Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Thank you. Thank you. you you Thank you. Thank you. so Thank you.

Welcome to the August 13th, 2026 Planning Commission hearing. I'll call the hearing to order at 1 p.m. Ms. Carmen, can we please have roll call?

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

Present.

Vice Chair DeLuccio.

Here.

Commissioner Bauke.

Here.

Commissioner Peterson.

Here.

And Commissioner Wiscombe. Here. We have a quorum. Thank you.

Thank you. We'll get started with preliminary matters. And the first topic on our agenda today is the request for continuances, withdrawals, postponements, or ex-agenda items. Ms. Arciniega, do we have any?

Thank you, Chair Voss. We do not.

Great. Was that announcements included? Nope. Do we have any announcements or appeals?

We do have announcements. I'd like a commission secretary to discuss the packet for your Monday special hearing with the City Council.

Thank you. So we should be getting it later today, and it'll be distributed to you, the full agenda and the staff reports for the joint hearing on Monday, and you'll be getting the packet for next Thursday's Planning Commission hearing. That'll be... come after this meeting today. It will be in the Gebhardt room, not in council chambers.

Great. Thank you. All right. We'll move on to item C, review consideration action on the Draft Planning Commission minutes and resolutions from two hearings. We'll take them separately, beginning with the July 2nd hearing. So I'll ask, are there any comments on the July 2nd minutes and resolution?

I do not have any comments on the July 2nd minutes or reso at this time.

Okay, thank you. And I'll ask my fellow commissioners if there are comments. I see Commissioner Wiscom.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I just would like Ms. Arciniega to bring up, we had asked her to revise the one section in the conditions of approval, and so if she could bring that up, and this would be our first chance, I think, to actually review it since she's called it to our attention that she's put it in language. Thank you.

Thank you to the chair, Commissioner Wiscombe. So as your motion on the 3235 Cliff Drive project, the commission directed staff to revise the language of condition, I think it's C-12, B-12, regarding the minor improvements on the bluff top and specifically the section of language that was intended to correspond to coastal land use policies regarding the minor improvements. There was concerns that the language was confusing to the applicant and perhaps others as to how the intention of that would play out. So the original language, if I can, is my screen being shared? Okay, thank you, is on the left. So this is the staff report and it was portion D that was of concern. So the approval of minor improvements is limited to a maximum of 20 years from the issuance of the CDP. When the permit term ends, the minor improvements shall be removed unless reevaluation of the site shows minor improvements still meet the standards. and conditions listed above, and a new CDP is approved to retain the minor improvements. So if the minor improvements still continue to meet the CDP requirements, then we typically would not issue a new CDP, and that was what your commission pointed out, we discussed. The concern would be more if something new was being put in in its place after being removed. So on the right is the revised language. Removal is required when they no longer meet the standards and conditions listed above. A new CDP may be required for plantings or site work subsequent to removal. So instead of sunsetting the minor improvements only when the entire CDP does not sunset, it would still be valid. So therefore, these improvements would be valid if they still complied. But if they were doing anything new, like putting in a tree or something in that location, that would require a new CDP and revisiting at that time.

And for clarity to the commission, if you would ratify these without edits, that's fine. If you want to make any edits to that section, we'll need to come back at the next hearing.

Commissioner Wiscombe? Yeah, I like this a lot. I think this is perfect, and I feel it's what our commission was looking for, especially the part about a new coastal development permit may be required for plantings or site work subsequent to the removal. I think that's exactly what we wanted. That's from my standpoint. Thank you.

Are there other questions or comments? That's my standpoint, too. That got me going about having to get a new permit. So I'll move these minutes.

Great. Do we have a second?

No, second. And the resolution also, I guess.

Yes. Apologies. The minutes and the resolution. Ms. Carbin, can we have a roll call vote? Or I'm sorry, is there any public comment on the July 2nd minutes or resolution?

We did already open public comment for the second.

Okay.

Thank you. You ready for the roll call then? I'll start with Commissioner Bauke.

Abstain.

Commissioner Peterson.

Yes.

Commissioner Wiskin. Yes. Vice Chair DiLeggio.

Yes.

And Chair Boss. Yes. Motion passes. Thank you.

Okay. Now we'll move on to the July 9th minutes and resolution. Are there any public speaker comments for these minutes or resolution?

I do not have any public speaker comments at this time for the July 9th minutes.

Great. Then do we have any commissioner comments or questions on these minutes or resolution?

Mm-mm.

Okay. Then a motion would be in order to approve the July 9th Planning Commission minutes and resolution.

So moved. I'll second that.

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

Thank you. I'll begin with Commissioner Wiscom.

Abstain.

Commissioner Peterson.

Yes.

Commissioner Bauke.

Yes.

Vice Chair DeLuccio. Yes. And Chair Boss. Yes. Motion passes. Thank you. All right.

Thank you. It takes us to item D, comments from members of the public pertaining to items that are not on today's agenda. Do we have anyone in person or remote who would like to give public comment on items not on today's agenda?

Thank you, Chair Boss. At this time, I don't have any speaker slips for in-person public comment under general, but I would like to... If anyone in the audience would like to speak at this time, you can approach the podium and I would just like to remind the audience that if you want to speak under a specific item on today's agenda that you can fill out a speaker slip at the back of the room and bring it up to me and I'll call your name under that item. But since nobody is approaching the podium, we do not have any participants online and we did receive general written correspondence from Onalisa Hoods and I'll give it back to you.

