Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Welcome to the 11/20/2025 Planning Commission hearing. I will call this hearing to order at 01:00PM. Ms. Carmen, can we please have roll call?

Thank you, Chair Wardlow. I'll begin with Chair Wardlow. Here. Vice Chair Boas? Present. Commissioner Barnwell?

Here.

Commissioner Balki?

Here.

Commissioner Deluccio? Here. Commissioner Peterson?

Here.

And Commissioner Wiskim?

Here. We have quorum. Thank you. Thank you. Let's get started with preliminary matters, requests for continuances, withdrawals, postponements, ex agenda items. Ms. Sarciniega, do we have any?

Thank you, Chair Wardlow. We do not. All right.

And we'll move on. Do we have any announcements or appeals? Chair Wardlow, we do not. Okay. That takes us to item C, comments from members of the public for items not on today's agenda. Do we have any public comment members that would like to comment on agenda items?

Thank you, Chair Wardlow. At this time, I don't have any speaker slips for, in person speakers under general. So if anyone would like to speak under general, you can approach the podium at this time. And I will remind the audience that if anyone is here for a specific item, that you can fill out a speaker slip at the back of the room and bring one up to me, and I'll call your name for that item. But since we don't have anybody coming up, I'll move to virtual participation. If anyone online would like to speak under general, you can raise your hand at this time. But I'm not seeing any raised hands, and we did not receive any written correspondence. So, will give it back to you.

Thank you. We will now close general public comment. We'll move on to item 3A, two twenty six Oliver Road for residential alteration in ADU. The actions required under the purview of this commission is a coastal development permit to allow for the proposed residential additions and the proposed junior accessory dwelling unit, a front setback modification, and an interior setback modification, as well as a CEQA determination that the project is exempt from further environmental review. We have Jillian Fennessey, assistant planner, us today to provide a staff presentation. Ms. Fennessey, the floor is yours.

Thank you, chair Wardlow. Yeah. I'm Jillian Fennesey. I'm the assistant planner and the case planner for this project at 226 Oliver Road. Here is an aerial photo of the project site.

The project site is a 5,954 square foot lot developed with a single story single family residence with an attached two car garage. It is zoned e three and in the appealable jurisdiction of the coastal zone. As you can see on the aerial view, all the adjacent land uses are residential. So the project proposes a 200 square foot first story addition, a four thirty square foot second story addition, a 33 square foot j A D U addition, a 249 square foot covered patio at the rear, and part of their existing garage will be converted into that j a d u, and paving and landscaping are also proposed.

So, again, the required actions before the planning commission today are the coastal development permit to allow the proposed residential additions and proposed j a d u and the appealable jurisdiction of the

coastal zone. The front setback modification, to allow alterations to the existing nonconforming primary residence as well as, paving in the front setback. Interior setback modification to allow alterations to the existing nonconforming residents as well as to permit increased paved areas within the interior setback. Also, the CEQA determination that the project is exempt from further environmental review. So some background for this project, although the site is more than a thousand feet from the beach or coastal bluff, it is between the sea and the first public road as defined by the coastal act and shown in our city's certified coastal land use plan.

Therefore, it is in the appealable jurisdiction. Accordingly, the planning commission will review one CDP covering both the residential additions and the junior accessory dwelling unit. And here's the image of the first public road, and you can see how it kinda snakes around and how the residence is included in that first public road. As shown in the table above, you can see that the residence is currently nonconforming to the required 20 foot front setback along Oliver Road and interior setback on the southern side of the property line adjacent to 3020 Santa Monica Way. With the approval of these modifications, the project would meet the required coastal zoning ordinance.

As I said, there is a j

u proposed with this project, and

it does comply with the city's a d u requirements outlined in title 28 and in the staff report. And just for some context on the j e e d u versus an a d u, the j e d u is a small secondary unit created from existing, floor area that shares bathing facilities and has owner occupancy. Whereas an ADU is self contained and it can be either detached or attached and does not require owner occupancy. So this project does, propose a j ADU and it actually has its own bathing facilities. So the project proposes alterations within the non conforming front setback along Oliver Road, which requires a front setback mod.

These alterations include an increase in roof height from approximately 11 feet to 13 feet and six inches to accommodate the accessory dwelling unit, an increase in roof height from approximately eight feet to 10 feet for a new gabled roof above the front entry, and new driveway paving to accommodate one uncovered replacement parking space. This is specifically because when existing garages converted into an ADU requirement, the replacement parking is allowed to be in the front or interior setback provided that the uncovered parking space is contained within the existing driveway. No increase to paved area occurs in the setbacks. However, in this case, the existing driveway is not deep enough to accommodate the uncovered parking space. So to meet the required depth, the project proposes reducing the depth of the garage to allow additional driveway length.

