Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

January 8th, 2026 Planning Commission hearing. I'll call this meeting to order at 1 p.m. Ms. Carman, can we please have roll call?

Thank you, Vice Chair Boss. I will begin with Vice Chair Boss.

Present.

Commissioner Barnwell.

Here.

Commissioner Bauke.

Here.

Commissioner DiLiccio. Here. Commissioner Peterson. Here. And Commissioner Wiscombe.

Here.

We have quorum. Thank you.

Thank you. And we're delighted to welcome back Commissioners Bauke and Wardlow, who were reappointed this year. We'll move now on to preliminary matters. The first topic on our agenda today is the nomination and election of our chair and vice chair. So I'll open the floor for nominations for chair and, if you'd like, vice chair. Commissioner Wiscom.

Thank you, Madam Vice Chair. I nominate Vice Chair Boss for chair and Commissioner DiLuccio for vice.

I SECOND THAT.

DO WE HAVE ANY OTHER NOMINATIONS? DO WE NEED TO TAKE A FORMAL VOTE ON THIS? OKAY.

MADAM CHAIR, I MOVE THAT WE ACCEPT THIS BY ACCLIMATION.

OKAY.

READY? I'LL START WITH COMMISSIONER BAUKE.

YES.

COMMISSIONER DELUCCIO.

Yes.

Commissioner Peterson? Yes. Commissioner Barnwell? Okay. Commissioner Wiscombe? Yes. And Commissioner Boss? Yes. We have quorum. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you. We'll now move to requests for continuances, withdrawals, postponements, or ex-agenda items. Ms. Arzaniaga, do we have any?

Thank you, Chair Boss. We do not have any.

Okay. And do we have any announcements or appeals?

Thank you, Chair Voss. We do not, other than I will say, we did not receive an appeal of the Seacliff project that you reviewed in December. Great. Thank you. 3139 Seacliff Road, it was the staff hearing officer appeal and SFDB action.

Great. Thank you. We're now on to item D, review consideration action on the draft planning commission minutes and related resolution. Are there any planning commissioner comments on the minutes or related resolution?

I have a brief comment. Yes, please. When I read the minutes, I know on the item you have voted no and it was stated that you voted yes on it.

Thank you. That was corrected.

Oh, okay. Yes. Thank you.

Any other comments?

Otherwise, I'll move the minutes and the resolution.

I think we'll first ask if there are any public speaker comments for the minutes or resolution.

There are not at this time. Thank you.

Great. Okay. So we have a motion from Vice Chair DiLuccio.

I'll second it.

Great. And a vote, Ms. Kerman.

Thank you, Chair Boss. I'll begin with Commissioner Balke.

Yes.

Commissioner Peterson.

Yes.

Commissioner Barnwell.

Yes.

Commissioner Wiscombe. Yes. Vice Chair DiLuccio.

Yes.

And Chair Boss.

Yes.

Motion passes. Thank you.

Great, that takes us to item E, comments from members of the public pertaining to items that are not on today's agenda. Ms. Carmen, do we have anyone in person or remote that would like to give public comment?

Thank you, Chair Boss. At this time, we do not have anyone in the room with us, so I do not have any speaker slips for in-person public comment. So I will move to virtual participation. If anyone online would like to speak, you can raise your hand at this time. But I'm not seeing any raised hands. And we did not receive any written correspondence under general. So I'll give it back to you.

Thank you. We'll close general public comment and move on to item 3A. This is a request for initiation of a local coastal program amendment to amend the zoning map. And the project is being presented to the planning commission to receive direction on the appropriateness of the request and ideally to initiate further study for the request. So we have staff from the airport here. Please introduce yourself and the floor is yours.

