Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Thank you.

Okay, it's 1 p.m., and I want to call to order the City of Santa Barbara Planning Commission meeting for Thursday, March 19th, to order. Ms. Common, can we please have a roll call?

Thank you, Vice Chair DiLuccio. I'll begin with Vice Chair DiLuccio.

Here.

Commissioner Barnwell.

Here.

Commissioner Bauke.

Here.

Commissioner Peterson.

Here.

And Commissioner Wiscombe. Here. Thank you.

Thank you. Okay, so we'll move on to preliminary matters. Do we have any requests for continuances, withdrawals, postponements? or addition of X agenda items?

Thank you, Vice Chair DiLuccio. We do not.

How about announcements and appeals?

We do not.

OK. Then we're going to move right along to the consideration and action of the following draft planning commission minutes and resolutions. We have two sets from March 5. We have the special luncheon meeting minutes on the Brown Act training. And we have meeting minutes in the regular minutes, meeting minutes. And also on March 5th, we have a resolution number 003-26. And that was 1422 St. Andrews Street. So do I have any comments from the commission on the minutes or the resolution? Do we have any members of the public that would like to comment on?

We do not have any speakers at this time.

OK. So I'll entertain a motion. So moved. I'll second. Okay. Commissioner Barnwell and seconded by Commissioner Wiscombe. Roll call, please.

Thank you. I'll begin with Commissioner Bauke.

Yes.

Commissioner Peterson.

Yes.

Commissioner Barnwell. Yes. Commissioner Wiscombe. Yes. And Vice Chair DiLutio.

Yes. Motion passes. Thank you. Thank you. Do we have any comments from members of the public pertaining to items that are not on today's agenda? Okay.

At this time, I don't have any speaker slips under general public comment, but I do just want to remind the audience that if anyone in the room would like to speak under a specific item, you can fill out a speaker slip at the back of the room and bring it up to me, and I'll call your name under that item. But if anyone wants to speak under general, you can approach the podium at this time. But I will move to virtual participation, which we have one participant online, but they are part of the applicant team. and we did not receive any written correspondence under general, so I'll give it back to you.

Okay, thank you. So now we can move on to new items, public hearing. It's 2339 Edgewater Way, and the proposed project includes three components which require coastal development permits. One is the abatement of an enforcement case. The second is a permitting of work completed under an emergency coastal development permit, and the third one is a redevelopment of the site. So we're going to hear a report right now from Barbara Buckhart, who is the project planner.

Thank you, Vice Chair DeLuccio, members of the commission. I will jump right in. We'll look at the vicinity map and kind of orient ourselves. First, the project site is- Get your mic on. YES, IT IS. I'M SORRY, I'LL SPEAK INTO IT MORE CLOSELY. THE PROJECT SITE IS LOCATED ON THE MESA. YOU CAN SEE HERE IT'S BETWEEN DOUGLAS FAMILY PRESERVE AND LA MESA PARK. IN THIS CLOSER IMAGE HERE, YOU CAN SEE THAT MESA LANE STEPS IS VERY NEAR TO THE SITE. THE SITE IS LOCATED IN THE APPEALABLE JURISDICTION OF THE COASTAL ZONE. and within the Mesa component area of the city's land use. Coastal plan spans a pretty wide expanse from Royal Borough Beach to the westerly boundary of Santa Barbara City College and inland up to Cliff Drive. And largely consists of small lot, single unit residential development. Um, I want to remind the commission, I think some of you remember there was a lot line adjustment in 2024. Um, the area of land that was adjusted is shown here in green. It was given, um, approval was given for the subject site to give this land to a lot, uh, what we're calling parcel to it's an adjacent property to three 37 edgewater. That is a separate project than what's before you today, but just wanted to remind everyone of that. An application has been submitted to Public Works I believe in January of this year for the maps. So that's in progress. The project plans that we're looking at today show the subject site post lot line adjustments. So they do show this. YOU KNOW, CUT OUT. HOWEVER, OUR CITY GIS STILL SHOWS IT PRE-LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT. SO SOME OF THE MAPS I'VE PULLED FOR MY PRESENTATION TODAY SHOW IT PRE-LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT. SO I JUST WANT TO EXPLAIN THAT DISCREPANCY TO YOU GUYS. Then looking at the project description, this application was originally submitted in 2020 and included abatement of an enforcement case, alterations, and an addition to the existing residence, as well as a new detached garage. In 2020, talking about that abatement of the enforcement case, in 2020, The abatement case was, the enforcement case was issued. A previous owner had added a railroad tie retaining wall and some soil fill to expand the rear yard without permits. Let's see. In 2022, the project was revised. I believe there was a new owner at that time. It didn't continue to include abatement of the enforcement case. but proposed to demolish the existing residence and garage and construct a new residence with a new detached garage having an ADU above, pool, pool cabana, landscaping, et cetera. In 2023, a slope failure occurred on the site at the westerly portion of the site. You can see some images of that here when it was pretty new. So at this point, the project essentially gets put on hold. Stabilization of the slope becomes a priority, and that was in an effort to prevent further erosion that would impact the existing residence. So an emergency coastal development permit and the associated building permit were issued. To install a slope stabilization system and also to demolish an existing patio. You can see that here a little bit. I have like a fireplace barbecue feature. This was unpermitted, adding a lot of weight to the bluff. So that was approved to be removed as well. Fast forward to 2025, we start to see our current project come together, continues to include abatement of the enforcement case, seeks to retain the work that was done on the emergency coastal development permit. It does require a follow-on formal CDP, so that's part of the scope we're looking at today, as well as a site redevelopment. So looking at abatement of that enforcement case, it entails removal of that retaining wall and the backfill. As you can see, a lot of that wall and fill was taken with the slide. But there's still a portion here to be removed. Retention of the emergency permit work is essentially allowing that slope stabilization system to remain in place. It's a steel mesh netting. There are soil nails a minimum of 10 feet in length that reach back into some bedrock. And then there was hydroseeding with the coastal seed mix. The site redevelopment includes demolition of the existing residence as well as the existing garage, which is closer to the street. It includes construction of a new residence, which includes a pool, a spa, cabana, accessory elements, as well as a new detached garage. It's a two-car garage in a tandem formation with an ADU above. and also includes landscape, hardscape, and site drainage components. This project has been reviewed a number of times at the concept review level by the SFDB, the Single Family Design Board. At its last meeting, it was continued here to the Planning Commission. The board found the general site plan, the general size, bulk, and scale, as well as the general architectural style to be appropriate and moving in the right direction. If this project does receive a coastal development permit, they will be headed back to Single Family Design Board for project design approval and final approvals. And I'll mention right now, I do have Sebastian Herrick here today. He is our SFDB staff liaison. He can take any questions regarding that review if you have them, if necessary. He's here for that. So the entitlement the applicants are seeking from you today is a coastal development permit to allow all this work. It requires the planning commission find the project to be consistent with the California Coastal Act as well as the city's local coastal plan. The Coastal Act specifically requires development to be sited and designed to minimize risks, assure stability and structural integrity, and neither create nor contribute significantly to erosion of the site or surrounding areas. And this is over the life of the expected life of the development, which is defined as 75 years and does factor in sea level rise. The city's local coastal plan includes goals and implementing policies which require the establishment of adequate building setbacks from a bluff edge to protect structures from normal rates of erosion and coastal material, coastal bluff material loss. They also require that water be drained away from the coastal bluff edge and they control and prohibit activities that contribute to coastal bluff erosion and instability. The overarching goal here is to very carefully consider the geology of the site while also allowing reasonable use of property, allowing construction and maintenance of reasonable development on the bluff top, as well as pretty limited development on the bluff face and within the coastal bluff edge development buffer. As such, the city's coastal land use plan maps shoreline hazard screening areas. Area 4 is the bluff top, which is shown in green here. Area 3 is the bluff face, shown in pink. And you can see this line in between is the coastal bluff edge, as is currently mapped. There are a number of policies that apply to the project due to its location on the bluff. I've listed the critical policies here, but basically there are specific standards for development on bluff faces and bluff tops. Calculation of a buffer or a setback from the bluff edge is required. There are policy related to slope stability systems, slope stabilization systems, I'm sorry, drainage systems, landscaping, watering, and weight on the bluff face. as well as a requirement for shorelines hazard evaluation for development on bluff top and bluff faces, which is to be prepared by a qualified California licensed professional, such as a professional geologist and or a geotechnical engineer. So this requires those professionals to analyze the development proposed on the bluff face and bluff top to assure consistency with applicable coastal policies. To comply, the project had submitted an engineering geology and geotechnical engineering report with the original project. It was prepared by Earth Systems Pacific, authored by a California licensed civil engineer and a California licensed engineering geologist. The report included slope stability analyses that included consideration of sea level rise over the life of the project. You can see here this is a coastal bluff edge development buffer line that had been established, and all the new development was proposed landward of that line. So that line was established by this report. I've highlighted that in yellow here. The report defined that as 38 feet from the coastal bluff edge, so the buffer area is in red. This buffer is site-specific, and the area landward of the buffer has been deemed to meet the minimum factor of safety. This is what our geologists and geotechnical engineers do. The report concluded that the site was suitable for the proposed residential development when the recommendations of the report are properly implemented and included a conventional footing system and slab on grade floors. The revised project in 2022 included all development located landward of that buffer. It was also reviewed by Earth Systems Pacific who concluded that the recommendations of the original report continued to apply because the development was landward of the buffer. That brings us back to 2023 when the slope failure occurred. The applicant team engaged earth systems and DRS engineering on a slope stabilization solution. It was peer reviewed for the city by NGO, who is our contracted peer reviewer of these shoreline hazards reports. I'll talk a little bit more about NGO in a moment. But as a result of that, it was determined that a techo mesh netting would be the least damaging, least environmentally damaging option that would also protect the existing residents from further effects of the erosion. Additionally, due to the slope failure, an alternate coastal bluff edge line was required to be established. This is essentially the headscarp of the failure, which is shown in green line here. This is where the bluff edge shifted substantially landward. You can see the blue line was the previous mapped bluff edge. So as a result, the entire buffer shifts landward in that area. The 38-foot distance remains the same, but it's now measured from the green line as opposed to the blue line. So the applicant team did need to make some slight design changes to the westerly portion of the residence and this outdoor area, some deck areas, to push it back out of the buffer area. So due to that revised project and the slope failure, we did a lot of work between the applicant team, city staff, to applicants, geological team, our geological peer reviewer. And it was determined that the discussion and recommendations of the original report continued to apply to this current iteration of the project, as well as some additional reports and letters that resulted from all that work we did together. I'll note here that those are all included in your staff report as attachments to exhibit I, in exhibit I. So the city had all these reports, studies, letters that were submitted by the applicant in that effort. They were peer reviewed by our contracted California registered professional geotechnical engineer, Walt Crampton of NGO. Mr. Crampton ultimately found the current iteration of the project to conform to all relevant Coastal Act and LUP policies as they relate to geology and coastal hazards. I'll mention here, we do have Mr. Crampton in attendance today via Zoom to take any technical questions that may come up on the geotechnical front. And then I'll just quickly touch on cultural resources. The applicant submitted a phase one archaeological report for the project, which determined a very low likelihood of resources in the area. Standard discovery conditions apply in case anything is found. And biological resources were briefly looked at. There is some coastal sage scrub at the toe of the slope here, which has potential to be considered ESHA, but given its distance from the buildable area of the site, it was determined not to be an issue. Staff finds the project to be categorically exempt from CEQA per Sections 15301, 15303, and 15304. And staff recommends the Planning Commission approve the project, making the findings outlined in Section 6 of the staff report and subject to the conditions of approval in Exhibit A. And with that, I'll conclude my presentation. Thank you.