And because of removing this, the there is new paving required. So the proposal no no longer qualifies as a by right allowance for under the code, which is why the front setback modification is required. And you can see on this slide where that front setback modification is. The roof change is in pink and that the paving is in this little hatched area by the garage. So the interior setback modification is required again because the existing residence is nonconforming to the required six foot interior setback along the south side of the property, it is requested to allow alterations within the nonconforming setback.

And also include this includes an increase in roof height from approximately 10 feet, six inches to 16 feet, as well as the new driveway paving and the setback to to accommodate that one uncovered parking space in the front setback. And here's a showing where the interior setback modification is required. So the project, as I said, is in the appealable jurisdiction, so it must be found consistent with the coastal policies from our coastal land use program and the coastal act. I'll go over a few of these policies, but the full list was provided as an exhibit in the staff report. So the project is consistent with the policies regarding compatible development because the subject parcel is already currently developed with a single family residence and an established single family neighborhood and has been reviewed by the single family design board.

The SFDBs SFDB supported the proposed alterations, the second story addition size, bulk, and scale, and determined that the project design constitute constitutes an aesthetic improvement. To provide sufficient off street parking for the primary residence, one uncovered parking or one covered parking space is provided in one car garage, and one uncovered parking space is proposed in tandem with that garage. As I noted before, front and interior setback modifications are required to allow the increased paved area for the uncovered parking space. But with these approvals, the project provides sufficient parking for the development and is consistent with this policy. And just as a note, no parking is required for the junior accessory dwelling unit because it is located within a half mile of public transit stop and is outside of the key public access areas, as delineated in the coastal land use plan.

The project is also consistent with the stormwater policies because the creeks division has reviewed the project and confirmed that work associated with the project will qualify as tier two stormwater management compliance. Demonstration with this compliance will be required as part of the building permit plan check and inspection process. As I said, staff has determined that the project qualifies for an exemption from further environmental review under section fifteen three zero one and section fifteen three zero three of the California Environmental Quality Act. Section fifteen three zero one require allows for additional addition or or allows for additions to an existing structures, and fifteen three zero three allows for construction of a second dwelling unit in a residential zone. And staff does recognize that I think it was fifteen three zero three was accidentally omitted from the required findings in the staff report, so on page 10.

So when making the findings, if you could include fifteen three zero three. So design review. So the single family design board did see this project for a concept review, and the project received general support. The project will go be going back to single family design board if the planning commission approves the project today. And they will go back for project design approval and final approval.

So staff recommends approving the project, making the findings in the staff report for the environmental review, the coastal development permit, and the front setback and interior setback modifications. And, the applicant, Chris Cottrell, is here, to provide any comments or presentation, and I will be here for any questions. Thank you.

Thank you, Ms. Fantasy. The applicant would like to give a brief presentation. You'll have fifteen minutes. Please state your full name for the record. And, miss Carmen, would you please start the timer?

Sure. Chris Cottrell, architect. I don't know if you need much more after miss Fennessey's presentation. That was fantastic. Maybe I'll just quickly go through the plan so you guys can see where these modifications are. But I'll keep it short and we'll go back for questions if there are some. Mind just popping those plans up?

Yeah. I'm opening the plans right I

can just okay. I think the the main nexus of this is it's a corner lot. We have constraints from the corner lot constraint. So thank you for coming out on Tuesday and taking a look. Here's the exist thank you. This is great. Here's the existing survey. This house has evolved over time. It used to be that garage wasn't there. And that's that second chunk up with a hip roof was the garage.

It evolved to a carport and then a garage. And now we're trying to just keep that main residence on the North Side and do our project on the South Side. And in so doing that, we've had to do some gymnastics to to make it all work. But but I think our modifications are are minor in request. We aren't extending the current eave any closer to the street than it is already.

And so the the two modifications are to change the eave height. So we get a clear eave of a single eave across the front. And then at the entry, change it from a shed to a a gable just to give it a little pop and say, here's the entry. And then with the parking on the south side there. So we are cutting back the existing driveway. It's going to a one car driveway. That green area will be landscaped. And then we're we're proposing tandem parking. And the modification required is that we've got a chunk of concrete in the existing building. That's that, diagonal hatched keynote 16 on the bottom there.

But since that is in a garage now and will become outside of a garage, that's requiring this modification. So it's still the same concrete. It's just making way for a conforming sized parking space. So we'll have tandem two tandem parking spaces. One covered, one uncovered. Maybe it works to go to the elevations too. We can just see what those those look like. The infill additions on the Ground Floor are all in the back that making the living room kinda just flow with the house. So we're we're infilling that living room area. Second story addition is a primary suite, pretty modest in size and fenestration.