Great, thank you. We'll move on to our new item, One Hot Springs. The purpose of this hearing is to consider action regarding a mitigated negative declaration and monitoring reporting program and a recommendation for city council regarding local coastal program amendments. We have staff here to provide a presentation first. They'll introduce themselves during the presentation. Ms. Plummer, the floor is yours.

Thank you, Pilar Plummer, City of Santa Barbara Planning and Zoning Division staff. And I will be giving the presentation for this project. You all can see my screen, right? Up there? Yes, OK, good. OK, so the project site is at 1 Hot Springs Road. And as noted, the discussion for the Planning Commission today is regarding the local coastal program amendments. This is the project site, so you'll see it outlined here in yellow. It's in proximity to Highway 101. There's the Cabrillo Boulevard, and this here is Channel Drive, also in proximity to Andre Clark Bird Refuge. The purpose of the hearing, as noted in the staff report, is for Planning Commission to take action on a mitigated negative declaration and mitigation and monitoring reporting program that is attached to that, and then provide recommendation to the City Council on a local coastal program amendment for a zoning map amendment to change the zone from R1 SD3 to R3 SD3. SD3 and then a local coastal program amendment to change the coastal land use designation from parks open space to medium density 12 dwelling units per acre. The project, while we're looking at the amendments today and not the full context of the project, I am going to be speaking about it just in relationship to what's ultimately going to be proposed there. So there is a 22-unit residential development. You will have seen this at the initiation hearing. I'll cover that a little bit more in detail when we go through the background of the project. But it entails two- and three-story townhouses comprised of a unit mix of five studios, five two-bedroom units, 12 three-bedroom units. And the project would include two units or 10% of the total to low-income households. The average unit size is 1,421 square feet and the proposed density is 11 dwelling units per acre. The parking proposed onsite is 50 parking spaces. The majority of those are in private garages. There's one uncovered space that's also going to be assigned to a unit. And then there's 10 guest parking spaces. So as some background, the initial SB 330 application submitted by the applicant was in 2023 under Builder's Remedy. At that time, it was requiring 20% of the total units to be allocated to low-income households. That's just required for Builder's Remedy. that since that initial submittal, the project is no longer under Boulder's remedy, but solely the variable density program for the city. So I'll cover that a little bit more later. IN APRIL OF 2024, THE CITY REVIEWED THE PRT APPLICATION FOR THE PROJECT LOOKING AT THE DESIGN AND OVERALL REQUESTED DESIGNATIONS AND WAS IN GENERAL SUPPORT OF THE PROPOSAL TO PROVIDE HOUSING BECAUSE THIS IS A VACANT LOT AND TO BE CONSISTENT WITH RESIDENTIAL USES THAT CAN BE ALLOWED ON LOS PATOS WAY AND COAST VILLAGE ROAD. The formal application, just to cover some dates, was submitted in June 12, 2024. We did the Planning Commission initiation hearing in April. And Planning Commission at that hearing initiated the local coastal program amendments and also conceptually reviewed the project. In September, the Historic Landmarks Commission conceptually reviewed the project. Then in March, it was deemed complete. WE ALSO SUBSEQUENTLY PREPARED A CONSISTENCY REVIEW ANALYSIS OF THE PROJECT AND DETERMINED THAT PROVIDED THE PROJECT DOES RECEIVE THE LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AMENDMENTS TO CHANGE THE ZONE AND LAND USE DESIGNATION, THE PROJECT WOULD BE CONSISTENT WITH THE R3 ZONING. ALSO AS PART OF THAT CONSISTENCY REVIEW, It was determined that the project would require an initial study. And the trigger for that is because of the amendments, not so much the development itself, but because of the amendments proposed. And then in June of 2026, we completed the public review period for the initial study and draft MND. AND THAT LEADS US TO WHERE WE ARE NOW. SO FOR THE CURRENT PROJECT STATUS, AS I MENTIONED, THEY ARE PROPOSING THE DEVELOPMENT UNDER VARIABLE DENSITY. THE MUNICIPAL CODE DOES EXEMPT RENTAL HOUSING FROM INCLUSION REQUIREMENTS BUT THE APPLICANT IS STILL PROPOSING TO DO 10% OR TWO OF THE TOTAL UNITS TO BE AFFORDABLE TO LOW INCOME HOUSEHOLDS. And then instead of bringing the coastal development permit and modification with the amendment package, we're bifurcating that so that those actions will be coming back to the Planning Commission later. Part of the reason for that is the applicant is studying some potential adjustments to site planning. We don't believe that that's going to be affecting density, total number of units, but we do want to capture any of those changes with the coastal development permit when it comes before you. provided the amendments are granted. So by your recommendation, then by city council, the project would return to the planning commission for those actions, the coastal development permit and modification. SO ON THIS SCREEN, YOU WOULD HAVE RECEIVED THIS IN YOUR STAFF PACKET AS WELL. THIS IS JUST TO REPRESENT A LAND TRANSFER THAT OCCURRED. SO SINCE THE PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEWED IT IN 2024, THIS LITTLE PARCEL HERE, TRIANGULAR PARCEL, WAS PREVIOUSLY OWNED BY THE CITY. IT IS NOW SOLELY OWNED BY THE CEMETERY AND IT'S PART OF THE OVERALL PROJECT. As part of that, the city now owns a small piece here, which represents the historic watering trough and fountain, which is a city landmark. And you can see that in more detail here. So the watering fountain trough is in this little location here. And again, this is now owned by the cemetery. There's also this acquisition noted as part of the CABRIO BOULEVARD EXPANSION. THIS HAS NOT BEEN COMPLETED YET SO I'M JUST PUTTING IT HERE FOR REFERENCE BUT IT IS ULTIMATELY GOING TO BE GOING THROUGH AN ACQUISITION PROCESS. IT JUST HASN'T BEEN DONE YET. OKAY. And then you would have seen this at the initiation hearing, but just again for context, you can see the widening of Carrillo Boulevard that slightly encroaches on the project site, but the improvements associated with the Highway 101 project are not anticipated to impact this development. Okay. SO AS FAR AS THE REZONING PROCESS, IT REQUIRES INITIATION WHICH WE'VE COMPLETED AS OF AUGUST 15, 2024 TO CHANGE THE ZONE FROM R1 TO R3. AS MENTIONED, THE CURRENT ZONING IS R1. THAT ONLY ALLOWS FOR A SINGLE UNIT RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT. SO THEY COULDN'T DEVELOP IT WITH THE 22 UNITS THAT THEY'RE PROPOSING I ALSO WANT TO POINT OUT THAT THIS IS, THAT THIS ZONING IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE CURRENT GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION WHICH IS PARKS OPEN SPACE WHICH