Okay, thank you for a very thorough staff report. So now we'll call the applicant up. Mr. Gorin, you'll have 20 minutes and we'll set the timer.

Hi, good afternoon. I'm Jarrett Gorin from Vanguard Planning and I represent the property owner, Kirk Custard, who is here today, and his family. And it's been about five years since Kurt acquired the property, and we've had three SFDB hearings, five application submittals, six, I think, geotechnical reports and updates to those reports, two geotechnical peer reviews, one landslide, a 520-page staff report, and here we are. So we're thrilled to be here today. and present this to your commission. So I'm gonna start off with just basic overviews of the neighborhood and everything just for some context. So here's our site from sort of a high altitude view of Edgewater and those surrounding streets. And then moving a little bit closer in, that's the existing house on our site and you can see the development that's right next to us. Over towards the west, it's pretty far before you get to any structures, so that's why it's all green there. That is Thousand Steps, though, that you can see in that photo, right? Or not Thousand Steps, sorry, Mesa Lane Steps. We've got... This is looking south over our site, and... You can see it's just a long, it's a really weird shaped site. It's shaped kind of like a lightning bolt, which is one of the more challenging sites I've ever had to deal with and our architects had to work on. Here we are a little bit closer looking, this is like northwest. And so you can see our immediate neighbor. And then this is looking due east. So again, just kind of how that lays out. So, You're looking at the follow on CDP to our emergency permit today and also the CDP for the abatement. And so I want to talk about that real quick here. And my pointer's not working. But anyway, this photo predates the slide. And you can see that retaining wall there along the edge of the site. You can kind of see where the fill is placed because it's all the dead area with no grass up there on that photo. And the previous owner had come along and just stacked up these railroad ties and filled in dirt behind them. And that put some weight out on the edge of the bluff face. It made his lawn bigger. But the main thing was putting that weight out there on the bluff face, and that was a problem. The original project we started with, and I've been working on this since even more than five years ago, was just to fix this. And then that morphed into a whole other house and then a new owner and a new house. So this is the slide that happened around March of 2023. And so you can see that a lot of that retaining wall and fill sort of self abated and removed itself from the edge of the slope and that fence was the same fence in the previous picture and you can see exactly what happened here. That that fill material basically overcharged the wall and took it out and slid down that slope. Leaving most of the actual bluff face though intact, a lot of what you're looking at here is that fill. Here's another picture of that from a few days later when we removed the bathtub and things like that. So you can see this from the other direction, what that looks like. And then we spent several months putting together this stabilization plan with DRS Engineering, had to get that all figured out, got our emergency permit submitted in September of 2023, and ultimately got that permit early 2024. And finally, um, everything was completed in July. And so I'll just blow this up real quick. So you can see, um, there's the Teco mesh area and, and the way that that works is it's, it's kind of like a, it's like a high tech chain link fence. If you can imagine that spread out over the slope. And then there's these 10 foot soil nails that they drive all the way through the bedrock. So this is what that looks like in section. And then, um, that's how they spread out sort of horizontally over it. So it's just tacking this thing down everywhere so it stays put. And then they come along and they also put a erosion control blanket on it, which is a much finer mesh that keeps all the soil in place, but lets vegetation grow through it. So that's how that works. And then this is what it looked like completed. This is a few months after completion, but that's the date of this photo here. Here's another view of that same thing. And then here's what it looks like today. So really in a short time period that vegetation is really going through. And that's really the goal of these things is for the vegetation ultimately to be, that mesh is going to be there forever really supporting the slope. But the vegetation serves a really important purpose to retaining all that soil. And it's growing in great. So it's hard to actually see the improvement in this photo. Next, I want to talk about the bluff edge development buffer, and staff covered that pretty well. That blue line there is what's adopted in the local coastal plan. When the landslide occurred, we come up with this thing called the alternate coastal bluff edge, and that is essentially following the top of the SCARP of that area. slide so that's what generates that line and then this is just to show for reference where that stabilization area is now installed so you can see how that relates to that new line and again it's right along the top of that and then we do an offset from that and it's 38 feet and staff mentioned it but I'll mention it again these are site specific they determine them based on every individual site and they're going to be different on every individual site so we've had neighbors say well Other houses had to set back a lot further. And well, the conditions are different on different sites. Sometimes you have waves that are directly smashing into the foot of a site, and that affects erosion one way. And in this case, we are sort of mostly facing a canyon that doesn't have waves smashing into it, and that affects things a different way. And I'm not a geologist, but I suspect that's why this is reduced relative to what some other sites might have. So that's why we have that buffer. Everybody's a geotechnical expert now that we have chat GPT, but we had real geotechnical experts actually determine this line. That's where the existing house lies with relation to that buffer. I think this speaks a lot to the policy consistency. We're really correcting a non-conforming condition out here and doing something that actually implements the city's policy. And then this yellow area is just sort of, that's what's left of the retaining wall and fill that we'll be removing along with this project. So, just gonna go through the neighborhood context here. I read through a lot of the letters that had come in. I think a lot of these issues are really something that's best directed at Single Family Design Board, and because they were very design specific, but I think it would be helpful to see how this all fits in, just general how it fits with the neighborhood context. We've rendered it in on all these different views, and the way we did that is we have story poles up that accurately represent exactly where this thing's gonna be in three-dimensional space, and they're in the photos, and then Liz, with our architecture team, is really good at this, and she gets our three-dimensional model and lines that up and registers it to these story poles so that it's accurate. So this is, again, looking... Northwest across the site and that's the existing development and then that's where our proposed project fits in so you can see the house moving way back and sort of the spacing between that and the adjacent structures and also I the size Vulcan scale of our structure relative to Other adjacent recent new houses on the bluff you'll see in a lot of these that it's it's very similar so here's a view looking straight at the site you can see our two next door Davers to the east and and here's our project rendered in. Another thing that's kind of unique about this project is our house is at a 45 degree angle kind of to a lot of the homes, and that reflects our site being at a 45 degree angle, but it's also one thing that it does is it allows us to be stepped way back and have views, and it also sets it up so that a lot of our windows aren't looking directly into neighboring properties, so that was another benefit we got out of that. Here's looking at it from the street. Really the main thing you see from the street would be this ADU. And so that's what that would look like. And yeah, it's two stories. There's plenty of two story homes around and I think it's 24 and a half feet, which is, your typical two-story house height. So, yep, we got two stories. So this is, you have to go pretty far out to be able to see this from the coast. So I flew the drone out there and got it as close to the waves as I was willing to risk it. So that's looking back up at the bluff. And then here's our house rendered into that. That's it right there. And then... this is a straight down view just so you can see how the site plan fits in and there's our house. And you know, while I've got this up here, um, a lot of those comments were like, you know, privacy, you know, it's right next to our house. I, you know, I think it's important for everybody to have perspective here. This is a, it's a dense suburban neighborhood. The zoning in this entire neighborhood, the standard setback is six feet. Any lot can have a two-story house built six feet away across their backyard fence. And that's the standard out here. And what we've got going on here is, you know, between us and our neighbors, the Hacks, immediately to the east, we have between 42 feet and, yeah, 42 to like 52 feet or 58 feet separation between our structure and their structure. And then if you move further up our driveway, our ADU across from the Conos, who just moved in a few months ago, we're about 42 feet from their house all the way along. And again, 52 feet, like a lot of actual entire lots in downtown Santa Barbara are 50 feet wide. And in a lot of new developments, other places, they're 40 foot wide. So you could fit entire houses in between our houses and existing houses next to us. And you can't even see the houses to the west. So I'm not really going to talk about those. And then when you move higher up, you know, here's the pattern of development in the neighborhood and along the bluff. And so I'll render our project in there and you can see how that fits. And whoops. That's the project site right there. So again, how this fits in with the pattern of development in the neighborhood is it's indistinguishable from the pattern of development in the neighborhood in terms of size, bulk, and scale and orientations on the site and being two stories, like two-story homes that are next to us and through the neighborhood. So that's really all I've got. And then I can answer any questions that your commission has. And I'd like to reserve the rest of my time. Thank you.

How much time is left? Eight minutes, 25 seconds.

Terrific. You have a little over eight minutes. We'll see if you want to say anything afterwards. Let's open up to the public comment now.

Thank you, Vice Chair DiLuccio. At this time, I do have two speaker slips for in-person public comment. First, I'll have Maddie Bohrer. You can approach the podium, and you'll have three minutes to speak. Right here, right here.

Oh, I'm done. OK. Hello. My name is Maddie Bear, and I'm a- Pull your mic down.

Can you put your mic on, please? Or put it down? I know. There you go.

Is that better? There you go.

Turn it up.

My name is Maddie Bear, and I am the aunt of Claire Barker, a co-owner of 2341 Edgewater. And she has pretty much the same concerns that he was talking about. I'd like to read this to you if I may. This is her. She's a co-owner of 234 Edgewater and she wants to express her opposition to the plan development 2339 Edgewater. Her concerns include, A, the size and neighborhood integrity, B, privacy, and C, geological stability, which he's covered somewhat. OK, so with size and neighborhood integrity, the proposed plans are very much out of character with the majority single family, single story houses in this neighborhood on the Mesa. This is not merely an update or an improvement of an existing residence, but a huge expansion in terms of square footage and height, in contradiction with the city's guidelines regarding neighborhood planning. The size and layout of the proposed buildings also suggests the intention of short-term rentals, which we would strongly oppose. In terms of security, noise levels, and extra vehicle traffic, such usage would be inappropriate in this neighborhood. And as a little subtext here, I refer to the Mesa steps going down to the beach. On the weekends, there's a huge volume of traffic with all the kids and everything coming out to enjoy the beach. And the parking is horrendous, and so is the traffic. So next agenda is privacy. The windows and balconies of the second stories of the proposed buildings seem to directly overlook our house and yard at very close proximity. We're very adjacent to them, directly adjacent to them. So this represents an invasion of privacy that would be difficult if not possible to remedy. So that's B. And then C, geological stability. The extensive development of the addition of a swimming pool directly next to the cliffs seems ill-advised at best. We ask for independent geological assessment of any proposed plans to ensure the long-term stability of this and other properties located along the coast. cliff. So we hope that the Planning Commission will deny the proposal as it stands and require the developers to A, reduce the scale of the proposed construction to better match the character of the surrounding neighborhood. B, make changes to the windows and balconies to ensure the privacy of all neighboring homes, especially if the second story remains. And C, engage an independent geologist to review the proposals to protect the cliff stability. We would like to be notified of any future developments and future hearings. Thank you for your consideration.