And then elevation wise, we've got existing on the bottom, proposed on the top. This is the back of the house. So maybe we'll keep going to the front. Okay. On that lower right, you can see that that pink areas where we're switching that shed roof to a gable roof entry. And then maybe the next sheet. And then this is from the front elevation. So the pink area is just getting a clean eave across the front. So it's not right now, it's a it's a you can see on the second elevation there, it's a hodgepodge of things. So we're just cleaning it up.

And that garage door on the right side, that pushes three feet farther back into the into the property to make that conforming space. I think I'll leave it there and open to questions if you have.

Thank you, Chair. Okay.

Thank you very much for your presentation. We will now move on to public comment. Ms. Carmen, do we have anyone in person or remote that would like to give public comment on this item?

Thank you, Chair Wardlow. At this time, I don't have any speaker slips for in person public comment for this item. So I will move on to virtual participation. If anyone online would like to speak, you can raise your hand at this time. But I'm not seeing any raised hands. And I will acknowledge that we received written correspondence from Sonya and Kevin Connors and give it back to you.

Great. Thank you. We will now close public comment, and I'll open it up to questions from my fellow commissioners. Who would like

to go first? Vice Chair Boss. Vice Thank you, Chair. I just have one question for staff. The recommended actions included CEQA section, I think it was fifteen three one, but the staff report also included 15,303. So, when we get to a motion, should we include both?

Vice chair, boss, and through the chair, yes, you would want to include 15,303.

Okay. Perfect. Thank you. Commissioner Bliskum.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I just have a couple questions. Surprisingly enough, a couple on the conditions of approval. Conditions of approval, page two of seven, it's the 1B6 ADU restrictions. I'm wondering if let me go to it first.

Page two, sorry. Okay. I'm wondering if condition number three is that one of the units will be owner occupied. We really mean, I think, staff means owner occupied when the other unit is rented as opposed to occupied by someone in the family. Isn't that what you mean? That you require that one unit be owner occupied while the other one is being rented. Is that what you mean? You look confused.

To the chair, Commissioner Wisscombe. Yeah, I don't think we would typically look for nuances. It requires that the owner occupies the property, whether it be in the ADU or the main unit. But we wouldn't be necessarily looking like if whether they're renting it or not, the owner needs to live on-site because it's constructed with an ADU.

Oh, okay. So, that's so anytime whether it's rented or not, the owner needs to be on

Female Correct.

With the junior ADU.

Female That's what I didn't quite understand. Okay.

Commissioner Wiskim, just to for the record, it's state law. So, we're just complying with Okay. State law.

So, can the whole entire place be rented out to someone else?

Commissioner Wiskum, through the chair, no. It's owner occupied.

Okay. And

why is

that? Yeah.

I could you explain is that because it's a junior ADU rather than ADU?

Commissioner Barnwell, through the chair, that's correct. Okay. State law. I'm assuming based on the policy decision Blaser: is so that the owner and the if you're renting it out controlling the same.

Thank you.

Okay. Yeah. Continue.

I hadn't heard of that, but okay. And then in the conditions of approval, again on page two of seven, 1C1, small A, dedication. Okay. So we talked about this on-site a little bit, but the Public Works Department wants the owner to dedicate plus or minus seven inches of private property for a public right of way on Coleman. And then actually further down, and I think, Mr.

Cottrell, you might want to address this. But I think further on down on the next page, the owners shall submit C1 public improvements or public works plans for construction of improvements along the property frontage on Cullman Avenue. So what I'm understanding is there anyone here from public works?

Through the chair, Commissioner Wisscombe, we were unable to have public works attend. We tried very hard and there was not anyone available.

Okay. Cause I find it personally very unreasonable to ask them to dedicate the land and then pour a little strip of concrete. I think once they've dedicated the land to the city, that the city has the responsibility to make the improvements when it's time. So I'm wondering, Ms. Ostranger, if my fellow commissioners agree if we can have that condition removed. That's assuming my fellow commissioners agree. Commissioner Wisecum? Yeah.

Sorry to interrupt you. I did because public works could not attend today, our transportation staff, I did connect with them and got their response on that matter. So they said they will they do still need to require the dedication. However, the physical construction is not necessary to rebuild the sidewalk. Should you like to amend that condition, you can.