Thank you. Good afternoon, commissioners, and Happy New Year. My name is Jessica Metzger and I am the airport planner. As stated, we are here before you today to initiate a local coastal program amendment. Just to give you kind of a vicinity overview of the airport, Unlike the projects that you normally see in the contiguous part of the city of Santa Barbara, we are one large parcel at the airport. So that creates kind of unique situations for us as shown here on the map. And so on that one large parcel, we have two separate land uses. One is the major public and institutional. And that covers all of the airfield, the terminal, the parking, Santa Barbara Airport tenant spaces, and airport admin staff areas. And then we also have recreational and open space. And that is all of the area of the Goleta Slough and associated wetlands and habitats that provide ecological value to the region. To kind of give you a background on a local coastal program, I'll just briefly go over this slide that kind of shows the structure for you. And this will be important for future local coastal program edits that we'll also be bringing to you this year and next year. So the LCP has two different components. One is a policy document that is the local coastal land use plan, and the other is the implementation plan. And for us at the airport, the implementation plan consists of zoning ordinances. But for other parts of the city, their implementation plan also consists of design review standards and other portions of the code outside of the zoning code. We are focused today just on the airport and Goleta Slough coastal plan. And what we're amending is actually in that implementation plan, which is the airport zoning. So we are required to change the local coastal program anytime any part of it changes in that zoning ordinance. So they have to match up basically. The history of this project is brief at this point in time, but we were here before you in October to initiate our zoning map amendment. At that point in time that week, we realized that the zoning map also existed in the local coastal program. causing us to also have to initiate an amendment to that. But the reality of it is it's one map, it's just duplicated in the local coastal program. We also don't have any additional text edits to the local coastal program or the zoning ordinance. It is simply the map. So here is the zoning map in question. You'll see we take those two land uses and further parse them down. We're looking at the rezone location shown in the red hash line there on the southern part of the airport. It is adjacent to the AF or Airport Facilities Zone, but it is currently Airport or Aircraft Approach Operations Zone. Airport Approach Operations Zone, AAO, does not allow for parking and the AF which is more suitable for airport facilities does allow for parking. And we would like to request this LCP and rezone amendment to further parking at the airport near it for future terminal expansions. This is a more zoomed in version of the same site. So you can see there are existing hangers on that site. They are currently vacant. And then we also have some open space there which contains the Goleta West Sanitary District sewer lines as well as a manhole to access them. And then we have the Goleta Slough further to the south and airport operations to the north. and to the east, and then the city of Goleta across the street. So when we look at airport facilities for SBA, we do this on an annual basis, much like what you see with capital improvement projects for the larger city. We also have a capital improvement project or program. And so this project is part of that program. We have with the red there at the northern part of the slide, Southfield parking lot. That was before this commission four years ago for its coastal development permit and was completed in mid 2025. So once we completed that project, we wanted to move on to looking at additional parking near the terminal. And so you'll see in the black outline our proposed parking lot. And then as we were doing the design for that parking lot, we realized that the requested area in yellow is underutilized and would be a good opportunity to add additional parking to that parking lot and do it all at once for value engineering. We have guidance from the FAA, the Federal Aviation Administration, that states that parking on smaller airports like ours is should be close to the terminal and should not be further away. Currently, the spots that would be served in these two sections of proposed new parking are served through our economy lot, which is off Fairview and Hollister. And that's 15 minutes away, and it's a shuttle ride. And when you look at passenger anxiety, No one really enjoys going to the economy lot. It creates a lot of uncertainty. I know we have a very vast airport right now, but there's still that perception. So we'd like to use the economy lot for some other uses and move all of our parking adjacent to the terminal as shown here. Looking at the consistency of the project, this parking lot was also shown in our draft airport master plan update. And so it identified the whole area, both the part that I'm proposing to or requesting the initiation to change as well as the more northern part. The zoning is not currently allowing parking. That's why we're here in front of you. So it's not consistent, but we're asking for that initiation to bring it into consistency. And then the airport commission's role in projects at the airport is to look at it from both a budget and a design standpoint. And so through our airport capital improvement program, they have seen it on the dates in front of you on that slide. Environmental review for this project is just at an information collection stage. We will do a complete environmental review when we come back to you with that coastal development permit and the instructions for the zoning map amendment and land use program amendments. So we recommend approval of this initiation request. And at our last hearing in October, our motion was added to do some additional study. And so that additional study that was added to the motion to look at other areas also adjacent to this site will be reviewed in that formal zoning map amendment and local coastal program amendment process with the coastal development permit. So you will see that. And then the Planning Commission will make the recommendation to City Council on the zoning map amendment and City Council approves or denies zoning map amendments. But City Council then refers the local coastal program amendment to the Coastal Commission and they certify it. So there's an additional step after City Council for this process. And that concludes my presentation. I'm happy to answer any questions that you may have. Thank you.

Thank you, Ms. Metzger. First, Ms. Carman, are there any public speaker comments for this item?

Thank you, Chair Boss. At this time, I don't have any speaker slips for in-person public comment, so I will move to virtual participation. If anyone online would like to speak under this item, you can raise your hand at this time. but I'm not seeing any raised hands, and we did not receive any written correspondence for this item, so I'll give it back to you.