Thank you.

Thank you. Next up we'll have Alexandra Hack. Thank you.

Good afternoon, Chair and members of the Commission. My name is Alexandra Hack. I am the owner of 2337 and 2327 Edgewater Way. My family's the owner. I submitted a... I'm also the party of the stipulated court order enforcing the law... adjustment settlement agreement between my properties and 2339 Edgewater Way. I've submitted a written letter and I just wanted to highlight six issues that I respectfully ask the Commission to address. First, the building height. The proposed structure is disproportionately large. The applicant's effective height is a result of artificially raised finished grade, a retaining wall fill, and a flat roof compounded by a floor area ratio of of 98% compared to our 82%. The draft conditions measure height from finish grade, but the municipal code measures height from natural or finish grade, whichever is lower. I humbly ask the commission to confirm compliance with that standard. Second, the utility pool, the planning commission resolution, as previously touched upon in the staff presentation, explicitly required the applicant to relocate the utility pole located at the northwest corner of the newly adjusted parcel at the applicant's 100% expense. We've been told through a consultant that they do not intend to do so. I request that the commission confirm this with the applicant as it is explicitly ascribed by a stipulated court order. Second, the driveway, as shown in the plans, the applicant's driveway crosses into our newly acquired six foot area and directly across our ingress and egress path combined with the existing tree, which on the plans is shown to be remaining. The telephone pole and the proposed six foot plaster wall, this creates a serious visibility and safety hazard. For the existing tree, it says to remain, but this sits squarely in our six foot area where a post must go. A contractor has confirmed that no post can be placed there. As a result, we are limited to just a 41 inch gate opening instead of a full six feet. The erosion and control drainage needs to be addressed. Their plans show that it's encroaching onto our newly acquired six-foot area. Finally, the electrical service, there's a live utility box at 233 Edgewater Way, which I'm the owner of, fed through 2339. Edison and the applicant are aware, they've acknowledged this in previous and publicly recorded reports, meetings and documentation. Therefore, we are requiring written confirmation before any work begins at the service and confirmation that this utility work will not be interrupted. Thank you for your time and I'm open to answering any questions about this. Thank you.

Thank you. With that, I don't have any more speaker slips for public comment. If anyone would like to speak, you can approach the podium at this time. But I'm not seeing any movement towards the podium. We don't have any participants online with us, but I will recognize that we receive written correspondence from David Botcher, Alexander Hack, Timothy Murray, and Michael Boudreau, Courtney O'Donnell, and Kelly and Claire Botcher. And I'll give it back to you.

Thank you. Mr. Gordon, did you want to respond at this time? You have eight minutes left.

Yeah, Mr. Chair, just a couple of items. The comment about short-term rentals, that's like everybody's favorite new thing to say on every project I work on is it's going to be used as a short-term rental. I had to sit through most of that hearing two weeks ago when we're trying to look at this new ordinance. And again, like our client doesn't intend to use it. I think he's going to be able to make it without getting extra income from a short-term rental on this site. And pretty soon we're going to have an ordinance that will basically attempting to ban them everywhere. So You know, again, I don't think that that's really something that we've, the neighbors have to be concerned about or anybody really needs to be concerned about. In response to Ms. Hack's comments, we're not raising the grade and then counting the height of the structure above that grade. The finish for the structure is about six inches above the existing grade on the high side. And for basic building code compliance. And the story poles, regardless of wherever the grade is the story poles are accurately showing you the height of the structure out there. So it's not like, oh, that's it, but then we're gonna move it up three feet and it'll, you know, that's what you see is what it's gonna be with those story poles. All this stuff about the utility pole, that all was addressed through that lot line adjustment. And our intention right now is to just comply with the conditions we have on that lot line adjustment, which requires that pole being moved and, you know, THAT'S THE PLAN. SO IT'S GOING TO BE MOVED UNLESS SOMETHING CHANGES. AND IF SOMETHING DID CHANGE, THE HACKS ARE CO-APPLICANTS ON THAT PROJECT. SO THEY KIND OF NEED TO AGREE WITH THAT BEFORE WE MOVED FORWARD AND DID ANYTHING WITH THAT. The driveway and the right-of-way cutting, I think that Ms. Hack's confused about what's their property versus city right-of-way. Our apron does spread out when it gets on the city's property, which everybody's driveway does, but it doesn't cross onto their property or obstruct their driveway. And then the visual clearance things, staff looks at that on every project, and there's visibility triangles, and our landscape plan improvements comply with all of those. So If you had any questions about anything else that came up that I can answer, let me know. Thanks.

I'm going to ask you a quick question. I take liberty being chair today, I guess. But the lot line, is that being reviewed by Public Works right now, including the utility, Paul?

It is. Yeah, that has to all go through Public Works and everybody, actually, and they have to check it and clear it the same way that they would check building permit plan sets against like a single family design board approved plan. And so that has, everything has to be complied with, including moving that poll and everything else. There's a lot of other conditions too. Thank you.

Okay. So at this point we're going to close the public hearing and we're going to go to a commissioner questions and we'll start with commissioner Barnwell. Then we'll go to comments later. We're going to do questions right now.

Thank you. But I wanted to, I have some comments. Oh, I can't see him. Okay. If staff would be so kind as to go to what in the report is page 6 of 513, there's a photograph there, and as you were speaking, did I misunderstand or did you use the term bedrock in some discussion of that slip? Is the bedrock close to the surface in this lot? Or you didn't say that?

I did say that. Those soil nails, and I'm sorry, through the chair to Commissioner Barnwell, the soil nails are embedded into the bedrock, and that's part of the geological investigation and reports is determining where that is, how long those nails need to be. There's building inspections that occur as part of the building permit to verify how it was installed, and they've passed. They've closed the building permit.

Okay, thank you. I love the word bedrock, so when I hear that, it makes me feel a little bit better when we're talking about a cliff. If we could go to page 22 of your item three thing. Yeah, page 22. Number eight. Does our approval at some point in the wording discuss the fact that even though it's been permitted and even though all this engineering was done, that we're not liable for anything that might happen if there is another landslide or if there's an earthquake? Is that standard language in our stuff?

This is a standard condition of approval. I can defer to Ms. Ostringer if I'm wrong about that.

I looked and I didn't actually see that, but Maybe it's there. Okay. But it will be there. So, all right.

Commissioner Barnwell. Yeah. If I may, it's condition number 13 on page 24.

Okay. And my next question on page 23, item number C. This is just an editing thing. But let me read this sentence to you. Removal of the slope stabilization system, artificial turf, V-ditch, and other components of the landscape, hardscape, and drainage system that are located within the coastal bluff edge development buffer is required when erosion reaches. And your brain has to go back and say, wait a minute, what is it that's required? In newspaper journalistic writing, this would be called burying your lead. That sentence should probably say, when erosion reaches less than five feet from the improvements, then it will be required removal of, and then list all those things so that it makes more sense. And there's another component of that paragraph, and it would be something like removal is also required if the improvements are otherwise deemed blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. I think it makes that sentence a little more understandable. This one in particular kind of stopped me. And Mr. Gorin answered another question I had, which where did the magic 38 feet come from? And I guess that's site specific, correct?

That's correct. That was determined through the original geotechnical report.

Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chair. That's all I have right now. Commissioner Wiscombe?

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Okay. I'm also going through the conditions of approval here. That's where some of my questions lie. First of all, single family design board may ask you a question. Thank you. Appreciate your being here. I'm sorry. What's your name again?

I'm Sebastian Herrickson. I'm the SFDB board liaison. Thank you.

Assistant planner. Thank you very much. I just want to make sure we have some questions. I'm sure you've read through the public comment letters we've gotten, and there's some questions on windows and privacy. And I just, THAT WILL BE ADDRESSED AT YOUR MEETING, IS THAT CORRECT?

YES, THAT IS CORRECT. THERE ARE GOING TO BE FINDINGS DURING THE PROJECT DESIGN APPROVAL NEIGHBORHOOD ORDINANCE FINDINGS THAT THE BOARD HAS TO MAKE AND PRIVACY IS ONE OF THOSE FINDINGS.

I THINK THERE WAS CONCERN ABOUT A WINDOW IN THE ADU OR SOMETHING

Yes, so frequently we do, for a variety of projects, privacy impacts are always a concern that the board reviews. Windows, screening elements, pools, pool locations, mechanical equipment and noise are some of the typical things that the board looks at. And they kind of try to massage it with either increasing window heights, reducing window sizes, or requesting some landscaping and screening. some of those things can be massaged so that they can make those findings that privacy is found to be compatible with the neighborhood.

Okay, that's great. Thank you for that. I appreciate that. And that's also for the benefit of the public and people that commented on those privacy issues because that's really your realm and not ours.

Yes, and you can also email me. I am a public servant. So, yeah, feel free to contact me if you have questions about that. Thank you.

Great. Thank you so much, and thanks for being here. Okay. So then I want to go on to, okay, let's start on page 25 of this conditions of approval. It's actually page 25 of 513. It's page six of the conditions of approval. There's this whole stormwater section. I have never, ever seen anything like this in conditions of approval before. This is, you know, talking about pervious pavers, Detail 9, Sheet C-6-0. You know, some of this may change as we get into the building thing. I don't know why this is here, and I'd like to understand why these kinds of review comments are here in our conditions of approval.

Thank you for the question, through the chair to comment. I can answer that. I think that we meant to remove these. Is that correct, Ms. Arciniega? These are comments I have from Creeks on what needs to happen before we can go to project final approval.

So these came through the completeness review from the Creeks Division? Correct. And they are requirements that they do need to adjust prior to PROJECT DESIGN APPROVAL, BUT I UNDERSTAND THE COMMENT ON THE SPECIFICITY AND THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL SHOULD BE GENERIC ENOUGH TO BE ENFORCED THROUGH THE LIFE OF THE PROJECT IF THOSE THINGS CHANGE.

YES.

SO I THINK WE NEED TO CHANGE THEM. WE NEED TO EITHER MAKE THEM GENERIC OR WE NEED TO GET RID OF THEM. YES. LET ME WORK ON SOME REVISED LANGUAGE.

OKAY. I WOULD APPRECIATE THAT. THAT WAS ONE OF MY MAIN THINGS. AND THEN THE, OKAY, I FOUND IT HERE. that on page 24, 5 of 16, it talks about the landscape plan. And so we are replacing the trees on a one-to-one basis of the ones that have been removed. Is that correct? We didn't really have a master plan. We didn't really have a landscape plan.