DOESN'T HAVE RESIDENTIAL. SO THAT'S ANOTHER PITFALL OF THE CURRENT ZONING AND GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION OR COASTAL LAND USE PLAN DESIGNATION. And then the proposed zoning, we did the analysis for that, and it would be consistent with R3, allowed density, and a multi-unit residential development. So staff is recommending that zoning designation. This is an overview of the project site. You can see it's R1. So again, we're recommending R3. A lot of this area is parks. I do want to also point out this site, which is vacant, has not been planned for a park. So again, we're supportive of multi-unit residential housing at this location. And then regarding the coastal land use designation change, it's currently parks open space, which doesn't allow residential use. As mentioned, there's no park use plan at this location. We're proposing to do medium density residential 12 dwelling use per acre, which would be consistent with the proposed density the applicant is requesting for their project. And it would also be consistent with the zoning. THE PROJECT SITE IS IN THE EAST BEACH COMPONENT AREA OF THE CITY. THIS LITTLE PIECE HERE IN GREEN REPRESENTS THE PROJECT SITE. And you can see here is Los Patos Way, which does allow for some residential uses, as mentioned. You can also do some residential over here. The major coastal component issues in this area is flooding along Sycamore Creek, erosion and coastal flooding with sea level rise in the laying areas. Tidal influence and creek inflows of the Andre Clark Bird Refuge. And I do want to point out that there's no coastal issues that have been identified for this particular project site. In terms of consistency with the Coastal Act and Coastal Land Use Plan, the project site is in the non-appealable jurisdiction of the coastal zone, so we, with the Coastal Development Permit, do need to review that. When this project returns for the Coastal Development Permit, I'll do a more complete analysis with the project incorporated in it. But in general, the project is consistent with a number of policies, so Policy 2.1-1, for increased densities for affordable housing because they are proposing to provide two low-income units. The project will not affect public access to the ocean or other resources in the coastal zone. The project is also consistent with a number of scenic resources and visual quality policies really about design review, compatible development, and non-impacting scenic resources such as the Andre Clark Bird Refuge. Just given the location of the site, the proposal, again, it's two and three stories right now, doesn't have the ability to affect public views of Andre Clark Bird Refuge or the ocean. AND AGAIN, WE ARE NOT DOING AN ANALYSIS OF THE PROJECT FOR THE COAL SOIL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT TODAY BUT I DO HAVE THE PLANS, A COUPLE OF SHEETS FROM THE PLANS FOR REFERENCE JUST SO YOU CAN SEE WHAT THE OVERALL CONCEPT IS. AS I MENTIONED, THE APPLICANT IS STUDYING SOME SITE PLANNING CHANGES. WE DO ANTICIPATE THOSE TO BE PRETTY MINOR, MAYBE CHANGING THE HEIGHT OF SOME BUILDINGS OR POTENTIALLY ADDING ANOTHER BUILDING, BUT AS I SAID, IT WOULDN'T INCREASE THE NUMBER OF UNITS PROPOSED ULTIMATELY OR THE OVERALL FLOW OF PARKING THROUGHOUT THE SITE. INCLUDED IN THE STAFF REPORT WAS A ZONING STATISTICS PACKAGE. AS REFERENCED IN THE TABLE, THE PROJECT IS CONSISTENT WITH R3 STANDARDS EXCEPT FOR SOME MODIFICATIONS THAT WILL BE COMING TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION WITH THE COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT PACKAGE. SO THERE'S SOME ENCROACHMENTS. YOU'LL BE ABLE TO SEE THOSE A LITTLE BIT MORE ON THE SITE PLAN AND ROOF PLAN THAT I'LL SHOW NEXT. BUT THE PROJECT IS CONSISTENT WITH ALLOWED BUILDING HEIGHT, CONSISTENT WITH PARKING, CONSISTENT WITH LOT AREA REQUIRED UNDER VARIABLE DENSITY STANDARDS, ALLOWED DENSITY AND THEN OPEN YARD STANDARDS AS WELL. SO REGARDING THOSE MODIFICATIONS, WHICH AGAIN WE ARE NOT ACTING ON TODAY, MOST OF THEM ARE PRETTY MINOR IN NATURE. I'D SAY THE ONES THAT ARE A LITTLE BIT MORE IS THE LOCATION OF SOME TRASH ENCLOSURES THAT HAVE BEEN REVIEWED BY ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES AND OUR TRANSPORTATION DIVISION AS WELL, AND THOSE ARE PREFERRED LOCATIONS FOR ACCESSIBILITY FOR MARBORG. THERE'S ALSO SOME ROOF AND DECK AREAS WHICH HAVE MINOR ENCROACHMENTS, BUT THEY ARE FAIRLY Like I said, fairly minor. And the Historic Landmarks Commission previously said that they were aesthetically appropriate. So we'll see if there's any changes to those before it comes back to Planning Commission. Again, with those site changes, but for now, those modifications would come at a later date before you. This is a landscape plan overview. And then in terms of design review, with respect to the LCP amendments, the amendments themselves do not require design review, but the overall design was previously reviewed by the Historic Landmarks Commission in 2024, and they provided favorable comments on the design with some suggestions on the overall layout of the site. We'll be bringing the project back conceptually to the HLC depending on those changes before it comes to you so you'll have fresher comments. And then in terms of environmental review, so as said with the local coastal program amendments, we needed to do an initial study. The initial study ultimately concluded that with a few mitigation measures, the project would not result in significant environmental impacts. As mentioned, we did our public review period that recently concluded in June. THIS WAS POSTED FOR PUBLIC ACCESSIBILITY ON THE CITY'S WEBSITE AND ALSO WAS SUBMITTED TO THE STATE CLEARINGHOUSE. WE DID NOT RECEIVE ANY COMMENTS ON THE DOCUMENT. THERE WERE A COUPLE OF ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS THAT WERE NOTED IN THE MND, BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES, NOISE, CULTURAL RESOURCES, HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. SO YOU WOULD HAVE SEEN THOSE IN THE MITIGATION, MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM AND I DO HAVE A LINK IF WE WANT TO LOOK AT ANY OF THOSE IN MORE DETAIL. BUT ULTIMATELY IN TERMS OF NEXT STEPS, PROVIDED THE PLANNING COMMISSION TAKES ACTION AND DOES THE RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL, WE'D NEXT BE GOING TO CITY COUNCIL FOR THESE AMENDMENTS, FOLLOWED BY COASTAL COMMISSION FOR THOSE AMENDMENTS. ON A SIMILAR TRACK, ONCE WE KNOW THE SITE PLANNING CHANGES TO THE DESIGN, WE WOULD BE BRINGING THE PROJECT BACK TO THE HISTORIC LANDMARKS COMMISSION FOR CONCEPT, THEN TO PLANNING COMMISSION FOR THE MODIFICATION COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT. HLC for design approvals and permits at that point. And that gets me to the recommendation. So recommending to adopt the MND and MMRP based on the findings in the staff report and also to recommend the amendments to council. And if you have any questions, I'm here. Otherwise, the applicant team is also present. Thank you.

