Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Nat.

Yep. Ah, baby. Ah. Heat. Heat.

Okay, it's 1:00 p.m. And I want to call to order the city of Santa Barbara Planning Commission meeting for Thursday, March 19th to order. Miss Common, can we please have a roll call? Thank you, Vice Chair Deluchio. I'll begin with Vice Chair Deluchio here. Commissioner Barnwwell here. Commissioner Balky here. Commissioner Peterson here. And Commissioner Wiskam here. Quorum. 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 exaggenda items? Thank you, Vice Chair Deluchio. We do not. How about announcements and appeals? We do not.

Okay. 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 5th. We have the um special lunchon meeting minutes on the Brown Act training and we have meeting uh minutes on the regular minutes meeting minutes and um also March 5th we have a resolution number 03-26 and that was 1422 S San Andrew 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 speaker slips at this time. Okay. So, I'll entertain a motion. So, moved.

I'll second. Okay. Commissioner Bonwell and second by Commissioner Wiskam. Roll call, please. Thank you. I'll begin with Commissioner Balkkey. Yes. Commissioner Peterson. Yes. Commissioner Barnwell. Yes. Commissioner Wiskam. Yes. And Vice Chair Deluchio? Yes. Motion passes. Thank you. Thank you. Can do we have any uh comments from members of the public pertaining to items that not on today's agenda?

Uh at this time I don't have any speaker slips um 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, uh 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. Uh but if if anyone wants to speak under general, you can approach the podium at this time. But I will move um to virtual participation um which we have one participant online but they are part of the applicant team and we did not receive any written correspondents under general. So I'll give it back to you.

Okay. Thank you. Um 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. Uh one is the abatement of an enforcement co case. The second is a permitting of work completed under an emergency coastal development permit. And the third one is for redevelopment of the site. So um we're going to hear a report right now from Barbara Buck Hart who is uh the project planner. Uh thank you vice chair dutio members of the commission. Um I will jump right in.

Um we'll look at the vicinity map and kind of orient ourselves. First the project site. Is your mic on?

Uh, yes it is. I'm sorry. I'll speak into it more closely. Uh, the project site is located on the Mesa. Um, you can see here it's between Douglas Family Preserve and La Mesa Park. Um, 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. Um, it spans a pretty wide expanse from Royal Burough Beach to the westerly boundary of uh, Santa Barbara City College and uh, inland up to Cliff Drive and largely uh, 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 what we're calling parcel 2. It's an adjacent property 2337 Edgewater Way. Um that is a separate project than uh what's before you today, but just wanted to remind everyone of that. An application has been submitted to public works um I believe in January of this year for the map. So um that's in progress. The project plans that we're looking at today show the subject site post lot line adjustment. So they do show this, you know, cut out. Um, however, our city GIS still shows it pre-law line adjustment. So some of the maps I've pulled for my presentation today show it um pre-law line adjustment. So I just want to explain that discrepancy to you

guys. Um then looking at the project description, um the 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. Um in 2020 um talking about that abatement of the enforcement case. Um in 2020 uh the abatement case was uh the enforcement case was issued. A previous owner had added a railroad tie retaining wall and some soil fill to expand the rear yard um without permits. Um let's see. In 2022 the project was revised. I believe there was a new owner at that time. Um it in continued 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 cabana landscaping etc. In 2023 a slope failure occurred on the site at the westerly portion of the site. We can see some images of that here when it was, you know, pretty new. So, at this point, the project essentially gets put on hold. Um, stabilization of the slope becomes a priority and that was in an effort to prevent further erosion that would impact the existing residents. Uh so an emergency coastal development permit and the associated building permit were issued uh to install a slope stabilization system and also to demolish an existing patio. You can see that here a little bit. Um it had 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. Uh 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 um 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. Um as well as a site redevelopment. So looking at abatement of that enforcement case, it entails removal of that retaining wall and the back fill. Um as you can see a lot of that wall uh and fill was taken with the slide. Um but there's still a portion here to be removed. Retention of the emergency permit work um is essentially allowing that slope stabilization system to remain in place. Um it's a steel mesh netting. Um there are soil nails a minimum of 10 feet in length that reach back into some bedrock. Um and then there was hydro seeding with the um 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 uh which includes a pool, a spa, cabana, uh accessory elements as well as a new detached garage. It's a twocar 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 um level

by the SFDB, the single family design board. Uh 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. Um, 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. Um, and I'll mention right now I do have Sebastian Herrick's here today. He is our SFDB staff liaison. He can take any questions regarding that review if 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. Um, 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 cited 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 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 uh 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 cons care 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 a coastal bluff edge development buffer. As such, the city's coastal land use plan maps shoreline hazard screening areas. Um, area four is the bluff top, which is shown in green here. Area three is the bluff face shown in pink. And you can see this line in between is the uh 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 um there are specific standards for development on bluff faces and bluff tops. Uh calculation of a buffer or a setback from the bluff edge is required. There are policy related to slope stability systems uh 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 andor a geotechnical engineer. Um so this requires those professionals to analyze the development proposed on the bluff face and bluff top to asssure consistency with applicable coastal policies. To comply the project had submitted an engineering geology and geotechnical

engineering report uh with the original project. It was prepared by Earth Systems Pac Pacific uh 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. Um 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. Um so that line was established by this report. I've highlighted that in yellow here. Um the report defined that as 38 ft from the coastal bluff edge. So the buffer area is in red. This buffer is sight 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 um included all development locatedward of that buffer. It was also reviewed by Earth Systems Pacific who concluded that the recommendations of the original PO 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. Uh it was peer-reviewed by uh for the city by NGO who is our contracted peer reviewer of these shoreline hazards reports. Um I'll talk a little bit more about NGO in a moment. Um but as a result of that it was determined that a techco 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. Um 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 u outdoor area, some deck areas um to push it back out of the buffer area. Um so due to that revised project and the slope failure, we did a lot of work between uh the applicant team, city staff, the applicants, geological team, our geological peer reviewer. And it was determined uh 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.

Um, I'll note here that those are all included in your staff reports as attachments to exhibit I in exhibit I. So, the city had all these um 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 Crarampton of NGIO. Uh, Mr. Crarampton ultimately found the current current iteration of the project to conform to all relevant coastal act and LUP policies as they relate to geology and coastal hazards. Um I'll mention here we do have Mr. Crarampton in attendance today via Zoom to take any technical questions that may come up on the geotechnical front. Um and then I'll just quickly touch on cultural resources. The project did uh the applicant submitted a phase one archaeological report for the project which determined a very low likelihood of resources in the area. Um standard discovery conditions apply in case anything is found. Um 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. given its distance from the buildable area of the site is determined not to be an issue. Um staff finds the project to be categorically exempt from SQA per sections 15301,5303 and 15304. and staff recommends the planning commission approve the project making the findings outlined in section six of the staff report and subject to the conditions of approval in exhibit A. Um 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 Jared Goran from Vanguard Planning and I represent the property owner uh Kurt Custard who is here today and his family. And um it's been about 5 years since Kurt acquired the property and we've had three SFDB hearings, five application submitts, six I think geotechnical reports and updates to those reports, two geotechnical peer reviews, one landslide, a 520page staff report, and here we are. So we're thrilled to be here today and uh present this to your commission. So, I'm going to 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, um, moving a little bit closer in, um, that's the existing house on our site and you can see the development that's right next to us. Um, over towards the west, it's it's pretty far before you get to any structures, so that's why it's all green there. Um, that is Thousand Steps though that you can see in that photo, right? Or not Thousand Steps, sorry, Mesa Lane steps. Um,

is it?

