet per year. Some of the benefits that the project will introduce are, you know, we import most of our water here in Carpet through a pipel single pipeline that runs along the base of the Sanz River. And uh we during the debris flows were uh were threatened with the debris uh flows that were knocking out pipelines and and such. the South Coast conduit crossed several of those creeks where there were major debris flows. But fortunately, uh, it stayed intact, but we don't think that's always going to be the case. And so, one of the, uh, risks that we take with having a single pipeline bring in most of our water is what happens if that pipeline breaks. Um, CAP will provide a local supply. So, we aren't relying relying on uh imported water supplies. it'll uh it'll significantly improve the water supply reliability. We we've done a lot of

studies and looked out 50 years to figure out okay what is this project really going to give us uh in light of what we know about the unreliability of our our current water supplies. And we were able to uh show that we would have water in you know 50 years in all years during one with which there was a critical drought similar to the last one. And so that's a good uh that's a good thing. Uh I think it'll create a baseline supply that we can rely on year after year as compared to drought impacted water supplies like Lake Achima and state water. Uh the project also incidentally will support groundwater sustainability which uh the groundwater sustainability agency is is its main goal is to um you know reach and maintain groundwater sustainability. So that's a good uh side benefit. Um and it also will reduce wastewater discharges to the ocean. Uh what I want to emphasize here is the CAP will benefit the communities of Carpenter for the next 50 years. It's a 50-year project. It is initially going to take some large investment, but you know, within, I'd say, 10 years, those investments will have um come back down and we'll have 50 years of benefit. Next slide. So, this project is a joint project between the water district and the carpenter sanitary district. Uh we're taking water that is uh typically or has been historically discharged to the ocean and we're treating it in an advanced water treatment plant which will basically remove everything. It's essentially uh demineralized water when we get through the plant. We'll add uh

uh minerals back in and then we'll pipe that water into the center of town where it will be injected into injection wells and uh up to you know between four and a year four months and a year we'll pull that water back out with our existing uh groundwater wells. Next slide. So now is the time that uh to do this project. As I said, we've been planning for 10 years. These projects take a long time, but the luxury or the benefit uh that came with that time was we were able to really tap into all the grant programs that we could. Uh we currently are at $25 million in grants. We hope to get another $10 million which will put us at 50% of the total cost of the project funded by grants. the rest of the project will be funded by a 1.7% lowinterest loan from the state. And so, uh, we feel pretty good about this. Uh, if we wait on the project, uh, costs can continue to go up to do these types of projects. Um, we saw a pretty big increase, you know, postcoid, uh, and so we don't want to let that to continue to increase. So we're really really hoping that we can get this project done in the next three years. Next slide. So this is just an overview of the project. Uh the project has an advanced water purification facility be located on the sanitary district site. Um and again that's just the additional treatment for the for the discharge water to get it up to basically a purified level. We then have a 10-in purified water uh conveyance pipeline. It goes about a mile across town. It terminates uh on on Lynen across on the

other side of the freeway. Uh those those uh the pipeline will terminate at those uh groundwater injection wells which will uh function to put the water into the groundwater basin. And then we have two groundwater monitoring well clusters that are also located in the area for regulatory purposes to monitor the water and how it moves. Next slide. So finally uh just kind of an uh constru overview of construction timeline. This is what we're hoping for uh to begin in Q1 of 2026 on the AWPF and then shortly after that start on the conveyance pipelines and then in Q three in the middle of Q3 of 26 start on the injection wells and monitoring wells. Um the conveyance pipelines are short much shorter duration project than the advanced purification water facility. We can do them at at the same time. So that's why we're they're sort of overlaid as well as the injection wells and monitoring wells are about seven months. So with that I think that's the end of my presentation. So

thank you very much. Yes. Thank you. There's no action we have to take. Yeah. Okay. See if I have now on the agenda. Was this a good time to change the uh vice chair, why don't we go ahead and do general public comment first and then we can talk about any changes to the agenda.

Now, this period is for anybody that wishes to address the commission on items that aren't that aren't included on this me in this meeting. So, and I have one request from Alan Kosh, right? And then I'll open it up after that to anybody else that has something they want to present. The green light that works. Good evening, commissioners. Um, uh, thank you for the time tonight. Uh I'm going to be talking about a general public comment um that is related to the city proposed parking lot number four that is going to be built as part of the phasing of the surf liner in and really going to talk to a little bit about some adverse environmental impacts. I think the schedule has probably the final EIR coming to the planning commission sometime late this year probably. Um the ne the actual next step is a draft environmental impact that will come out from from Nick's from Nick's staff and there'll be a 45day comment period on that but I just wanted to start some discussions with you all. Okay. Um these comments that I made I also sent you an email directly on that. Um so I'm going to just read read this quickly read the statement. The proposed Surfliner in project is go currently going through the environmental impact phase phase of the development review process. The scope of the project includes the construction of a new city parking lot, lot number four, across the tracks in the beach neighborhood on a parcel of land that is next to the railroad tracks that currently has a public open space trail from Lynen to Holly. The phase of this project is referred to

phase phase one. Okay. Since um the planning of it is that before they be begin construction of the hotel on lot number three, they want to make sure that the downtown and beach parking is not impacted negatively. So you build a parking lot first. Okay. So a very sound kind of logical plan. Um, one of the adverse impact notes that myself and my wife Carol sent in during the public comment period, the initial public comment period, uh, was the location and shape of the proposed new city lot number four. It's a long narrow parcel that seems only to allow the current conceptual design that's on the plans uh from from the applicant of a long rectangular shaped uh parcel. A shared single aisle or you know interior roadway within a parking lot. So it's going to be like a street in and out. also that the parking lot will only have one entrance and exit and a dead end at the other end towards the Holly side. Um, and the entrance and exit of that will be on a major thoroughare Lynen on the smallest block in the downtown T area between Dorance and the railroad tracks. Um, Where am I? Here. Okay. Um, this past Saturday, uh, took a walk down Lynden just to get a feel of during this high summer usage of of parking in the downtown and beach area just to see what's what the impact

is on parking lot number three. It was full. Okay. and uh expected because it was the summertime the beachgoers. We also have now the Lynon Lynen Square impact is is available to see. Uh and and com you know comparing the design of that proposed lot with parking lot number three location indicates a number of potential issues which came up in our impact comments. uh as part of the environmental review. There's only one entrance and exit versus two in the current parking lot. Uh entrance and exits into the current parking lot are on fifth a side street. Does it impact entering or entering entering or exiting onto Lynden a major thoroughare? And the interior flow of traffic, if you re if you do recall or or understand, is that when you come into parking lot 3, you're directed in a one-way fashion. You go one way, you could park diagonally, left or right. So this, no, this Saturday, I had a chance to look at it and I was I just observed cars coming in, cars going out, looking for open spaces, packed. There was a couple of of handicap spaces open, but otherwise it was filled and cars would come in and out and and and and exit. So the current lot number three, you have to say that this the design is pretty good. Okay. On a full day, it's handling handling the capacity. It's not causing up any backup.

uh which could be different with the current proposed site of number four. So I mean at this time just try to share with the planning commission because it is going to come before you at the end of the year and just imagine on a busy summer day with all the folks walking up and down Lynon, all the folks standing outside the spot burger waiting for their for their order. Uh and then two three times a day the railroad crossing with the Amtrak trains. So the position that we're taking and we'll we'll see what the final report because obviously there's ways to mitigate some of the things around parking lot number four. Uh we'll see what what the city staff comes up with with the environmental impact consultants. Uh so I just wanted to share those comments. I also provided the planning commissioners a copy of the actual comments that my wife and I sent in to give you a little little more uh background on that. So thank you for the opportunity to speak. Thank you. Appreciate it. Now, we'll as I said, we're going to change the agenda a little. Uh the first item, um the sanitary district item, that's that we don't have a quorum for that. So, that'll have to be continued till September meeting. So, and then the applicant for the two housing projects, he wants would like to switch

Oh, he'd like to switch the uh the uh four the three and four. So, uh I don't see any problem with that. Is that all right? Okay. So, we'll let him do that. So, the next item up is the Got to staple these together. So this is

Yeah, that's all right. I I'm sorry. I should have included anybody in the audience that would like to address the commission on any item that's not not on the agenda. You got to speak up. I can't hear you. Oh, you can't hear me? No, we missed all of the first stuff you were saying. I have no idea.

Well, I apologize. So, I'll have to start over. We The agenda's been changed. Item number one is not going to take place. We don't have a quorum. So, we'll go with the item number two. And uh before we do that, I I need to open it up for public comment. Is there anybody else in the audience that wants to address the commission on items not attend not event not on our agenda for tonight? And I I have one more speaker slip for that. Linda Riml.

Thank you. My name is Linda Riml. I live on El Carroll Lane off Cass. Oh, you can't hear me? Okay. Is that better? No. You need to have your mouth close to it. Good. Oh, good. Real close to it. Is the light on? Yes. Then you got to just put your mouth closer. Right on it. Yeah.

All right. My name is Linda Rho. to live on Elcarol Lane off Cassus Pass Road and yesterday I was reading the coastal view and I saw a little line after they talked about the housing that was going on at T Tea Time and Laguanas little tiny line about builder's remedy going on 130 units and I thought well that's kind of interesting how are they going to fit that in so I've been talking to a number of people over the last day and found that that this proposal which is proposed by the same fellow who's doing the building behind the mission in Santa Barbara uh overbuilding there as well is proposing three levels of of uh parking and then initially I heard eight levels of housing um studio one two and three bedrooms and now I've heard it may be 18 stories I heard from the city and uh I'm just wondering ing when it's going to be opened up to the public because if it weren't for that one sentence, I don't think anyone would be aware that this is even a project that's being considered and it seems way overbuilt for that area. So that's that's my comment. Thank you.

Thank you. The important thing is a bulldoer's remedy. It's a nightmare. So I I think we're all aware of it and uh so no more public comment. We'll go on to item number two, the Clinton Mixed Use Project Hotel and Conversion Appeal. And uh do you have a staff report?

Yes. Good evening, Vice Chair Moyer, um, Commissioner Lefver, and Commissioner Van Antworp. Thank you for uh, having me here. If it's my very first item on the planning commission tonight. So, if I get nervous or make any mistakes, uh, tell me later. Okay. Okay. So, tonight, what we can expect with the presentation is I'm going to, uh, present the project. It's on appeal. So, I'm going to go through the approved project, uh the proposed changes to the project, and then get to um the appeals and staff's response to the appeals. And then after that we're going to uh allow the applic or the uh appellants to present their appeals and then the applicant will be allowed to uh um present their their project and then we would go to the PC after that and so okay so on we go here the mouse me okay

thank you welcome to

sure thanks Um okay. So um the proposed development plan would allow changes to the approved project that approved by the city council previously in 2004. and it would allow a change to the approved second floor commercial area um 2,87 square ft and um be allowed have that be allowed to be changed to a six-unit hotel use. The new hotel would be comprised of one one-bedroom unit totaling 691 square feet and five studio units totaling 2,116 square ft. And they're approximately 423 square ft each. Each hotel unit would have its um own bathroom and kitchenet and uh the hotel would be staffed by one on call manager who would be living on site. Um the hotel manager's apartment unit would be located immediately adjacent to the hotel rooms. Um and no additional on-site um employee housing is proposed. The next figure that was showing the the change to the project is is shown right here. If I can find a mouse. There we go. So, just where it's highlighted here around with the yellow, it shows the commercially approved units that are under development right now. And I want to clarify it's under development with the commercial shells that were previously approved. The hotel is not under construction as a part of what you see going on at the site right now. But this shows where the change is going to

happen in use. So it's going to be from this flexible commercial space to hotel uses. And then in this figure, Carporia Avenue is on your right. Um the proposed development plan on we go. Uh the proposed project description. Um the is a the approved excuse me the approved development plan and coastal development permit for this project allows for um construction of let me step back just a second. What I'm speaking about is the project that was approved by the city council um previously. So, what was approved was a development plan and coastal development permit for the Clinton mixeduse project that allowed for construction of a 24 unit uh 20 31,026q ft apartment complex built around and at a ground level 22,198 ft concrete parking podium and a 40,000 4,044 square foot um two-story commercial building fronting Carpia Avenue. And if you look at these pictures right here, you can see the commercial uh on the top fronting out onto um Carpia Avenue and then the photo at the bottom is fronting out onto the 9inth Street um at the um residential pro part of the project. The 24 unit apartment complex is comprised of of four one-bedroom units, 16 two-bedroom units, and four two-bedroom uh town home units. The two-story commercial building along Carpentia Avenue contains ground level commercial space of 1,3

square ft and an upper level space of 2,741 square ft. And it's uh that is uh uh been designed to be divided into smaller liv um individual leasable spaces to meet future tenant needs. Uh the project was uh approved by the planning commission on February 5th, 2024 and the project received city council approval uh at a 5 to zero vote on March 26, 2024. Uh building permits were issued on December 12th, 2024 and the project has uh been under construction uh on the parts of the project that are not under appeal. As I mentioned previously, um the copy of the city council's action is um attachment C to the staff report. So the the applicant's request for project revisions and in a little before um to get to that point where revisions were requested um the applicant originally wanted to um get uh submit an application for accessory dwelling units. However, the commercial areas of a mixeduse um building were not eligible for conversion to ADUs. So, city staff um did advise the applicant regarding alternative options that would be consistent with the applicable code, including seeking an amendment to the pro approved project to set aside additional dwelling units as low-income restricted units in exchange for qualifying for a larger density bonus. um units