Great. Thank you. We'll move to planning commissioner questions, and we'll begin with Commissioner Barnwell.

Thank you, Madam Chair. So I understand from what you just last said that some of the comments from our prior meeting that you maybe expand the geography of this study, that further discussion will happen downstream from this meeting, correct?

Through the chair, that is correct, Commissioner Barnwell.

Insofar as that particular topic is concerned, and you guys go over it with a fine-tooth comb, and I deeply respect that, but I want to remind you again, which you know, that one of the big features that's mentioned in this local coastal plan is public access. And my position in the last meeting was that public access is is represented by that little viewing area which is not included in your line but I think would be great if it could. I was in discussions when that was first proposed and we were going to build a platform and a staircase and you know you could go stand up there and look over the top of the fence and it's never happened and I don't know that's been 20 years or so so I would like to plant the seed to continue to think like that if we could. My next question is When was the last time we did an airport master plan, not an update, but the original document itself.

Through the chair commissioner, I am unsure of the original master plan. Um, but this update is there's two before it that I have files on. So I know of three. Um, but as far as the date, I would have to do research on that. Sorry.

So, um, what is. what is our policy, what is our code on the length of time that a master plan still remains viable, and we no longer just keep updating it, but we go back and look at the whole thing again?

Yes, through the chair, Commissioner Barnes-Wells. So unlike other planning issues, that is not dictated by our Santa Barbara municipal code, but by the FAA. And so the FAA has suggestions And these suggestions are based on passenger habits. They're based on safety issues and they're based on just general regional growth. And that is every five to 10 years. So our last master plan that we're updating is from 2017. And the only reason it took longer was due to COVID.

But the last master plan was 2017. And we like to do them every five years?

Five to 10, depending on your regional growth, yeah.

Five to 10, okay. And the FAA suggestions that you just quoted pertain clearly to the FAA side of things, which is airplanes and et cetera. But we have land that has nothing to do with flying airplanes. The stuff that's on the north side of Hollister, for example. So when, and you've just mentioned that we're going to be taking parking from the old drive-in movie and putting it in this thing that you're now proposing, which means that land opens up for an additional use, which sounds to me like some kind of a land use planning discussion as to what happens there, which then brings to my mind the question of when do we do the next airport master plan? Question mark.

Yes. May I speak on this? I'm Chair Boss and Commissioner Bonwell. I'm just I just want to kind of stay a little bit on topic. I mean, if we're going into the master plan, I think we're kind of weaving a little bit too far off and drifting a little too far off on this agenda. And if we can just kind of focus more on the purpose of the hearing is to initiate an LCP amendment to change the zoning map. So I don't want to get into too much in terms of the master plan and everything else. So if we can just kind of bring it back to that.

I appreciate that. Thank you very much. I'm not asking anything about the master plan, but we are right now approving a change in the local coastal plan which is part of the master plan, and the master plan is old, and the local coastal plan is getting old. So my question is just generally, when will you be back to us for issues that come out of this thing that's in front of us, which is the change in land use up at the, when does that then become another discussion for the Planning Commission?

Yes, through the chair, I'd be happy to answer that. So we are also working on updating our entire local coastal program because last time it was updated was in 2003. And so that is a large effort that I personally have been working on for three years. We are to the point where I'm submitting a final draft to the Coastal Commission next week or next month for them to review the entire thing together and get back to me with comments. We have been going back and forth by section over these past three years. So once that gets through the Coastal Commission staff review, then we will be bringing that through public outreach and then to Planning Commission and City Council and then to the Coastal Commission for certification. So that speaks to policies about land use. It speaks to policies about environmental protection. A whole bunch of sections are involved in it, public utilities, and just how we satisfy the Coastal Act. The master plan document itself is really about the facilities of the airport. So it is more than just the runways. It is our hangars. It is our tenant buildings. It is if we have utilities that need to be updated. So it encompasses a lot of that as well. But I think what you're looking for would be in this local coastal program update.

That is exactly what I wanted to hear because this represents clearly a piecemeal thing. And so the question was generally, when are we going to take a bite out of the whole deal? And you've just answered that. You said that the document is 2003, which is a long time ago. Yes. Okay. Well, I personally look forward to that. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you. Commissioner Wiscombe.

Thank you, Madam chair. I just have one question, Ms. Metzger, and thank you for the presentation by the way. So this process it's coming back to us again after this is after you do your environmental review, right? Okay. So I'm just looking for a timeframe, how the remaining process to get it back here. And then we send it on to, to council. How long will it take to get it back here?