Thank you. And do we have a presentation from the applicant as well? Okay, please.

Great, thank you. Good afternoon, Chair and Commissioners. I'm Brian Holland, one of the developers behind the proposed project at One Hot Springs Road. First, I want to thank city staff, particularly Pilar, Megan, and Allison for the tremendous amount of work that is gone into getting us to today's hearing. When we first appeared before the Planning Commission, I think it was almost exactly two years ago, we presented a fairly simple idea, which was to take a privately owned site that has sat vacant for decades and create a thoughtfully designed, relatively low density residential community that feels appropriate for this unique location. At that hearing, the commission unanimously initiated the land use amendments, finding that the site was suitable for multifamily housing, and that the proposed density was appropriate. Since then, we've spent two years working through the city's process, refining the project, and completing a comprehensive environmental review. Today, we're proposing 22 homes on approximately 2.4 acres. That's net of the plan taking, which Pilar mentioned earlier. about 11 units per acre with 50 parking spaces, substantial open space, and two homes voluntarily reserved for lower income households, even though the project is not subject to the inclusionary requirement. Just as important for today's decision, the environmental work is now complete. The city's analysis concluded that with the proposed mitigation measures, the project will not result in significant environmental impact, and no public comments were received during the draft MND review period. We believe this is an unusually good opportunity to add housing in Santa Barbara on a long vacant site adjacent to existing development and public infrastructure without displacing a single existing resident or removing any existing housing. We also recognize that today is not the end of the process. We will be back before this commission, before the coastal development permit, and before HLC as we continue to refine the architecture and site plan. For today, we respectfully ask that you adopt the final mitigated negative declaration and recommend approval for the local coastal program amendments to the city council. Thank you for your time. Happy to answer any questions.