CORRECT. THE LANDSCAPE PLAN IS STILL KIND OF IN PROGRESS. WE DON'T TYPICALLY GET THAT FINALIZED UNTIL WE'RE AT DESIGN REVIEW FINAL APPROVAL. SO THIS IS A GENERAL CONDITION OF APPROVAL THAT WILL APPLY AND WE'LL HAVE TO WORK OUT ON THE FINAL LANDSCAPE PLAN TO MAKE SURE THAT ALL THESE CONDITIONS ARE BEING MET. DOES THAT ANSWER YOUR QUESTION?

YES. OKAY. THAT'S GOOD. Mr. Gorin, when you put the aerial view of the proposed home where the story poles were, this report says that the height of the home will be, I think, 25 feet 2 inches. So is that what's shown on the plan? Because it can go up to 30.

Yeah, through the chair, Commissioner Wiscombe, the story polls reflect what's on our plans, which is we do have a maximum height of 30 that the zoning allows, but we aren't going to that height. We kept the height down at about 25 feet. So those story polls reflect it. Just one other thing I didn't mention, like the project doesn't require, we're not asking for any modifications to height or setback or anything like that with this project either. So it either meets the base zone standards like that one, or it actually doesn't even push the zone standard.

Okay, thank you for that. Okay, so 25. So that answers that question for people that think the project is, or the height of the proposed home is too high. I wanted to get to the, and I don't know who can answer this question, but the One of the conditions, or this is the section that I think Ms. Arseniega is going to work on, but on page 26, this is under I, it says the synthetic turf detail shown on the landscape plan is impermeable. So I want to get an idea of does that, is it, Is it impermeable or is it permeable? And does that change the calculations on the plans if this is correct that it's impermeable? Because earlier the staff report says it's permeable.

Through the chair, Commissioner Wiscombe, It's permeable. There's multiple different permeable synthetic turf products out there. Your commission approved one and it's actually now installed out there at 1509 Shoreline Drive. So this is just sort of a dispute between creeks and our landscape people about which product and how we're showing the detail. It's really that minutiae. There's plenty of options that are permeable, and it's going to be permeable, and our calcs match that.

Okay. That's what I wanted to know. Yeah. Okay. So we will have to work on that whole section, I think, Ms. Arcaniaga.

Chair, what? Through the Chair, Commissioner Wiscombe. So I think that section, the detailed, overly detailed condition can be stricken because the general condition of approval is included already. That says it needs to comply with stormwater requirements approved by the Creeks Division and maintained as such on site. And if repairs are needed for stormwater BMPs, those need to be addressed. So because that is included, hold on, I lost where it was. Where are you reading from? I'm sorry. So it is on.

I don't know. Because this is number two, SWMP. I mean, do we have just a general SWMP?

Condition, yes. So condition six on page 21 of 513. Condition six on page.

What page is that? Yeah, what page?

Page 21 of the packet.

Okay. Yeah, oh, I see.

Condition six is the generic, basically stating that they must comply with stormwater and maintain it in perpetuity in good order, good and working order. So that's the condition that you're most familiar with that we use as a standard and requires them maintain it. The condition that you earlier mentioned was reflecting the corrections that the Creeks Division asked for in their conceptual plan to ensure that it would be compliant with their requirements. But that can be stricken, because to your point, that's not.

So we can strike, just so I understand correctly, we can strike all of the number two, C2, SWMP. Correct. Okay. The whole thing, which is A through J.

Correct. And I do want to clarify the record, as Mr. Corin had mentioned, so there are different products for artificial turf. The way it's installed and the type of products used can dictate whether or not it's considered permeable or impermeable. And there's also special inspections that are done during construction to make sure that the installation method and techniques ensure that it really is permeable. It has to do with compaction and also materials. So to comply with stormwater, one, we encourage permeable because that's best for the environment. But you could propose either, just it affects your stormwater requirements. So I think the applicant has chosen, and as we explained in the staff report, to go with permeable. Their interest is they're happy to do that. So they'll just need to revise their specs to reflect that.

We're going to strike that in here.

I just wanted to make sure that the stormwater calcs matched what was going on on site and that we're not calling something permeable that's impermeable.

So that was one reason for my question there.

Okay. Let's see. So we have a, I think it's a macadamia tree. Has anyone looked at that tree? Is it It's outside of the site triangle, right? I didn't even see it when I was out there, but...

Right. Through the chair, Commissioner Wiscombe, there are no trees in the visibility triangle. I'm not exactly sure where this macadamia tree is. Maybe the applicant team can speak to that, but it's not in the visibility triangle. That's the question.

Yeah, because the drawings are... Well, the ones that I have are... That site triangle's pretty small, but... So...

Does the applicant, do you know what we're referring to?

Yes, I think so.

Mr. Chair, Commissioner Viscom, no, I haven't memorized the location of every tree in our landscape plan. What I can tell you about the trees is your requirements for clearance is 42 inches or less, or you do have trees in these sometimes, but the canopy has to be higher than a certain amount. So it's so that you have visibility through it so that you could see somebody walking along so you don't like back out onto them and also we have head out parking on this site so people aren't backing all the way out they're going to be driving head out on this so I don't know where that specific tree is or if it's in that triangle or not okay thank you

Yeah, one of the comments that Ms. Hack made was that the encroaching tree should be removed or an alternative satisfactory to the adjacent property owner shall be identified. So the tree is not in the site triangle, and that's...

I don't know if it is or isn't, but what I can speak to is... This is exactly what we deal with at single family design board where we're going next after this and of course we're happy to work with the neighbor on what tree they would like there and coordinate things with our neighbor on any sort of landscaping that's going on.

Well I think Ms. Burkhart says the tree doesn't have to be removed because it's not in the site triangle. Is that correct?

To my knowledge it's not. Yeah. I can confirm and again these sites these are Landscape plans will be further revised as we get forward with design review. We can check on those things.

No, you cannot. I'm sorry. I can't speak.

I'm sorry. Yeah. Okay. So let's see here. So we've covered the utility pole, the building height. There's another comment here about... that Ms. Haque makes about including the fibril role shown on the plans, all erosion and sediment control measures shall be located entirely in the boundaries of 2339 Edgewater Way. So this is a temporary erosion control? Is this just a role of...

Mr. Chair, Commissioner Wiscombe, yes, it's one of those little hostess ho-ho looking things made out of straw or whatever, and we're happy to move it six inches so it doesn't go on their property.

Thank you. Okay, yeah. I mean, it's there for the protection of everybody, not only this property but neighboring properties. Yeah, exactly. Yeah, okay. I'm not going to address the electrical service because I don't know enough about that and I'm sure that will be taken care of. There was something, let's see if I had any other. These comment letters. Go ahead.

Thank you, Vice Chair DiLuccio. And Commissioner Westcombe just wanted to clarify that in rereading condition two, the one about the stormwater with the lengthy detail, I do think it would be in our best interest to keep the intro of two. I'm sorry, keep what? Keep the introduction that says before design review, final approval can be granted. The BMPs must comply with the... Guidance manual and that and and that any other like so it's getting at making sure there's compliance prior to final approval fine Yeah, I figured we just eliminate a through J.

Okay. Yeah. Okay. Yeah Okay, a 3j is going but to see to is staying just the yeah. Yep I think that's the right way to go there Okay, I don't think I have anything else. I

Are you good for now? Huh? Are you good for now? Oh, wait a minute. Let's see here.

Oh, okay. Let me just go to construction parking, okay? I actually saw this, I think, two places. Where did I see this?

I saw it there. Yeah, okay.

So construction parking in the C of A. It's on page 5 of 16, which is 24 of 513. All parking areas in access thereto shall be kept open and available in the manner in which it was designed and permitted. And then construction parking. This is on page 11 of the conditions of approval and 30 of 513. think that that area is highly impacted with construction and has been for years. It's just I go by there all the time with my dog and it's just always just cars everywhere and trucks everywhere. So I wanted to know, is there going to be any parking available on site for workers?

Maybe.

Yeah.

Hmm.

Mr. Chair, Commissioner Wiscombe, the whole site's available for parking until buildings start getting on parts of it. And then one of the things that's actually unique about our site compared to these other ones, like the one that's three houses down the street from us right now, is we have that really long sort of panhandle of our property, which is wide enough for our 16-foot driveway and an ADU. And basically all the way up until the time the ADU is built, all of that land is available for parking and staging and everything else. So we'll be able to accommodate a lot of our construction trucks on our actual site. But, you know, at a certain point, there's probably going to be some construction trucks parking in the street. And I do feel it for the neighbors. I mean, there's house after house has been going up and if you live there, you've been experiencing that this whole time and we get it.

Yeah, okay. Okay, I would like to just add to this. It's not a, it's actually what I would call a fluff condition. Parking on, so under three on there, parking on site shall be encouraged whenever possible. or something to that effect. Okay, so we'll get to that. Since the neighborhood is so impacted, and I think I'm done.

If you think of something else, we'll come back to you.

Yeah, I'm through for now. Thank you.

Thank you. Commissioner Bomwell? Thank you, Mr. Chair. To the staff, I had one more question about, it's on page, your page, so easy, page 23 of 513, and it's item number D, and maybe I don't understand it, but it says the approval of the slope stabilization system, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, is limited to a maximum of 20 years. When the permit time ends, these components shall be removed. Unless, and then it gives them the less thing. But the system is the artificial turf, the ditch, landscaping, hardscape, and the drainage system. Are you suggesting that that would be removed in 20 years? I don't quite understand what's going on there.

Through the chair, Commissioner Barnwell, I believe that comes from our coastal policy. It could be reevaluated or would need to be reevaluated in 20 years, and then we can determine whether certain elements can stay or need to come out.

But it doesn't say that.

Okay, we can revise it.

It doesn't say that we're going to reevaluate it in 20 years. It just says it expires.

So then it says when the permit term ends, these components shall be removed unless reevaluation of the site shows they will still meet the standards.

It seems like there should be language in there where the property owner gets a hold of the city and comes back and makes that evaluation determination, and then we decide whether we want to reissue it. But I'm just curious, just an overview, why do we have a 20-year, where does that come from? What's the thinking behind that?

What we want is for erosion to occur naturally and things that need to be moved landward as a result of the erosion encroaching closer to them should be removed from the site or replaced further landward as the natural bluff erosion occurs over time. That's what that's getting at.

Okay, well, that's such an all-inclusive beginning statement. The turf, the ditch, the landscape, the hardscape, and the drainage system. It doesn't specify any component of the drainage system, just the drainage system. So anyway, the wording of that whole thing, maybe we could tighten that up a little bit. And after the 20 years, include the fact that they need to have it evaluated by us, by somebody. Right? Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Any other commissioners at this time? I do have another commission.