Through the Chair, Commissioner Wiscombe, we're hoping to get it back to you in the fall. We still have to take our parking lot depending to Board of Architectural Review also. And so the parking lot design needs to be completed. So we didn't want them to complete the design until we had the initiation of this change, obviously. So that'll take about two months to complete the design. go to ABR and then we'll be back to you. And during that time, I'll be working at the same time concurrently on that environmental review and the coastal development permit.

And will the environmental review be done internally or will you, do you have a consultant for that?

It will be done internally, Commissioner.

Okay, great. Thank you very much. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you. Commissioner Bauke?

Madam Chair, I only got one question and it's I'm just still a little confused. If this process, do we get to the discussion about bringing the changes to the plan for the area between this access road and the viewing area to where you have your current line? Is that going to be done at some point during this process? I'm not sure from what the staff report, whether that's now or later. Could you please clarify that?

Yes, through the chair, Commissioner Bauke. At this point in time, it was premature to do that analysis until we had both of these ducks in our row with the zone change and the local coastal program initiation. So when we bring that formal application to make those changes to you, we will be doing that analysis, and it will dovetail into the environmental review, too.

Okay, thank you.

It's going to be a big staff report. Thank you.

Vice Chair DiLuccio.

We all seem confused, don't we? So I have a question. On this parking lot south that we're talking about here, will that be a surface parking lot, or are you building a structure there?

Yes, through the chair, Commissioner DiLuccio. We will be doing a surface parking lot for the time being. But long term, and I'm talking 20-year plans, we do have the opportunity to then change the Southfield parking lot to a footprint of a parking garage. That was studied in our master plan. So that's in the 20-year plan.

And what about the hangers? They'll stay there for now?

Which hangers?

Are there hangers on that lot?

Oh, in the area that I'm requesting the initiation, there are three hangers.

Yeah.

They might blow down in this storm.

They may blow down in the storm. Okay. So I have another question. I didn't look at the airport commission meeting, and they took this up back last October. It was presented, I guess, as part of the budget, right, in capital improvements. And it said in fiscal year 2026, the long-term parking lot south project is going to cost $6 million, right?

Through the chair, Commissioner, I do not have ASIP numbers at hand. I apologize.

Okay. But that's – so I don't – I know it's not before us today, but $6 million if all we're doing is a little design and bringing it to the ABR. So I don't know. Maybe you can get back to me on that.

I will definitely make sure that's included in the coastal development permit and have those numbers at hand.

Okay. And one final question. How many spots are you anticipating – for this site, how many parking spaces?

The spots on these, if you combine these two sites, are equal to the economy lot, so roughly around 300.

Okay, thank you.

Any further questions from commissioners or any further comments from commissioners? No? Yes, oh, Commissioner Peterson.

I know I'm getting ahead of myself, but I wanted to reiterate what I said in the last meeting about, as you're thinking about transferring parking operations from the economy lot to the closer lot, across the city, across all different departments, thinking about usage of parking lots for housing. I think this is a critical need, and especially for the low-income, deed-restricted housing that we're required to build, that we need to build to meet our RENA numbers. The city has a great which is parking lots and so trying to think more ground up rather than and initiate that rather than just waiting for City administration if at all possible.

Thank you Thank you any further comments Yes, mr. Sunika chair boss.

I just wanted to clarify for Commissioner Barnwell that The areas on the other side of Hollister that are part of the airport that are outside the coastal zone So those are planned for in the general plan not the local coastal plan. So I just wanted to let you know that

Thank you for that clear clarification. I'm aware of that. We all think of it as the airport, but you're right. It's different. Thank you.

All right. Thank you. I'll stop to project the proposed recommended action or motion. I believe our motion should be or the motion that's requested is to initiate the local coastal program plan amendment.

That's not me.

All right, I'll open it up to the floor for a motion, and I see Commissioner Wiscom.

Yeah, I think it's the recommendation that's on page seven of the staff report. Staff recommends that Planning Commission initiate the LCP amendment to the zoning map to rezone the subject site from AA. Do I have to read all that? AAO slash CZ to AA slash F slash CZ in the LCP. This initiation does not mean, this initiation is not meant to imply any approval of or formal position on any future proposed project other than acknowledging the proposed rezone can move forward for study and environmental review. And that's my motion.

I second it.

We have a motion and a second. Any further discussion on the motion? Okay, Ms. Carman, can we please have a roll call vote?

Thank you, Chair Boss. I'll begin with Commissioner Wiscombe.