Great, thank you.

And the cemetery is also here and would like to provide a statement.

And do you have a statement as well? Please.

Hi, my name is Rick Hoffman. Geologists and hydrogeologists here in town been here for about 50 years now. I'm a board member of the cemetery They found me because I was trying to help them with their water bills. They had $15,000 a month water bills Rick can we find water out here? Yeah, you can find water, but it ain't gonna be very good Anyway, they ended up recommending me to be on the board. I've been on the board for about 12 years now The cemetery is nonprofit group We sustain our $2.3 million annual budget by sales of plots and grave sites. We also have an endowment care fund that generates income. It's a widows and orphans kind of investment, but mainly bonds and some equities. We probably have one or two more generations of plots to sell. We don't know how long or how many will be available through the long term, but we need to maintain our economic sustainability over the long term forever. And when Brian and his group came to us to look at this property for development, it was very, very attractive for us. It was a good way to generate long-term income for us. We totally supported it. We do again now hope that you can approve the amendment to the LCP. We fully back it 100%. We think this is a real good project for this type of area. Thanks, you guys. Any questions? Thank you.

Great. Thank you both. That takes us to comments from members of the public pertaining to this specific item. Ms. Carmen, do we have anyone in person or remote who would like to comment on this item?

Thank you, Chair Boss. So I did have one speaker slip, but he just spoke. So if anyone else would like to speak under this item, under public comment, you can approach the podium at this time. Otherwise, I will move to virtual participation. But I'm not seeing any movement towards the podium. We do not have any participants online, and we didn't receive any written correspondence for this item either, so I'll give it back to you.

Great. Thank you. I'll now open it up to my fellow commissioners for questions, and then after that, we'll move to deliberations and comments. Commissioner Wiscom.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I just have a couple, hopefully, quick questions. Some relate to the plans. I think the first one I'm just going to go to, because I'm confused about, and maybe I see Ms. Pujo there, the mitigation, the monitoring and reporting program matrix for Bio 1 tree replacement and for the removed oak tree. It talks about trees, condition of the subject trees to evaluate the replacement success and then should any tree of the tree plantings exhibit poor declining health below the recommended replacement requirements. I'm just asking, are we doing this just for the oak tree, or are we doing this for all the new trees on the site? I was confused by the language in this one.

Commissioner Wiscombe, so the impact is related to the removal of native trees? Removal of what? of native trees, of oak trees, and so in the MMRP, the mitigation is directly related to oak tree replacement. However, I believe there's also coastal policies that require tree replacement that are in addition to this mitigation measure. Is that correct?

Thank you, Ms. Pujo. Yes, so this MMRP is specifically, as Ms. Pujo mentioned, about the native trees. There are coastal policies, and when the coastal permit comes forward, we'll have other conditions of approval applied to other trees on site.

So is this one just going to the oak tree, or is this one going to all of the native trees on site that get planted? That's my main question. Or will you have other policies that apply to the native trees, and this should be specifically revised to apply just to the oak tree, the new oak tree that's getting planted, the 48-inch box oak tree? Do you follow what I'm saying? Because it's confusing. It talks about Tree replacement for removed oak tree, and then it says the monitoring effort will consider growth, health, and condition of the subject trees. So it's plural. So that's where I'm confused about is this applied just to the oak tree, and then we're going to have other mitigation measures for the other native trees that get planted, or should we revise this to include those?

Is that... Yes, I understand. I believe it should apply to all the native trees.

Okay. Then we should probably revise the title of Bio 1, right? Tree Replacement for Removed Oak Trees. Are we removing other native trees? I remember we saw that the first time we saw this. I can't remember. Are we removing other native trees and replacing them?

So through the chair, Commissioner Wiscombe, I'd recommend saying tree replacement for removed native trees.

For removed native trees or newly planted native trees? Because this is what we're doing is monitoring the new trees for five years. So I think the title should change to reflect that.

I believe the removed tree is a oak tree and that's... Tree replacement for removed oak tree and native trees.

That would probably cover it. And then my follow-up question is what's our ratio? Because I think we saw that last time, but I didn't see anything in the documents about how many native trees we're removing and what's the ratio of removal to replacement?

Or replacement to removal, however you want to...

It's usually two to one, but, and it looked from the landscape plan like there were lots of trees, new trees, but. Okay.

I believe it's in Exhibit C. Oh, is it? Yeah. Okay. That's what it talks about.

What does it say?

I read it yesterday. Let me find it. Tree protection. The whole thing on trees, it's like it says one-to-one.

One-to-one. Yeah. Okay. Isn't our policy normally two-to-one?

One-to-one is for non-native trees, and then it's typically higher for oak trees and It's variable depending on the recommendation from the arborist, so I would expect it to be higher.

Could it go as high as 10 to 1?

Yes, correct.

Okay, so in this case, it's 1 to 1.

I believe the 1 to 1 is referring to the other non-native trees.

Oh, okay. I missed that section. I apologize.

It does say 1 to 1. Then it says this standard can also be increased up to 10 to 1 depending on the type of the tree removed. Yeah. lot size and size and expected survival rate of replacement trees. That's in BIO on page four of the conditions of approval.