Thank you, Chair. I've got a number of questions primarily to staff working through this staff report one thing I just quite couldn't quite understand is why we had so many geotech reports and it seemed I mean there's multiple copies in there and at the end of the day NGO resolve this is that sort of how i would say but why did we have all these iterations in and why at one point they had a letter saying they're not there yet and put that in sort of generalistic terms and then then there's a letter saying oh we're good now so could you walk us through all that just so we understand through the chair commissioner belke yeah there are a lot of

geotechnical attachments that I included and I agree it's a bit excessive. I submitted, I attached them as I was sort of walking through the history and what was said at a certain time and here's the attachment. The attachments I included as they were submitted by the applicant team because they do refer to, I'm sorry, the exhibits each have attachments so I just included each submittal as a whole. Really, I think the most important one is Exhibit I. That includes all the conditions, all the recommendations within the original report, and then it gives all the back and forth of letters and studies, and that's ultimately the correspondence that it refers to, all the conditions, all the recommendations in these documents. And I do apologize, it's a bit confusing with everything we attached. But that is, we went through an extensive process with the applicant team and our peer reviewer to really ensure that we were all on the same page. We all understood what was happening. Everything is thoroughly vetted and going to be constructed in a safe manner. We did a lot of work. The applicant team did a lot of work. So that kind of reflects the years of review we've been going through. OK.

I just wanted to add to Ms. Burkhart's response.

There were portions, and I think Jarrett will concur, that there was disagreement a little bit on how those policies were being addressed in the geotechnical analysis where city staff felt that there were elements that weren't compliant with the LUP policies, but not being geotechnical engineers, we invoke their expertise, our peer reviewers expertise to see if they're seeing that issue or if that's an issue that we're alone in. So there was a little bit of back and forth of we see your conclusions, I agree with your setback, however, this needs to be adjusted, okay, and they would come back with an adjustment to the report. And us not feeling comfortable again because of even the circumstances changing of the The bluff failure itself needed that to be reevaluated and made sure that we were again consistent with the LUP policies. I will say this is the first time we've had to deal with the new bluff edge, alternative bluff edge calculation. That exercise in itself was the first time we've had to do that since this coastal LUP has been in place. And the language in it is challenging and required both geotechnical engineers to kind of discuss the approach and how we got there. So I think it's a couple of things. There was slight disagreements, although we worked through them. And then also there were conditions that changed. And then third is that this really wasn't the first time applying some of those policies.

Okay. Thank you. Related to the geotech is what I describe as dewatering. You know, we're on a coastal bluff and things tend to want to go to the ocean off the bluff. And at the end of the day, we are collecting it and pumping it back up like we have done on other coastal bluff projects. I just want to confirm that's the case. I think that's what I read.

That's correct. You can see in this image here, this is a rock-lined V-ditch. Essentially, there are drains in it that go to underground pipes. It all eventually ends up out in the main in Edgewater. So that's, again, coastal policy that we don't want water to go over the edge of the bluff. So that's what that's for.

Just wanted to confirm, because that would be a very important factor. Another question I have, and it's something that this site just sort of brings us to my attention, is how we calculate FAR in this. And FAR, in our calculation here, basically doesn't seem to have any great subtractions for loss of land because of bluffs and other habitat and It's sort of a rough measure, and that leads me to sort of my basic conclusion when I came out there was this thing's like a lot of development for what's left versus other properties within the Mesa, which may not have this case, but the FAR is our rule. I understand that. But could you walk us through if we do discount things or don't discount things or how does slope come to place? I've gone through the calculations, and this thing's right at the top of the. you know, FAR chart at the end of the day. So could you enlighten us a little bit on that?

Through the chair, Commissioner Balgi, FAR is calculated based on square footage of the entire site. So if there's a slide on the site, it really doesn't take away from the square footage of the site. It's still... the same size site. So the code allows up to 100% FAR. I'm trying to see the size of this site, if FAR even applies to this site based on the square footage. Outside of, yeah, it's over 15,000 square feet. So FAR is strictly a guideline for the single family design board when thinking about size, bulk, and scale. standard which would require a zoning modification if they wanted to go over 100%.

It's strictly for SFDB to kind of assess the... How much latitude does single family design board have up and down? Because I have seen cases, especially I even know my own case before single family, that they wouldn't even let you get to the 85. in some places they have much more biddable property. So I'm trying to understand how we can get to a project that is this high on the thing with very, very little developable property left in a very, very strange, narrow-shaped lot in the first place. So could you explain?

I'll try. I know in the past, I have not been to SFDB, and maybe Mr. Herrick can speak to this in more detail or with... more recent knowledge. In the past, I know they liked things to stay around 85%. That's kind of where they feel comfortable just being okay. In this situation, it's really, it's not a zoning standard that applies. It's really just one of the tools that they have among other tools to consider size, bulk, and scale. They can also look at surrounding residences in the neighborhood. essentially looking for neighborhood compatibility to see what are the... And that leads me to the next question.

In a lot of projects, we have seen the nearest 20 house analysis or some show what's there. Correct. We do not have that here. And why didn't we get that in this case?

That's a request that the SFDB can make of the applicant. So far, they haven't made that request. I don't think it's a requirement. I can let the applicant speak to this issue if you would like, Mr. Gorin.

Hi, Mr. Chair. I might be the only one here, including out of staff, who was actually at all those SFDB hearings. And this was a topic at every single one of those hearings. And the way they look at it is FAR is sort of like, it's like a hammer. Like they have lots of tools that they can use to look at whether projects are compatible or not. And FAR is just sort of, it's a hammer. It's like, are you roughly within it? Are you close to it? Are every house in the neighborhood at 20% and you're at 130%? Like kind of to narrow things down, but they look at, and they did in this case, look at things way more specifically than that. So one of the things they took into account here was the fact that Our home is set back from the street, like 150 feet away, and you're not experiencing it right up on the street. Maybe if this house was in the same location as our neighbor's, the Cano's house, right on the edge of the street, they would view the size, bulk, and scale of the house differently and say, oh, it's too large, or that FAR is not appropriate there. But because of where it is located... they viewed that it was appropriate in terms of the actual, they got way more specific on the actual size, bulk, and scale of the house than just looking at the FAR. And as staff pointed out, when you get on sites that are over 15,000 square feet, the city's FAR guidelines and standards, they sort of acknowledge that once you get past a certain size on a property, it's not as critical, like it's really critical. If you're developing like an 8,000 square foot, 80 by 100 lot, it's really critical. You're gonna see a huge difference if some house on that lot's 120% FAR versus everything around it is 60. That's gonna be a wall-to-wall Santa Monica McMansion, but if you're over FAR on a site that's as big as ours and as deep as ours and not visible from everywhere, it's a lot different. So that's what the single family design board was looking at at all of our three hearings. And I mean, we got sent back twice to like look at things and change things on the house. And at the end of the day, they were supportive of it. And I would also let you guys know that the focus of, even with FAR being brought up at every hearing and discussed, their main focus every time we went there had to do with the architectural style. Nobody was really so concerned about the size. They were concerned about, like there was one board member that was really bent on the fact that anything that ever goes up has to be like a cottage style, like our neighbor's house. And that's really what most of the discussion was at Single Family Design Board. It wasn't so much about size, bulk, and scale, because I think they just kind of acknowledged that. I mean, if you look at the photos of it, kind of is the same size, bulk, and scale of everything, regardless of what the actual mathematical FAR might be. It's just sort of similar to what's around it. So that was what the single family design board sort of arrived at.

And you went there multiple times, at least the notes we read.

We were there three times.

And at least two of them, they kept raising FAR as a problem. And I was wondering, and then I noticed that the very last beating in which they said it was okay. There was only three that voted affirmative and one abstained and one recused themselves. Maybe you got lucky that the other two weren't there or something. I'm trying to understand that because my gut feeling is it's just too much for that side personally. But that's the single family design board's task. It's not a planning department. Even though there are policies, and that's what I was going to lead to, there are two policies in the co-select that neighborhood compatibility or findings of this board needs to make. So I just want to. CONFIRM WITH STAFF THAT THE COASTAL ACT ACTUALLY DOES TALK ABOUT NEIGHBORHOOD COMPATIBILITY.

YOU WANT TO COME UP TO THE MIC AND ADD TO THIS?

THANK YOU, VICE CHAIR DELUCCIO. YES, I JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY WITH THE DISCUSSION WITH WHAT THE APPLICANT WAS DISCUSSING AND WITH FLOOR AREA. Barbara pointed out that the FAR is only guideline for this property because the property is so large. And when it's not guideline and it's required for area ratios, we do require applicants to supply the 20 closest lot home survey. silhouette elevation and things like that. Just because that when it's required, once they reach the 85 and 100% benchmarks, there are actual code limitations to the size of the home that it can be. For this property, it was guideline. I did review the last hearing and yes, there were only three board members there. I do remember in their motion, in the previous motion from the minutes that they were going off of is they were trying to focus on trying to keep it around 85% FAR. That's usually a good guideline benchmark for ensuring that the massing of a home on different size lots is appropriate to a neighborhood. I have seen the board, even for guideline projects, request the 20 closest lot home survey to give more context to make their findings. So it will be up to the board for their project design approval findings to, again, assess the mass bulk and scale of the home. The last and previous hearings from the SFDB, I do just want to clarify that they were conceptual findings. It was just conceptual, so it was a non-appealable action. So with the project as it was presented to them, it's just changed even a little bit to the plans that we're seeing now. The board was generally comfortable with the mass, bulk, and scale, generally comfortable with the siting of the home compared to the context of the neighborhood. and generally comfortable with the height. During project design approval, I'm sure it's gonna get much more specific and as we have more public comment and more context that way from the neighbors.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you.

Just to clarify, Barbara, what is the FAR in this project. I just want to make sure because I've seen a bunch of numbers flying around at different review processes and today and another one and while you're going to answer that question, ADUs is a new thing that's been added to this equation and how does that play into the calculations and did the city ever when they started thinking about 85% actually think about how ADUs are counted and also are calculated. And how do we make those distinctions? And so maybe Megan can start that one.

Is that a question? So ADUs through the chair, Commissioner Bauke, ADUs are counted in the FAR now. But to your point, the sloped bluff top lot doesn't change. Basically, they have the benefit of that. additional lot area, even if it's not usable. And then your other question was, what is the exact?

Yeah, what is this one that, you know, what will the single family, if the thing doesn't morph again, what is it today without the ADU? Is it 85 or more than 85?

I believe this says 88% without the ADU. Okay. So I think to answer your original question more about coastal policy related to scenic resources and neighborhood planning, part of what we do rely on in responding to those policies is the opinion of the SFDB. However, we're looking at impacts to public viewpoints. So in this case, it's really a view of the site taken from the public beach below. And as Mr. Gorin showed in one of his drone shots, kind of from the ocean. And it is pretty hard to see from the beach below the buildable area of the site. So that's really one of the main thing to consider here in terms of visual resources, scenic resources. There are, as you know, Mesa Lane Steps is public pedestrian access to the beach. It's very nearby. A little further east, there is a public lookout at the end of Oliver Road. So those things are near and in the area. So again, yeah, really just the view from the beach would be what you're... considering, as well as the SFDB's feedback.

Okay, thank you. And then I have just, I want to confirm things I've heard, that our prior subdivision that we approve, this utility poll issue is going to go away, and is that a yes or no? I remember it being there, so I...