Yes.

Commissioner Barnwell.

Yes.

Commissioner Peterson.

Yes.

Commissioner Bauke.

Yes.

Vice Chair DiLuccio.

Yes.

And Chair Boss.

Yes.

Motion passes. Thank you.

Thank you. And this action is appealable for 10 calendar days. Thank you. And we will, thank you, Ms. Metzger. We appreciate your time and efforts here. We'll now move on to item 3B, the single family streamlining project. We previously heard this item and discussed it in length or at length on December 9th. And the purpose of today's actions are to review and recommend to city council the proposed single family streamlining project, including amendments to the single family design board ordinance and updates to the single family design board guidelines, along with amendments to titles 30, 25, and 22 of the municipal code. And we have a number of staff here to provide a presentation or to ask for that recommendation. And we'll give you a moment to get settled as you need. But when you are ready, please introduce yourselves. Thank you.

Thank you, Chair Boss, Commissioners. I'm Ted Hamilton-Roll, Acting Designer View Supervisor. Joining me is Ellen Kokinda, City Planner, and Brenda Beltz, Planning Analyst. We are happy to be back here today to discuss the single family streamlining project. And today we're seeking your recommendation to city council.

As a quick recap of the project, we have three main goals.

One is to reduce the number of single family development projects subject to design review. Two is to streamline the public hearing process for single-family projects. And three is to create more flexibility to address common homeowner interests. Key project actions include updating the SFDB code and guidelines and incorporating complementary amendments to the zoning ordinance to ease up on restrictions to give homeowners more flexibility. This is the third time the Commission has seen this project. The most recent hearing was on December 4th, 2025, during which we provided a detailed presentation of the proposed ordinance amendments and held a discussion. We're here today to request your recommendation to city council. I'll now walk you through the revisions we made in response to your comments from December 4th. Overall, the commission supported the proposed amendments and through individual comments directed staff to consider six items for revision. I'll go through each one in the following slides. The first comment was to consider a lower threshold than 150 square feet for floor area increases in the proposed substantial conformance criteria. We addressed that by reducing 150 square feet to 50 square feet. This ensures that post-approval additions are reviewed carefully and get the correct level of SFDB review. The second comment was to create objective standards or objective requirements for visual aids in section four of the proposed SFDB guidelines. Currently, SFDB determines what visual aids are needed at concept review, and this can create frustration for applicants who could have provided these materials up front instead of waiting for the board to recommend them or request them. And providing objective visual aid submittal requirements ensures a more streamlined concept review and will help neighbors understand projects better earlier in the process. It also streamlines the process by letting folks know early on WHAT WILL BE REQUIRED FOR THEIR PROJECT INSTEAD OF HAVING TO WAIT FOR THE BOARD TO RECOMMEND THEM AT THE FIRST CONCEPT REVIEW. OUR APPROACH WILL BE TO ELIMINATE THE MAY SHOULD LANGUAGE, THE SUBJECTIVE LANGUAGE, AND REPLACE IT WITH OBJECTIVE CRITERIA IDENTIFYING WHEN SPECIFIC VISUAL AIDES ARE REQUIRED AND FOR WHAT TYPES OF PROJECTS. WE PLAN TO BUILD ON THE EXISTING VISUAL AIDES INFORMATION IN THE SFDB GUIDELINES AND IN THE CITY'S VISUAL AIDES HANDOUT. We appreciate the Commission's directions on this, and these changes will be incorporated to the SFDB guidelines prior to the project's initiation at City Council. The third comment, very quickly, was just to clarify that there is no size limit for conversions of existing permitted floor area to a guest house. We added that to the ordinance, and as a reminder, new construction guest houses will have a maximum size of 650 square feet. The fourth comment was to add a definition for public scenic views, which we did. And it is views of natural or cultural features with a significant visual quality that are visible from any public area. These include views of the oceans, mountain, and open spaces, historic landmarks, and other visually prominent resources. See public area. And public area is an existing definition here that says areas generally open for public use, including streets, sidewalks, paseos, pathways, rights of way, parks, public parking lots, publicly accessible open spaces, and any public and civic building. Comment five was to consider additional ways to streamline the process to achieve a project reduction greater than 21%. As noted at the December 4th hearing, the 21% project reduction is the most conservative estimate, and the actual percentage may be higher. 21% is based on a previous draft of the ordinance, and since then, we took the opportunity to reanalyze the SSD project data using the most up-to-date version. We actually found that the project reduction is closer to 24% when we reanalyzed the data. And again, this is based on alterations projects only, not accessory buildings or additions, since we can't compare old and new triggers directly using the data that we have. What that means in terms of the actual number of projects is that of the average of 221 projects triggered for some level of SFDB review every year, whether it's administrative, consent, or full board, 54 of those projects would be entirely exempt from design review under the proposed ordinance. Again, the projects that would be exempt are largely the consent level projects. And across the board, SFDB projects take an average of two public hearings. SO IF WE SUBTRACT THE NUMBER OF ADMINISTRATIVE PROJECTS AND MULTIPLY THE NUMBER OF CONSENT AND FULL BOARD PROJECTS BY TWO, WE GET APPROXIMATELY 100 FEWER SFDB AGENDA ITEMS PER YEAR. SO THAT'S 100 FEWER ITEMS THAT HAVE TO GO IN A PUBLIC HEARING. WE THINK THIS IS A REASONABLE REDUCTION FOR NOW AND, YOU KNOW, WE WANTED THIS PROJECT TO TAKE A MEASURED APPROACH TO USE A SCALPEL AND NOT A HATCHET SO THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE WILL STRIKE A BALANCE BETWEEN STREAMLINING AND MAINTAINING REASONABLE ESTHETIC OVERSIGHT OF SINGLE FAMILY PROJECTS. And lastly, the commission directed staff to add a minimum installation time for story polls. We've addressed that by updating the SFDB guidelines to specify that story polls shall be installed at least seven days prior to the public hearing for a decision and shall remain in place until the public hearing. Photographic documentation requirements for story polls installations were also added, consistent with the city's existing visual aids and story polls handouts. Again, this information already existed on the city's website. We're simply adding it to the SFDB guidelines. In conclusion, staff recommends that the Planning Commission amend the SFDB ordinance with these updates and make associated streamlining amendments to Titles 22 and 30 of the Municipal Code and amend the recently adopted Title 25 and determine that the single-family streamlining project is exempt from environmental review and consistent with the general plan. Staff have determined that this project qualifies for a categorical exemption from further environmental review under CEQA guidelines section 15305. The single family streamlining project does not change the density allowed under the general plan land use or zoning designations or increase the intensity of use. And the related amendments to the municipal code are either administrative in nature and outline permitting procedures for single unit residential projects or add cleanup or clarify zoning standards or add SFDB related definitions. There would be no significant project specific or cumulative impact on the environment due to unusual circumstances and the project does not have the potential to damage scenic highways or historic resources. Therefore, this action is consistent with the class five exemption under CEQA guidelines section 15305. And here are those findings on CEQA and the general plan should you wish to return to them. Following today's action, if you so choose to give an action, we will work on the commission's requested updates to the SFDB guidelines and any other changes that you'd like us to make as part of your motion, and then schedule the project for its ordinance committee hearings and city council introduction and adoption in the spring. Thank you very much. That concludes my presentation.