Okay. So we should go, okay. We just want to make sure that's in there somewhere in terms of the requirements when it's there. Okay. And then I had a question on the trash enclosure. It's seven feet high with a landscape screen. And then I just wondered, is it also screened on the Cabrillo Boulevard side? I couldn't see that in there. Ms. Plummer, maybe you pull up... the landscape plan which might be slide 23 it's the slide before slide 24. because i see where the oh so and oh it is it is screened on that side okay i want to say that the uh cabrillo boulevard project will also be having a retaining wall so you won't be able to see it good okay that's great thank you and then my last question relates to the number of affordable units so Okay, first of all, what we see in the plans, I think, is four, and I know it's gone down to two, and I thank you for putting in any. I think that's very commendable that you're doing some affordable units. I just wondered what the mix of them is going to be. Have we determined that yet? Are you gonna do a studio and a three bedroom?

It's to be determined. It will maintain to be proportionate.

Okay, you should come up here just because this is public record, so.

Commissioner Wiscombe. It'll continue to be proportionate based on the updated unit mix when we represent to HLC and then eventually Planning Commission.

Okay. And then I would just want to make sure Mr. Holland, right? Yeah. I just want to make sure when you come back, if you've changed the unit mix, that you are still going to do 10%. Yes. Okay. You're committing to that here at this hearing? Great. Okay. Thank you for that. I think that completes my questions. Thank you. You're welcome. All right. Thank you, Vice Chair DiLuccio. Okay.

Are there other questions from commissioners? Commissioner Bauke.

I've got a question for the applicant or the architect. I'm trying to understand sort of this is a very long and windy process that we have here that you're going through, and I did take the time to view the September 2015 25 HLC Presentation and discussion and I was looking at your plans and the question is This what we're seeing at least in our package now seems to be very very similar to What they saw in 25?

They had a whole lot of very very specific

And honestly, the minutes were pretty nice, honestly. They were a little bit more clear and direct, especially 3, 4, 5, 3, 4, 6, and 7. It's very, very soft language. But they were very, very clear of some need for some redesign. Is there a package of redesign that's been done yet? Or is that yet to come?

commissioner bauke we're in the process of a redesign right now um the designs uh are are close uh we we did we did not feel ready to submit a redesign at this point uh which was the impetus for bifurcating the land use portion versus the design portion so we plan to be back in october at the latest with updated designs the overall spirit and intent of the project with the wounder adhering to you know, Spanish-style architecture that's appropriate for the El Pueblo Viejo District is going to remain intact.

Okay, because it seemed like they were very clear of being supportive of the concepts on a general level, and I believe we were, too, when we saw it last time. It's the devil's in the details now in the architecture after we get past this next point, so I just want to make sure you're on that page.

Okay, thank you. vice chair delugio you have a question maybe it's for the applicant and the city attorney will tell me if i can't ask the question but um first i'm glad that bill the remedy went away okay um but these are going to be for sale no before they were going to be for sale always for rent rentals uh always for rent okay so now so you went from four to two uh low income

Households because you change the the way you're gonna do it removing the builders and and going with the zone right and in there in the the background behind that was it's it's Unclear as to the applicability of builders remedy to the coastal zone. So we have kind of abandoned the builders remedy path and And went to a normal entitlement track.

Okay. Thank you for clarifying that for me Any other questions?

I have one I just forgot, which was at the HLC meeting. There was a discussion at the very, very tip point of the triangle, I'll call that, about the use of the park area or was going to be a play area. I wasn't sure if that's been resolved on your side, Mr. Holland.

unresolved. We're studying it now, whether it's going to be an amenity for the project, including a play area. But we will present detailed amenity plans when we come back in October. Okay, thank you.

Commissioner Peterson.

Thank you. I have a question for the city attorney or for staff. Is the applicant entitled to use state density bonus in this project? Do they have the ability to?

Through the chair, Commissioner Peterson, yes, they can.

Can I just ask the applicant why you chose to go through the local planning and not state density bonus?

Yeah, I'm happy to take that, Commissioner Peterson. I think when we first set out for the project, it's currently zoned parks open space. We anticipated a difficult and lengthy entitlement track. The goal was not to push density and to create something that was going to be difficult to get entitled and invite public scrutiny. So the density as planned is very intentional.

And then my second question is, why did you choose rental and not ownership, say condos?

The ground lease structure. So as developer, we have a long-term ground lease with the cemetery doing for sale with the ground lease would make it incredibly challenging. Thank you.

Those are my questions.

All right. I just have a question for staff. I'm trying to understand how or why the process takes two years. So we voted to initiate this just shy of two years ago today. And even after this, it goes to city council, coastal commission, planning commission, HLC, and then permits. So I assume that will take another couple of years and just trying to understand why it takes so long.