as lowincome restricted units in exchange for qualifying for a larger density bonus under provisions of density bonus law. Um, the applicant uh was reminded that the second uh floor commercial areas were not limited only to office or retail uses, but that he was encouraged also to consider a full range of commercial uses permissible under the the site CPD zoning and V overlay in the event there were other viable commercial use options that would meet his needs. The applicant opted instead to submit a development plan revision application in May 2025 to seek to convert the 2,87 square ft secondf flooror commercial uses to hotel. to do this. Um the director need this this came in as a um um a community development director um approval application for the revision. And the revision is the consideration that the director has when reviewing um a development plan revision of this type is and there's two things in this case. The first one was a condition of approval number 62 for the approved project. Uh condition 62 stipulates that minor changes to the approved project may be considered and approved by the community development director but that any m any major changes require the filing of a revised development plan application to be considered in this case by the city council. Project condition 62 does not provide any further guidance or threshold

criteria for what constitutes a minor or major change or revision. However, the applicability section of the zoning code chapter for development plans stipulates that a development plan shall be required for all development on property in any zoning district which is subject to the provisions of this chapter. Except that the planning director may wave the requirements of the section if the project involves only minor alterations, addition or replacement to existing structure and is in conformance with a previously pro approved development plan on file in the community development department. In determining whether a proposed project revision qualifies as a minor or major, uh the director relies upon this these two considerations. After review, the director found that the proposed hotel use is an allowed use in both the CPD zone district and the uh visitor overlay district. The hotel use triggers a lower parking demand than other types of allowable commercial uses such as retail, office, restaurant. proposed hotel use remained consistent and in substantial conformance with the previously approved development plan for the project as the original approved development plan stipulated only that the area in question to be used for commercial use and acknowledged that it could be divided up into multiple smaller tenant spaces. conversion only involved only minor interior alterations to the second floor commercial space for partition walls and mechanical, electrical and plumbing

changes. In other words, no changes to the approved residential units, provided number of parking spaces or exterior appearance of the building. The requested revision was deemed to be minor in nature. The approved minor revision was subject to a supplemental project conditions unique to the operation of a hotel use. And these include a 30 night stay u maximum hotel business license and u transient op occupancy tax payment. The community development director issued a notice of approval on June 6, 2025. Copies were sent to the applicant and surrounding neighbors. A 10-day appeal period commenced and ended on June 16, 2025. Three appeals were filed on June 16th. A copy of the uh director approval letter and supplemental project conditions are in the staff report as attachment D. We're going to provide an overview of the three appeals received by the community development department on June 6th. Uh the first appeal was filed by Aaron Badoine. Uh the second and sorry if I butchered your name. Appeal number two filed by Andrea Harrison and Robert Ruben Gonzalez and appeal number three filed by Karen Aragaki. the st then we will respond to the appeals and then um provide a summary of the the development plan revision consistency with uh the zoning and the general plan coastal land

use plan there the carpia municipal code um provides the standards of review for both the planning commission and appellets for the planning commission The the municipal code provides that consideration of an appeal of the community development director's decision by the planning commission shall be limited to considering the appeal and voting to approve, conditionally approve or deny the appeal. For the appellants, the the municipal code provides that the appellant shall state in writing the scope of the appeal and state officially wherein the decision of the community development director is not in accord with the purposes of the title or wherein it is claimed that there was an error of abuse or abuse of discretion.

Title refers to the zone code. I'm sorry. Title refers to the zoning code.

Oh yes, title refers to the zoning code. Excuse me. And that's uh uh Carpia Municipal Code uh chapter 14 chap uh 70 section 76 030. Thank you, Nick. And in under that light, staff uh reviewed the the the questions and issues raised and we provide our responses here. Uh in general, um the comments are as follows. Um let's see. The the impacts from the proposed change of use would not be minor for the neighbors. Um staff reviewed this issue and um um we see that the proposed conversion would not result in increased impacts as compared to uh to general commercial uses in originally analyzed during the the project approval. Um since the change is a hotel use, it is it is categorized into the zoning ordinance um as a similar use to other commercial uses which are allowed in that zone. Um since the project received extensive consideration during planning commission and city council approval, um it appears that that hotel use is is consistent with all other commercial uses that are envisioned for that site and that are allowed in the zoning ordinance. Uh comment number two, the the the approval should have the project should have converted to additional residential units that would help directly help meet

the city's housing needs rather than providing additional visitor accommodation. As we discussed previously, the applicant was offered a possible permitting path to housing and opted not to pursue it. and the city um cannot require that the applicant uh build housing. Uh the next um issue that was raised was the timing was an attempt to circumvent the public discourse on a major use change. Um, as mentioned before, the project went through an extensive public hearing process and public input was factored into the project. Uh, project conditions and the the municipal code allow the applicant to request revisions. Number four, um issue raised is the conversion of you should not be allowed with having gone through a public hearing for for a development plan with the city council. Um, also as mentioned earlier, um, the project qualified as a minor revision not subject to a hearing, um, and staff followed the standard noticing procedures uh, for a change of this um, uh, scope and size. Next issue is insufficient parking and competition for limited street parking. Um, hotels are hotel use locally is required to provide five fewer parking spaces uh than other allowed commercial uses. Um, but the applicant didn't um apply to reduce the number of parking spaces that are would be included in instead the number of parking spaces are

going to remain the same. The next uh issue is an increase in traffic from hotel guests unfamiliar with the area pose a risk for accidents and disruptions. Um in the approved project, extensive street parking, pedestrian and bicycle improvements are being installed u as a part of this project to ensure the improved circulation and safety in the project vicinity. change in traffic patterns from general commercial to head uh to hotel is considered insignificant when looked at in light of the the traffic study and analysis that went into the original project approval. Uh the next issue was that mixed charact the that the uh hotel unit size and affordability was mischaracterized. Um staff considers the California Coastal Commission uh guidance which has previously found that overnight visitor lodging facilities such as vacation rentals can offer a more affordable um alternative to visitors staying in a traditional hotel. Downtown the downtown location may be less expensive than um comparable lodging closer to the beach. Uh the studio occupancy expected at one to two guest unit or onebedroom occupancy um accommodates two to four guests. And we find that to be um because of that it would be tend to be more affordable than the other um um hotel and overnight stays. Um the next issue that uh we've addressed here is the loss of community

serving commercial space removing opportunities for local services. Um a variety of of retail service or office uses are allowed in the CPD zone. Um the overlay dis the the V overlay district is specifically intended for visitor uses such as retail, restaurant or hotel motel uses. So we find that to be um uh consistent with the revision. Uh the next issue is the lack of broader neighborhood awareness and notification. staff followed uh carpentry and municipal code requirements for providing a written copy of the approval decision letter to all property owners within 300 ft and occupants within 100 ft of the project's boundary. And then the next um item is that uh um the appearance that state density bonus law was used to allow visitor units to be added to the project after the fact. However, um state density bonus law only applies to residential design and scale of residential units and their number. uh the commercial portions of the project did not directly benefit or make use of the uh state density bonus granted concessions or waiverss. And and uh to be clear, that would not change with this revision to the project. Um and the the the last issue that um that was raised with was that the conversion of second floor commercial area to hotel use should not have been allowed and characterizes the decision by the director to approve the revision as an abuse of discretion through

arbitrary purposes. The Carpentria Municipal Code zoning chapter for development plans states that uh and condition of approval number 62 for the approved project provide authority to the community development director for minor revisions in conformance with the approved development plan and city regulations for consistency of the approved revision. with the city's policies and regulations. We found that the proposed six hotel units are consistent with the use standards and land use u policies and design regulations in the Carpenter Carpia Municipal Code Title 14 zoning and the Carpia general plan and coastal land use plan. The environmental review for this revision is consistent with the the approved the city approved mixeduse project which was previously found to be categorically exempt from environmental review pursuant to section 15332 the infill development projects exemption from the guidelines for implementation of the California environmental ederal quality act as detailed in the staff report. Staff has found that that same exemption applies to this um revision and a copy of the notice of exemption is included as attachment E to the staff report. We are seeking the planning commission to

uh consider these action options. Staff's recommendation is that the planning commission adopt resolution PC254 in attachment A to the staff report to deny the appeals and uphold the community development director's approval of of project 23-221 DPR/CDP to allow conversion of 2,87 square ft of second story commercial area into a six-unit hotel use within a mixeduse building currently under construction as proposed in exhibit 2 pursuant to the findings provided in exhibit one in the staff report. Otherwise, number two, that you conditionally conditionally approve any or all of the appeals and direct staff and/or the applicant to prepare revisions to the project and or project conditions of approval and return to a future commission meeting. or three, approve any or all of the appeals and overturn the director's decision, thereby conceptually denying the revision as proposed. Direct staff to return with findings for project revision denial to the planning commission's next meeting. Approval of any or all of the peels and denial of the project revision revision would result in the construction and operation of the project in accordance with the original city council adopted conditions of approval for project 23221 DP 2221 DP CDP and this is staff's recommendation as we just red.

At this time, we will make it available for the appellants to make Oh, I'm sorry. Thank you for your report. If you have any questions about the project, excuse me. All right. Does anybody have questions? So now

now we'll go to the pallets u presentations. So we go in order with number one. Uh vice chair Moyer, I think the the if if the appellants wish to to speak, we'd certainly give them the opportunity to. Aaron Bo Bodin is the first appellent. I'm not sure if he's here. Uh the second appellant was uh Andrea Harrison and Robert Rubin Gonzalez if they'd like to make any kind of a presentation to you uh or add to their to their letter that they previously submitted. And then the third appellant is Karen

Aragaki. Okay. Again, if if if any of them are here and want to make a presentation, they're welcome to, but they're certainly not required to. All right. Are any of those people here? And you wish to make a presentation? Um, no. Okay, that's very good. Thanks. On the item on the item. Okay. So, uh, vice chair, if if none of the appellants wish to speak, then, um, next I think we would ask the applicant or the applicant's representative if they'd like to make any comments to your commission. All right. Would the applicant like to speak?

Sure. Thank you.

Good evening. Uh to address some of some of the the the issues, we did submit this as a additional housing project, but we found that that wasn't consistent with the zoning of the project. And the path to get that was a latigious path, which I thought was going to be a latigious path. So I met with the city of Carperia and asked what they would like to see here and what we felt was going to be a good addition to the city because it's important to me that the the the city does well, my project does well and that um Carponia does well. and we are a visitor serving overlay on our commercial zoning. So that is a bar, that is a hotel, that is a restaurant, that is we're just following the rules. And I have a feeling if I would have no matter what I would have chosen, somebody's not going to like it. I can't please everybody here, but I am following the rules. These were the zoning that been set forward. I wasn't even sure that it needed to go to to to the neighbors because we were following because we're we were commercial use. Commercial use has a broad definition and in that definition is cafe, restaurant, hotel, office, retail and especially serving the visitors. I don't understand. In fact, one of the appellants has an Airbnb in their house. So, I'm not sure that that's not a conflict of interest. Um, by telling me I can't follow the zoning rules, do what is correct, which is hopefully

helpful to Carperia. Um, that they don't like it because it's going to actually have more parking, have less traffic. the if you look at office um numbers in carporia they're about 50% vacancy right now retail is almost about the same so we need something other than the Motel 6 or the Best Western this is the the exact thing that the zoning was meant for which is why it's there and it's why staff approved it um I personally do not understand the the issue We have an on-site manager. We have This project has acquiesced to the city in many ways. We're very happy to work with the city. We're very I live in I live in Carperia. I'm from Carperia. I I just I I'm kind of perplexed why I'm here. So, that's all I have to say for right now.

Thank you very much. Now, we'll open it up for the public. And uh my first slip is Gus Tolison.

Is that correct? Did I No, actually my name is Gina, but it might have been my writing. Yeah, that's okay. Can Can you hear me? The screen light's on. Yeah.

Um I'm Gina Tolison. Um, I'm here on behalf of Justin Clinter, um, and his proposed project. Um, I've been a resident in Carpia, um, since the early 90s, actually, um, on and off and very aware of, uh, our community and the change in our community that's happened. Um, I'm just here to say that I I feel that his work would be of high quality for the community. It would be if these were hotel rooms that were being offered. I know as a a resident that I would um feel very comfortable in recommending a visitor of my family or having that option in Carpenter because it is limited. Um many people that live here, we invite people in for family events. We in invite people here for other public events or just to share the beauty of our community. and there aren't a lot of options if we can't house them within our own um housing. Uh so I feel like it's a nice option in this conversion and I just wanted to share that with everyone here that I think it wouldn't be um offensive and that it would be welcomed.

Thank you. Thank you. The next slip is Jason Menui. Sorry. Can you get that close? No. What is it? Uh, my name is Jason Mntier. Mintier.

Yeah. I'm the owner of Carpio Valley Lumber and um I've been there for about 20 years and I will have to say that um Justin could have went anywhere and bought his material anywhere. But he kept it local. He spent probably pretty close to a million dollars here in CARP, which is astonishing. I mean, if you look at Lynen Square, that didn't present a dime to the city. They didn't buy anything here. Didn't even offer to buy anything here. So, um, I trust Justin to do the right thing. He's a good guy. He wants to spend his money here. It'll help bring more money to the city and, uh, I'm I'm all for it. Great. Thank you.

Thank you. Uh, the next one is Amorido Psalm. Is that correct? Um, it does some. Yes. Almost. All right.

Um, I would like to request the planning commission, if you're allowed, to make a decision tonight on this project. Um, that you approve the appeal. Um, first of all, um, the planner said this is where it's going to happen as if you've already agreed, which I don't think you have. Um, it was also stated by the developer that the staff um approved the project. The staff doesn't approve projects. They're approved by the planning commission and the city council. Um, and uh maybe that's part of the problem, not understanding what how the planning process works here. Um, apparently there's a fairly high um, vacancy rate at our local hotels. I don't think we need any more hotel rooms. There are plenty very close to that property. Um, a better option for this project might be having three additional apartments rather than six hotel rooms which might not even give as much money as the rentals on those apartments. And if there's a problem with um zoning regulations, maybe the developer can request an exemption. We need housing. All we hear about is the need for housing. Why not provide three more apartment units in Carpandria for workers? Um, and from what I understand, the Carpentria Municipal Code requires one parking space per hotel room and one parking space per employee. So, has that been calculated into the number of parking spaces

that exist at the present time? And I think the constant new people moving in, nobody likes the Airbnbs. A hotel is pretty similar to an Airbnb except you don't stay as long. So I would suggest that they consider another alternative which might be additional housing, three apartment units. Thank you. Thank you. And the last one uh was Bob McDonald. Uh, vice chair, I think that was for the um public introductions and presentations item.