Thank you, and thank you for the recap and for making all of those changes so quickly. I really appreciate that. That takes us to comments from members of the public pertaining to this specific item. Ms. Carman, do we have any requests to speak on this item?

Thank you, Chair Boss. At this time, I do not have any speaker slips for in-person public comments, so I will move to virtual participation. If anyone online would like to speak at this time, you can raise your hand at this time. But I'm not seeing any raised hands. And I will acknowledge that we received written correspondence from Derek Booth and give it back to you.

Great. Thank you. As detailed in the recap today in the staff report, we previously heard this item and discussed in detail in December, but I'll ask the commissioners if there are any further questions or comments, and we'll begin with Commissioner Barnwell.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Am I correct in presuming that the staff will create some sort of an internal checklist that will – DO WHAT THE SINGLE FAMILY DESIGN GUIDELINES BOARD WAS DOING WHEN YOU ELIMINATE. I'LL USE THE TERM 24%. THOSE PROJECTS THAT FALL IN THE 24% CATEGORY, HOW IS THE STAFF PREPARING TO BE ABLE TO ASK THE KINDS OF QUESTIONS AND HANDLE THAT THE WAY THE SINGLE FAMILY DESIGN BOARD USED TO DO?

THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER BARNWELL. I MAY NEED A LITTLE BIT OF CLARIFICATION ON THAT QUESTION, BUT I THINK YOU'RE ASKING HOW WE WILL determine if a project is subject to design review?