We've got uh this is looking south over our site. And, uh, 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. Um here we are a little bit closer looking uh this is like north west. Um and so you can see our immediate neighbor and then uh this is looking due east. So again just kind of how that lays out. So um you're looking at the followon 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 is not working, but anyway, that's the uh this photo predates the slide. And you can see that retaining wall there along the edge of the site. Um 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 retain these uh 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, you know, but but the main thing was putting that weight out there on the on the bluff face and that was a problem. So the original project we started with and I've been working on this since even more than 5 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 selfabadated 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 um 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. Um here's another picture of that from a few days later when you know we moved we removed the bathtub and things like that. So you can see this from the other direction what that looks like. And then um we spent several months putting together this uh 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 tech 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-ft 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, uh, this is what it looked like completed. This is this is a few months after completion, but I just that's the date of this photo here. Um, 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's really going through and 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 um retaining all that soil and it's growing in great. So um it's it's hard to actually see the improvement in this photo.

So um 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. Um when the landslide occurred, we we we come up with this thing called the alternate coastal bluff edge. And that is essentially following the top of the scarp of that um 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 um from that and it's 38 feet and staff mentioned it but I'll mention it again. These are sight specific. Um they 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. Um, and you know, everybody's a geotechnical expert now that we have chat GPT, but we had real geotechnical experts actually determine this line. So, um, that's where the existing house lies with relation to that buffer. And I think this speaks a lot to the policy consistency. It's it's we're really correcting a non-conforming condition out here and and doing something that actually implements the city's policy. Um, 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,

I'm just going to 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. So, um, 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 going to be in threedimensional space and they're in the photos and then um, 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 um this is again looking um 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 um sort of the spacing between that and the adjacent structures and also I I the size bulk and 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. Um, so here's a view looking straight at the site. You can see our two next door neighbors to the east. Um, and here's our project rendered in. Another thing that's kind of unique about this project is it's our house is at a 45 degree angle kind of to a lot of the homes and 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. Um here's looking at it from the street. Really the 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. Um there's plenty of twotory homes around. And I think it's 24 and a half feet, which is

your typical twostory house height. So yep, we got two stories. So, um, 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. Um, so that's looking back up at the bluff. And then here's our house rendered into that. Um, 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 6 feet. Um, any lot can have a two-story house built six feet away across their backyard fence. And 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 or yeah, 42 to like 52 feet or 58 feet um separation between our structure and their structure. And then if you move further up our driveway, our ADU um across from the Consos who just moved in a few months ago, we're about 42 feet from their house all the way along. And again, you know, 52 feet like a lot of actual entire lots in downtown sar Santa Barbara are 50 feet wide and in a lot of new developments other places they're they're 40 foot wide. I mean that's so you could fit entire houses in between our houses and the 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 um 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. um in in terms of size, bulk, and scale and orientations on the site and being two stories like twotory 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. Great. Thank you. How much time is left? 8 minutes 25 seconds.

Terrific. You have a little of eight minutes. We'll see if you want to say anything afterwards. Um let's open up to the public comment now. Thank you, Vice Chair Delichio. At this time, I do have two speaker slips for inerson public comment. First, I'll have Maddie Bore. Um, you can approach the podium, and you'll have three minutes to speak.

Right here. Right here. Oh, okay. 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. There you go. Is that better? Turn it up.

My name is Maddie Bear and I am the aunt of Claire Bcker, a co-owner of uh 2341 Edgewater and she has pretty much the same uh concerns that he was talking about. Um I' I'd like to read this to you if I may. This is her. Um she's a co-owner of uh 234 Edgewater and she wants to express her opposition to the planned development 2339 Edgewater. Her concerns include um A the size and neighborhood integrity, b privacy, and c geological stability which he's covered somewhat. Okay. So with uh size and neighborhood integrity, the proposed plans are very much out of character with the majority single family singlestory houses in this neighborhood on the mesa. This is not merely an update or an improvement of an existing resident, but a huge um expansion in terms of square footage and height in contradiction with the city's guidelines uh 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 vehicles, 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 next is uh 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 we're very adjacent to them. Directly adjacent to them. So uh this represents an invasion of privacy that would be difficult if not possible to remedy. So that's B. Then C, geological stability. The extension extensive development of the addition of a swimming pool directly next to the cliff seems ill advised at best. Um we ask for independent geological assessment of any proposed plans to ensure the long-term stability of this and other properties located along the cliff. So, uh, we hope that the planning commission will deny the proposal as it stands and require the developers to a divers, uh, 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 evening. 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. Um, I uh I I submitted a I'm also the party of the stipulated court order enforcing the lot line 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 asked 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 finish grade, a retaining wall fill, and a flat roof compounded by a floor area ratio of s 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 uh confirm compliance with that standard. Second, the utility poll uh the planning commission resolution as previously touched upon in the uh 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 uh confirm this with the applicant uh as it is explicitly ascribed by a stipulated court order. Second, uh the driveway as shown in the plans, the applicant's uh driveway crosses into our newly acquired sixoot 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 h uh safety st hazard for the the existing tree. It says to remain but uh this sits squarely in our sixoot area where a for post must go. A contractor has confirmed that no post can be placed there. As a result, we are limited to uh just a 41 inch gate opening instead of the full six feet. The erosion and control drainage needs to be addressed. uh their plans show that it's encroaching onto our newly acquired 6foot 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 and uh like publicly recorded meetings and and documentation. Um therefore we are uh requiring written confirmation before any work begins uh at this service and we will and confirmation that this utility work will not be interrupted. Thank you for your time and I'm uh open to answering any questions about this.

Thank you. Thank you. With that I don't have any more speaker slips for public comment though if anyone would like to speak you can approach the podium at this time but I'm not seeing any movement towards the podium. Um we don't have any participants online with us. Uh, but I will recognize that we received written correspondence from David Botcher, um, Alexander Hack, Timothy Marie, Michael Budro, Courtney O'Donnell, and Kelly and Claire Botcher. And I'll give it back to you. Thank you. Did Mr. Gordon, did you want to respond at this time? You have eight minutes left.