Okay. That's great. Okay. So if my fellow commissioners agree, I would like to do that because I found that quite unreasonable. Okay. And then I just have a general question. And I don't know, Ms. Arsenyega, if you can answer this. But we always have this there's a lot of construction going on on the Mesa. And we always have this construction staging and storage, the same thing in here all the time about the needing a public works permit to park on the street. Do we actually issue those? Do contractors actually ask for them and we issue them?

Through the Chair Commissioner Wiskum? Yes, but that's through the Public Works Department, so it's not planning. But they do request construction you know, staging and parking permits through the Public Works Director. They're often granted, is my understanding. I don't think they're denied. But the idea is that it's an ask and an intended

Okay. Approval,

not just a given. I couldn't tell you how many are not permitted. So, but because it is a requirement of the CDP, if they were it could be enforced upon if they hadn't pursued that formally.

Okay. That's great. And then I just have one last thing, Mr. Cartel. If you could just address the hedge like you did just for the public record. Like because that was originally a request and now it's no longer a request for so if you can just address that, that would be appropriate, I think.

Sure thing. There's large hedge out in front. It's over eight feet now. Right now, we've got on the plans to bring it down to three six. It's required to be three six at least by the first 10 feet of the parking area. Owners would love it to be a little bit higher for a little bit more privacy, but and we may pursue that at SFDB. Maybe a five foot hedge, something like that. Just so it's a little bit more private front yard, but definitely three six for the first 10 feet by the by the parking.

Okay. So no longer they and I think you can go up to eight feet. Right? Is that miss Ostringer, do you know the answer to that question? I think I think it's eight feet. For the hedges? Yeah.

Female I'm not sure, but I could probably find out really quickly. Okay.

It's I

think, you know, you might be able to put plus or minus on your plans and just get rid of that as long as it's not eight feet. But the point is that these documents had shown that staff report had shown a request for an increase over eight feet, and that's no longer

That is no

longer correct.

On the table. Okay. Great. Thank you very much. That's all I have. Thank you.

Female Thank you, Commissioner Wiskum. Commissioner De La Chio?

Male I just have a couple of questions. The hedge you're going to trim down the hedge on both corners, correct? Because it's on two streets we're talking about. That's correct. Okay. And I'm so, guess we do have a hedge ordinance in this city. Some cities don't have a hedge ordinance, as you may know. And then the next question, just want a clarification. I'm still struggling with the rental situation. So, my reading the condition so, basically, there'll be two units now. There'll be a junior ADU plus a single family. So, it has to be owner occupied, but they can live in either the junior ADU or the single family unit. Is that correct?

Doctor. Chair Wardlow or Commissioner Delucio, that is correct. They can reside in either the primary residence or the JADU.

Okay. As long as there's an owner occupied on premise in one of the two units. Okay. Thank you. Those are my questions.

Thank you, Commissioner Delicchio. Commissioner Peterson?

Just very quickly building off that. The in the conditions of approval that the junior ADU won't be leased out for less than thirty one days, that's about preventing it from becoming a short term rental. Is that correct?

That's

correct, Commissioner Peterson.

Okay. So there could they rent out the main home as a short term rental if they went through our process, theoretically?

Oh.

No, that well, that's not how we condition it.

Okay.

So, when we do our conditions of approval and record them, it's for both.

Okay. So, the entire structure cannot become a short term rental?

Correct.

Ever. Alright. Thank you.

Chair

Wardlow. Doesn't read that way, though. It only reads for the junior ADU. It can be no less than thirty one days. It doesn't read it for the single family residence in this condition.

There's Thank you, Commissioner DeLuccio. There's a separate condition that we record against junior ADUs and ADUs. And so, that will be separate from the conditions of approval that you see here.

Do we have any further questions, or shall we move to deliberation? Going once, going twice. Okay. Who would like to go first on making any comments on the project? Commissioner Wiskum.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I can certainly support the make the findings and support the project with the elimination in the conditions of approval on page three of seven, Condition C, Coleman Avenue Public Improvements, that that gets deleted from the conditions of approval. And also that we add under the environmental review, had 15.303. And I think that's pretty much it. But I can support it with those changes. Thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner Whiskum. And if each commissioner could note in their comments if they support what Commissioner Whiskum has added to be removed in their in the conditions of approval, that would be helpful. Commissioner Balkhy.

Madam Chair, I concur with commissioner Wissom's proposed modifications and conditions. The Coleman Avenue one was the one item I think needs to be deleted from the conditions of approval, and I agree with the other modifications. So, I support the application with those changes.

Thank you. Commissioner Bauke, Vice Chair Boss.

Thank you, Chair Wardlow. I'll also support the proposed changes to the motion. Okay. Commissioner Barnwell.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I am also in agreement with the changes. And then I also wanted to say publicly, I think the staff spoke to us on the site visit about looking at applications like this possibly at a ministerial level and administrative level. Is that correct?