THROUGH THE CHAIR, I'LL JUST GIVE A BRIEF COMMENT AND THEN I'LL TURN IT OVER TO MS. ARCENIGA IF SHE WANTS TO SAY ANYTHING ADDITIONAL. ONE THING I DO WANT TO POINT OUT IS SO WE DID THE PRT PROCESS FIRST. THE FORMAL APPLICATION CAME IN IN THE SUMMER OF 2024, ESSENTIALLY JUNE. PRETTY QUICKLY AFTER THAT WE DID THE INITIATION AND THEN THE HLC REVIEW AND THEN DEEMED COMPLETE. SO THAT'S PRETTY CONSISTENT WITH OUR NORMAL ENTITLEMENT PROCESS. REALLY THE MORE LENGTHY COMPONENT OF THIS PROJECT WAS PREPARATION OF THE INITIAL STUDY, GETTING CONTRACTING FOR THAT, AND THEN DOING THE PUBLIC REVIEW PERIOD ONCE THE INITIAL STUDY IN MND WAS DONE. SO THAT'S REALLY ELONGATED THE PROCESS FOR THIS. I WILL SAY FOR NEXT STEPS, GOING TO CITY COUNCIL, WE'RE LOOKING TO DO THAT IN SEPTEMBER, SORT OF MID-SEPTEMBER, AND THEN SUBMITTING TO COASTAL COMMISSION RIGHT AFTER THAT. THIS IS A MORE MINOR PROJECT FOR COASTAL COMMISSION TO LOOK AT JUST GIVEN THAT IT'S ONE PROJECT SITE COMPARED TO, SAY, CHANGING OUR HOUSING ELEMENT OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT. So we're hopeful that that'll move forward a lot more quickly and then we can get this through the process.

Thank you. Great. Thank you. I appreciate it. We'll move now to Commissioner deliberations or comments related to the recommended findings and actions. I believe this is on pages 1 and 2 and 9 and 10 of our staff report. It was also slide 27. Any Commissioner deliberations or comments?

Okay.

I don't see you. Commissioner Wiscombe.

Someone did in front of me. I commend the applicants on the project and also the sticking to it. I know it's a long process. I think the fact that this is long-term income for the cemetery is very appropriate. That's a public asset we have here and I think that this project is perfect for that area. And I'd also, again, just like to commend the applicants for the two units of affordable housing. Most people, a lot of developers run away from it. As soon as they don't have to do it, they run away from it. But I think that it shows it's the right thing to do. And I think it will work out well for you in the long run. I like the project. I think there are some minor glitches to be ironed out in it, but it's a big project as you go through it. And I think you've done a really good job of fitting it well on the site. And I appreciated HLC's comments. I think they're actually pretty minor, considering. I hope that process moves along quickly. I'd just like to thank you and thank city staff too for moving this along and keeping it going. Thank you.

Thank you. Vice Chair DiLuccio.

I agree with the chair about streamlining. That's a whole other issue but there's so many steps that applicants have to go through and the city keeps saying they're going to address it so hopefully they will start addressing that. I want to commend staff. You guys did a great job sticking with it. And the environmental document is really great. And also, the mitigation monitoring report in MMD is to the letter. And I know that you may have to revise some, tweak it a little. And I do want to commend the applicant for the work you've done on this and to volunteer two low-income household units um for we would have loved four but you didn't have to give us anything and you're going to give us two and and i do like the way that the developer is working with the cemetery and and and you're going to get income for years to come on on the property so hopefully when it comes back to us we'll give you final approval on this thank you thank you commissioner peterson thank you i want to echo what has been said um

Oftentimes, when we're up here, developers or those building housing just do the minimum amount of affordable units, and you've gone above and beyond, and I know it's only two, but it is significant, and I'm appreciative of that, and I think we're all appreciative of that up here. I also echo the comments that anything we can do to move projects along quicker will help us get more housing in this place. Thank you.

Thank you. Commissioner Bauke.

There'll be a little bit of a reverb here that I agree with all the comments my fellow commissioners have. And I definitely want to appreciate Mr. Holland for you getting together with the cemetery. I've been in this town for a long time, and I never even knew that piece of property existed. And I still, when I drove by it a couple days ago, I was like, where is this site? And so it's interesting that there is these sites of opportunity around town that we have yet to come about. And I definitely would support the actions that we have before us, but do clearly express that Listen to your folks at HLC as to the design things. You have an opportunity to do something very special here. It's a very, very key site when you actually know where it is, especially the Montecito adjacent neighborhood, if we'll call it that. And listening to Mr. Limpick's comments, I would hope you take those to heart. I think this project is so close to being an outstanding project, and I think you can get there. So I will be supporting the action.

Thank you. I'll layer it on as well. Just really appreciate that you retain some affordability, which is really critically needed in our community. So it goes with the spirit of how you initially were approaching this project. So thank you. Also for staff. I appreciate knowing that I'll move forward quickly. So maybe not another two years. Maybe another year I did have a comment about the land use plan policies This come up in past projects, but I am not certain that all of them that are listed actually apply so for example policy 2.1 dash 1 increased densities for affordable housing and The goal, we just heard from the applicant that the goal was not to increase density. So I don't believe that one actually applies here. The second was LUP policy 2.1-15 maintenance and enhancement of public access because it doesn't inhibit public access to the coast. But looking at the actual policy, it's facilitating the provision or extension of transit service, providing commercial facilities, assuring potential for public transit, assuring recreational needs. And I'm struggling to find that that applies to this project. The one that I did agree with was citing of a new development by providing new residential development. So that one makes sense. But when looking at the actual policies, they don't apply and don't really have anything to do with this project. So I don't think that that has to be in a motion or really goes against any of the findings, but I think it's important to note that because it's come up in several projects now. So I think those are my only comments. I did want to check, did we still want to revise the title of Bio 1 Tree Replacement? That was page five of Exhibit D. Is that a record? Okay.