Oh, okay. So, that's all of the slips I have. Does anybody in the audience have a desire to address this? Okay, we'll bring it back to the commissioners for uh deliberation and go ahead. I'll start if you like. Yeah, please.

Sure. Okay. Very good. Uh thank you staff for the staff report. Appreciate that. Appreciate the appreciate the comments from the applicant and um have reviewed all of the appeal uh information. documents that were provided and um I'm fairly familiar with the city's municipal code and um you know this project um well let me just say that the um the project's current existing approval allows for commercial development. It's a visitor serving overlay. Hotel use is uh one of the listed approved uses uh in visitor serving commercial district. Um the our municipal code part of the planning process allows for uh contemplates that once projects go through the review process and um receive a lot of input from the public and a lot of attention from staff as well as the decision-making bodies, planning commission and the city council. um that there are often um minor changes, revisions that may come along during the further development of the project that's anticipated in our municipal code. the uh director, community development director is empowered to review those uh and um for minor revisions or alterations um is empowered to make that decision and that's what happened in this case and um I um

so the that component in essence has already been approved by by the city through the community developments director's uh approval authority under the municipal code and I I I support the uh municipal code in in contemplating this need and I support the decision that was made by our community development director uh to uh authorized the hotel use in the commercial visitor serving overlay district. Um, which again that was approved as part of the project approval originally. And um, I I agree that these this use is a and the interior improvements that are needed to accommodate the use is indeed a a minor alteration. It's consistent with uh the municipal code, the zoning, it's consistent with our the community development plan uh general plan. And um I you know I I'll also point out staff did a nice job uh providing additional information with regards to each of the issues raised by uh the appellants and I won't try to go into all of those but um I think in many ways the the impacts the from a hotel visitor serving use uh in terms of the amount of people that may be visiting the site, the number of parking spaces that's required those kind of things is um certainly not more than

other uses uh such as restaurant or bar and in many cases much less and I think the uh parking was brought up here. There's ample parking has been built into this project to accommodate these commercial uses and the required parking for hotel use uh is less than what was provided for the potential uses in the commercial space. So there's a lot of other reasons that staff has um outlined to support the director's decision on this. I support the director's decision that this was a minor alteration and um uh it would be and I would I would support denial of the appeals.

Would you like to Thank you. Well, am I speaking loud enough? No.

Um I do appreciate staff's time. I do appreciate um the explanation of uh staff's decision regarding um determination of this being a minor revision. Um, however, upon reading the information provided, what I was looking for is information that's not in there, um, and had that information been in there would have necessitated a further review. uh understanding that because the director decided this was a minor revision, no other review occurred. Um in terms of the change of the scope, I did read um Mr. Clinter's attorney's uh letter. Um I do understand that there is an and and Mr. Clinton in what you just said understanding that this thinking this is a minor revision and it's only affecting about 5% or so of the total square footage. If you really take a look at that, we're looking at the commercial space. Um, and in my calculations, that's well over 60% of the project. So um taking a look at at how those calculations occur uh it shows that that's actually a significant change in the use of that commercial space. So I think that it is a bigger deal than

a minor revision. Uh I do believe that much of what the appellants have stated in their concerns are accurate. I think putting a hotel use into a building that is sh that you're sharing with with apartment with with residents uh really changes the mix and the nature of the use of that land. So, I I have uh I've read the appellants uh concerns and I come back to that startling fact that I don't believe this is a minor revision. I think it is major and I believe it is warranted for continued review either by the planning commission or city council and certainly um I am suggesting uh that we look at a full development plan amendment. You've you've we've heard here that there there is favor for additional residential units and I understand that you mentioned Mr. Clinton that this would be difficult to do uh and it it it presents a blocking point for you. But without having a full hearing or a full development plan review, I can't make that decision. I can't make that decision on a lot of those um those issues that come up. So, you know, there there would be hotel operations involved. Um,

there's other cumulative aspects that I don't believe we have discussed and we wouldn't unless we had further review of these issues. Um, I think that the the traffic and the parking analysis, it's my understanding, I could be wrong, but it's my understanding that that was done um based on the original intentions of the project and the land use and not a hotel. So again, that's lack of information. It's difficult for me to to uh make a decision on this. Um, there could be additional density bonus benefits with additional if you were to add additional apartments. There may or may not be, but I don't know that either. Um, there's a lot of missing elements to this right now. I would need to see some sort of a a specific operational details on how this is going to work. um are you going to have people showing up that have card keys? Um how do they access the rooms? Things like that. Those things really matter. So, and I and I'm not really seeing um a a community benefit to this, but again, I haven't seen a community benefit analysis. So, I'm inclined to uphold the appellant. Um, that's where I'm that's what I'm inclined to do right now. I think we're missing a lot of information and I think it it's it warrants further review.

Thank you.

You my turn. I uh I support the planning director's decision. I think that and I think that the applicant investigated all of his options to to deal with the situation. Uh and everybody knows that office space is a dead deal here in Karp right now and maybe for a long time. And I I think uh I think the applicant is a is a a a good element of our community and uh I support him his endeavor and I think that uh um I can I can support this and uh we can make a motion. Okay. Um and so just for further clarification again, it seems like we have consensus on the commission for um denial of the appeals. Um but I do want you know I do acknowledge um Commissioner and Ben Van Antorp's opinions on the potential use and um I think the again for me you know the um it's a long process for development within the city and um we've been through the process and this is one more step in the process. community development director um is following our municipal code and in um managing this and and I support that as well. So, I'm prepared to make a

motion. I move that uh the planning commission uh adopt resolution PC25-00004 uh thereby denying the three appeals and upholding the community development director's decision to approve project 23220 2221 which allows a minor revision to a previously approved development plan and CDP to convert 2800 square ft second floor commercial area into a six-unit hotel use within the mixeduse building currently under construction at 4745 Karpur Avenue.

Second, you want a roll call?

Can I just say a couple things very quickly? Okay. Um, are there grounds for conditioning this if we were to put some of those safeguards in place that I outlined earlier? I'm thinking um an operational plan. Um I'd under I'd like to understand the substantial revenue increase that the conversion that this would provide and how that would benefit the community. Um maybe it could provide additional housing units, uh affordable housing units, a mix, a change of that mix. Um we can require planning commission review after a year to see how this is going. Again, it is a change of land use. I do not think it's a light. Oh, we're not going to have um retail shops or office space. We're going to have we're going to operate a hotel. And I I think that's a much bigger deal. And we have not had a chance to look to see what operationally that's going to look like. So, I'd like us to perhaps consider conditioning this Well, the mechanics of the project are really hard to condition. You know,

you're asking for uh additional affordable units, but those come with parking restrictions that are going to throw us off because then you're way over the parking requirement. Uh I think that my in my opinion I think this has been uh this has been created in a way to do the least amount of harm and the most amount of benefit for the city of Karp. I mean you get bed tax for six units that'll probably be occupied all the time. Uh it's, you know, it's a the applicant that's going to hold these and and and uh and be a part of this project for uh for a long time. And uh the to so like I don't feel a need to him. uh I don't feel a need to him financially because maybe I didn't like the project. You know, I I feel like this project uh it's a a step for Carperia to sh has shown that we're uh we're not bl just throwing a blind eye to what's going on with the county or with the city of Santa Barbara and how they're, you know, uh have to buckle up for their rema at least showing that we with this project uh which I think is a really outstanding project. We're showing that we are responsible. You know, we're not saying no more, nowhere. You know, I I think that it's a it's a great project and I don't want to condition it. I I think that the job's

been done and I I support the the uh director's decision and I'm not not in a position to change my mind. So I I don't want to the developer either. I just want further review.

Thank you. and and um I I'll just comment that um uh appreciate your your thoughts obviously deeply felt um I simply don't agree and um that this isn't just a minor revision and has been adequately dealt with by our staff community development director. So, um, there's a motion. So, I you ask a question. Yes, we could condition. We we could accept the appeals and add conditions. Um, or you know, so there are things that we could do as you know. Um, and I think the, um, my motion stands. I'm not willing to amend my motion. So, my motion is to uphold the uh community development director's decision and um I'd like us to move forward with a vote on that motion.

I'm I'm in the same I'm in the same frame of mind and uh there was a motion and there was a second and can we have a roll call? Yes. Thank you, Commissioner Lefevers. Yes. Commissioner Van Antworp. No. And Vice Chair Moyer. Yes. Motion carries. 2-1.

Well, we'll be taking a a little break about 3 minutes uh while everybody clears out and then then we'll go on to the next item. [Music] Heat. Heat. [Music] Heat. Heat. [Music] Heat. Heat. Heat.

Heat. Heat. Heat. [Music] Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. [Music] Heat. Heat. [Music] Heat. Heat.

[Music] Heat. Heat. Welcome back. So, now we're going to change do a change up here. We're going to uh hear uh item number four first. Caller, new residents 4935 Dorance Way. Do we have a staff report?

We do. Good evening, planning chair and me or vice chair Moyer, members of the planning commission. Um yes. Uh we've got two of them. They're across the street from each other basically tonight, but we're going to do the one on the uh north side of Dorance first. So this is uh 4934 Dorance Way. Um the project description is for a development plan in a coastal development permit to demolish an existing 1,275 ft residence and detached accessory structures. Construct a new 3,749 ft two-story single family residence with the residential portion at 3,312 ft. That's the living area. An attached two-car garage with 437 ft. Uh the maximum height would be 24 ft and 11 in. The project would include new landscaping and hardscape, a new driveway off of Dorance Way. And the project would need a modification to the front yard setback to be approved as presented. And here's an aerial vicinity map. So here's Lynon here, Dorance. We've got the spot right here and the big spot parking lot. And this parcel is immediately west of the spot parking lot. So it's that first property uh going down north on the uh right hand side if you were going towards the marsh. And here's a picture of the existing residence here. There's a lot of um um hedges and whatnot by the street. So, this is like from the street kind of the best view you can get of it. Not you can't really get a straight on view. And then this is one of the um there's like another structure back here and then a little like shed garage thing here. So, these are the detached accessory structures that are going to be demolished. And here's the site plan. So, I

mentioned that it's going to need a front yard setback modification. So, the house um this is uh Dorance is over here. Here's the new driveway. Um the proposed footprint for the house is here. Um and then the front yard setback has the two parts, right? It's the 20 ft from the property line and 50 ft from the center line, whichever is more. So in this case, it's the 50 ft from center line is more. Um so this dash line is showing the 20 ft from the property line, which everything is behind that 20 ft. And then the solid line is showing the 30 feet from center line. So um there's the uh small portion of habitable area which is like the entry foyer and then upstairs a small part of a bedroom which you'll see in a minute. And then the um covered unencclosed covered front porch right here. These are the columns of the porch. Um so that's that's what's in the front yard setback and the subject of the modification request tonight. So here's the floor plans. Um the first floor is over here. Um the orange area here is the floor area that would be in the setback and then the yellow is the unenclosed um front porch here. Um and then uh you can see the garage frontloading from the street and the living area. Uh and one bedroom downstairs. And then upstairs there are uh four additional bedrooms. And then um this orange section here is showing that part of the upstairs bedroom that's also in the front yard setback. And here's the elevation. Uh this is what you would the south elevation what you would see from Dorance. Um again, here's uh that little detail that pops out. And here's those columns that I pointed out earlier for the front porch,

the stone columns. Um wooden garage barn style garage doors. On the west elevation, this would be the side facing the marsh direction. And the east elevation, this would be the side facing the uh the spots parking lot. Notice the high windows here um with the 60-in plate or sill heights. So that's, you know, just right about to, you know, up high for privacy. Two-way privacy, people looking out plus people looking in. And then here's the north elevation. This would be the um elevation viewing the train tracks. Um a big covered porch across the back. And then um some larger windows because privacy is not as much of a concern looking that direction at the mountains. And here's a cross-section. You can see um the pro the project is proposing to use a slab on grade. So um it's not a raised foundation like a lot of the um homes new homes lately in the uh beach neighborhood. Um and then you can see u the uh way that the roof line's been designed to um keep the height at a minimum. And then the first floor plate height is 9 ft and then um the second floor is 9 1/2 ft in some locations and then 8 ft right here. Um and then the roof line's been designed to minimize the height. And here's the east west uh section again showing just the slab on grade foundation and then the the um plate heights. And here's the roof plan. It's just basically hips with a couple open gables, three four open gables actually. and the landscaping plan. Um the project was very well received by the ARB on u May 1st I believe is when it went and um it's the minutes are in

your staff report. Um one comment that they did have on this project because there's um three houses by the same owner being proposed in the beach neighborhood right now. Um and they all had very similar uh landscaping well actually they all had the same landscaping plant pallet. So the uh ARB comment was to uh you know mix up the plant pallet with the different uh grasses and shrubs for each project. So each one kind of has its own little identity. Um it has not been done yet but prior to final ARB the uh architect will work with the landscaper architect and um come up with a a individual pallet for each of the three proposed homes. Um and this lot because it is a little larger um does have two areas with artificial turf. nice big area in the backyard and then a little spot in the front yard. And then there's a little fence along the the street here with uh more landscaping in front to soften the look. And this is DG here, which is a car could park here. So, additional street parking as well, public street parking. And here's the story poles. The story poles originally went up for a similar design in February of 2024. They have since been removed um because they were just getting old and people were starting to complain. So um in June they came down. But here's the photographs of the story poles. Um so looking uh north from Dorance here and then uh again looking north from Dorance the other direction. Um this is over closer to Lynen. Um, and the little arrows showing where the story poles are. Story poles here. This is like more um like in the spot parking lot looking back at the site here. And then here's from over um in the parking lot for the train looking across the tracks and the um at the poles. And