Through the chair, Commissioner Barnwell, that is the hope and dream. Okay. So we would like, we've given feedback to the Coastal Commission as have other jurisdictions of that coastal ADUs that don't have impacts to coastal resources like environmentally sensitive habitat or bluff faces or anything like that, that those could be processed ministerially with a coastal exemption as they were when they were first rolled out through the state. We're unsure of where the state legislation will go on that, but that is a request.

Okay. I just wanted to get that on the public record. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Commissioner Barnwell. Commissioner DeLuccio?

So, would make it consistent with noncoastal ADUs, wouldn't be done administratively? If they were to pass that, the coastal?

Through the Chair Commissioner Delicchio. Yes, that's the suggestion. So, the request was from the Coastal Commission for jurisdictions to provide feedback on what would streamline processing. And for our process, we don't have an administrative coastal development permit. All coastal development permits have a hearing component to them, even if it's not a public hearing. And so, that would reduce the administrative processing that's required for these types of projects.

That'd be great. Thank you for the outstanding staff report. And I think all the Is are dotted, Ts are crossed, and I, am in agreement with the amendments. And that's all I have to say right now.

Thank you, commissioner Delgio. Commissioner Peterson.

I also concur and support what appears to be a majority here on these amendments. And, also, I support what commissioner Barnwell said about ministerial approval and encourage whatever development happens in the future on that. Thank you.

And Commissioner Wiskum again. She want to say anything else?

Thank you, Madam Chair. I just thought that we as a commission should probably address the letter written by the Connors. They wrote a letter to Single Family Design Board. And I think there were some outstanding questions. So if you don't mind, I just would like to just address what we can here.

They have four bullet points. The first one is, are there any assurances that JADU or Maine residents will not become yet another short term vacation rental? And that's in the section we discussed in the conditions of approval on page two, 1B6 is where the restrictions are. And then they ask about second story decks designed to maintain privacy to the two neighbors. I think that Single Family Design Board had some comments on that and asked them to come back to talk to neighbors and come back on that.

So that's really not our purview. It's a Single Family Design Board. And the same is true of the lighting, which is the next bullet point. And then in the past, they talk about a two car garage. Is this still a standard? Because we have the state law that we're within half a mile of public transit, We don't have to, what, provide two car garage or parking or

For a commissioner was coming through the chair. Yeah, so because it's in a half mile of a public transit, the JADU does not require parking.

That's right. Yeah. Okay. Okay. So, I'm hoping that the Connors have those questions addressed of what we can do on the Planning Commission. Thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner Wiscombe. And I echo my fellow commissioner's comments. I'm supportive of the amendment proposed by Commissioner Wiscombe. I appreciate staff's work, and thank you so much for having us at the site visit.

That was

helpful. And with that, can we please have a roll call? Or I'm sorry, can we please get a motion?

You want me to make the motion?

If you want me.

Okay. Hold on. Me go back to

do you want to oh, you wanted to.

You want to put

it up?

You want to put the findings up there? Oh, here, I got them here. Okay. So the motion would be that we can support the project and make the recommended findings, which are in section 10 on page eight of the staff report and include environmental review, CEQA guidelines Section 15,301, and also include 15,303. Okay.

And then the coastal development permit, it's consistent with the policies of the Coastal Act and our local coastal plan support the front setback modification on Oliver Road and the interior setback modification. Did I cover everything, Ms. Fantasy? I'll second.

I'll second the motion.

Oh, I'm sorry. I'm sorry.

Lucille just did.

Oh. Well, I'm sorry. I forgot the elimination of the section in the conditions of approval, which is I think page three.

I'll still second with Do have

the memory change? Yeah. Okay. On page three of seven, excuse me, in the conditions of approval, delete section three, which is Coleman Avenue public improvements.

Thank you. Thank you, Commissioner Wiscombe. I believe we have a second from Vice Chair Boss. With that, can we have roll call?

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

Yes. Commissioner Barnwell.

Yes.

Commissioner Peterson? Yes. Commissioner Bauke?

Yes.

Commissioner Delicchio?

Yes.

Vice Chair Boss? Yes. And Chair Wardlow? Yes. Motion passes. Thank you.

Thank you, Ms. Carmen. This action of the commission is subject to a ten calendar day appeal period. We will now move on to item three b, twelve fifty Cliff Drive for a subdivision in residential development. The actions required at this hearing under the purview of the commission are a tentative parcel map to allow for the division of one lot into four lots, three free three street frontage modifications to allow lots one, two, and four to not have 60 feet of public street frontage, a public street waiver to allow lots one, two, and four to not have front street public, and a secret determination that the project is exempt from further environmental review.