Yeah, Mr. Chair, just a couple of items. Um, 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. um two weeks ago when we're trying to look at this new ordinance and um again like our client doesn't intend to use it. I 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 well it's basically attempting to ban them everywhere. So, you know, again, I 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. Um, in response to Miss Hack's comments, um, we're not raising the grade and then counting the height of the structure above that grade. The the finished floor of the structure is about 6 in 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 going to move it up 3 ft and it'll, you know, that's what you see is what it's going to be with those story poles. Um, all this stuff about the utility pole that that all all was addressed through that lot line adjustment. And, um, 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, um the hacks are our co-licants on that project. So, they'd kind of need to agree with that before we moved forward and did anything with that. Um the driveway and the ride ofway cutting I think that um Miss Hack's confused about what's their property versus city rightway. Our apron does spread out when it gets on the city's property, which everybody's driveway does. Um but it

doesn't cross onto their property or obstruct their driveway. And then the um the visual clearance things that's 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. U take liberty being chair today, I guess, but um the lot line um is that being um reviewed by public works right now and including the utility poll. It is. Yeah. every 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 pole um and everything else there's a lot of other conditions too. Thank you. Okay. So, at this point, we're going to um close the public hearing and we're going to go to Commissioner um questions and we'll start with um Commissioner Bonwell. Then we'll go to comments later. We're going to do questions right now.

Thank you. But I wanted I have some comments. Oh, I can't say. Okay. Um if staff would be so kind as to go to what in the report is page six 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 in this lot or or you didn't say that?

I I did say that those soil nails um and I'm sorry through the chair and to Commissioner Barnwwell. Um 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. Um there's building inspections that occur as part of the building permit to uh verify how it was installed and um they passed they've

per I love the word bedrock. So when I hear that it makes me feel a little bit better when we're talking about cliff. Um, if we could go to page 22 of your item three thing. Um, yeah, page 22, number eight. Um, have we does our does our approval at some point in the wording discuss the fact that even though it's been permitted and even 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 is that standard language in our stuff? Uh, this is a standard condition of approval. I can defer to Miss 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, if I may, it's condition number 13 on page 24.

Okay. Um, and my next question on page 23, oh, item number C, this is just an editing thing. Um, but let me read the sentence here. 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 you 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 5T from the approve 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. Uh I think it makes that sentence a little more understandable. This one in particular kind of stopped me. Um and Mr. Goran answered another question I had which where did the magic 38 feet come from? And I guess that's site spec site specific correct?

That's correct. that was determined through the original uh geotechnical report and okay. Thank you, Mr. Chair. That's all I have right now. Commission Commissioner Whiskam. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um okay, I'm also going through the conditions of approval here. That's where some of my questions lie. Um first of all, single family design board, may I ask you a question? Thank you. Appreciate you being here. Um I'm sorry, what's your name again? Uh I'm Sebastian Herrick. I'm the SFDB uh board liaison, assistant planner.

Thank you very much. Um 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? Uh yes, that is correct. Yes. So, um there going to be findings during the project design approval uh neighborhood um ordinance findings that the board has to make and privacy is one of those findings. Okay. And there I think there was concern about a window um in the ADU or something.

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

Okay, that's great. Thank you for that. I appreciate that. And that's 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 uh you can also email me. Um I am a public servant so uh 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. Um, so then I want to go on to um um Okay, let's start on page 25 of of this conditions of approval. It's actually page 25 of 513. It's page six of the conditions of approval. Um, there's this whole storm water section. I have never ever seen anything like this in conditions of approval before. This is, you know, um, talking about pvious pavers, detail nine, sheet C-6-0. You know, some of this may change as we get into the building thing. I I I don't know why this is here and and I'd like to understand why these kinds of review comments are here in our conditions of approval. Uh thank you for the question through the chair to uh uh I I can answer that. I think that we meant to remove these. Is that correct, Miss ArcGa? These are comments I have from Creeks on what needs to happen um before we can go to project uh final approval. So these came through the completeness review from the creeks division. Correct. And um they are requirements that they do need to adjust prior to project design approval. But I understand the comment on the specificity and the con that conditions of approval should be um generic enough to be enforced through the life of the project if those things change.

Yeah. So I think we need to change them. I 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 I would appreciate that. Um that was one of my main things. Um and then the um Okay, I found it here. The I on page 24 or five of 16, it talks about the the landscape plan. And so we are replacing the trees on a onetoone basis of the ones that have been removed. Is that correct? We didn't really have a We had a master plan, but we didn't really have a landscape plan.

Correct. The landscape plan is um 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. Um and we'll have to work out on the final landscape plan to make sure that all these conditions are are being met. Um, does that answer your question or

Yes. Okay, that's good. Um, and then um the Mr. Gor the um when you when you put the the aerial view of the of the proposed home where the story poles were. Um I the this report says that the height of the home will be I think 25 feet 2 in. So is that is that what's shown on the plan because it can go up to 30. So I just

Yeah. Uh through the chair commissioner Wcom that 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 ft. Okay. So, those story poles reflect it. And I 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 that answers that question. um for people that that think the project is or the height of the the um proposed home is too high. Um I wanted to get to the um and I don't know who can answer this question but the one of the conditions or this is this is the section um that I think Miss Arsenga is going to work on but the on page 26 this is um under I it says the synthetic turf detail shown on the landscape plan is imper is impermeable. Um, so I want to get an an idea of I does that is it is it impermeable or is it permeable and does that change the calculations on the plans if it's if this if this is correct that it's impermeable because earlier the staff report says it's permeable. uh through the chair, Commissioner Whiskcom. It's permeable there. There's multiple different permeable synthetic turf products out there. Um 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 minutia. Um, we there's plenty of options that are permeable and it's going to be permeable and our calcs match that.

Okay, that's that's what I wanted to know. Yeah. Okay. So, we will have to work on that whole section. I think Miss Argo um chair through the chair commissioner Wizcom. So, I think that section uh the detailed overly detailed condition can be stricken because the gen general condition of approval is included already. um that says it needs to comply with storm water requirements approved by the creeks division and maintained as such on site and if it repairs are needed for storm water BMPPS 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 this is number two. Swimp. I mean, do we have just a general swim condition? Yes. So, condition six on page 21 of 513. condition six on page that what page is that? Yeah, what page? Page 21 of the packet.

Okay. Yeah. Oh, I see. Condition six is this the generic basically stating that they must comply with storm water 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 um condition that you earlier mentioned um was reflecting the corrections that the creeks division asked for in their in their conceptual plan to ensure that it would be um compliant with their requirements. But that can be stricken because to your point

we can strike just so I understand correctly we can strike all of the number two C2 swim correct. Okay. the whole thing which is A through J. Correct. Correct. And I do want to clarify the record as uh Mr. Corin had mentioned so there are different products

um for um artificial turf. The way it's installed and the type of products used can dictate whether or not it's considered considered permeable or impermeable. And um 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. Um it has to do with compaction and also materials. So um to comply with storm water one, we encourage permeable because that's best for um the environment. Um but you could propose either just it affects your storm water requirements. So, um 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. Um so they'll just need to revise their specs to reflect that prior.