then here the Lynon and the train tracks looking uh southwest at the site. And then here um just a little more detail on that setback modification because the project pretty much complies with all the other zoning requirements. Um the uh well it does comply with all the other zoning requirements other than the the setback modification. Um so here's again that dash line demarking the 20 ft from property line, the area where the covered porch is and then the 50 ft from center line which in this case is the more restrictive part of the front yard setback. And then the solid yellow is um that habitable space that's in there. And to approve um a modification, uh the commission needs to um make the finding that the project will result in at least one of the following public benefits. either energy efficient heating and cooling, the provision of affordable housing units through a mix of housing types with innovative design and construction techniques or other means or provision of a larger amount of open space or landscaping than the minimum requirements of the district. Um, and in this case, you know, our our new building code with all the new uh title 24 requirements, energy efficiency is kind of built into every project now. So that finding's kind of a a a moot point. But what is uh potentially a finding that you could make tonight for the modification is the last one number three for the open space because the proposal includes 34% of the lot area as open space and landscaping which is more than the required 20%. And then key objectives and policies to keep in mind tonight. Um, objective LU3 is preserving the small beach town character of the built environment of Carperia, encouraging compatible revitalization and avoiding sprawl

development at the city's edge. Objective CD1, the size, scale, and form of buildings on a parcel should be compatible with the adjacent nearby properties and with the dominant neighborhood or district development pattern. And then objective CD2, architectural designs based on historic regional building types should be encouraged to preserve and enhance the unique character of the city. And then uh in the staff report, there's, you know, a pretty significant discussion about the project and how it meets these requirements um specifically uh in relation to uh some of the newer uh residences in the beach neighborhood. So our action options for you tonight. Uh number one is the staff recommendation and that would be to adopt resolution PC 25006 and approving the project as presented and adopting the sequent notice of exemption.

Thank you. Mhm. That concludes my presentation. Uh does the commission have questions?

Go ahead. Yeah. Um, Cindy, um, at least one question to get started, get us started here. Um, and I think this is on page 13 of the staff report. um has to do with design guideline 4 for the the beach neighborhood design guidelines which I know are guidelines but um nonetheless um so design guideline 4 talks about second story coverage. Um the the intent of these design guidelines is to you know minimize boxiness, provide for adequate stepbacks uh on second stories and um the guideline maximum is 40% this project exceeds that I believe. So my question is um is that an issue that was contemplated by staff and um um through the vice chair Moyer um Commissioner Lef fevers. Yes, it was compliment contemplated by staff. Um, and in the staff report it does note that you know physically the actual square footage of the second story comprises 40 46% of the total square footage which is 6% above the 40% guideline guideline. Um, and if you look here on the floor plan, you'll see that the project has been

designed to have the wedding cake and the articulation, the the pop in and pop outs, if you will, around the perimeter to break up um that second story from the base uh the ground floor to to not have it appear as a box. And then additionally on top of that, let me go to a side elevation. Well, I'll show you here. There's the covered front porch here and then there's the big covered front porch or covered loia on the plans all the way across the back. So, visually when you're looking at the mass even though it's not official square footage, you see this um porch comes out here and it adds, you know, some weight to the lower portion of the house and you see the front porch come out here and visually it adds some weight. And let me go to the east elevation to to show that you can see the the weight of the covered front porch here and the weight of the covered back porch here. So um where the intention of that design guideline for staff feels that the project is complies with the intention of the guideline which is to not have a a box but to have you know something small over something larger below it.

Okay. And I'll provide additional comments on that later, but I I guess I and perhaps during this the applicant's presentation, I may have question for the applicant on on that item. And then um uh I guess just I'm curious about the RENA analysis where we talk about this providing one additional housing um dwelling unit under our arena and it seems like we're removing one and adding one. So it would it would be a wash. Um is that correct or not?

No. again through the chair. Um it's interesting how the arena numbers work. Um it it will count as one new house, one new unit, residential unit for our 901 for our arena calculations. The house that gets demolished, it's not a minus one. It just gets noted as a demolished unit. So um and it gets acknowledged in the table that we prepare for the housing element update uh or uh annual report. Um so it's it's even though it is a plus one minus one you know really because you're demolishing a house and building a new one for our reena calculations it's a plus one. Thank you.

That's all the questions I have for now.

Do you have questions? [Music] Thank you, Cindy. I have a couple questions. Um the first one is a question about the consistency and the type and intensity of the development itself. Um, can you give me a feel for what similarsized projects have been approved in the beach neighborhood recently and how this 3,749 square ft total compares to the existing neighborhood pattern? Um, I can I uh my aerial doesn't quite stretch as far as I would have liked it to to answer this question. Um, but right now in the beach neighborhood just down the street in the I believe it's just in the next block is the Howard residence which is plus or minus 3,000 ft². It's a good size twotory house with the detached garage in the back or the workshop above. And then um further down in the beach neighborhood on Fourth Street at the end of Fourth Street, there's the Cerny residence which is also under construction right now. And that one I believe is 2700 square ft². Again, it's another two-story uh residence. And then it also has a detached uh I believe it's around a 500t detached garage also. Um then in the beach

neighbor itself recent development down at the end of Dorance right those three one two three yeah um 10 years ago now well 10 years ago now but um yeah recent times of new development in the beach neighborhood um at Dorance and Ashley Holly

Holly Holly. That's right. Cuz Ash is the marsh. Dorance and Holly. There's three new ones. And then also across the street from that, there's another newer one that's on a double lot, which is a very large home. I don't know the square footage, but um very large. Um and then on the corner of Ash and or excuse me, Holly and Third is that one that sits diagonal is another very large house. So there's there's a precedent in the beach neighborhood for large homes, newer large homes, but specific to that particular area just within that one block or so,

like in this little circle right here. Well, you have the existing Stein house. That's a twotory. Yeah, that's that's a historical that's been there for quite some time,

but for size bulk and scale comparison. Um, down here on the corner you've got the um I can't remember the last name right now, but this one is a is a two-story house here on the corner of Third and Lynden as well. Um, there's a proposal for a new story home here on the lot between these two. Uh, down here there's some more two-story homes. This is a two-story apartment building over here. These are both of these are two stories or three. Yeah, the one is actually three stories. Um, this is a two-story. Uh, this is a twotory. This is a partial twotory. It's just one side of the house is a two-story. Um, oh, and then here on the corner of London, there's the um the fiveplex or the four vacation rentals below and the the large one across the top. That's two stories also. Well, I bring this up because I I do think that it um it's very large for that particular area. I was there myself

and I did see the other buildings uh you know the apartment building well that's multi- you know that's a residential multiple units in there. Um, but I did see a lot of smaller homes and you know, taking a look at those smaller homes within the one to two block radius. Um, it's an extinguishing breed. So, that's why I wanted to to find out a little bit more about what kind of analysis you've done. Um, to take a look at how the the the mass of this conforms with what's there. And of course, additionally to our design guidelines and um for for that particular beach neighborhood as well as um you know keeping in step with the small city, small neighborhood charm. Um question about sea level rise. Has the applicant will they be doing any anything to address the um the sea level rise impacts by 2100?

Uh at this time they're proposing slab on grade. So um other homes in the beach neighborhood well let me let me back up for a minute. So where this property is located, it is not in the area that's covered by our interim sea level rise guidance.

So they are not required to do anything for potential sea level rise. Um they are proposing slab on grades. Earlier renditions of the proposals on this project and the one across the street included uh filling the pad up a couple feet and and doing a raised pad, which is now not um looked upon as the best method for elevating your home for sea level rise. They the preferred method is to have a raised floor foundation and let the water run under the house and subside. Mhm.

Um however, when you raise your finished floor, you also raise your house and make it taller. So, you know, in an interest of keeping the height down, not and not in the area that's required to do the uh sea level rise um modifications, um they just went decide to go with the slab on grade without filling doing a fill pad. When will the new changes go into effect? uh you want to answer that about the firm map

uh through the chair. So for the sea level rise requirements, this is something that we're we're currently working on. The first step is to get the general plan update completed because that sets sort of the the policy framework for the city to then go and amend its zoning code

to require development standards for sea level rise. So, um, you know, right now we're anticipating that perhaps the general plan could be updated by the end of 26 and then the zoning code update would follow sometime on the heels thereof. So, realistically, we're still a couple years out from, you know, having regulatory tools in place to require sea level rise to be addressed across, you know, the entire coastal area. In the meantime, as Cindy hinted at, we have uh what we refer to as interim sea level rise guidance, which we worked with the coastal commission to uh put in place. And um because it's sort of a an interim measure, it really is only focused on the properties that are most immediately susceptible to, you know, any sea level rise, right? So, it's those properties that are fronting along the beach currently that already, you know, are susceptible to flooding and would become more so with even 1 ft of sea level rise. And then, um, it also applies to some of the properties that come in close proximity to the salt marsh, again, that are kind of in the most immediate danger of any of any sea level rise impacts. as we get farther away from the coast and farther away from the salt marsh where there's um you know kind of less immediate risk. That's the area that for now we haven't tried to require those folks to address sea level rise but it could come into play once the official policies and development standards are adopted through our our general plan update and zoning code update process

which could be in about two years. Two to three years is what I'm estimating. And so again, we, you know, we've we've encouraged and mentioned to the applicant that it may be in their interest to, you know, to plan for flood hazards or sea level rise, but we're not in a position where we can require it of them currently.

Yeah. I'm just concerned because um there is it'll be costly. Are they are they will they be considered in that zone when the new report comes out in two years? So, uh, this depends a little bit on on what happens with the science and how it changes or evolves. Currently, they're in an area that would become vulnerable with 5T or more of sea level rise, I believe.

Okay. Yeah. I'm just I'm concerned about um, additionally what how that translates into cost uh, if something were to happen. And if we do know now that they're in that zone or will be in that zone and it's just a a question of um updating the information and getting the building code changed and the regulations in two years. That seems like an awfully short time period. So that's why I'm bringing it up. Yeah. Um, I think that's pretty much it. Thank you.

Thank you. Uh, I don't have any questions. I uh, so we'll open it up for the applicant if he wants to present.

That would be lovely. Can we start with the setback uh exhibit? It's at the end. It's should be the last slide. Oh, I was going to give you the mouse yourself. Oh, that's fine, too. Listen, don't mess it up. Uh, good evening. I'm Dylan Chappelle, the architect. Um, and George Manur is also here. Um, and hopefully like this.

Okay. I appreciate your guys's questions and hopefully my presentation is less on the architecture of the building, but if you have any questions on that, that's fine. Also, I'm I'm kind of my presentation is going to address the setback issue. Um, and then also just trying to talk a little bit about size, book, and scale. Um because I know to your point, you know, we're seeing smaller houses disappear and bigger houses take their place.

Um yeah. Um so let me start. Oh my

Hold on a sec. That's it right there. Do I do this?

No.

Can we zoom in on this a little bit or that's

Oh, I don't Oh, that's over there. Are Are you guys I don't have a license to fly this thing. They're really faint, I guess.

Oh, look at that. It showed up. Perfect. Oh, look at that's perfect. Thank you, Nick. So, I wanted to talk a little bit about the setbacks. Um the setbacks always come up on this street and we had a pretty long conversation about the setbacks not in our last meeting but in the first meeting that we went to and so this is Dorance or part of part of Dorance. Um, as you can see,

part of the part of the charm I would say of KARP is that this street was not developed all at one time by one developer and there is a lot of uh diversity um amongst the buildings. There's there's little tiny beach cottages. Some of them were army barracks that were moved here, you know, before I was born that long ago. Um, there's condos, there's apartment buildings, there's some threestory houses, there's um there's a whole plethora of different things. But so Dorance got built over time, but in I believe it was 1981, the setbacks were all changed to 50 ft from the center line of the street or 20 ft from the property line. And I have some assumptions about that. I'm sure staff knows the answers, but I don't know if the 50 ft from center line was assuming a 60 ft right away or or what they were assuming, but what happened in 1981 when they changed that rule is that hundreds of properties if not whole actual whole streets all became existing non-conforming because the setbacks did did not comply um with that with that um maybe for a large portion of the streets but any street essentially with less than a 60 ft rightway um so like all of Carpia Park some of the streets in there have a 60 ft some don't that's not this neighborhood but so for this neighborhood a lot of these houses never complied with the 20ft setback and then

in 1981 they said, "Well, we're going to push it 10 ft further back." And so you will see on this street um a lot of times when new projects come in, they come in for this variance. And it's not because we're proposing such a large house that we can't fit it on the lot. Um, but it gets to trying to um fit in with the neighborhood and be consistent. When we build new developments, when we can design our own setbacks, typically we try to line the houses up and that gives everybody a consistent front yard that's typically more public and then it also gives everybody a consistent backyard. Um, and it doesn't put neighbors houses in your backyard. So, this street, that red dash line, that's the 30 foot from the center uh sorry, 50 ft from the center line. This street has a very small, I believe it's a 40ft, um public rideway. So, um that creates a 30ft setback. Our parcel is not highlighted on here. And um but if you start on the right, you have the spot. It's got a 2-in setback. Um, then the next number is 7 foot4. That's the building right to the left of our of our project. Um, and then you have that apartment building. Um, that's got that's right around 20 ft. Um, and if you were to go all the way down the street, I don't know if you're going to find a house that complies with the 30 feet. Directly across the street, starting at the corner, you got 149, 20 ft, 20 ft, and then 6'7. Also, if the house is on a corner, it could be a

street sideyard on Dorance, which has less of it. So, the 50ft to center line um is not required there. But that's just a little bit of the history and why we feel it's appropriate to in to try we're not trying to line up with the house next door that's 7 ft but to push our house 23 ft back. What it does is it pushes our house into their backyard and we want them to have a backyard. That backyard view is actually amazing. The mountain view is great. Um, so that's the that's the thought and and why we encroach into the setback a little bit. So, I have a quick little presentation on some of the size, bulk, and scale in the beach neighborhood. Some of these buildings, I'll start at the beach here. We're not proposing a threestory apartment building. I know some of them don't all apply, but it's just this is this is what's in the neighborhood. So, obviously you guys know this. Bam. We have the beach here, Carpa Shores. That's a [Music] Let me see if I can find out where I'm at. Um, okay. This is the overview of the houses that I studied. Um, the or the parcels that I studied. I started at the beach, worked my way up. Not all of them are apples to apples, but then I do highlight I think um to your question like what about the houses right in our area? How do we how

do we compete? So, you know, this is a 30 plus unit threetory uh kind of boxy thing. This is Sun uh Sunset Shores right across the street. Also an extremely large development. As we work our way up the street, I think this is an apartment. I don't think these are condos, but they're condos, too.