Well, you have removed 24% of projects that used to go to the Single Family Design Guideline Board, correct? Correct. When they went there, they got a review of some sort. But now I'm presuming that something like that review is going to be handled by staff. Is that correct?

I understand. Many of these projects, especially the more minor projects, will be entirely exempt from design review, but most of them do require a building permit. So they still get reviewed for zoning compliance, and as part of that zoning compliance review, they are checked to see if they meet any of the design review triggers. So if they do end up needing design review under the new ordinance, then they'll be flagged for that.

And so you, again, to go back to my, you guys are creating an internal checklist of which ones need design review and which ones don't. I'm trying to figure out the mechanics of how we now are going to deal with 24% of these things that used to go to this panel of experts. What are we doing? What are we actually doing? Rather than reducing it, what are we doing with it? so you're saying there's a building permit process that is always in place. Will there be something that the staff is doing that you guys will look at and go, Oh my gosh, I think this probably should go back to the single family design guide or not. Will that happen?

A major component of this project was to create design standards out of the existing guidelines.

Okay.

So we, you know, we tried to reduce the number of projects, the most projects that we could basically, uh, especially minor projects, but we also created lots of design standards in the municipal code that still allow for some level of aesthetic oversight on these projects.

Okay. Will there be a consistent staff member handling this process? One of the complaints that the public often gives to me is when they go to the counter, there's a junior person there, opinions offered. which are supposedly official city policy, turn out to be not quite because the person doing it is a junior person. I understand how that happens, but to what degree is this not going to fall into that category? I mean, can we depend upon a consistent staff person to be doing this consistently?

I think you can. We're going to have a very robust training schedule for this new ordinance. It's going to require... training by senior planners to junior staff. It's going to require probably a little bit of outreach to our applicants as well to help them understand what the new requirements and what the new ordinance requires them to do. There are a couple of folks that are assigned specifically to the single family design board who will be trained on this as well and we will be trusting them to be our in-house experts on the new ordinance. and interpret it and understand it for members of the public.

Consistently?

Consistently.

Okay. And you mentioned something that I also wanted to ask about. Is there going to be a handout or something like that that you can go to the counter and say, okay, here's the changes, here's how you can, is that going to happen?

We'll definitely be updating our handouts for what's required for design review. I think we'll probably make a SFDB-specific handout that differentiates it from the other two boards since the requirements are even more different now.

Because the thrust of everything I'm saying right here is how does this interface with the public? How do they see this difference become implemented? And then one last question, and I apologize for not knowing the answer to this. I probably should. But what is the cutoff for the requirements for story polls? Is it a square footage size? When do we When do you guys require story polls and when do you not?

Currently, story polls are required for projects that are above 85% of the floor area ratio. Okay. Our proposal raises that threshold to 100%. So projects that are requesting an exception to the FAR regulations will require story polls.

Okay. Okay. All right. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you. Commissioner Wiscombe. Thank you, Madam Chair. I just have one thing. First of all, I want to thank you for incorporating all our comments, Mr. Hamilton-Rolls, in the latest, and done such a thorough job. I wanted to go back to one of my favorites, which is public scenic views, and just ask you if you would consider adding to your definition views of natural, man-made, or cultural features, actually just adding the word man-made. Because not all cultural features are, to me, something a little bit different than that, but there are man-made buildings here that are of significance.

Thank you, Commissioner Wiscombe. Does other visually prominent resources capture that sufficiently, or would you prefer The wording man-made.

Yeah, I prefer the word man-made because we have a lot of buildings here that are significant. I know you've added historic landmarks, but there are structures of merit and things like that also. So that's why I kind of wanted the word man-made put in there, but that's okay.

Thank you for that.

Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you. Any other questions or comments from commissioners? Vice Chair DiLuccio.

Yeah, I can't help myself. I just want to commend you guys for all the work you've done on this, and yeah, I'm ready to move this along. I just wish you the best of luck in implementing this. I know it continues, but you've made such progress, and at the end, the end result's going to be so much better, so much more streamlined, so So I appreciate all you've done on this.

Thank you, Commissioner Bauke.

I'd like to second those comments. This is quite an effort you guys took on, and I know that from experience of doing these kind of things, and definitely appreciate your diligence, and I'm glad you're getting close to the finish line. Hopefully the council doesn't play with it too much, so thank you very much.

Any further questions or comments?

Madam Chair.

Looks like I have Commissioner DiLuccio first.

If you'd like to make the honors, I'd be happy. You can make the motion.