Chair Belke, I'm sorry, Commissioner Belke through the chair, As a part of the lot line adjustment project, which again is completely different from what's before you today, it was discussed that the location of the utility pole, it would either be relocated or removed entirely. That application needs to happen with the utility company. It's not an application with the city. The city's role in that would be the coastal review, and it likely would qualify for an exemption as a utility's. So that's our role in it. Really, it's the applicants. I understand they have an agreement already as to what's happening with that utility pool. And as Mr. Gorin stated, they plan to stay the course with what's been agreed upon.

Would it be appropriate to cross-reference that condition that's in the subdivision to this permit? That's a question for me.

There actually is no condition of approval in the lot line adjustment regarding the utility pool. It's really not our purview, as I understand. It's an application that needs to go to the utility company, and we would do the coastal reveal on that. It was discussed in the staff report. It was discussed in kind of what's the overall idea.

How do we enforce that it actually happens?

That's not within the city's ability to enforce.

Mr. Chair, Commissioner Bauke, it actually is a condition in the lot line adjustment. It's a public works condition. It's spelled out, and it says that it has to be moved prior to recordation, I think. So it's 100%.

Would you have an objection of cross-referencing that condition? I don't have any objection of cross-referencing it. And while you're up there, would your applicant, because I understand your comment about... short-term rentals, but this thing jumps off the page as a short-term rental, okay? Just as they go, very much like the stuff we see in Yankee Point area. If your applicant doesn't have that intention, would he be more than glad to put a condition that he won't use it for that? Because the site configuration of this very long, it's like the worst-case scenario for such. or a condition precluding from being used for this short-term rental.

Chair Bauke, through the chair, our current ADU ordinance requires a covenant that They won't be rented for 30 days or less.

Yeah, it's an ADU. And ADUs in the state can't be used. Under state law, even, you can't ever use an ADU as a short-term rental. Every ADU has a covenant that says it can't be rented for less than a year.

I wasn't just talking about the ADU itself. Oh, the house itself? The house itself, trust me, it looks like a party house. As far as the ones up in Yankee Point, very, very private.

HE INTENDS TO LIVE THERE WITH HIS WIFE AND KIDS.

THAT'S GOOD TO KNOW. WE HAVEN'T HEARD THAT UNTIL NOW.

THROUGH THE CHAIR, OUR COVENANT ALSO INCLUDES THE PROVISION THAT THE MAIN HOUSE CAN'T BE RENTED FOR LESS THAN 30 DAYS.

AS LONG AS THAT STAYS IN THE ORDINANCE?

IT'S PART OF IT. ACTUALLY, ALL OF THIS STUFF SORT OF DOVETAILS BECAUSE THERE'S AN ADU HERE IS WHAT'S TRIGGERING ALL OF THESE THINGS, AND THERE IS A RECORDED COVENANT. When you have an ADU, you're also not allowed to use the primary residence as a short-term rental.

Okay. And one more. The parking issue of your construction. I understand that at some point in time, there will be concrete pour for the ADU, concrete pour for the house. There will be foundations in the areas that in this particular circumstance, there are not going to be a whole lot to be able staging construction or other supplies and such. Would you consider some kind of off-site location? A lot of projects have off-site locations for parking for employees, and they shuttle into a site.

Through the chair, Commissioner Bauke, I just don't know how practical that is. People have to have their tools and their equipment that's on their trucks, and I don't know how they would. park their work truck somewhere else and get 2,000 pounds of tools on the shuttle bus with them and bring it over to this. No, I'm not talking about shuttle bus. Or whatever kind of shuttle. I just don't think that that's practical.

Commissioner, are you talking about the employees working on the site?

Yeah, the employees working on the site.

I think there's a condition here about it has to be off-site parking, correct? You may want to research that. I don't know how you can take trucks with equipment and stuff, but I think workers who are going to be working need to either park on the site

This is what I talked about earlier.

The construction parking is on page 11 of 16 and I suggested that we add just a line that says parking on site shall be encouraged whenever possible. I think I think parking off-site in that area is not possible. I live in that area. It's just there's no place that's really going to work that you could isolate construction vehicles that would be convenient to that. It's better on-site.

That's the point of my question because there is going to be a point because of the site constraints that when the ADU is foundations poured, And the house is foundation. There's not going to be a whole lot of places that you can put vehicles and people who can park. And then the next case place they would normally go is to the neighborhood. And that's what she's addressing. So we need to be finding some other place to go when you get to that threshold. I see that as a problem at that location. So I was looking for some way to get them somewhere else and they come in. is to the extent needed so that the neighborhood's already parking impact in the first place. And I surely can't tell you to go put them over next to the Mesa SEP so they think the Coastal Commission would have a problem with that from a coastal access point of view. But looking at some answer to that question.

One thing that we've got going for us here is regardless of where foundations for houses get poured, we still have a 16 foot wide driveway that's the entire length of that panhandle that like no other property has there. and they can park on that i mean i think relative to all of these other homes that we're seeing we're like at a major advantage in terms of not impacting the neighborhood because of our crazy shaped parcel that requires this really long driveway that gives a lot of space for people to park on site but i just i mean we could come up with whatever condition we want and then i how do you enforce it i mean i just and the other thing is it would be nice to get this home constructed in shorter than five years because everybody's going to have to like park their trucks far away or, you know, I, there's just a lot of balance here and I don't know if you can craft a condition that works then great. We can now use it for everybody. I just don't, I don't know how we're going to get to that, but you know, we're certainly going to do everything else and make sure that, you know, the sites posted and neighbors have a number they can call and complain directly to, our superintendent, if people are parking up in their driveways or blocking things. I mean, I just, look, I mean, it's just, you're going to build a building, there's going to be impacts. And it's a bummer that this neighborhood's had so many new buildings going on that it's affected them this much. But that's not my client. My client didn't create that situation. And I don't think it's equitable for him to have to bear some major impact because other people like building houses in this neighborhood and they've done it before. I just, it's tough to agree with that.

Okay, thank you for that. Do you have any other questions?

No, that was the last one.

Okay, Commissioner Peterson.

Can we go back to the ADU discussion here? Ms. Lonsergan, perhaps you can help us. No matter what state law is, our city laws prevent ADUs from being used as short-term rentals. Is that right? Or state ordinances?

That's correct.

Okay. You mentioned under existing ordinance that the house cannot be used for a short-term rental. Is that correct?

Our current covenant, Commissioner Peterson through the chair, our current covenant says that both the primary and the accessory dwelling unit may not be used for periods of 30 days or less.

But in the ordinance that we reviewed earlier this month that we passed city council,

the coastal zone the house may be able to be used for as a home share on a short-term basis yes possibly okay but that's not a city ordinance yet no okay and we don't know if that'll ever come to fruition right just wanted to clarify that okay very good thank you um okay at this point i'm not going to say too much that's by being chair everybody gets to speak first and then by the time you come to the chair it's like whatever but i have i do have a couple of questions actually it's more design related actually uh maybe sebastian you can help me with this um just a couple of questions about first i know the the landscaping will be dealt with with the design board correct uh yes that is correct okay and then um how many there were like three or four hearings on this uh correct from what i recall i believe uh miss burkhart was there i believe three conceptual hearings that has to be correct conceptual hearings uh chair de lucio there were three

CONCEPT REVIEW HEARINGS FOR THIS ITERATION OF THE PROJECT. THERE WAS A CONCEPT REVIEW EARLIER FOR THE ADDITION.

THAT ANSWERS MY QUESTION BECAUSE I KNOW THERE WERE FOUR.

ONE WAS A DIFFERENT ITERATION OF IT.

I KNOW THAT THE BOARD, SINGLE FAMILY REVIEW BOARD, IT CAME BACK THREE TIMES BECAUSE THEY WANTED SOME CHANGES MADE, CORRECT? THEY WERE NOT HAPPY WITH THE DESIGN OR SOMETHING? CORRECT.

comments for the applicant team to work through before they felt it was ready to continue here for consideration of the coastal development permit. So now they feel like the design is at a good enough place that the CDP can be considered. They still have to go back for a project design approval and final approval, which is details, landscape. They still have work to do in the design review realm.

But in a sense, it'll be a formal review next time. Correct. And it's actually a new board, as my understanding. There's only one person left from that board.

uh correct i believe it is a fully new board yeah there may be one person that was on it i'm not yeah i no i think it's a brand new brand new boy yeah okay so so uh well yeah they'll they will be reviewing the previous videos minutes like um like the commission has before um looking at that okay um we're gonna move to comments right now who would like to do we have any comments or we're going to move to a motion yeah commissioner wisdom

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm just going to say I can definitely make the findings and support the project with, you know, a couple changes that we've talked about, which is the C2 striking A through J on page 6.

Can we hold off until we make a motion, then you can do that?

Yeah, well, okay. And then on page 11, just another note about the construction parking. But I think in all... You've been through enough and I think it's time to move on to the next phase of life here. I think you've done things very thoroughly. I appreciate Ms. Burkhart's efforts and also the fact that the city did hire an independent geotechnical engineer to review review the plans in relation to the LCP policies. And I thought that was very important because this is very different than anything we've looked at before. And the only other comments I'll make is I hope as the project advances, if it does advance, that you'll work with the neighbors on some of the issues that seem to be still out there.

And that's really all I have to say. OK. I don't see any others. So I'm going to just briefly comment. As far as this, when it goes back to the board, again, single family review board, Hopefully you will look at the privacy issues one more time. If they can look at the windows and the balconies just to see if anything can be worked out for that. Because I know you need to make your good neighbor guidelines and what is the other word? What's the other thing you have to do?

Neighborhood preservation ordinance findings.

You have to make the neighborhood preservation ordinance. There's five or six findings.

Correct.

So that's just what I would like to see. And also, I know that there are three, you're actually getting, there's three things covered under this conditional development permit today. It's obviously the development of the site, which we're dealing with. And also, I know that the permitting work's been completed for the emergency development permit. And also, you're working through the abatement right now with the wall and all that. So I, at this point, I'm ready to move this forward also. And at this point, did you want to, I know we have some notes and some conditions you want to add to the resolution. Do you want me to make a motion? Yeah. Okay. Did you do that?

Yeah, sure. Okay. So I moved the recommended findings. They're on page 18 of the staff report. A, environmental review, that it's exempt, as discussed in the staff report. And B, coastal development permit, it's consistent with the policies of the California Coastal Act and the city's local coastal plan. And move the conditions of approval with a couple changes. in C2, which is on page 6 of the conditions of approval, that we strike in C2 items A through J. We keep the headline there, but then we strike A through J. And on page 11, in construction parking, we just add a statement. And I think the applicant understands the impacts of the neighborhood. just add a comment that under 3, that parking on site shall be encouraged whenever possible.

I'll second it.

Yes, please. Can I add that my comments on 23, page 23, specifically that when the 20-year permit expires, then there's a requirement that someone make sure that we can indeed remove those temporary things. So that becomes a part of the requirement here that as opposed to just leaving it like it is here.