We're going to strike that in here. Correct. We're just going to keep Yeah. I just I just wanted to make sure that the storm water calcs matched what was going on on site and that we're not calling something permeable that's impermeable. So that's that was my one reason for my question there. Okay. Um let's see. So we have a um I think it's a macadamia tree. Has anyone looked at that tree? Is it is it It's outside of the site triangle. Right. I I didn't even see it when I was out there, but um

Right. Um through the chair, Commissioner Wisam, 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 the drawings are well, the ones that I have are that site triangle is pretty small, but um so um does the applicant you want do you know what we're referring to? Yes, I think so.

Mr. Chair, Commissioner Viscom, no. I I haven't memorized the location of every tree in our landscape plan. What I can tell you about the trees is your your requirements for clearance is 42 in or less or you you 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 this they're going to be driving head out on this. Um, so I don't know where that specific tree is or if it's in that triangle or not. Okay. Um, thank you.

Yeah, the one of the comments that Miss Hack made was that the encroaching tree shall be removed or an alternative satisfactory to the adjacent property owner shall be identified. So, so the tree is not in the site triangle. And that's I 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. One thing Miss Birkhart says, the tree doesn't have to be removed because it's not in the sight triangle. Is that correct?

To my knowledge, it's not. Um I can confirm. Um and again these site these uh landscape plans will be further revised as we get forward with design review. Okay. We can check on those things. Sorry. No, you cannot you can't I'm sorry. Can I can't speak. I'm sorry. Yeah. Um okay. So um let's see here.

Um so we've covered the utility poll. um the building height um that there's another comment here about um that Miss Hack makes about the including the fiberal role shown on the plans. All erosion and sediment control measured shall be located entirely with the in the boundaries of 2339 Edgewater Way. So is this is is this is a temporary erosion control that is this just a roll of

Mr. Chair, Commissioner Wiscom. Yes. It's one of those little hostess 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 Thank you. Okay. Yeah. It's I mean it's it's there for the protection of everybody not only this property but neighboring property. So yeah.

Yeah, exactly. Yeah. Okay. Um and I'm not going to address the electrical service because I don't know enough about that and um I'm sure that will be taken care of. Um there was something see if I had any other on these comment letters. Um go ahead. Um thank you vice chair Deluchio and commissioner. Just wanted to um clarify that in rereading condition two, the one about the storm water with the lengthy detail, I do think it'd be um in our best interest to keep the intro of of two

I'm sorry, keep what? keep the introduction that says before design review final approval can be granted the BMPPS must comply with this the um the guidance manual and that um and that any other like so it's getting at making sure there's compliance prior to final approval fine yeah I I figured we just eliminate A through um J okay yeah okay through J is going but two C2 is staying just the Yeah. Yep. I think that's the right way to go there. Um Okay. Um I don't think I have anything else. 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. Um I've actually saw this I think two places. Where did I see this? Saw it there. Um yeah. Okay. So, construction parking in the CVA. It's on page five of 16 which is 24 of 513. Areas available for park all parking areas and access there too shall be kept open and available in the manner in which it was designed and permitted. Okay. And then construction parking this is on page 11 of the conditions of approval and 30 of 513. Um, I 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 it's always just cars everywhere and trucks everywhere. Um, so I I wanted to know is there going to be any parking available on site for workers? Maybe. Yeah,

Mr. Chair, Commissioner Wiscom, um 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 ft 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, um we'll be able to accommodate a lot of our construction trucks and 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 and and we get it.

Yeah. Okay. Um Okay. I would like to just add to this. It's not a it's a it's actually what I would call a fluff condition. Um parking on so under three on on there. Parking on site shall be encouraged um whenever possible. or something to that effect. Um, uh,

okay. So, we'll get to that since the since the neighborhood is so impacted and and I think I'm done. Um, um, if you think of something else, we'll come back to you. Yeah, I I'm through for now. Thank you. Thank you, Commissioner Bomwell.

Um, thank you, Mr. Chair. To the staff, I had one more question about it's on uh page your page so easy. Uh, 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 an last thing in are but the the system is the artificial turf, the ditch, landscaping, hardscape and the drainage system. Are we are you suggesting that that would be removed in 20 years? I don't quite understand what's going on there.

Uh through the chair, Commissioner Barnwwell, I believe that comes from our coastal policy. Um it could be re-evaluated or would need to be re-evaluated in 20 years and we can determine whether certain elements can stay or or need to come out as but it doesn't say that. Okay, we can it doesn't say that we're going to re-evaluate it in 20 years. It just says it expires. Um, so then it says when the permit term ends, these components shall be removed unless re-evaluation of the site shows they will still need. Yeah. But see, that doesn't sound like 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 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 are 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. Okay, that's what that's getting at.

Okay. Well, uh that's such an all-inclusive beginning statement. You know, the turf, the ditch, the landscape, the hardscape, and the drainage system. It doesn't spec 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. Have any other commissioners at this time? I do have another commission, Commissioner Bal.

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 and and why at one point they had a letter saying they're not there yet. 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 um Commissioner Beli? Yeah, there are a lot of geotechnical attachments that I included and I agree it's a bit excessive. Um, I submitted I uh attached them and as I was sort of walking through the history and what um, you know, was set at a certain time and here's the 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 the each submittal as a whole. Um 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 um studies and you know that's ultimately the correspondence that it refers to all the conditions all the recommendations in these documents. Um and I do apologize it's a bit confusing with

everything uh we attached but that is we went through an extensive process with the applicant team and our our uh 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. Okay. and relate I think um Megan Megan jump

I just wanted to add to Micard's um 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 so um 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. Um, so there was a little bit of back and forth of we see your conclusions. I agree with your setback. However, we this needs to be adjusted. Okay. And they would come back with an adjustment to the report. um and us not feeling comfortable again um because of even the circumstances changing of the the bluff failure itself needed that to be re-evaluated and made sure that um that we were again consistent with the LUP policies. I will say this is the first time we've had to deal with the um new um 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. Um, and the language in it is challenging. Um, and required both geotechnical engineers to kind of discuss the the approach and how we got there. So, um, I think it's a couple things. There was slight disagreements although we worked through them. And then also there were conditions that changed. Um, and then third is that this really wasn't first time applying some of those policies. Okay, thank you. So, related to the geotech is what I describe as dewatering. Uh, you know, we're on a coastal bluff and things tend to want to go to the ocean off 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 postal 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 um image here, this is a a rocklined V ditch. Essentially, there are drains in it that go to underground pipes that will it all eventually ends up out on in the main in edgewater. Um so that's again coastal policy that we don't want water to, you know, go over the edge of the bluff and Okay. So that's that's what that's

just wanted to confirm because that'd be a very important factor. Um, another question I have and it it's something that this site just sort of brings us to my attention is how we calculate F in this and F and 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 it leads me to sort of what 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 mea which may not have the case but the F is our rule. I understand that. But uh could you walk us through if we do discount things or don't discount things or how does slope come into place? I've gone through the calculations and this thing's you know right at the top of the you know F chart at the end of the day. So could you enlighten us a little bit on that?