If you want to make the motion, I know you were kind of fired up about it, so you can have it. I also wanted to say that we compliment staff on every single thing that comes in front of us. This really deserves a compliment. This is an ungodly amount of work. And I think it's well done. So I just wanted to be sure you understood how much we appreciate it. And the city will as well. Thank you. Thank you.

Can staff project the proposed action or motion? I think it was in maybe two slides, but I believe it's to make the recommended findings that the single family streamlining project is categorically exempt from CEQA and the the project is consistent with the general plan.

And that's my motion.

Do we need to formally make that motion?

You would like me to recite that again? The single family streamlining project is exempt from environmental review. and the single-family streamlining project including design board process improvements associated amendments to the municipal code is consistent with the general plan is my motion.

I will second that and comment on the motion maker. That was a brilliant motion.

Thank you very much.

All right, Ms. Carmen, can we please have a roll call vote?

And Chair Boss, can I request maybe an amendment or an addition here? We just need to make sure that the findings in the staff report make it into the motion as well.

So moved. The findings in the staff report are part of the motion.

Thank you. Ms. Carman, can we please have a roll call vote?

Thank you, Chair Boss. I'll begin with Commissioner Barnwell.

Yes.

Commissioner Wiscombe. Yes. Commissioner Bauke. Yes. Commissioner Peterson.

Yes.

Vice Chair DeLuccio. Yes. Chair Boss.

Yes.

Motion passes. Thank you.

Great. Thank you. And again, thank you to staff. Really appreciate the work that you've done on this over many years, but especially in the past couple months.

Really appreciate your support.

Thanks again. Thank you.

All right, we'll close that item and move on to our administrative portion of our agenda, beginning with the appointment of liaisons. Can we please display the 2025 roles? We'll take a moment to update these slides. once they are up from 2025, we will run through them line by line to see if there are any requests for changes.

Who wants a chance?

And if you can zoom in much more, I'd appreciate it. Oh, that's much better. Thank you. All right, Airport Commission, any changes from the primary or alternate? No? Okay, ABR, any changes to the primary or alternate? Creeks Restoration Advisory Committee, any changes to the primary or alternate? Downtown Parking Committee, any changes to the primary or alternate? Harbor Commission, any changes to the primary or alternate? Historic Landmarks Commission, any changes to the primary or alternate? Parks and Recreation Commission, any changes to the primary or alternate?

Yes, Madam Chair. Commissioner Wardlow would like to be the primary, and I'll switch to the alternate. Great, thank you.

Single Family Design Board, any changes to the primary or alternate? Staff Hearing Officer Liaison, any changes to the primary or alternate? Sustainability Council Committee, any changes to the primary or alternate? Transportation Circulation Committee, any changes to the primary or alternate? Water Commission, change to the primary or alternate?

Madam Chair, Ms. Wardlow had expressed interest in being on the Water Commission, so I would like to offer my slot to her.

Great. Thank you. Plaza de la Guerra Working Group, any changes to the two primary? Water Vision Stakeholders Group, any changes to the primary? And State Street Advisory Committee, any changes to the primary?

Okay.

And I believe that concludes the updates. Thank you, everybody. So we'll open the floor for a motion to approve the appointment of liaisons for 2026 with the two adjustments.

So moved. Second.

All right. Any further discussion on the motion? If not, Ms. Carman, can we please have a roll call vote?

Thank you, Chair Boss. I'll begin with Commissioner Bauke.

Yes.

Commissioner Peterson.

Yes.

Commissioner Barnwell.

Yes.

Commissioner Wisco. Yes. Vice Chair DiLuccio. Yes. And Chair Boss. Yes. Motion passes. Thank you.

Thank you. I have a comment from Commissioner Peterson.

Can I go at the end?

Yes. Okay. Moving on to committee and liaison reports. Do we have any updates from the staff hearing officer liaison?

Just a real brief one. There was a meeting yesterday and And Tess Harris, who is the staff hearing officer, just made the same announcement that the decisions are final on 3931 Seacliff.

Thank you. And any other committee or liaison reports? Moving on to discussion on subcommittee and workshops, any comments? Okay. Then I believe there's a comment or a request to speak from Commissioner Peterson.

Yes. Yes. I want to congratulate the chair on first meeting as chair today. Looking forward to working with you this year.

Great. Thank you. Thank you. It is now 1.52 p.m., so that concludes our January 8, 2026 Planning Commission hearing. Our next meeting is tentatively scheduled for Thursday, January 15, and thank you all for being here, and have a wonderful rest of your day. Thank you.