Okay, condos. This is Dela. I believe this is five units. Um, and then this this property is interesting because if you were to tell me what is quintessential carpenteria, I don't know what's better than this building right here. Um, it's charming. It is a twostory. Um, but it's but it's low. Um, and it's just a great example, I think, of I don't know when when you think of what's that carpentry, a charming cottage, it's this one. There is a structure in the back, which I did take into consideration. Um, and I can't see. I'm sorry. So, I did superimpose the the ground floor footprint of our building on the left um the best that I could to this building and this building with the garage. I included the garage, but we're including the garage in in our footprint as well. This building is actually 1.4 four times the size of our footprint. And it's also a twostory. It It I don't know if the garage is twotory. I'm not sure. Um it doesn't No. Okay. Um Nick, how do I zoom out to zoom? No way.

Okay. Um, that's that building. And then, you know, this building is Kitty Corner. I don't know how you say that. Obviously, I would say this is an a million square ft building. There's the diagram of ours to theirs. It's only like 120,000 square ft or something. It says right there. I can't see it. Um, ours doesn't really compare to this, but it's directly across from the railroad tracks. Um, and then I will get into this next. Uh, directly across from us, our direct neighbor to the north is the proposal of the new Surfliner Hotel. Um, and we're not a hotel, but this is just the neighborhood that we're in and what's going on around us. Now, there is, to be totally honest, there is a what is it? A 94 car parking lot that's actually proposed directly adjacent to our property. And then the hotel. Um, but the hotel, you know, I I don't know what people think about the hotel, but I think it could be nice. It's in it's in a good area. The hotel is three stories. Um, quite a bit bigger. Uh,

you know, I don't know if it's 30 plus units. And then as far as the height, we always get in this little thing of like, you know, do we do sea level rise? Do we push it up? Our building is just under 25 ft, but every time we come in with a 25 ft building, people are like, get this out of town. It's too big. next to the hotel. It's going to look nice though because the hotel is like I don't know if it's like 37 feet tall. You could actually on the third floor of the hotel there is I believe there's going to be a bar. There's going to be a reception area and if you were to take a drink and jump into the swimming pool and swim to the bottom of their pool, you'd be about at the top of our house. Sorry. And then here is the latest size bulk and scale of like the exact buildings right around us. And it starts with the spot which is a pretty small building that's smaller than us. The building that we're talking about right now is just to the left of the spot. It's the blue building. The next project is the blue building directly across the street. I don't have a different presentation for you guys. This one is pretty much for both of them. Um, directly to the left of us is one of those kind of smaller 1,600 ft uh, singlestory cottages you can see in the green. Um, excuse me one second. Sorry you guys. Oh no. Shoot. Oh no. Nick, where's my

little charming thing? Now we're a twotory. This This doesn't This is just the ground floor footprint is what this is showing. So, obviously we're we're bigger than that, but their footprint is like I don't know if it's 85. It says on there, I can't see it. I'm sorry. It's like 85%. Then to the left of that, we have the apartment, which is obviously quite a bit larger. Um, and then directly across the street, you have two two stories um on the bottom left there that are also larger than ours in terms of their footprint. Um, and then directly south, you can see the buildings in green have smaller footprints. So, that one is slightly smaller. Then it's the blue building, which is our other presentation. And then it's the Stein building, which is on the corner that everybody knows. And that one is also slightly larger. So, where we fall, if you were to just compare our house to like the smallest little houses, we are bigger than those. You know, that's totally true. But if you look at the exact area that we're going into, we do tend to kind of fall right in the middle. Um, and then if you were to compare it to that charming house on the corner that everybody loves, our overall mass is going to be bigger cuz it's got a little bit taller, but just the the footprint, we're right in there with that. Um, so that's kind of concludes my presentation. If you guys got questions or anything, we're here to help out.

You had questions for him? [Music]

Um, yeah, thanks for the presentation. Um, so um I like the project. Um, it's a um, you know, the this particular lot is is larger than many lots in that neighborhood. So, um, the but it is a lot of square footage and I know you're showing us footprints here, which is fine. Um, but my question really is about the second story square footage. I think so. Um, have you considered bringing that further stepping it back further at a minimum so that it would comply technically with the design guidelines for the area? Um I so I think you know we try to to address and and we could study anything. One thing I I would tell you is we did come back with some heavy articulation and when Cindy shows the second floor you can see the roofs all around it. It you know so one thing is we need to comply that is a guideline. So, it's not it's not a hard line, but one thing I could tell you is um so this property has a 50% max lot coverage. We're at 36%. This property could sustain a duplex and two additional ADUs. So, if you just

want me to comply, I could shrink the second floor and like remove a bedroom and then but you have to tell the family member that's not invited. Um, or we could just we're well within the boundaries just to make the ground floor larger if if the goal is just to get that number to comply. But, you know, our goal is, you know, to to do a house that we think will fit in. So, we could we could do it either way. Fair enough. [Music] Um, okay. Well, that was really my only significant question because I and I I'll have additional comments on in that area and deliberation.

So, do you have any questions? Yes. Go Go ahead. Hi, thank you for your presentation. Um, I still have concern about the overall scale. I still think it's awfully big for the neighborhood. Um, but I understand was this originally had you originally designed this as a duplex or what was the Can you give me some background there?

Yeah, the initial submitt was for a duplex. Um but then the the owner uh you know thought that a single family would be more appropriate for for their needs on the property. So it's a single family now. And was that true with the other residences that are that they're the other projects that are in the works right now? Um

that we'll be reviewing after this. So these two were both initially submitted as duplexes. And then there's an the other project that we initially submitted all three of them. I think they were the triplets. Is that what we called them? So they were they were and we've moved away from the duplexes and so um they are all single family residences needs.

Yeah. So that'll be several. And you know, I am I am going to go back just for a second to the sea level rise. Is there is there a reason why uh the owners wouldn't um comport to the newer standards coming out in two years?

Well, I think they're open to it. We don't know what those st like it's kind of hard to find out what it is. I guess one of the questions is we constantly get push back that the buildings are too high and they have one of them does have a 9 foot plate height but and the other one has I think it's a nine and an eight and you know but if you want us to go this way but can't won't allow us to go this way then it's hard to fit a house into that little box if that makes any sense. It's it's an awfully large house compared to what's there right now and it seems like um you know we're pretty sure that these homes are going to be in um hazardous zone and we already know that we're waiting for sort of the processes and the paperwork to catch up. Um so I'm just kind of putting it out there. it might be a good idea to spend that little bit of extra money to save a lot in the future, whether you still own the property or not, or if you're looking at, you know, having these as rentals or whatever you're going to do in the future.

Yeah. Or someone else will own it by that time, but they're not going to want to be underwater. So, Exactly. Yeah. Exactly. Um, so I just wanted to put that out there now. Yeah. Um the other thing and this is less has less to do with the design and and the the massing and um but in terms of construction and sort of planning for construction.

Mhm. If you've got three of these houses going into that area, how what will you be looking at a construction plan to stage those out or how is that actually going to work? I know there's standard language in conditions um that the city has provided us, but I'm just wondering if you've thought that out to have it's a small street. Um, you know, the other thing is there's there's not a lot of sidewalks. Uh, I know that that's also eventually going to be an issue with like some of the other ones, but specific to this project, um, it's kind of hard for me to break up in my mind the fact that there will be construction impacts to that small street if there's three of these going on.

For sure. For sure. That's a very good question. And um you know, I hope I'll be alive then cuz the owner told me literally he was going to murder me if I don't get it permitted soon. So, I don't know if I'll be alive. But no, one thing that's nice about having multiple properties in the area or for construction is that we can you they're right next to each other. So, we can utilize the adjacent space for construction and staging of that individual home. I don't have like a plan or schedule for you of when the construction will go. That they came in as triplets, but certain things slowed one down or sped one up. So, I don't know if they're all going to be permitted at the same time. Um, and then it is a good point because, you know, we also will be battling the city's 31 unit hotel with the pool on the roof and their construction people and then their 100 car uh parking lot that they'll be doing construction on. So, I'm sure we can piggy back on their plans.

Thank you.

Yeah. I don't have anything. I apologize, but I need to take a break. Just two minutes. I'll be right back. Okay. [Music] [Applause] Heat. Heat. [Music] Heat. Heat. Heat [Music] up Heat. [Music] Heat.

[Music] Thank you. I'm sorry. I apologize for that. But um now uh we're ready to open it up for any comments from the public. Go ahead.

Um, I'm Annie Sly. I live in Karp. It It really saddens me that the beach community is being mansionized. We just can go up and down the street. We can see all the construction and all these, you know, really big homes are being built. Um, this house has five bedrooms and five bathrooms. That tells me that it's probably going to end up being a vacation rental. And so, the beach community is going to be no longer residential. It's going to be all vacation rentals in the next few years. That also saddens me very much. 1,200 foot home is being replaced by something three times as big. If I'm right about the design guidelines, it says that the second story is supposed to be set back. This one is not. It also says that garage doors are not supposed to be on the front of the house. So, it doesn't comply to the best of my knowledge with design guidelines. I think if you approve a 3,300 ft² house, then you're setting a precedent for somebody to come and say, "Oh, well, mine is 38,000, 3,800, mine is 4,000. It's only a few hundred square foot more." And so, when when does this end? We just keep getting bigger and bigger and bigger. And we talk about small beach town charm. How can you look at a house like that and say that is carpenter small beach town charm? I

can't. That's a mansion and our town is being mansionized and I think it's heartbreaking. Thank you. Thank you. Anybody else? I'll bring it back to the commission. Yeah. Okay, great. Um, we have an Eene that would like to speak. I'm going to unmute your microphone now and allow you to speak. Once you uh unmute your mic, we should be able to hear you. Apologies. Sorry. You can hear me now? Yes, we can.

Thank you. Um, good evening, commissioners. Um, this morning I sent a public comment email your way in connection with these agenda items three and four, the Colar residences. Um, presently I live on third right around Lynen. Um I am next door to a Colar property that is uh Playa Lodging which is on Lynen um at third and um that was roughly 13 years ago. Uh that was eight workforce units. It is now a five unit um vacation rental. Um It's a nice property. Uh when I saw that these uh the Stein properties had uh been sold, I looked up the addresses. I see that all four of these uh parcels. Um the the callers have applied for um STR licenses for all four. that's um essentially going to create a resort compound that's going to wrap around uh that corner of Third Endurance and um I've been in the neighborhood for 20 years now and I've seen more STRs appear um in the last certainly in the last 10 plus years um and it's really eroded the character

of the the neighborhood and there are now I think 218 um STRs per um permiss uh permitted inside the um the beach neighborhood. I don't think that includes those that um are illegal. And I'm, you know, I can't be certain, but my impression is that there are um a few illegal STRs in that neighborhood and it's um it's it's completely eroded the character of the neighborhood. And I would ask that the callers not turn these four parcels into vacation rentals. Annie Sly made a great point. Five bedroomedroom, five five bath, that stinks a vacation rental. Um that's not a that's not a single family home. That's a that's a property ripe for vacation rental. and that two twocar garage that's not going to accommodate um the the maximum occupancy uh that's going to pile into that uh STR um you know I'm sure sure that uh overflow parking needs will find their way into the new parking lot 4 that's going to be part of the surface liner project or or the spot parking lot or you know uh street parking which is growing more and more difficult in the

beach neighborhood. Um, so I would I would ask that the callers not pursue STR licenses for these projects. And clearly that that is their intent. It will be a resort compound. And as it is, the beach neighborhood is just turning into one large beach community. Um I think I think it it will rival uh the Myiramar in um Monosto very shortly and it's sad. Um and that's all I have for you.

Thank you. [Music] Okay, I will bring it back to commissioners for deliberation. And uh who would like to start?

You want to start? Sure. Um, I'm I'm troubled that we're considering in front of us one project, but in reality, um, I know the ARB has been working with the applicant on several projects, um, and continuing to go back to the size and the massing and the compatibility with that neighborhood. So, I continue to be troubled by this. Um I know we're being asked to review this and make a decision based on this particular residence, this particular um lot, this particular uh project. But I think as planning commissioners, we really need to back up and see what's happening here. Um, I think we've heard from several people and we've seen it. There is a prepoundonderance of the the small beach town community in the downtown beach area is uh these are these homes are getting bigger. um the quaint little cottage style isn't there any longer. And so in many ways uh you know I found this a particularly difficult item to review because I do look at it in the larger context. Um, and I'm wondering, I do not know since

I'm relatively new to this role, if there is uh a way to have some sort of a um a continuence in which we look at the whether and in which we actually look at the design element how these individual projects are affecting that just open for comments on this. Any other issues?