Um I uh through the chair um to commissioner Belgi um F 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 um the code allows up to 100% F. I'm trying to see the size of this site if F even applies to this site based on the square footage. Um outside of Yeah, it's over 15,000 square feet. So F is strictly a guideline for the single family design board when thinking about uh size bulk and scale. It's not a a standard which would require a zoning modification if they wanted to go over 100%. It's 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 group that they they wouldn't even let you get to the 85 in some 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 narrowshaped lot in the first place. So could you explain?

Um I'll try. Um I know in the p I have not been to SFDB and maybe Mr. Herrick can speak to this in more detail or with more um recent knowledge. Um, in the past I know they they liked things to stay around 85%. That's kind of where they feel comfortable just being okay. Um, 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. Um, they can also look at surrounding residences in the neighborhood. They're essentially looking for neighborhood compatibility to see what are the

and 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. We do not have that here and why didn't we get that in this case? Uh that's a request that the SFDB can make of the applicant. So far they haven't made that request. Um I don't think it's a requirement. Um, I can I can let the applicant speak to this issue if you would like, Mr. Gor.

Hi, Mr. Chair. I might be the only one here, including out of staff, who was actually at all those SFDB hearings. So, and and this this was a topic at every single one of those hearings. And the way they look at it is F 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 F is just sort of it's a hammer. It's like are you roughly within it? Are you close to it? Is is 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 um our home is set back from the street like 150 ft away and you're not experiencing it right up on the street. Like maybe if this house was in the same location as like our neighbors 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 F 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 F. And as staff pointed out, when you get on sites that are over 15,000 square feet, the city's F guidelines and 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. Like you're going to see a huge difference if some house on that lot's 120% F versus everything around it is 60. That's going to be a wallto-wall Santa Monica McMansion. But if you're over F on a site that's as big as ours and as deep as ours and not visible from

everywhere, it's 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 and at the end of the day um they were supportive of it. And and I would also let you guys know that the the focus of even with F being brought up at every hearing and discussed their their main focus every time we went there had to do with like the architectural style. it. 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 neighbors house. And 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 acknowledge that. I mean, if you look at the photos of it, it it kind of is the same size, bulk, and scale of everything, regardless of what the actual mathematical F might be. It's it's just sort of similar to what's around it. So, that that was what the single family design board sort of arrived at.

And you went there multiple times and at least the notes we read, we were there three times

and at least at at least two of them, they kept raising F as a problem. And and I was wondering and then I noticed that the very last meeting in which they said it was okay, there was only three that voted and affirmative and one abstained and one recused themselves. So maybe you got lucky that they the other two weren't there or something. I'm I'm trying to understand that because my gut feeling is it's just too much for that side personally. Okay. 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 it was going to lead to. There are two policies in the coastal act that neighborhood compatibility are findings that this board needs to make. So I just want to confirm with staff that you know the coastal act actually does talk about neighborhood compatibility.

Thanks Sebastian. You want to come and maybe come up to the uh the mic and add to this?

Um thank you Vice Chair Delucio. Um yes, I just wanted to clarify with the discussion uh with what the applicant was discussing and um with floor area. Um so um uh Barbara pointed out that the um that the F is only guideline for this property because the property is so large and um when when the when it's not guideline and it's required floor area ratios. Um we do require applicants to supply the 20 closest lot home survey silhouette elevation and things like that. um just because that when it's required um once they reach the 85 and 100% uh benchmarks there are actual code limitation to the size of the home that it can be. Um for this property it was guideline. Um I did review the last hearing and yes there were only three uh board members there. Um I do remember in their motion in the in the previous motion from the mo uh from the minutes that they were going off of is they were trying to focus on trying to keep it around 85% F. That's usually a good guideline benchmark for ensuring that the massing of a home on different size lots is appropriate to uh a neighborhood. Um I have seen uh the board even for guideline projects uh request 20 uh the 20 closest lot home survey to give more context to make their findings. So um it will be up to the board uh for their project design approval findings to again assess the mass bulk and scale of the home. Um the last and previous hearings uh from the SFDB I do just want to clarify is that they were conceptual. They were just concept it was just conceptual. So it was a non-appealable action. Um so with the project as it was presented to them um which just changed even a little bit to the plans that we're seeing now. Um the board was generally comfortable with the mass bulk and scale, generally

comfortable with the sighting of the home compared to the context of the neighborhood and generally comfortable with the height. Um during project design approval, I'm sure it's going to get much more specific. Um and uh as we have uh more public comment and uh more context that way from the neighbors. Okay. Thank you. Um thank you. Just to clarify uh Barbara, what is the F

in this project? I just want to make sure because I've seen a bunch of numbers flying around at different review process and today and then another one 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 about thinking about 85% actually think about how ADUs are counted and and also are calculated and how do we make those distinctions and and so maybe Megan can start that one.

Was that a question? So, ADUs um through the chair, Commissioner Valky, ADUs are counted in the F now. Um but to your point, slope the sloped uh bluff top lot doesn't change. Um basically, they have the benefit of that additional lot area even if it's not usable. Um and then your other question was what is the exact Yeah. What what is this one? you know what will the single family if we the thing doesn't morph again uh what is it today without the ADU

is it 85 I believe this says 88% without the ADU um so I I think to answer your original question more about coastal policy related to scenic resources and neighborhood planning um um part of what we do rely on in in re responding to those policies is uh the opinion of the SFDB. Um, however, we're looking at impacts to public viewpoints. So, in this case, it's really a a view of the site taken from the public beach below. So, and as Mr. Goran showed in the one of his drone shots, he had a kind of from the ocean. Um, and it is pretty hard to see from the beach below the the buildable area of the site. So that's really uh one of the you know the main thing to consider here in terms of visual resources, scenic resources. Um there are um you know as you know Mesa Lane steps is public pedestrian access to the beach. It's very nearby. Um a little further uh east there is um a public lookout at the end of Oliver Road. Um so those things are are near and in the area. Um, 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 pole issue is going to go away. And uh, is that a yes or no? I mean, I remember it being there. This is why Chair Balkkey. Uh I'm sorry, Commissioner Balkkey through the chair. Um as a part of the lot line adjustment project, um which again is completely different from what's before you today. Um it was discussed the that the location of the utility pole, it would either be relocated or uh 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 um the coastal review and it's likely would qualify for an exemption as a utilities. Um so that's that's our role in it really. It's it's the applicants I I understand they have an agreement already as to what's happening with that utility pool and as Mr. Goran 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

there. There actually is no condition of approval in the lot line adjustment regarding the utility poll. It's really not our purview as I understand. It's it's an application that needs to go to the utility company and we would do the coastal review on that. It's it was discussed in the staff report. It was discussed in kind of what's the overall idea. How do we enforce that that it actually happens? That's where we're coming. It's not within the the city's ability to enforce. Mr. Chair, Commissioner Balky, it actually is a condition in the lot line adjustment. Um, it's a public works condition. It's spelled out has to be moved prior to recordation, I think. So, it's 100%.