Commissioner, I looked it up, and it is three oak trees proposed for the removal of the one oak tree.

Okay. Great.

Isn't the plan showing just one replacement tree?

I think... One tree to replace with three.

Oh, okay. Because the landscape plan I thought I saw was clearly marked oak tree replacement. and showed a location for it, but okay. So there's three oak trees, okay. And then a number of native trees, right?

I believe the rest are non-native. Oh, non-native. Yes. Okay. And so those are one-to-one. I believe it's greater than one-to-one that are proposed.

So maybe we could confirm that then just in the final before we actually put Bio 1 in there and what the title should be. Thank you.

Well, we have the staff recommendation up on the slide, so I will open up the floor for a motion.

I'll move the staff recommendation as outlined in slide 27.

I'll second that. Great. Any further discussion on the motion? Okay. Ms. Carmen, can we please have a roll call vote? Yes.

Thank you. I'll begin with Commissioner Wiscombe. Yes. Commissioner Bauke. Yes. Commissioner Peterson. Yes. Vice Chair DeLuccio. Yes. And Chair Boss.

Yes. Motion passes. Thank you. Thank you. And I believe this is non-appealable jurisdiction. Is that accurate?

That's correct.

Okay. Thank you. All right. Well, thank you all. Appreciate your time and work. And hopefully we'll see you before two years again. We'll close that item and move on to the administrative portion of our agenda, beginning with committee and liaison reports. We'll start with the staff hearing officer liaison report.

Okay, we'll give one today. There was a meeting on 8-5, August 5th, and they actually did have a rehearing to reinstate a property at 2501 and 2509 Medcliffe Road. Initially, it was stated that it was in a non-apparelable... Coastal Commission, but it is appealable to the Coastal Commission So it was a lot line adjustment to allow the property line between the two properties to be relocated Said I had to come back of for rehearing because it wasn't stated correctly about a parable a parable A parable versus non appealable to the Coastal Commission. It is appealable to the Coastal Commission. I You got it, Leslie? It's confusing. And then they had 1620 Hillside Road. That's west side by the Harding Elementary School approval of an open yard modification for a new garage and a secret exemption. That was that.

Great. Thank you. All right. Any other committee or liaison reports? I have another one. I'm sorry.

I've been watching a lot of these meetings. HLC had a really, well, they had a meeting, was it yesterday, I believe, on the Macy's building with Yachty. And they looked at the exterior about converting it to Yachty's corporate headquarters. And also some commercial on the bottom also. I think they're going to also have a community room within the bottom and some little bit of retail. And that was received well. That was a conceptual review. So it's moving along. So it'll continue. It's not going to have to come, I believe, to this commission. Has that been decided yet?

To the commissioners? No, I don't believe it will.

Yeah. And also on the 29th of July, that was a really interesting HLC meeting. I don't know if you watched it, Commissioner Wiscombe. They started with the Better Building Ordinance. That was presented by staff, and there was very little discussion about it. Pretty much the discussion had to do with the name. And also, there was concern with HLC that they would lose some responsibility under that program. But at the time, the program didn't have, the staff report was very brief. It's more fleshed out now, the staff report. When it went to sustainability on the 29th, or whenever it went to sustainability, That now has the incentives. I guess you get points. And that's now included in an extended staff report. So the second was Libero Theater. I think that one went back for a second conceptual review. They want to put a multi-use building addition, three-story, behind the theater on Capra Street. And that's going to require, it's going to come to the Planning Commission now. They moved it forward. for approval of a development plan for the new non-residential floor area and findings that the building height, I think the limit is 45. They wanted to go 46 feet. That's going to come before us. It needs a development plan. And also, the Nordstrom's building, that was interesting. That's the first adaptive reuse that's come before the design review board, HLC, under the new adaptive reuse ordinance. 112 rental units, seven will be moderate affordable units, and they're going to actually remove 7,000 square feet in the center of the building to create an interior courtyard. And overall, it was well received by the HLC, and it's going to return to them a 9-9 for possible design approval. So that's on a fast track. So that's my report.

Thank you. Any other committee or liaison reports? All right. discussion on subcommittees and workshops. So a reminder the intent of this agenda item was to make space for discussion about active work products such as programs and policies but not specific housing projects that are under the purview of Planning Commission that will need to be agendized. So to that end commissioners can request information for future items for discussion immediately prior to adjournment. So under this item I'll also note that some of our questions or requests I think will be covered during Monday's joint meeting with city council. Are there any comments or notes? Vice Chair DiLuccio?

No, I'm finished. Thank you.

Commissioner Bauke.

I just have one question, and this is the council. As we're getting into the time period, the state of California starts changing all the laws again with the September deadlines. Are we looking at some kind of update as to legislative update sometime in, like, October or something?

Commissioner Bauke, yes. We do have Townsend, who's our lobbyist, and they prepare a very comprehensive report for us, and that's something I can share with the commission if you're interested in it.

Yes, please. I think we'd appreciate that. Thank you.

All right. Well, then, with that, it is 1.57 p.m., so we will adjourn to Monday the 17th for the special joint meeting with City Council. Thank you all.