That's my major just kind of trying to figure that out if there is anything. Um, well, let me um I guess let me just make a couple comments. I I don't um I'm not sure I can I'm not sure I fully understand the path that you might be suggesting and that's fine. And I I think the um um you know there is there is a neighborhood combat comp compatibility uh standard by which all these similar projects are judged. Um you've seen the analysis and the staff report for this particular project. Neighborhood compatibility is uh subjective uh in in many ways. We rely um heavily on the ad advice that we get from the ARB in terms of some of those criteria. uh mass, bulk, scale, architectural style and design and all the finessing that goes into making a, you know, a a home not look like a box, but look like something that's when you look at it is nice. So, um, so all of those pieces, and these are just my thoughts, so I'm, you know, this is not I'm not

creating anything here that's that's um profound. the um and I I'm I understand your struggle uh being new to the commission and uh uh you know bringing new new ideas, new thoughts, new guidance for the development of the city to you know to us and and I support it. I appreciate it. It's good to have that different perspective. Um, and there are, you know, there are many people in the community who who bemoone the loss of the little cottages and the um construction of larger homes. Um the however that's in some ways that's the reality of what we're seeing in terms of the uh property owners and what they want with their developments. Um, one of the things that, you know, some of the things that I look at, and you know, I'll get to the point, I guess, here pretty quick on this project, um, is that, you know, this, um, and I'll I'll speak to the to the, um, short-term rental issue, I guess, in a moment, but the, you know, we for for many years now, we've we've um encouraged ed and had a preference for single family developments in this area and I for the most part that's what we've seen go in there as opposed to new

apartment buildings and you know this is these are uh PRD zoning in in the area there are apartments in the area and so we've we've looked at single family developments as a as a community benefit in the beach area to kind help keep the neighborhood, at least this part of it, um, in single family. The um, and you know, whether you believe this, uh, property will ultimately be a short-term rental, it may be. Uh, you know, fortunately, our council was um wise enough to take action uh to limit the number of short-term rentals that are allowed in the city. And, you know, we've heard through public comment that these parcels are on a waiting list. I I don't know I didn't attempt to verify that myself and um isn't necessarily all that relevant but the um the you know the so but the facts about this project that I think are important um along the lines of I'm sure what you're struggling with is that um it is a single family development. Yes, it's a lot of square footage. Uh the upstairs, you know, has a, you know, it's a 1:1 bedroom bathroom ratio. Um I get it. Um the um this is a larger lot than many of the single lots that we see in this particular area. So uh and you can tell by the uh developable footprint analysis that even though it's a big structure, it's still well well under the allowable footprint

development for this size of a lot. Uh many of the other larger homes that we've seen have really pushed right up against that envelope and it's because the lot size is not as big. This is this isn't an area where, you know, you could probably develop a multi-unit apartment building if if the owner chose to. Um so that so the lot at least in theory supports a larger development on it. I think the um the you know the fact that there are a lot of small cottages still in the area does always drive us to asking the question well is this big home is it really compatible with that and um I think from my perspective we have to look at it from the longer term term trend which is has been replacement of many of the small cottage uh homes with larger homes. That's uh this is expensive property and and um I mean that that's the trend we're seeing. And I think the other really important piece here that I want to come back to as well, I mean to get to your concern about gee, isn't this just too big for the neighborhood or, you know, shouldn't we do a more thorough analysis of the um policies and in the area? Um, and I don't know. I I can't answer that question for you. I can answer it for

myself. the what what I look for on this project is that um in terms of compatibility and fitting within the neighborhood, this is one of the few neighborhoods where we actually have do have specific design guidelines that were developed for exactly this purpose to give us something to go by as as this area grows and develops. And um so I think I think it's important that we try to um utilize those guidelines um in addition to our you know our our broader um policies, general plan policies which are also relevant here. But the design guidelines are specific for this neighborhood. And um you'll see in the in the staff's review that this project does does pretty much comply with the design guidelines. It's and for me that helps to answer that question of is it truly compatible in this neighborhood. Uh we spent a lot of time on the design guidelines, had input from the community, and um if we're if we're building structures in the area that don't meet those design guidelines, then I think that's a potential concern. U in this case, for the most part, this project does. I I think the um I think the second story well it's clear that the second story does not meet the design guideline number four in

its square footage. It's it's and as the applicants rep representative cleverly pointed out there's you know there's more than one way to to fix that right. we can go bigger bigger on the ground floor and then all of a sudden it it fits and which would not be my preference by the way. I realize that's a an accurate um statement, but I I am and I know I'm kind of rambling here, but um size, bulk, scale, mass, compatibility, architectural, it all it all kind of comes together, right? And so we've got this large square footage single family home. It's got a fairly large second story on it. Um and the the bigger that second story is, the more boxy the structure appears. I mean, you can fix that by lots of articulation, which this development has. And you know, if you look at the roof layout, it's wow. I mean, that's a that's a lot of that's a lot of um a lot of work. Um but um I still think it's important that we, you know, if if we're looking for something that helps us be comfortable, that we're not just letting development go and have these huge mansions being built. Let's apply the design guidelines. That's what they're there for. They're there specifically to uh make sure that the houses there fit on the lot. They're not these giant boxes. The second

stories are set back in a way that is attractive um as well as meets the um uh maximum square footage requirements. And so I don't know if I've helped you with with your concern or not, but these are my comments on the project. I like the project. Um I understand that property owners uh want to develop these projects in with something that they want that that they can afford some whether it's for their family or to sell. I mean, it's um we can speculate on what the future might be, but but who knows? Um so, for me, it's a single family residence as opposed to a multi-unit development. That's my preference. And uh it's very well articulated. The the architecture is nice, nicely done. I'm not uh concerned about the setback. Um I uh we've dealt with setback issues on in this area on Dorance in particular the you know it is a narrow road. Um I do have a comment on the the next project. Um not on setback specifically but related but um so I'm not concerned about that. Um the placement on the lot is is fine. I I think the the second story is needs to meet the 40%. Uh, and I I would I would ask that that be done by additional step back on the second story rather than adding more squid square footage on the first floor. Um and um I guess the um

the last point I'll make is that replacement of aging homes and structures over time with with new very nicely done uh very expensive development uh in my opinion is a benefit to the community. I understand it's not little beach cottages. Um I I you know, but that's what I look at. And so this project replaces an a very old structure with a very nice single family home. Yes, it's big, but bulk scale and mass for where it's located, I think is is fine. Setback is fine. And I just I think we need to I think we need to stick with the guidelines and make sure that we can hold those, you know, fit within that. And um I'm going to stop there. I'm rambling. Thank you. Uh well, part of the part of what's going on is economic. Uh you can't uh I mean the dirt costs so much money that uh to do anything. Like you couldn't do a little cottage here economically. It just wouldn't work. Uh, and that there's a I'd say that this is a mediumsiz house for the beach neighborhood. It's not a

that big compared to um ones on that street. The I don't So, and then the this constitutes rejuvenated housing stock. Uh, and I mean it's got to be have some economic value to it otherwise it's not going to get done period. And then I mean those those two houses were built around 1910. I don't know what it's amazing they're still standing. Uh, you know, especially a wet uh fog area wood just sitting there and rotten. It's uh pretty amazing. I you know I live in a small cottage. I love it. You know I I would rather live in a small cottage any day. Uh and a lot of people are like that. Uh but it's just not a economic reality. It's not happening. It's like uh you just got to bone up to the to the day. That's this is the day we're living in. Uh my daughter's bought a house here and she's going to rent it out. They're going to rent it out for $8,000 a month. So, you know, that's that's the reality. Uh, and you know, it's not just housing, it's everything. Everything is more expensive. Uh, building materials. It's, you know, and it hasn't even gone up as much as it's going to. And this is an opportunity to rebuild part of carb. You don't know

what's going to happen in a year or 10 years or 20 years or what's going to happen with the economy. These could the economy could take a dump and all the vacation rentals disappear and all of those would be would be either homeowned or rented. Uh so the the objective and my what I think is the priority is to see Carpenteria rebuilt and so that it's in good shape. And uh I don't have a problem with a big house. That's you know that's what's happening. They're big everywhere. And we had we had a big issue with a house on Valisceto that was a double lot, you know, and uh you know, the the homeowner he just had a he had a a built-in right to get what he wanted. Uh but he you know, there was a huge backlash. I think it's just something that's going to keep on going. But you can't The land's not going to get cheaper. It's never going to get cheaper. You're never going to pay less rent. Your your food's never going to go down. It's always going up. The only the only alternative to this is you got to protect your wage. You got to protect what you're making. Uh otherwise, you're buried. And that's happening to a lot of people here. So, I I support the project. I mean, I'm willing to debate Glenn's thing about the 40%. But, uh, I wouldn't I wouldn't let that stop me either. I I I would approve this project. I think, you know, they've bent over backwards with the ARP. You've accommodated them. Everything they ask for, you accommodate them. Uh, and

that's really the visual part of it is we're just mainly land use and zoning and that kind of thing. So, I kind of lean on them to do their job. So, and I I think they have uh so I I can support the project the way it is. I think you did a beautiful job. It's very well articulated. uh it would be a an visual addition to the property which is PR BD what PRD 20. So I mean you could max it out if you wanted. So and uh the modification we do that all the time. It's just a standard mod. I wouldn't make a big deal out of it. Uh it's just going to line up with the street. Everything's good. So that's where I'm at. You know, I can go debate further about the small beach town charm, but uh it's just a done deal. Let me just make one more comment. something I didn't talk about um that you raised um and that's you know sea level rise adaptation um we've seen raised elevations we've we we've seen or um we've seen raised floor development we've seen raised pad development this one is you know the sort of a raised pad it's just not raised very much. Um, and I'm okay with that. I um it's I I um I am not in favor of trying to hold

uh people accountable to a potential future uh standard or code or policy. We do see it. we do see the sea level rise adaptation strategy policies, you know, I mean, it's a it's a very valid point and there are many people who will argue just the opposite of what I'm going to argue, but um I I I would hate to attempt to uh require developers to um meet a standard that does not yet exist for this area. And I know that perhaps, you know, puts them either ahead or behind the eightball depending on how you're looking at it. But, um, I I think, you know, this area we're talking about 5 foot of sea level rise before there's an impact based on the current um, adaptation analyses. And, um, I think anyway that you mentioned it. Like I say, there's many uh people who will debate that we should be doing more to uh protect development and the city from beach reliability or whatever for sea level rise. Um I you know I think there in the in our temporary policy there's some some language that's in the the conditions that addresses some of that. But um still I I I the the the benefit that we get and the applicant is correct. We always try to squeeze on height total height and you know if you um this helps us keep the total height down in this particular situation. I think it's appropriate.

One one thing about the the I would almost rather see a little higher building and have a raised foundation, especially in the beach neighborhood because the issue is a raised foundation makes the house really easy to move and economic to move. But if a slab on grade's really rough, I mean, you got to you got to put those beams right through the wall and then you got to sister everything up to try to get it so you can move it. It's a mess. So I, you know, that would be as far as preparing for seawater rise. I think that would be the most beneficial thing you could do was try to encourage race foundations in the beach neighborhood. Uh a lot of them are raised so but uh a lot of them are graded up so uh that's always a problem. So and so where are we at? Um

you want debate the 40%.

Um yes I would. I guess I I would want to I don't know if there's any additional discussion. Uh I mean we're getting pretty close to wanting to wrap this up. So, you know, I would certainly want to give Commissioner Van Antworp an opportunity to um have any additional deliberation or discussion on the this particular project. Um I think you know the consensus so far if I could just summarize is is you know uh is that you know we're we're supportive of this project. I still want to talk about the second story but um and it didn't sound like you were. So I want to give you a chance now before there's a motion um to say your piece. I agree with your um assessment of the second story. Um I I understand your concerns as well about where we're at with sea level rise. Um but the other I'm just going to go ahead and throw it out there. Um, I continue to be concerned about um land use policy three and uh that's preserving the small town beach character. Um I I don't believe that I think this does introduce um incompatibility with the existing scale in the area but again that's subjective and I know that you mentioned that some of these are very subjective. Um I think land use policy uh 31 the

density and scale I think are incompatible with the existing development pattern in the area from what I could see uh this represents about it's a large increase over the existing structure Um, we we already went through uh I think a couple of the other uh design elements. Um, in in regards to the actual beach neighborhood design guidelines, I I don't believe that it reflects the small beach town charm uh due to its excessive size relative to the neighborhood context. realizing those are subjective. Okay. So, so through the chair, if I could, you know, really for I support the project. I think it's a great project. Uh, very nicely done. It is big. Um but I understand I I um but I would I would like to um and I I guess I further explain my my rationale. I the applicants have done a lot to make the project presentable and nice and articulation is significant. I I agree with all that. I'm just um hesitant to approve a project that doesn't meet that second story uh square footage um guideline. I realize it's a guideline and it's you know you've gone

above and beyond the with articulation. So I I get it and and we could it I agree with staff report that it in concept it you know as a whole it meets that guideline but I for for this development and future developments in the area that we're going to see uh many of those don't don't have the benefit of this larger lot here. So we're seeing people really push those limits and you know we we start creeping up from the 40%. And I I just, you know, I that's the reason why I'd like to see that to try to hold firm on that guideline so that we could I I think that'll help us guide development, further development in the neighborhood. I think we've been pretty consistent about how we've applied it uh previously. And so I guess I would ask the applicant if they'd be willing at least to to agree that they would make an adjustment such that uh the development would be in in compliance with that 40% uh maximum uh square footage second story. Is would that be could I ask the applicant that?

Yeah, ask them.

Can can I respond? Listen, we're here to work as a team, okay? To do what's right for carb. Um, I'm trying to wrap my head around this. Previously, you had mentioned that there's a 40% guideline. We're at 46%. So, we're slightly over. Um, I would be happy to reduce this second floor by 6% or to keep it cuz what's the how would you like to word it? Because I'm I'm struggling on the You're looking for like a 6% reduction in the second floor. That's we're more than happy to acquies to that request.