Would you have an objection of cross referencing that? I don't have any objection. just and while you're up there, uh would your applicant because I and I understand your comment about uh short-term rentals, but this thing jumps off the page as a short-term rental. Okay. Just it 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 it's the site configuration of this very long thing is like the worst case scenario for such. Yeah.

Or a condition for precluding from being used for this short-term rental. Chair Bowkey through the chair. Our current Hold on. Our current ADU ordinance requires a covenant that um they won't be rented for 30 days or less. Yeah, that's okay. So, there you go. Yeah, it's it's an ADU. So, and ADUs in the state can't be used as 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 us. I I wasn't just talking about the ADU itself, but Oh, the house.

The house itself. Trust Trust me. It looks like a party house. Okay. As far as the ones up in Yankee Point, very very parallel. He he intends to live there with his wife and kids. Well, that's good to know. Okay. But we haven't heard that until Chair Bowie. Um through the chair, our or uh covenant also includes the provision that the main house can't be rented for 30 days. As long as that stays in the ordinance. Okay. Okay. Thank you. It's part of it actually all this stuff sort of dovetales because there's because there's an ADU here is what's triggering all of these things and and there is a recorded covenant and when you have an ADU you're also not allowed to use the primary residence as a short-term rental. Okay. Okay.

And one more uh the parking issue of your construction. I understand at some point in time there will be concrete poured for the ADU, concrete pou for the house, there'll 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 than you know supplies and such. Would you consider some kind of, you know, off-site location? Like, you know, a lot of these a lot of projects have off-site locations for parking for employees and they shuttle into a site through the chair, Commissioner Balky. I mean, I just don't know how practical that is. I mean, 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.

I'm not talking about shuttle bus or whatever kind of shuttle. I just don't think that that's practical. Are you talking about the employees working on the site or? Yeah, the employees working on the site. I think there's a condition here about they have has to be offsite 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 or off off site. This is what I talked about earlier. Yeah. So, it's construction parking. It's on page 11. And I wanted to add that to

Yeah. This is what I talked about earlier. The construction parking is on page 11 of 16. And I suggested that we add um just a line that says parking on site shall be uh encouraged whenever possible. I think I think parking off site in that area is is not possible. It's I live in that area. It's it's just there's no place that's really going to work that that you could isolate construction vehicles that would be convenient to that. It's better onsite. That's the point of my question because there is going to be a point when that because of the site constraints that when the ADU is foundation's poured and the house is foundation there not going to be a whole lot of places that you can put vehicles and people 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 and I mean I see that as a problem at that location. So was looking for some way to

one thing to get them somewhere else and they come in is is to the extent needed so that mean the neighborhoods already parking impact in the first place and I surely can't tell you to go put them over next to the Mesa steps because I think the coastal commission would have a problem with that from a coastal access point of view but looking at some

one thing that we've got going for us here is is regardless of where foundations for houses get poured we still have a 16T 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 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 site's 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 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 that it's affected them this much. But that's not my CL. My client didn't create that situation. and and I don't think it's 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 it's tough to agree with that.

Okay, thank you for that. Um do you have any other questions? No, that was the last one. Thank you. Okay. Uh Commissioner Peterson, can we go back to the ADU discussion here? Um Mr. 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. Um, you mentioned under existing ordinance that the house cannot be used for a short-term rental. Is that correct?

Our current covenant um Commissioner Peterson through the chair. Our current covenant um says that both the primary and the dwelling 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 to city council in 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. Right. And then um how there were like three or four hearings on this.

Uh correct from what I recall I believe uh Miss Burkheart was there I believe three conceptual hearings at SFD. Correct. Conceptual hearings. Uh Chair Deluchio there were three concept review hearings for this iteration of the project. There was a concept review earlier for the addition. Um well that answers my question because I know there were four. The one was a different was that was a different iteration of iteration of it, but the three and I know that the um the board single family review board they um it came back three times because they when they wanted some changes made. Correct. They were not happy with the design or something or what was

correct. They had comments for the applicant team to work through before they felt it was ready to uh 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. It's 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 and but in a sense it'll be a formal review next time. Correct. And and it's actually a new uh board is my understanding. There may be 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. that yeah I no I think it's a brand new board

brand new board I think so uh we'll yeah they'll they will be reviewing the previous videos minutes like um uh like the commission has before um looking at that. Okay. Um we're going to 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 Wiskum. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um I just going to say I I can um definitely make the findings and support the project with you know a couple changes that we've talked about um which is the um C2 striking A through J on let me 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 um parking, but I think I think in all um

you've been through enough and I think it's time to um move on to the next phase of life here and um uh I um think you've done things very thoroughly. Uh I appreciate um uh Miss Birkhart's efforts and also the fact that that the city hasn't did hire an independent um geotechnical engineer to to review review the the plans in relation to the um LCP policies. And um I thought that was 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 I hope as the project advances um if it does advance um that it um that you'll work with uh the neighbors that that on some of the issues that seem to be um still out there. Um, and that's really all I have to say.

Okay. Um, I don't see any others. So, I'm going to just briefly comment. Um, as far as this when it goes back to the the board again, single family reborn. Hopefully, you will look at the privacy issues one more time. If they can look at the windows and the balconies just to um to see see if anything could be worked out and for that um because I know you need to make your um good neighbor guidelines and your what is what you know what is the other word neighbor what's the other thing you have to pass neighborhood preservation ordinance findings or

you have to make the find neighborhood preservation ordinance there's five or six findings. Okay. Correct. So, that's just what I would like to see. Um, and also I know that there are three you're actually getting three uh there's three things covered under this conditional uh development permit today. It's obviously the development of the site which we we've we're dealing with and also I know that the um permitting work's been completed for the emergency uh de development permit and also you you're working through the abatement right now with the um with the the wall and and and all that. So, um I at this point um am am ready to to move this forward also. And um at this point, did you want to um I know we have some notes and some conditions you want to add to the resolution.

Condition approval. You would like Do you want me to make a motion? Is that okay? Did you do that?

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

Um and I I'll second it. May I? Yes, please. Can I add that my comments on 23 page 23 specifically that there when the 20-year permit expires uh 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 I may I as opposed to just leaving it like it is here. May I comment on that?

Yeah. I I have a question though and um so basically um I don't understand that actually because there's 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 um and then and then after 20 years they have to do um you need to evaluate uh these these um these um landscaping hotcape etc. So who's going to trigger that? Is it the applicant's going to come forward and say oh now it's time to evaluate this. Yeah that's the point. Well, I think I think Yeah.

Yeah. I my understand this is pretty standard I think in in u coastal development permits that this is there. But I think what Miss Burkhard said is when the permit term ends, these project components shall be removed unless re-evaluation of the site shows that they still meet the standards and conditions listed above. Um, and I I think that that's sufficient because I think if there's any sort of problems or failures or something um that we've covered it here um in terms of the re-evaluation and and the possible removal of whatever it is and the remediation or the mitigation for whatever whatever it happens to be.