May I comment on that?

Yeah.

I have a question, though. So basically, I don't understand that, actually, because the permit is open-ended. This permit is open-ended. So I don't understand what it means by when the permit term ends. There's no permit end on this. And then after 20 years, they have to do – you need to evaluate these – these landscaping, landscape, et cetera. So who's going to trigger that? Is the applicant going to come forward and say, oh, now it's time to evaluate this? Yeah, that's the point.

Well, I think my understanding, this is pretty standard, I think, in coastal development permits that this is there. But I think what Ms. Burkhart said is, When the permit term ends, these project components shall be removed unless reevaluation of the site shows that they still meet the standards and conditions listed above. And I think that that's sufficient because I think if there's any sort of problems or failures or something, that we've covered it here in terms of the reevaluation and the possible removal of whatever it is. and the remediation or the mitigation for whatever it happens to be. You have the 20 years in there, too, so it's contradictory. Well, I think that's why it's there, is because that's... I think it's a... Maybe Ms. Ostringer wants to comment on it, but I think it's kind of a... I think it needs to be wordsmithed. I don't know if we need to do it here. I don't think we do.

But who does the... I don't understand who does the monitoring. That's the question. Are we leaving it up to the property owner? Or do we step in? Or what is the requirement there?

I'll defer to Ms. Arciniega or Ms. Ostringer on this. It's a pretty standard condition of approval. I'm not sure how to answer your question.

To the chair, Commissioner Barnwell. So I'm looking for the language in the local coastal plan because that's where it comes from. It's pulling mostly verbatim what the coastal plan policy language says. But to your point, perhaps it could be worded better and more clearly for applicants to abide by. I do think the intent is self enforcement unless we need to step in like for instance if there is a slide and we're dealing with debris on the beach then we have looked back to this condition of approval and that they are in the hook to then remove it. So it's not that we expect they would be reporting to us every month though today it's fine and tomorrow it's not. It's that in the event of a slide or an occurrence we would have a legal hook that they would be required to be the ones to take those elements out and that that would have been contemplated and considered in their coastal development approval.

Well, thank you for that. I'm a little uneasy with the property owner, you know, that's like the fox guarding the hen house kind of thing. Not that you guys are the foxes, but who knows where the property is going to be in 20 years. But if we're going to go to all this trouble, And it seems to me it's worthwhile to go to trouble because of the conditions of that lot. I think we should, my own personal opinion is we should kind of stay close to it, even 20 years out. In fact, 20 years out may be where the rubber really hits the road because then we'll be 20 years of aging on all of that stuff, and I think it might be worth somebody's close analysis. Thank you, Mr. Chair. That's all I have to say on it.

I feel bad about your explanation of that condition. Also, Commissioner Balkan, did you want to add something about the utility pole?

The staff said it was already in the conditions on the map, or at least the applicant did. Okay. So cross-referencing would be my preference. Okay.

Through the Chair, Commissioner Bauke. So I did review the Planning Commission resolution for that lot line adjustment, and there is no reference to the utility poll and the conditions of approval, as Ms. Burkhart stated. So I believe she is correct in that, although it was discussed as part of one of the things the applicant would need to deal with, that it's really an application to the utility company. The city's involvement is the coastal review, so whether that's a coastal exemption or or beyond, usually utility improvements fall with a coastal exemption. That's the city's role is the coastal review, but the permit for removal of the utility pool rests with the company. The requirement to remove it, I believe, is related to the agreement between the two parties as they've negotiated in their settlement. In my review, this CDP before you isn't dependent on that utility pole moving. Or if that lot line adjustment were to not happen, the development being approved today would not have a zoning conflict or a CDP conflict. So I'm not clear that it's necessary for this CDP improvement. However, the applicant has indicated that they're willing to entertain that for that kind of a surety that they are moving forward with the intent to remove or relocate. So I think that would be a question for the applicant or if they're willing to basically include that as part of their scope of work of the approval today.

Go ahead. I think this is really crossing a line because this is really a utility company thing. Um, Ms. Burkhart made it clear. It's not the city of Santa Barbara. It's the utility company and the, the two, the two owners. So I think we'd be crossing the line by cross-referencing.

And we've addressed it in this here. We have addressed it in this hearing today anyway. So it's, uh, it's in the record. So, um, I think at this point we, we had, you made the motion commissioner, uh, Wiscombe. You seconded commissioner Peterson with a couple of conditions. So I think we're ready to go to a roll call vote, please.

Thank you. Vice chair DeLucia. I'll begin with commissioner Wiscombe.

Yes.

Commissioner Barnwell?

Yes.

Commissioner Peterson? Yes. Commissioner Bauke?

No.

And Vice Chair DiLuccio?

Yes.

Okay. Commissioner Bauke, do you want to provide?

Yes. I find the project inconsistent with the Coastal Act Section 30251 and 30253. Basically, the intensity of the project for the site that's remaining after the remediation of the slope is, in my opinion, beyond what should be on this site, and that's the basis. I do have to say the applicant did a great job. I mean, that is a very nicely designed project doing as much as you could within that envelope and done very well, and all the issues have been addressed. The intensity of the project, I don't think fits the neighborhood or the site. Thank you.

Okay, so at this point, it's going to go back to project designer for... for them to look at. They'll need to approve it. And any folks that put comment letters in, they'll be notified of that hearing, correct?

Correct. They do want to acknowledge that the commission's decision today is appealable for 10 days.

10 calendar days. Okay. And in addition to going back to design review. Okay. For approval. Okay. So do we want to take a break or just move on?

I have to take a break.

Okay. We'll take a five-minute break? Yeah. Okay.

you

So we're going to move on to a discussion item now, 25 East Mason Street. And the Planning Commission is being asked to determine if a wedding venue business could be permitted use in the HRC2, which is a hotel and related commerce zone. And we have Kelly Broderson here to give us our staff report.

Yes, thank you, Chair DiLuccio. Kelly Brodison with Community Development. And as you stated, we are looking at a property today at 25 East Mason. And we're going to look at this proposed use to see if it's allowable in the HRC2 zone. So here's a slide showing the location of the site at 25 East Mason on the corner of East Mason and Helena. It's kind of right in the smack center of what's called the funk zone between Anacapa and State Streets. And here's an aerial view of the property. You can see the structure. It's next to what's known as the California Hotel, previously La Entrada. And there's a parking lot to the upper right-hand side of the building. And it's known as the Beacons Building. Here's a street view of the project on the corner of Mason and Helena. Here is the zoning map. HRC2 zone is hotel and related commerce zone. It's also within the coastal zone in an overlay for coastal. The HRC2 zone identifies specific uses as shown here on this slide, such things as bicycle, roller skating, specialty and gift shop, art galleries, but if you see here under B, 2D, it says other visitor serving or commercial recreational use is deemed appropriate by the Planning Commission. So the use today is being considered as a wedding venue place and it does fall into visitor serving or commercial recreational uses and we want the Planning Commission to kind of look at that and see if they find that use is appropriate in this zone. And let's see, I showed here the proposed use, as I said, will be a wedding venue. It'll have a reception area, catering, a kitchen, dressing rooms, offices, and a rooftop deck. Here's the site plan. You can see the Southern Pacific Railroad to the north there, the corner of Mason and Helena Street, and then the odd-shaped building with the parking lot to the right. The operations will include full food and beverage, private functions for wedding receptions, bar mitzvahs, retirement dinners, community events, and the applicant states that 90% of the events will occur on weekends and in the evenings. And this is a slide just showing on the left is the first floor plan, as it exists today, and on the right is the roof plan. That would be where the roof deck would be. I will let the applicant describe their proposed uses in more detail, and then we can have a discussion when you're ready.

Okay, we'll have the applicant come up now. We typically give you 20 minutes. I don't know if you need 20 minutes.

Okay. Good afternoon, everybody. Clay Orrell, architect, AB Design Studio. I'm mostly here to answer questions because I think there probably will be some from you all. I will just offer a few things. This is a wedding venue company. They have something like 80 locations across the nation. So they have a lot of experience doing this. They vetted the site. They like the location, etc., etc., If this was a hotel like the Californian, you could have a wedding venue in the hotel in the same zone, right? So it's not something that's really outside of the boundaries of what's already allowed in the zoning. The unique part of it is that it's a wedding venue business, not a hotel with a wedding venue attached to it. That's the fundamental difference. I'd also like to point out that if you look at the specific uses in the funk zone, wine tasting is not one of them, but it's all over the funk zone, and that's because It's a similar type of use. So there is precedence for what we're asking for today. Kelly did a great job kind of explaining the zoning part, so I'm just going to be here to answer questions if you have about the business and things like that because I've been talking to the owner. So anyway, I will stand down for now. Thank you.

Everybody's quiet right now. I see no lights on. Well, now I see some. I see you. We're going to go to comment first. We can actually probably do comment and questions and comments together. Commissioner Balki? Oh, public comment. I'm so sorry. Do we have any public comments?

Thank you, Vice Chair DiLucia. At this time, we don't have anyone in the room with us. We don't have anyone online with us, and we didn't receive any written correspondence for this item, so I'll give it back to you.

Thank you for saving me. I would have gotten in trouble. Okay, now we're going to go to... Commissioner questions, maybe we'll lump it together with comments because I don't see a lot of lights coming on here. So I'll go first if nobody else wants to.

I'd be more than glad to go first.

Commissioner Wiscombe, did you have your light on?

I did at one point.

You're welcome to go ahead. Okay.

I think you jettisoned me. Kelly, could you explain sort of how the property is currently used? Is it vacant? And that was sort of the, it's like, okay, I'll take either one, so.

Commissioner Bauke, through the chair. Currently, the property is partially vacant. It's a three-story building, roughly 45,000 square feet. They have a tenant on the third floor that's leasing the third floor, and the rest of the building is currently empty. Okay. And you're an architect, right? I'm an architect. You're not the leasing guy. I'm not the leasing guy. Don't ask me rates or anything like that.

Okay. Are they going to be actually holding weddings physically in the space?

Yes.

Or would they be doing them elsewhere? I'm trying to understand because I've been to one of these kind of places in an industrial site in Costa Mesa. And it was sort of interesting how they worked. So I'm just trying to understand how the what's being proposed here would be comparable to the experience I had.

So on the left hand side is the first floor plan. This will largely be their indoor space. So this will have a reception area, a bar area, kitchen facilities, changing areas, bridal room, et cetera, et cetera, general offices and things like that will be in this first floor space. The roof, we'll get a new roof deck, and that'll be used for ceremonies. So they'll do the ceremony on the roof, and then everybody goes downstairs, has the post-ceremony functions, and then they leave.

Okay.

That's pretty much how that one worked, too.

So one level, not multiple levels. Okay. So for the staff, so the question purely is to us is consistent in the concept and, you know, sort of like the wine tasting and the funk zone. Okay. To me, it's generally consistent because It could just as easily be the hotel operating the same thing, a wedding-type operation on this particular site from across the street, and that would be found consistent. So why, just because it's a separate party, would it be considered inconsistent?