6% of the first floor. Thank you. I think we can work that into our um you know into the language of the approval here in some way so that if you're willing to do it, it's it'll be in the minutes. So

that's good with me. Um, and if I could, I you know, I've said a lot. I want to I haven't really paid much attention to staff over there. So, I just want to make sure that um you're um where we're at with this this this would be the only change to the project as proposed. Is that doable tonight?

Um through the chair. Um yeah, depending on how you word your condition. I just want to make sure I'm clear on it. Um the second story right now is 46% of the overall total of the residents. So you just to understand because the 6% kind of threw me off when you're talking about the total. Are you wanting them to reduce the size of the second floor so that it is down to 40% of the size of the overall residence? Is that what you want? Or are you saying just make it work where that design guideline? I want to I I would like the second story to uh meet design guideline 4 which states that the second story shall comprise not more than 40% of the total building square footage. To do that you increase the square footage on the first floor or you which I'm not suggesting. I'd rather you not do that. I would rather you reduce the second floor square footage such that it uh meets that 40% threshold. I don't know how much of a reduction that is. I didn't do the math, but it's not a lot.

So, that's where I came up with that we we would be happy to reduce the second floor by 6% of the square footage of the of the ground floor, whatever that is. If it's a if it's going from 40% 46% to 40, that's fine. When I look at this, if we were to agree to make the second floor 40% of the ground floor, you would be removing half of the second floor, which is not and I'm just throwing some numbers out there and just trying to look at it. I may have misstated. If I did, I apologize. Okay.

You know, so to make a minor square footage reduction, that's not a problem. But to remove half the second floor, I'm not look I'm not looking for that. I'm looking for 40% of the total square footage you guys doing some quick math.

Yeah. through through the chair. We we've been uh trying to do some quick math over here and and right just looking at the current existing square footage of the the total, right, which including the garage right now is 3749. So if we were trying to shrink the second floor based off of that square footage, it would need to come down about 225 square feet second floor to to meet the 40%. Now, what gets tricky here, right, is as you shrink the overall square footage, that overall number also changes. So, this becomes kind of a sliding scale. That makes it a little bit harder to kind of conceptualize what the change

ends up being here. But I think right if the the the direction what the what commissioner Le Fevers is asking for is is a 40 is to scale back the second floor such that the square footage of the second floor comprises no more than 40% of the total building square footage. So not 40% of the ground floor but 40% of whatever your overall square footage is is is on the second floor. Okay. It's like a 4060 split essentially. Gotcha. And further, Commissioner Lef fevers is asking that you don't solve that by adding further bulk to the ground floor.

Yes. So, just so we're kind of clear because that was a little confusing initially, it so what you're asking is is essentially to remove a a room on the second floor if that's what you were intending. um you know and if that yeah that m if if

yes my intent is to make sure we stay within that design guideline because I think it's a that's one of the significant design guidelines that I'd like to make sure we're holding to. So, if that results if the way to accomplish that is by removing one of the bedrooms, uh then yes, that that would be my request. Okay.

But that's going to change a lot of the design on the top floor, I'd imagine. So, is that meaning going back to ARB and saying, "Hey, this is what we've come up with." I think the my my reading would be that, you know, we're going to we're going to agree on the concept here and then this project goes back to ARB regardless. Um and um but I I would leave it to staff to I it's just like any other criteria. So I think it's it's pretty straightforward. Um I take off. Yeah.

But okay. Well, now that we've figured out the numbers, um I think we would be happy I wonder if you would if we could make a suggestion to the deal if that's what we're doing here. We would be happy to comply with that guideline and reduce the second floor. Um do you like that deal? Yes. reduce the second floor such that it meets the design guideline four. Yeah, but there's no idea. Pretty straightforward. Downstairs. I didn't say that in this one. What?

You're ultimately going to change the exterior of the building. Be correct. So, you got to go back to ARP. That's

Yeah. So, right, there's there's a couple ways this can can be done. Right. Uh kind of the the more conservative belt and suspenders type option would be that you send it back, you continue it tonight, you send it back to the ARB for revised preliminary, then it comes back to you after the ARB's blessed it for your approval. Right? That's kind of the the more time consuming, you know, safe approach. The other way if you feel that the applicant is making a good faith effort is, you know, you could approve the project with that condition placed on it. And then I think we would um also then want to condition the project that it return to the ARB for sort of a in progress to show what this revised design looks like before they come back to the ARB with final working drawings. Right. just so that we kind of make sure we got the architecture nailed down before he goes, you know, all in on engineering for a design that hasn't yet been vetted by the ARB.

But that's that's like a six-month process right there. Probably I mean, this has been

my intent would be to take the shortest possible route. Um, you know, it's not my intent to I certainly don't want a redesign to ARB and then back to us for final approval. I I don't believe that's necessary. I think the architecture here is is well established. you're it's going to result in a second floor that's similarly articulated but stepped back further in one either on the back or the front um and um I you know whether ARB whether there's an ARB step along the way I I mean I I I would have to rely on staff to make sure that the process is is at least covers the bases. But my intent would simply be to agree on on the condition and the I realize the structure looks different. Um and I know that's taking a bit of a a leap here, but I'm sensitive to the

sense of urgency that you know you would have on the project. I'd like to respect that.

Yep. Um, if I could just suggest one more thing just to see because I think we're all in the effort. It's close. It would be nice if it was a little bit smaller. Um, uh, I think I could comply with that guideline, reduce the second story structure so it complies with it. My intent would not be to just make the ground floor larger. Um, but if you didn't take a minor option of that away from me, I could push and pull a little bit and balance it and make sure that what's there is there as opposed to just saying you have to remove 250 ft of a building that seems like it fits the size, bulk, and scale, but it doesn't meet this exact guideline. So, if I had all my tools available, I would say we can comply with that guideline. Let's do it. Um, if you and and I wouldn't do it by just increasing I would decrease the second floor, but if I can play with a little push and pull, that would be nice, too.

I'm not I I understand what you're saying. I'm not sure that that um changes the process. In fact, that further complicates the process probably. But um in terms of the timing that's that's needed to do it, I guess for the clarity of it, if you could if the state if the comment could be make the second floor comply with the guideline is your condition and not saying you cannot touch the ground floor. If you're a hard line on not touching the ground floor, then that's your choice, too. But that would be helpful.

Yeah, I'm I'm I would be okay with that. Although I mean I'm not the only voice here, but I realize I raised the issue. I the challenge I have with that is it just adds more complexity to to what we're trying to accomplish. And I I but I'm not trying to mess up your project. I just there's there's a reason why I want it to comply it to comply. And um

you know, had you come in with a slightly larger ground floor to begin with and it complied, then I wouldn't be raising the issue. But um again I uh if you're going to balance it um it sounds like either way it's going to go to ARB. So um the I I would agree with that. I think the bulk of the you know the I don't want to play games over it. So, you know, it's the bulk of the reduction should be on the second story and and if a little bit of change on the first floor is is needed to make that fit. I'm okay with that. That's where I'm at.

Uh, Commissioner Levers, if I can just add in here, and Cindy, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but the ground floor is already at the setbacks on the side. So, there's there's no there's no push or pull to be gained on the side setbacks on the ground floor. um you know the the front setback right the the porch is already in the setback. I don't know if you want to offer or give any wiggle room there or if you want to hold the line on where the the front setback encroachment already is. In which case then the only ground floor, you know, push and pull that really is potentially up for grabs is the rear. Yeah.

We don't need any front relief. We could use the back and just comply with everything. We don't need any more of that. And can I ask you a question, Nick? Is there is there any reason if you so fell that it would you guys would approve it, would we not just go to ARB for final with this and if they if they didn't like my changes, they could not approve it for final. So the problem with that approach is that final review is really supposed to be, you know, kind of kind of more of a um I don't want to say ministerial, but sort of an administrative process where they're not really empowered to be making wholesale design changes at that time, right? You're supposed to come in with a nearly complete set of working drawings

at at that stage. And so, you know, my preference, right, would be if the if the planning commission wants to go in this direction tonight and keep you moving along is is you update your preliminary drawings to show how you would resolve that. We run that through the ARB once and if we get their their blessing, then you move forward with your final drawings to come back to them.

Yeah, that's fine, too. I just think what we discussed, the building is not going to change. I will reduce it. I'll comply it, but it's not going to look very much different than than what it looks like now. Um, let me ask Nick if I could ask you a question because I I know and I I appreciate the concern of getting wrapped up in a whole another round here. Um perhaps a more uh quicker option would simply be to um continue this hearing and have it come back in September with the revisions and we would finalize it then with without additional ARB input.

That's um Barring barring Cindy's schedule that conceptually I guess could be possible. We would be happy with handling at ARB. Also, not that I don't know if I'm allowed to chime in on any of that stuff. Six month. I'm just concerned. It's been a long process. Well, that would be the that would be the that's the recommended approach from staff. So, I I would defer, you know, to staff. I think it would it should go pretty quickly either way. Um hopefully I was just looking to try to

and I you know I I hate to I would say that basically you're basically redesigning the second floor. You have to start pretty much from scratch. You can't just delineate, well, this bedroom, we'll take this bedroom out. That won't work. I mean, to have a consistently look looking structure once you're done, uh, you know, just from an architect's standpoint, it you got to redesign the whole second floor.

That's my that's that's my request. So, I I know we've talked about a lot. I you know, and I I you know, I'm here shortly. I'm going to make a motion for that we approve the project with that stipulation and um as soon as we get clarity on how we intend to implement that um because I I I think it's important. Yeah. All right, let's do it.

Yep. if so I like your idea and we would re one of my thoughts is could we reduce it to comply with the 40% guideline um that's the comment and then we would just handle it with ARB moving forward if if you guys feel we need to come back here and that's the better way to do it then that's fine that would be our preference and I think work out well we're not going to reduce the 40 comply with the 40

as director I'd prefer that we we handle the change with the ARB. I think that gives us a little bit more flexibility because they meet twice a month. Um, you know, otherwise the noticing and turnaround for us to get something ready for planning commission. We have like a week and change or something before we got to be committed to it. It's just it's too ambitious for the September planning commission. I think it's I think it's better to, you know, provide your direction as part of your motion. we can add it as a condition and then we work resolve it with the ARB and keep moving the project forward. [Music]

Well, yeah, I appreciate sticking with that design guideline. Um, I think it's up to the timing of it. It's up to Cindy and Nick.

Okay. I'm gonna if if you're okay, I'm going to make a motion. Yeah, go ahead.

Okay. So, I move that we um adopt resolution PC25006 approving which therefore approving the development plan and coastal development permit for this project. uh 232234 and um for the construction of new single family residence with an attached garage at 4934 Dorance uh with one modification and that is that the uh applicant um modify the building such that the second floor meets desired guideline floor design guideline for uh criteria of no more than 40% of the total square footage. Uh the bulk of that to be taken on the second story

and that's the I think that's the only change to the conditions. Second boys. Sorry, I didn't realize you were waiting for me. Are you on a roll call vote again? Okay. Uh, Commissioner Lef Fevers, yes. Commissioner Van Antworp, yes. And Vice Chair Moyer,

yes. Motion carries 30. So now I'll go on to item number three, the other call for residents. And do we have a staff report?

We do. Now we're going uh back to item number three on the agenda and in your packet. Um this one is very similar almost same song second verse as the one you just reviewed. So I will in interest of time go through this presentation a little more quickly but I will highlight the differences between the two. Um I thought it was me. Um, this one is a a 4949 Dorance Way. This is on the south side of Dorance. Uh, basically kind of across the street from the project we just looked at. And this one most notably is Spanish Mediterranean style architecture rather than the the Craftsman cottage style of the other home. So, the project description for this one is for a development plan and coastal development permit to demolish an existing 1,060qt single family residence and garage and construct a new 3,433 ft two-story single family residence. And the residents, the living space would be comprised of 3,56 square feet. A twocar garage with the size of 377 square feet. And then the maximum height on this one would be a little lower at 24 ft 1 in. Um, again, new landscaping hardscape, a new driveway off of Dorance Way. And this one also requires a modification to the front yard setback. And here's the vicinity map. And here's the site. Here's the one you just looked at and the existing residence here. And here's the site plan for this one. So, Dorance is over here on the right hand side in this diagram. Uh the 20 ft back from the property line is shown here with the dash line and then the 30 ft from the center line which again on

is the more restrictive case uh is here. So, um, for this proposal, uh, the modification would encompass more square footage than just that small little pop out, um, of habitable space on the on the last one. And I'll get into what that space entails in a minute. So, here's the floor plan. Uh, the orange is the space that is within the uh, front yard setback. So, um the enclosed little porch al cove uh is almost entirely within that uh setback area. A portion of one of the bathrooms and then um the front portion of the garage on the lower floor is what in is included in that square footage. On the second floor, it is a strip of the one of the bedrooms here and then um a portion of the balcony that uh is over the garage. And that's an unency, so it doesn't count towards square footage, but this porch does because it's enclosed. And so here's the north elevation. Here's that entry al cove. You can see um and then the garage doors here. Um the overall height, as I mentioned before, 24 ft 1. And the plate heights on this one, um the first floor has 9 foot plate heights and the second floor has 8ft plate heights. there's the west elevation. So, this would be the side uh facing um um towards the marsh and then here's the east elevation. And the last time this project was at the ARB, uh one of their comments was to add further um articulation and wedding cake uh design to the second floor. And so, um the architect did do that in this one. And um and you can see here you've got this and you got the little pop out