You have the 20 years in there, too. That's contradictory. Well, I think that's why it's there is because that's I think it's a I think it's a maybe Miss Austringer wants to comment on it, but I think it's I think it's a I think it needs to be word smith. I don't know if we need to do it here. I I don't think we do. I think it's 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 Miss Arca or Miss Ostringer on this. That's a pretty standard condition of approval. I'm I'm not sure how to answer your question.

Um through the chair, Commissioner Bonwell. 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 um abide by. Um 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 on 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 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.

Um, and that that would have been contemplated and considered in their coastal development approval.

Well, thank you for that. I I um I'm a little uneasy with the the property owner, you know, that's like the fox guarding the hen house kind of thing. Uh, not that you guys are the foxes, but uh, who knows where the property is going to be in 20 years, but it if we're going to go to all this trouble, and it seems to me it's it's it's worthwhile to go to trouble because of the conditions of that lot. I I think we should um, 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 will be 20 years of 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.

Okay. And I I feel better about that, your explanation of that condition. Uh, also the Commissioner um Balkin, did you want to add something about the utility poll or the staff said it was was already in the conditions on the map or at least the applicant did. Okay. So, okay. So, we don't need

cross reference. It would be my preference, but um through the chair, Commissioner Balky. 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 Miss Burkheart stated. So, um I believe she's correct in that um although it was discussed as part of one of the things the applicant would need to deal with um 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 beyond, usually utility improvements fall with a coastal exemption. Um that's the city's role is the coastal review. Um but the permit for removal of the utility pull rest 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. Um, in my review, this CDP before you isn't dependent on that utility pole moving. So, um, or if that lot line adjustment were to not happen, the the development being approved today would would not have a zoning conflict or CDP conflict. So, I I'm not clear that it's necessary for this CDP improvement. However, the applicant has indicated that they're willing to um entertain that for that kind of assurityity that they're um they are moving forward with the intent to remove or relocate. So, I think that would be a a question for the applicant or um if they're if they're willing to basically include that as part of their scope of work of the approval today.

Go ahead. I I I think this is this is really crossing a line because this is really a utility company thing. Um Miss Burkhard 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 we have addressed it in this hearing today anyway. So it's it's in the record. So, um, I think at this point we we had you made the motion, Commissioner, uh, Wiskcom. 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 Deluchio. I'll begin with Commissioner Wiskam. Yes. Commissioner Barnwwell? Yes. Commissioner Peterson? Yes. Commissioner Balkkey?

No. And Vice Chair Deluchio? Yes. Okay. Commissioner Balkkey, do you want to provide

Yes. I I 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 if I it that is a very nicely designed project doing as much as you could within that envelope and and done very well and all the issues have been addressed. The intensity of the project I don't think it's 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 your the commission's decisions today decision today is appealable for 10 days in 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 fivem minute break. Yeah.

Okay. Do you feel Heat. Heat.

Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. baby. Hey

Heat. Hey, Heat. Hey, hey, hey. Hey. Hey. Hey. feel. Hey

Hey, hey, hey. Hey, Heat. Hey, Heat. Heat. Heat. N. Heat. Heat.

Heat. Hey, Heat. Heat. Heat. N. Um so we're going to move on to a discussion item now 25 East Mason Street and um 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 Braden here to give us our staff report.

Yes, thank you Chair Deluchio. Kelly Bratison with Community Development and as you stated we are looking at a property today at 25 East Mason. Um, 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 Anacappa and State Streets. And here's an aerial view of the property. You can see the structure. It's next to the what's known as the California Hotel, previously LaRrada and there's a parking lot to the upper right hand side of the building

and it's known as the Beacon building. Here's a Beacons building. Here's a street view of the project on the corner of Mason and Helena. Here is the zoning map. Um HRC2 zone is hotel and related commerce zone. It's also within the coastal zone um in an overlay for coastal The HRT, the HRC2 zone identifies specific uses as shown here on this slide, such things as um bicycle, roller skating, specialty, a gift shop, art galleries. But if you see here under B 2D, it says other visitor visitor serving or commercial recreational uses 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 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 Anakappa Street, I'm sorry, Mason and Helena Street, and then the odd-shaped building with the parking lot to the right. Um, the operations will include full food and beverage, private functions for wedding receptions, bar mitzvah, 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 uh as it exists today and on the right is the roof plan. That would be where the roof deck would be and um I will let

the applicant can describe their proposed uses in more detail and then we can have discussion when you're ready.

Okay. We'll have the applicant come up now. Um we typically give you 20 minutes. I don't know if you need 20 minutes. Okay. Uh, good afternoon everybody. Clay Herrell, architect AB Design Studio. Um, I'm mostly here to answer questions because I think there probably will be some from you all. Um, I will just offer a few things. Um, 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 b 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. Um, I'm gonna res 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. Um, well, now I see some I see we're going to go to comment first. We can we can actually probably do comment and um questions and comments together. Um Commissioner Balkkey. Oh, public comment. I'm so sorry. Do we have any public comments? Thank you, Vice Chair Deluchio. Uh 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 got in trouble. Um okay, now we're going to go to um commissioner questions. Maybe we'll lump it together with comments because I don't see a lot of lights coming on here. Um, so I I'll go first if nobody else wants to. I'd be more than glad to go first. Commissioner Wisam, did you have your light on? Commissioner Balky, I did at one point. When you you want to you you're welcome to go. Go ahead.

Okay. I think you jettison me. Um, Kelly, could you explain sort of how the property is currently used? Is it vacant in and that was sort of it's like some Okay, I'll I'll take either one. So, uh, Commissioner Bal through the chair. Um, currently the property is partially vacant. It's a three-story building, roughly 45,000 square ft. 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 in you're an architect, right? I'm not you're not the leasing guy. I guess I was going to ask

Don't ask me rates or anything like that. Okay. Okay. Okay. Um are they going to be actually holding weddings physically in the space 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 was just trying to understand how what's being proposed here would be comparable to the experience I had. Could you put the floor plan back up?

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, etc., etc. Office, general offices and things like that will be in this first floor space. The roof will 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 post ceremony functions, and then they leave. Okay, that's pretty much how that one worked too, but one level, not multiple levels. Okay,

so uh for the staff, so the question purely is is is to us is is consistent in the concept and you know sort of the like the wine tasting and the funk zone. Okay. It's to me it's generally consistent because, you know, it could just as easily be the hotel operating this same thing, a 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 just I'll put that out there.