We have Barbara Burkhart, project planner with us to provide a staff presentation. Ms. Burkhart, the floor is yours.

Ms. Thank you, Chair Wardlow, members of the Commission. Let me just pull up my PowerPoint here. Alright. Thank you. I will just jump right in, starting with the vicinity map. The project site is located on the North Side Of Cliff Drive between, Terrace Road here and Vista De La Playa Lane here. It's located in the East Mesa neighborhood. The site is not within the coastal zone. Just wanna point that out.

The East East Mesa neighborhood is depicted here in this map. It is bounded by me the Mesa Hills to the North, the Pacific Ocean to the South, Oceano Avenue to the East, and Meigs Road to the West. The site has a general plan land use designation of low density residential, which is primarily designed for single unit residential uses and other compatible uses such as recreation facilities, churches, schools, childcare, etcetera. The site has a zoning classification of residential single unit which provides areas for single unit housing on individual lots as well as for accessory dwelling units or ADUs. The zone also limits activities and uses that would be incompatible with this type of residential neighborhood.

The site itself is 67,400 square feet in area or 1.67 acres and contains an easement that is used as public right of way for the benefit of the city. I'd like to point out here our internal map system pulls property lines from the assessor's office. So in this case the easement area is not mapped. So I've got this map here that shows the correct outline of the site, correct property lines in red, and then that easement area in the blue hatching. So you'll see this discrepancy throughout in images I've pulled from our map system.

The site contains two single unit residences. The first is located here. It is designed in a craftsman style. It includes a two car detached garage here, and behind it is the second residence. It is a converted barn.

It includes an attached garage here. You can see that red garage door. The access to the site is taken through that easement area via a 10 foot wide private driveway, which is here on the right. There's a turnaround at the top and another driveway which loops around to the rear of the site to that second residential unit. Surrounding development includes single unit residential development on either smaller lots or larger lots that are developed at a higher density.

This map shows a planned unit development known as Vista De La Playa, which is wraps around the north and east of the subject site. It is 4.17 acres in size and contains 13 residences. And to the south across Cliff Drive is another planned unit development known as Vista Pacifica. It's 3.31 acres in size and contains 14 residences. And then these other smaller lots that surround the subject site on average are point 15 acres in size and each contain a single unit residence.

It is important to note that the site is listed on the city's historic resources inventory. A phase one historic structures and sites report previously prepared found the Craftsman residence and its driveway eligible for designation as a city landmark as well as for listing in the California register of historic historical resources and the national register of historic places. The driveway element includes its alignment and general appearance, sandstone curbs, palm lined colonnades, and this motor court at the top. The project itself consists of a four lot subdivision for the division of one lot into four lots as shown here. It would include maintenance of the existing residences over proposed Lot 1 and proposed Lot 4, as well as construction of new residences over proposed Lot 2 and proposed Lot 3.

Lot 2 shown here would be developed with a two story single unit residence with an attached two car garage and a one story detached ADU with an attached one car garage. This lot would take access from the shared driveway, via a new curb cut in that border here. Lot 3 would be developed with a two story single unit residence as well, also with an attached garage. An ADU would be constructed over that garage. Access to this site would also be taken through the driveway here, and there will be a cut in this existing median to provide access allow access to the new driveway here.

Access to the site would continue to be taken through the right of way easement via existing driveway. A new 16 foot wide driveway is proposed to the west of the existing. This driveway would provide egress for all lots. It would extend out to Cliff Drive, obviously. This is partially partially due to the historic nature of the existing driveway.

It needs to stay there as is. It's not wide enough. It's inadequate in several ways to provide access for fire. So the new driveway would also serve as fire access. It has been vetted by our fire department and has been deemed adequate in terms of having an appropriate turnaround area, having an appropriate width, grade, and construction.

It would provide access, fire access for proposed Lots 12, and four. Fire access for Lot 3 would be taken from Cliff Drive. There's red curbing along the front, and a hose pole, would work for this site. The proposal includes a draft declaration of easements, which has been included as exhibit D of your staff report. The areas of the easement are described as the two one lane driveways, their landscaped medians and borders, the driveway turnaround, and driveway improvements.

The, declaration includes access and utility easements as well as maintenance obligations of these areas. This would ensure that all owners of all four lots, would have access for driveway and utilities, as well as shared responsibility for installation, repair, maintenance, and replacements within the easement areas. This declaration would record concurrently with them out. The project requires and proposes public improvements within the Cliff Drive right of way. This right of way is 22 and a half feet wide.