here and it goes back again. And then you got the chimney that pops out. It didn't pop out before. And then back in again here. And then uh the east elevation again, same thing. This would be the side facing uh Lynen. The stairwell window. The stairwell, you know, has a little kind of tower element that pops out, but then you've got the relief back here. And then more relief coming in here. And then the south elevation. And uh again, there's this little portion that uh pops out and the the rest of the footprints back there and then the the um sliding windows for the living room to come out into the backyard. This is the south elevation. And here's the section again. This one is also slab on grade. Um same situation as the last project where it's in the area that is not subject to the requirements of the interim sea level rise guidelines. So they are not required to raise the finish floor. It's um optional at this point here in this location. And then here's the uh section going east west. Again, you can see these uh the two uh 9 ft plates on the bottom and then just regular 8ft plates on the top and the roof plan. Um you can see that um the open gables and the different hips that has been more articulated and as a result of the additional articulation it actually brought the height down six additional inches from uh when it was at ARB last. And then the landscape harderscape plan again uh same comment um from the ARB meeting uh for the plant pallet to uh for the different residences to have uh you know different pallets for each one. So this one has not uh the plants have not been updated yet. They will be updated to prior to final ARB or maybe in progress ARB. Um but this is the um uh the plant pallet here. So that but the the gist of the landscaping of the

uh fence at the front with the you know additional planting shrubs and grasses in front to be a buffer. There's the decomposed granite section here which can help with uh off streetet or excuse me on street public parking. Um and then the fruit trees in the backyard. And then this is permeable papers. And then here's the story pool photos. Again, these photo story pool photos were installed um in February 2024 as well um for the prior duplex proposal when that went to uh ARB in February of 2024. Um but here you go um from Dorance um looking south at the residence the story poles and then here's kind of looking like souththeast more. Uh this is further down Dorance looking back up towards Lynon. You can see the story poles here. Um and then almost here's down at the corner by the apartment building looking back. Then here's up at Lynden at the corner by the spot looking. And then this is over on Third Street. Uh looking north back at the site. And then uh here's the setback modification again. Um you know the 20 ft from the property line is the dash line. The 50 ft from center line is the is the solid line. And then that yellow area is is the portion that would be encroaching into the front yard setback uh currently required front yard set back the 30 ft from the center line. Um this is a little study that Dylan included in the plans for these um showing the uh setbacks for the various houses along the street and um basically showing that the 20 ft back from the front property line is um consistent

with the two houses on or three of the houses just in the immediate vicinity. And for the findings um to approve the modification uh your commission would need to like I said on before um one of these three findings um and then um the third finding for the provision of a larger amount of open space or landscaping than the minimum required requirements of the district uh is the finding that um staff feels would be the one that you could use if you were to go forward to approve the modification and And that is because this proposal includes 44% of the lot area as open space and landscaping which is more than double of the um required 20%. And then the key objectives and policies, same as the last project, um just the main ones, um preserve the small beach town character. Um objective CD1, the size, scale, and form of buildings on a parcel should be compatible with adjacent nearby properties. And then that the mix of architectural designs based on historic regional types. And the action option staff's recommendation is number one to adopt resolution number PC250005 and approve the project. And then before you start your discussion, I don't know if you looked in the staff report, but um for the DG number four, design guideline number four that was the topic of discussion with the last project. This one is actually at 41% with its second story. So it's just a smidge over it.

Thank you. Mhm. And that concludes my presentation [Music] questions. So this one is in conflict with design guideline 4 through the chair uh by 1% by 1% just barely barely

and is it also in conflict I saw um [Applause] I'll come back to that one. Thank you. Go ahead.

Just a I guess a real quick question, probably more for the applicant, but perhaps it's come up. I I note, and this is just a minor issue, the So, we've got the picket fence with landscape on the street side and then there's four feet of decomposed granite. Um, and that seems a little slim to be able to park a vehicle off the road. If you look at the trend in that neighborhood, did that come up at all? Is there is there the ability just to give that a little bit more space on the street side of the fence and landscaping? Um the placement of that is um based on where the new uh curbs are that were recently constructed on Dorant. Um so they use that information in their survey. So the the distance between that new curb and the property line is where they get that 4ft strip from and for whatever reason on the other side of the street it's a little bit bigger space. And I mean the applicant it'll be their choice if they want to eat into their property and provide additional

8T on the other parcel but that's what I mean it's not equal on each side. It would seem to suggest right that the paved roadway width on Dorance isn't centered within the right of way that it's you know favored towards the the south side of the street by a few feet. Okay. Okay. Thank you. That does answer my question. But cars are cars are directed to park in that strip, right?

Yes. The intention of providing the rolled curb and the DG shoulder is to encourage cars to to park as much onto that shoulder as they can and not out in the pavement. And as you go down Dorance or any of the streets in the beach neighborhood, you kind of see this patchwork there where some some owners have encroached into the ride ofway and and you know try to claim that as their own and that pushes parked cars farther out into the street and the next one is set in and leaves a shoulder for cars to park on. So you know slowly over time as this neighborhood redevelops, we're trying to claim back some of that right ofway and and make those shoulders available for parking. But, you know, as noted, the street isn't necessarily centered within the right of way, and so in a situation like this, you end up with a wider shoulder on one side of the street than you do on the other.

Thank you.

Yeah, I don't have any more questions. Thank you. Okay. I I have one

for staff. Um, so in the staff report it's noted that the architectural style of the Spanish Mediterranean, is that what it is? Um, is not common in the beach neighborhood. Um, so my question is I know our general plan talks about dominant neighborhood development pattern um, and this isn't common. So, how would we reconcile that style?

Um, there are a few Spanish style, Spanish Mediterranean style homes in the beach neighborhood. Um, it's say probably cottage or craftsman is more dominant. It's probably the third. Um, but it's not that it doesn't exist in the beach neighborhood. Um, over on Third, there's two uh Spanish style homes. Or actually, no, this one just got the metal roof. Excuse me. We've got the one right here on Third Street. Further down on Third Street, there is a two-story um uh it's not in this aerial, but further down there's one. The Stein House here is uh Spanish style. So, there's three right in the immediate vicinity. And and to your

and another one on Dorance.

And to your point, Commissioner Vantor, this this came up right from the get-go. The very first time any of these projects went to the ARB as you know, right, Spanish or Mediterranean styles, not very common in this in this neighborhood. Um, you know, do we want to further encourage its proliferation or do we want to try to steer the applicant towards, you know, a more cottagey style that's in keeping with what we mostly see? And you know, to the applicants, you know, credit, I think they came in initially envisioning kind of creating um a little bit of a unique identity for the their holdings there on the corner to relate better to the, you know, the former Stein House, the one that's on the corner right there of Dorance and in Lyndon. Um, and the ARB seemed to, you know, indulge that to a degree and and the compromise then was, well, at least change the one across the street behind the spot to something that relates more to the the cottage vernacular. And maybe for these ones, these lots that are immediately adjacent to the Steinhouse on either side of it, maybe there's a little bit more leeway there to to play with a style that that relates better to that that former Stein house. So that that's how we ended up kind of with, you know, this mix of of architectures. Anyway, something we flagged right from the get-go, too. But the ARB was willing to to give the applicant a little leeway on on this given the setting.

Okay. Thank you. Yeah, I'm I'm thinking through with the other house on Lynden and how I mean that's pretty dominant architecture which is why I would have preferred a craftsman or so. Thank you. We're done. Uh you would the applicant like to address this issue? No, I don't think so. They definitely don't want to hear that again. Um, so the the previous house, the architectural review board had no comments on that house. Um, so I didn't make any changes before bringing it to you. This house, they did have some comments. Cindy did mention it. There was not a before and after, but we did reduce the second floor and create more articulation. Um, you know, as far as all my other comments and stuff, they're the same as the other project. So, this property is a little bit smaller than the other one, too. Uh, back to commission or is anybody in the audience want to uh talk about this? No. Okay. Back to the commissioners uh for deliberation. Would you like to start this time? I guess I'm coming back to the design standards. Um I think it's also been noted that there is a

conflict with one of the community design elements. Um and again it goes into the small beach town image. um discouraging new development of large boxy buildings. I would say this this still has that and that ground floor that's uh very very much dominated dominated by the garage right there on Dorance. So, I have some issues with that. [Music] I I'm I'm concerned about this because when you look down Dorance, you sort of see this this it's very weighted based on um when I viewed the story polls and having looked at it. So I have concerns about that whole corner. If I may, just to speak to the garage item. Um, you know, I I recognize what you're talking about. This is something that we struggle with as well. The the challenge here on this lot is given the width of the lot at 50 ft and given the minimum required setbacks 5T on either side, that leaves you a 40 foot wide building envelope uh max. And you know, a standard garage is about 20 ft wide. So by default, we kind of end up in a

situation where roughly half of the ground floor frontage is going to be devoted to a garage. And that's unavoidable in this type of situation unless you have a way to, you know, have a detached garage tucked way in the back and a driveway down the side aisle, you know, to get to it, something like that. And so what we often do in these types of situations then is to try to find ways to, you know, kind of promote or draw attention to the other parts of the structure. Bringing the porch forward, setting the garage back, trying to do other things to reduce the, you know, the perceived mass, if you will, of the garage. So in this case, breaking it up with two separate doors rather than one big garage door. Um, you know, there's other kind of tricks like that architecturally that you can do to kind of take your attention away from the garage and and draw it towards the other parts of the structures when there's, you know, no real easy fix for hiding a 20 foot wide garage. Just to, you know, kind of explain a little bit of how we sometimes end up in these situations.

Yeah. I'm just thinking the only the only thing is that that's because it's such a large house for that lot

again. But the garage is kind of a fixed quantity right there. 20 by 20. So it's regardless of the size of the house, it's going to take up that same, you know, kind of footprint somewhere on the property. You want me to go? Um, yeah. I don't I don't have any um

significant issues with this project. um the architectural style, you know, I you know, if you if you look at the Stein residence, then you know, then this match, you know, this fits really nicely in with that style, but the style, you know, is, you know, does have some fairly massive elements. Um the front archway is, you know, compared to like a Craftsman porch, you know, is just a different look. It's more It's thick. It's massive. So I I mean, I understand those comments. Um in terms of the size of the residence, you know, we've had that discussion. I I I [Music] I'm I'm okay with the size and I um as I indicated in my last way too long conversation, the the um you know, I really rely heavily on the advice we get from ARB and um architecturally especially and you know, so this this has been through that review process. As the applicant noted, there was a number of changes that were um made as a result of their comments. I think the architectural style was really, you know, I mean, it is what it is. I uh I'm I'm okay with it as as presented. Yeah, I I support the project. I I think it's really well done. Uh I I don't see a way around the big part cuz it's just all about economics.

Uh we're going to we're going to continue to see this and uh hoping for the old days that everybody could live in a little shack isn't just isn't going to happen. So I uh I can support the project. I'm willing to make a motion to approve if I I think it's going to completely transform the entire block's character. Um, and it's exactly what our general plan seeks to prevent. Um, I think you're going to have that that full, you know, downrorance to the right of um, it's uh, it'll be I think it'll be kind of unusual looking. It'll be an unusual cluster of similar looking residences going down there. I I I think it's going to change it immensely. Um, I realize it's technically code compliant. Um, I I think that's all I have right now.

Okay. Thank you. Do you want to make the motion or Sure. I was just reviewing the ARB comments again on the just to make sure I didn't miss anything, but I I think we're there. I don't

give me a moment, please. All right. Okay. I would make a motion that we um adopt resolution PC25-00005, thereby approving a development plan, a coastal development permit for project 23 2233 for the construction of a new single family residence attached garage located at 4949 Dorance Way. And I just want to make sure I'm Yeah. Second.

Commissioner Van Antworp. Approve. Commissioner Lef Fevers. Yes. Vice Chair Moyer. Yes. Motion carries. 30.

Thank you guys. Appreciate all your thanks for your time and and appreciate it. staff. Thank you. on your director's report. Take care.

Thank you, vice chair. Before we get to the director's report, uh we do have any matters by commissioners. Okay, it's your turn.

Okay, director's report. Uh, so in your packet this evening, you have the city calendar for the month of August, the planning activity report, and the building permit reports for the month of July. Um, I can't think of of too many things here to report out of those off the top of my head. Uh I think you you know that the your approval of the Chevron decommissioning project was appealed to the city council. Uh the city council heard that appeal uh last month on July 15th and the city council denied the appeal and upheld your approval of that project.

Great. Uh, and so we we did go ahead and transmit notification of that final action down to the Coastal Commission and we're waiting to hear back whether any appeals have been filed with the Coastal Commission. So, we should we should know that here you hopefully this week uh where we stand. But um again, the city council upheld your decision to approve that project uh on appeal. Uh the other items I wanted to just briefly highlight was the Palms renovation is moving forward. The first phase of that renovation, which is the remodel of um the southern half of what used to be the Waka Fresh restaurant, is in for building permit review right now. And the intention there, as you might recall, is to create a small kind of cafe market space. And so they're they're working to get building permits for that and get it under construction there sooner than later and get that up and running and operational while the larger renovation of the of the Palms building is underway since that will take some time to get through. And then um sorry I had one other item and it just escaped me. Well, maybe we'll just leave it there since I can't think of what the other item was. Um and and then just for for your next hearing, we do have a couple of items tenatively parked on the September 2nd agenda. And I just want to point out because of Labor Day, that's going to fall on a Tuesday rather than a Monday. So that's a a little bit of a departure from your normal schedule. So the next planning commission meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, September 2nd. And I expect we will have a couple items on that agenda at least. Uh, so at least one of them would be the the street vacation request that we were not able to hear tonight, assuming that we have a quorum. And then um

potentially we may be ready to bring the the related cap project uh to your commission which um Bob McDonald from the water district provided you some information about earlier tonight in his uh presentation to your commission. just need to know attendance at the next meeting. I expect to be here. Yes.

Great. Thank you. We'll see you all on September 2nd and we're adjourned at 9:19. Heat. Heat. [Music]