Yeah. Oh, 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, uh through the chair and commissioners, um I do want to clarify that your perview 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. Um so whether we think this building is what you know ripe for that type of use, it would be any building and or new construction if you will in the HRC2 zone. So I do want to, you know, orient your discussion and your considerations as to whether we think this is consistent with the existing uses um that are outlined in the HRC2 zone in terms of visitor serving and if we think it's likened to that and appropriate. Um I do think the hotel um comparison is

is s is along those lines. But I just wanted to orient that um although the applicant is interested in the specific property, your determination today will affect the HRC zone in the future for all any other site as well. Could you put the map up? Yep. Once again,

and your packet um has the HRC2 zone um list of uses if you want to compare what's existing today um in that allowance. And this commission did um authorize a similar addition to those uses to include a was it yacht sales? Yes, Mr. Arga there was a project about in 2020 um 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. Yes, I remember that. Remember that? Yeah. So that was a similar type of situation on State Street,

same zone. Okay. Are you So my last question, which is why is this got two zones and what's the history of that? I mean, why why wouldn't it have been picked one or the other? But why did it this one just seem to be Yeah, you get a bonus. You get both. Is there some history to that there 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. Um I know it has do you have some of it has to do with coastal commission um

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 all added that additional layer. Um do you want to I'll do you want to come up and maybe try to address that? Sure, Mr. Chair, Commissioner Balky. Um, I'll do my best and if anybody's watching that actually knows the history, maybe they can call me. Um, when the OC zone was formed many, many years ago and they were reszoning this area, this particular building had Brooks Art Institute in it. Okay.

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. So, it has I'll take it. Okay. Okay. So, we're going to move on to Commissioner Wiskin.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um I I just want to clarify something, Miss Arsenga, if I may. Um we're this since this is a dual zone HR um HRC2 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 OC right

um through the chair commissioner wiscom so in when you have the dual zone property and this was a footnote to your memo. Um 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 meaning setbacks height, you know, 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 commercial. So those are getting at um offices and uh you know diving shops um things related to the ocean sales etc. So that has its own list of uses and wedding venue isn't as consistent with any of those. The 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. Um, so

I I just I Okay, you've got everything in here about the OC zone and there's a section um it's on page nine of the report uh of nine of 20. This is um in our municipal code 28 uh.22.010 and maybe Miss Austringer can help with this. Under B says the OC zone regulation shall apply to all development projects on land with a dual HRC2 uh SL HRC2 zoning designation. So, does that mean that the um does that does that mean that the OC zone regulations supersede the HRC2 regulations? What does that mean?

Sorry about that. That's okay. Um Commissioner Wish Whiskum through the chair and um Miss Arson can comment. I read it to be that they don't supersede them, but that they they just go together and you you choose if you're Yeah, that's that's the reference to the development regul. So when it comes to zoning standards, you defer to OC,

right? Right. So, so I read that as we should be looking at OC for for this particular request rather than HRC2 that that it that it that it it

Commissioner Whiskam I think what um Mr. I was trying to say is you can use either, but when it comes to like if you're saying that um okay, yes, the use for um a winery is allowed, but that winery use then triggers the zoning standards under OC. That's how I understood Miss Arseni to explain it that the like the setbacks would have to match and mirror what OC requires not what HR uh HR2 HRC2

can I ask the applicant what the applicant what did what were you applying for which zone I mean were you looking for it to be in use in both Z zones uh 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. Right. That's what I took. We're trying to do this or this. I don't know why we're getting confused about it. Right.

Well, I I was just confused because of this. I 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 that's kind of where this fits in. Is that right? Is that what you think? We're using the visitor serving aspect of it. Correct. Visitor serving or commercial recreational uses. Okay. And we don't have visitors serving in OC. Correct.

But we have it in. So that's why I was asking the question, does this 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. Yeah, I Oh, I can't. Yeah. Yeah, I I can I can kind of kind of kind of get to commercial recreational. Um I think and that's Mr. I can see I can see it in both zones to do.

Isn't this a double zone? The I mean know we don't really split it into parts, do we? We just it's HRC chair or 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 refer to for standards and uses. So that's 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 related to ocean related uses because we wanted to keep ocean related uses near the harbor and working harbor and near the ocean. So, if I can jump in, if we add it to the HRC's HR HRC 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 I think I think they have show merit. We're looking for visitors serving uses. This is all in the um 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 exclusively. That's not what we're being asked to do today. Is that 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. To do the right, they can. Yes. But this is not just about them

and then but anybody else in HRC2 can also use but I'm saying can we I'm saying maybe it should be expanded and include the OC as it as a as a use as long as we're doing it. So um I I wouldn't agree on that.

So in staff's opinion um we can see merit to wedding venue as being part of visitors 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 in you know recreation not

um whereas visitors serving um the only other thing in the OC is maybe restaurants. if you were expanding a restaurant, but I would argue that um that goes beyond a restaurant to have special events at the regular large scale. Commissioner, can I call Commissioner Peterson right now or you when when we go to Commissioner Peterson, do you have something you wanted to comment or question at this point or you Well, I I uh if we're in comments, I I have comments. I don't have questions. Yeah, you can ask. You can

No, I I would generally I would I would support this um I'd support the change in use. Similar enough in HRC2, 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 we we should this is desirable and we should do it. Okay. Commission Martin.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, yeah, I'm I'm 100% for it. I was in that those meetings in 86 that created this whole thing and it was a little bit of a jumble uh 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 and so my understanding of that back in those days was this was a bundle zoning. So the H the HLC and that they were all mixed together just like you're describing the pyramid zoning of 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. Um, 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. Uh, because you will have a wonderful view. And 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?

Uh, Commissioner Barwell through the chair. Um, the other two floors right now are empty. Oh, they're empty. Okay. But they are single floor plates and they're 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. Um thank you, Mr. Chair. Okay. And this Anybody else? Do you need a motion on this? Um I'll make a motion. I make make the motion uh to approve the staff recommendation and the findings. I'll second it. Okay. So, the motion is to add visitors serving to the HRC 2 zone. Wedding wedding venues to the HRC2 zone. Correct. Okay. Okay. Um, roll call, please. Vote. Thank you, Vice Chair Deluchi. I'll begin with Commissioner Barnwell. Yes. Commissioner Wiskam.

Yes. Commissioner Balkkey. Yes. Commissioner Peterson. Yes. Vice Chair Deluchia. Yes. Motion passes. Thank you. Thank you. 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 any committee and layers on reports? Do we Oh, staff hearing officer. I actually did watch the meeting. I need to get a life. Um I have actually have a report on that. Um does any anybody else have other committee and layers on reports? I don't hear any. If I can find and um

do we have discussion on subcommittee workshops? I have to find my report. I actually did I did watch the meeting and I have my report right here. Um yesterday um we were in the meeting. You were at the meeting also. You were the secretary. We at 1315 State Street. Actually, they didn't refer too much as an adaptive reuse project. It's actually a next door to the Arlington Theater. I think it was a wedding shop for years and years. Is that And now they're going to keep they're going to do adaptive reuse project. They're going to keep the storefront retail and they're going to ask six new residential units added to one on the first floor and the 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 uh the whole de uh development the project. So um but there's so many uh uses around there where you can get rec recreation. So um that was the rationale for approving it. ask. You said it was a wedding.

It was at the Marshall. Was that the Rose? You don't know if that was Marshall Rose's place. Um, 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 where I'm trying. So, at this point, um, we is when's the next isn't 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 it. Grab it. Heat. Heat. Hey.