The first 15 feet from Cliff Drive would contain the required curb, parkway, sidewalk, and frontage zone widths. The area beyond that would include landscaping and part of a proposed sandstone border wall. Lot 3 ownership would be responsible for the maintenance of this area, which is per the shared maintenance agreement included in that draft declaration of easements. Public improvements are also required and proposed within the city's right of way easement area along this portion of Lot 3 here. It includes the required curb, parkway, sidewalk, and frontage zone widths.

Maintenance of this area would be shared by ownership of all four lots per that shared maintenance agreement. A phase two historic structures and sites report has been prepared for the project. The report preparer is here, Mr. Tim Hazeltine with Post Hazeltine. The report found that any impacts to the resource that would occur as a result of the project would be less than significant and that the project meets the Secretary of Interior standards.

The project has been before the historic landmarks commission one time on a concept review. The commission found the project to be sensitive to the historic resources and their composition. And they expressed support for the project because they are supportive of the production of housing in general. And I see we do have commissioner Butler here from the HLC, should you have any questions for him. The required applications before you today are a tentative parcel map for the division of one lot into four lots and associated with that the three street frontage modifications to allow lots one, two, and four to not have the required 60 feet of public street frontage.

As you can see here, only Lot 3 has street frontage along Cliff Drive. It does have more than the required 60 feet. In addition, one public street waiver, to allow these same lots one, two, and four to not front a public street. As you can see, only Lot 3 fronts Cliff Drive. And this waiver is associated with a different code, around streets and sidewalks.

So that's a separate approval that is needed. In terms of zoning ordinance consistency, the project is compliant with all zoning requirements except for that those street frontage requirements for Lots 12, and four. Staff is supportive of the request for these modifications because they would facilitate the proposed subdivision which in turn would provide more area for the development of single unit housing, both with the proposed development of Lots 2 And 3, but as well as allowing future potential for ADUs on Lots 1 And 4. Approval of the modifications would also allow for appropriate improvements to the lot, which would result in new development that would make the site more consistent with the existing patterns of development in the neighborhood. In terms of general plan consistency, staff found several policies of, several general plan elements to apply.

So I'll walk through the most important of those here. The first is the land use element. I've listed them up here. When taken together and when applied to a low density residential neighborhood and community, they seek to prioritize the preservation and enhancements of the sense of place and maintenance and protection of the character and quality of life. Staff believes the project is consistent because it proposes low density single unit development in an area of the city contemplated for this type of development by the general plan, and by the zoning ordinance.

And also because the HLC has found the project to be aesthetically appropriate. Policy in the housing element is also applicable and encourages development of housing on infill sites near transit and jobs, particularly redevelopment of sites suitable for housing, as well as maintenance and repair of existing housing. Staff believes the project is consistent because it proposes a four lot subdivision on a site suitable for infill resident development due to its size and its location near transit and jobs. There are several MTD bus stops nearby. There's a commercial area at Cliff And Migs, and Santa Barbara City College is about a half mile away.

Additionally, the project would maintain two existing single unit residences and construct two new single unit residences each with an ADU. Lastly, policy and the historic resources element is also applicable, seeks to preserve, protect, and enhance historic and archaeological resources and ensure that development respects individual historic and archaeological resources. Staff believes the project is consistent because it would preserve and protect the historic craftsman residence and driveway, including its relation to the streetscape and because the phase two HSSR found the project meets the secretary of interior standards and that any impacts to the resources would be less than significant. Looking at the tentative parcel map requirements, these bullet points relate to all the findings that need to be made for approval of the subdivision. I'll run through each one quickly and we can look at the map while I

do

that. No change to the existing land use designation is proposed. The project is consistent with the general plan because it proposes low density single unit development single unit residential development in an area of the city contemplated for this type of development by the general plan. It would be consistent with the zoning ordinance with approval of the requested modifications which staff is supportive of. The site is physically suitable for this proposed type of development because it would add single unit residential uses in an area appropriate for infill due to the size and location of the site as well as the availability of utilities.

The site is physically suitable for the proposed density because it would divide a 1.67 acre lot in an area of the East Mesa neighborhood where adjacent lots are significantly smaller or developed at a significantly higher density. The design of the project would not cause environmental damage, would not injure fish or wildlife or their habitat, because there is no such habitat on or near the site, would not cause serious public health problems because the proposed uses are allowed in this zone, would not conflict with existing access easements. It's been designed to accommodate those, as is outlined in your staff report. This project does not provide access to natural resources, in the vicinity vicinity of the project because there are none. And lastly, no violation of regional water control board requirements would occur because the project would be connected to city sewer system and there is adequate capacity to serve.