I'll put that out there. I'm sorry, Megan. I think also it's important to note that The subject property is dual zoned, but this use would be allowed in any place in the zone, not just on this property. So that's what we're looking at today.

So to the chair and commissioners, I do want to clarify that your purview or the review today is not asking whether it is only allowed at 25 East Mason. This would be a determination that wedding venues could be used throughout the HRC zone. I want to clarify that for the public. So whether we think this building is ripe for that type of use, it would be any building or new construction, if you will, in the HRC2 zone. So I do want to orient your discussion and your considerations as to whether we think this is consistent with the existing uses that are outlined in the HRC2 zone in terms of visitor serving and if we think it's likened to that and appropriate. I do think the hotel comparison is along those lines. But I just wanted to orient that, although the applicant is interested in the specific property, your determination today will affect the HRC zone in the future for any other site as well.

Could you put the map up once again?

And your packet has the HRC2 zone list of uses if you want to compare what's existing today in that allowance, and this commission did

authorize a similar addition to those uses to include a Yacht sales Yes, mr. Senega there was a project about in 2020 that also similar type of discussion where they looked at the use it was for chartering yachts and jets where fish enterprise used to be and Remember that? Yeah, so that was a similar type of situation on State Street. Same zone.

So my last question, which is, why has this got two zones, and what's the history of that? I mean, why wouldn't it have been picked one or the other, but why did it, this one just seemed to be, you know, you get a bonus, you get both. Is there some history to that?

Through the chair. There is absolutely history on it. I'm not the best, I'm not up to speed on the history, but yes. I know it has, do you have, some of it has to do with the Coastal Commission interest in the area and where special uses that we wanted to allow in the coastal zone were kind of special in this area. We allowed that additional layer. Do you want to, I'll allow the applicant to elaborate.

Do you want to come up and maybe try to address that?

Sure, Mr. Chair, Commissioner Bauke. I'll do my best, and if anybody's watching that actually knows the history, maybe they can call me. When the OC Zone was formed many, many years ago and they were rezoning this area, this particular building had Brooks Art Institute in it. And I believe that they gave it a dual zoning to make sure that that could remain in the building at the time. But again, I don't know for sure, but if somebody knows, Please let me know. It has logic to it. It has logic. We'll take it.

Okay, so we're going to move on to Commissioner Wiscombe.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just want to clarify something. Ms. Arciniega, if I may, since this is a dual zone, HRC2 slash OC, that's what, if we approve it, we're approving it for that designation. Isn't that correct? It's not all HR. It's not all HRC2. It's HRC2 slash OC, right?

Through the chair, Commissioner Wiscombe. So when you have the dual zone property, and this was a footnote to your memo, either uses are allowed, either the uses allowed in OC or HRC2. However, the development standards that apply to the dual zone properties are those in the OC zone. So their development standards mean setbacks, height, any of those development standards defer to the OC zone. But either list of uses can be used in a dual zone property. This request is invoking visitor serving uses that are allowed specifically under hrc2 and it would be only adding to the list of uses under hrc2 not both zones visitor serving uses are not um explicit in oc that's ocean related commercials so those are getting at offices and, you know, diving shops, things related to the ocean, sails, et cetera. So that has its own list of uses and wedding venue isn't as consistent with any of those. The most consistent land use would be visitor serving and that's what the applicant is asking if there's concurrence that a wedding venue is considered visitor serving. Does that, did I make it less clear?

Yeah, it does, actually. So I just, okay, you've got everything in here about the OC zone, and there's a section, it's on page 9 of the report, 9 of 20. This is in our municipal code 28. and maybe Ms. Ostringer can help with this, under B, says the OC zone regulation shall apply to all development projects on land with a dual HRC slash two, HRC two slash OC zoning designation. So does that mean that the, Does that mean that the OC zone regulations supersede the HRC2 regulations? What does that mean?

Sorry about that. That's okay. Commissioner Wiscombe threw the chair and Ms. Arciniega can comment. I read it to be that they don't supersede them but that they just go together and you

you choose if you're.

Yeah. That's the reference to the development. So when it comes to zoning standards you defer to O.C.

Right. Right. So so I read that is we should be looking at O.C. for for this particular request. rather than HRC2.

Commissioner Wiscombe, I think what Ms. Arciniega was trying to say is you can use either, but when it comes to, like, if you're saying that, okay, yes, the use for a winery is allowed, but that winery use then triggers the zoning standards under OC. That's how I understood Ms. Arciniega to explain it, that the The setbacks would have to match and mirror what OC requires, not what HR2.

Can I ask the applicant, what were you applying for? Were you looking for it to be in use in both zones?

Mr. Chair, no. We're just... We're looking at it in the fact that we can apply HRC2 or we can apply OC, either one. This fits better under HRC2, but we weren't specifically stating that we're trying to do this or this. I don't know why we're getting confused about it.

Well, I was just confused because of this. I didn't know if this OC zone regulations overrode HRC2, but I gathered that we are, no matter what one we're using, we're using the commercial recreational uses, right? That's kind of where this fits in, is that right? Is that what you think?

I believe we're using the visitor serving aspect of it.

Correct. Visitor serving or commercial recreational uses, okay. And we don't have visitor serving in OC. Correct. But we have it in, so that's why I was asking the question, OC zone regulation shall apply to all development projects on land with a dual, so since we don't have visitor serving in OC, walk me through this please. I can't, yeah, I can kind of get to commercial recreational, I think. And that's...

I can see it in both zones.

Isn't this a double zone? We don't really split it into parts, do we? It's an HRC. It seems like we've done that in that way before.

In Title 28, the zoning codes, the zoning's kind of a hierarchy of zones. So if it's allowed in this zone, it's allowed in every other zone less intense than that. So the highest zone... is what you referred to for standards and uses. The HRC2 zone I think was created back in 1986 and then in 2005 we created the OC zone. So the OC zone didn't take away the uses that were previously allowed in the HRC2 zone. It just created another zone that was specifically rated to ocean related uses because we wanted to keep ocean related uses near the harbor working harbor and near the ocean.

If I can jump in, if we add it to the HRCB zone, we can add wedding venues to that. Does that mean they can also be applicable to the OC? They can have them there too?

No, only if it was dual zoned.

Okay. Because I think they show merit. We're looking for visitors serving uses. This is all in the coastal zone, correct? So I can see them both. I can see a wedding venue being added to both lists, both zones.

But that's not what we're being asked to do today. That's correct, right. So both zones apply to the applicant. If we amend HRC2, then they can just utilize their HRC2 amendment to do the wedding venue.

Right. Oh, right. They can.

Yes.

But this is not just about them.

But anybody else in HRC2 can also use.

Right, but I'm saying maybe it should be expanded and include the OC as a use, as long as we're doing it.

I wouldn't agree on that.

So in the staff's opinion, We can see merit to wedding venue as being part of visitor serving. We didn't contemplate it as commercial recreational. Generally, that's so the listed things of commercial recreational is bicycle or other roller skating, moped, dive gear, boating, surfing, recreational equipment sales or public or private parks or recreational facilities. So it has to do with like active activities. and recreation, whereas visitors serving, the only other thing in the OC is maybe restaurants, if you're expanding a restaurant, but I would argue that that goes beyond a restaurant to have special events, the regular large scale.

Commissioner, can I call Commissioner Peterson right now? When we go to Commissioner Peterson, do you have something you wanted to comment or question at this point?

if we're in comments, I have comments.

I don't have questions.

I would generally, I would, I would support this. Um, I'd support the change in use. It's similar enough in HRC too. We allow for, um, conference centers within hotels. And I suggest wedding venues may be even more beneficial to our city than conferences. Um, and not that I plan to get married soon, but I've heard from enough friends who say that, uh, We need more wedding venues in the city of Santa Barbara, and so representing that constituency, I think this is desirable and we should do it.

Okay.

Commissioner?

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Yeah, I'm 100% for it. I was in those meetings in 86 that created this whole thing, and it was a little bit of a jumble trying to conform to the Coastal Commission rules. And yet also recognizing we wanted residential, I think, maybe condos. And then how did we put that in? And how do we put commercial in? And so my understanding of that back in those days was this was a bundle zoning. So the HLC and they were all mixed together, just like you're describing the pyramid zoning of commercial. You know, you could actually technically put a single family residence on State Street because of commercial, excuse me, because of the pyramid zoning there. People don't do that because they want to put, you know, apartments or some large commercial building, but it's a component of that larger number of building types and uses that you can put on there. My only question to the applicant is, and it has nothing to do with what we're here about, but I can't wait to see how you decorate the place. In particular, the roof, because you will have a wonderful view. Now, are the other two floors rented to somebody else? Is that the way that is? Because you go from the first to the roof, right?

Commissioner Barnwell to the chair. The other two floors right now are empty. Oh, they're empty. Okay. But they are single floor plates. And you're not renting those.

You're just first floor and roof. First floor and roof. Yeah. Okay. Thank you. I'm completely in support of it. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Okay. Anybody else? Do we need a motion on this? I'll make a motion. Make the motion. To approve the staff recommendation and the findings.

I'll second it.

Okay. So the motion is to add visitors serving to the HRC2 zone. Wedding venues to the HRC2 zone.

Correct. Okay. Roll call, please.

Vote.

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

Yes.

Commissioner Wiscombe? Yes. Commissioner Bauke? Yes. Commissioner Peterson? Yes. Vice Chair DiLuccio? Yes. Motion passes. Thank you.

Thank you.

I don't understand it.

Have a great day.

You too. Okay. So if we're going to move on to the administrative agenda, we're almost through with this. Do we have a committee and liaison reports? Do we? Oh, staff hearing officer. I actually did watch the meeting. I need to get a life. I actually have a report on that. Does anybody else have other committee and liaison reports?

I don't hear any.

Do we have discussion on subcommittee and workshops? I have to find my report. I actually did. I did watch the meeting, and I have my report right here. Yesterday, we were in the meeting. You were at the meeting also. You were the secretary. 1315 State Street, actually. They didn't refer too much as an adaptive reuse project. It's actually next door to the Arlington Theater. I think it was a wedding shop for years and years. And now they're going to do adaptive reuse projects. They're going to keep the storefront retail. And they're going to add six new residential units, one on the first floor and the remaining on the second floor. And they approved an open yard modification to allow less in the private open yard for each of the six new residential units. There's not a lot of open space, obviously, it's pretty much floor to floor, the whole development of the project. But there's so many uses around there where you can get recreation, so that was the rationale for approving it.

You said it was a wedding, was that the Rose, you don't know if that was Marshall Rose's place? It could have been. Yeah, because that was a storied place to go get a wedding dress to go for his wedding at that place right there.

That's what I'm talking about. So at this point, is the April 2nd meeting canceled?

Yes.

So we're adjourning to April 9th? Yes. Okay, this meeting's adjourned. I'm going to use this gravel.