Staff has conducted its environmental review and found the project to be exempt from CEQA per sections one five three one five, one three fifteen thousand three hundred three, 15,332. Staff has found also that none of the exceptions to the exemption, exemptions apply and our review did include review of that phase two HSSR as previously discussed. Therefore, staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the tentative parcel map and the three associated street frontage modifications and the street frontage waiver. And with that, I'll end my presentation. Thank you.

Thank you, Ms. Burkhart. Would the applicant team like to make a presentation? If so, please state your full name and relationship to the project, and you will have fifteen minutes to present. Okay. And miss Carmen will start the timer in just a minute.

Alright. Here we are.

Chara Wardlow, members of the commission, my name is Sarah Bronstad. I'm a land use planner at Brownstein Hyatt Farber Shrek. I met, many of you on Tuesday at the site visit. Thank you so much for coming out. I do include some photos in this presentation. Oh gosh. What is happening? Here we are. For those that couldn't make it to the site visit, it does highlight some special features about the property. But as we all know, it's best to go in person.

So thanks again. Here is an aerial site of Cliff Drive. Of course, when I developed this presentation, I had not seen Barbara. So I'm gonna try to just blaze through it. And if I don't answer your questions or if Barbara hasn't already answered a question you may have come across, I will circle back and answer questions at the end or after you've had a chance to.

Alright. So I just also wanna point out that this is a housing project, and so it is protected under the state's new housing laws. And as you know, the part of the project that we are focusing on today is just the the map and the modification request and the waiver. We have gone to HLC. We are scheduled to go back next month for HLC to look at more of the, further develop plans for the design of the two single family residences, the phase two historic structures report, and the driveway and landscaping improvements.

And then after that, we will go to city council for the final map and to record that agreement that Barbara was mentioning. Here's how the, in 1960, this corner oops. Hold on a second. I'll get my this portion here was, divided off the property. You could see that's when, the city easement over the driveway was established.

So parcel B in this map is 1946 Cliff Drive, and is not part of this project. And here's another aerial view where you can see lot lines so you can see the surrounding pattern of development. This is something that Barbara didn't have. It's just a photo from our historic structures report. This was taken, we believe, in about 1960.

This is what the driveway looked like. We have the stone pillars out front and the palm trees along the driveway. And then, of course, this is that photo that you've seen many times now. We are proposing to put those stone pillars back, as part of the project, and we have some capstones, the owner has out there, and you may have seen them on the site visit, Grand and View. So those will go back and be on the top of the new stone pillars at the front.

Here, you could see there is an existing six foot sidewalk. I we have some landscaping here. The 91246 Cliff Drive accesses the their property from this driveway here, and then you see the historic driveway and then some gravel for the second driveway that is out there now. Here is a view from the motor court looking, south towards Cliff Drive. At the top of the driveway is that Craftsman house and the motor court.

Back in 2015, the owner at the time, actually proposed a six lot subdivision for the property. At the time, SAF determined that, well, they were concerned about access and also about that that house that had not been considered or deemed historic at that time. So our client purchased the property in 2016, and, it did not look like this. I don't have a picture of what it looked like, but it was in rough shape. And, our client had spent several years restoring the house.

HLC was involved, reviewed the project as you saw. Tim Hazel Hazeltyne from Post Hazeltyne was involved. He went to HLC twice. Their approval included the phase one historic structures report. This two car garage was built as part of those improvements and the installation of these pavers.

So just walking back behind the site as you go up this paved paver driveway, you see some beautiful large trees. I think that's a stone pine. And, what was a really, falling down structure is now a single family residence over a garage and beautiful landscaping. So now, that the those restoration projects are done, the, property owner wishes to subdivide into four lots instead of six. See what I can do to avoid too much duplication of what you've seen.

Here's our v or sorry, our v shaped fire department turnaround. And as Barbara mentioned, the egress driveway will be used, for fire access. And there's that driveway easement. I think I will point out oh, and here's the landscaping that'll be along the driveway. The plans that we're proposing are low in profile, to, protect the views of the historic residence, but also for vehicular, access.

So we do have this is the easements that are over that entrance driveway. And I just wanted to point out that as part of this map, we are also dedicating this red area here, because the city asked us to put in a sidewalk, and we couldn't quite fit it. So we are it's essentially there. You can see the sidewalk, turning into the site. So that is the area. And then, I think Barbara mentioned that we're, you know, doing some off-site improvements. This is not part of the property, but we have agreed to do that. And on Lot 2, we have some beautiful, oak trees. This is another view of Lot 2. Those are the trees on the right.

We are happy to report we are not removing any trees as part of this project, and in fact, we designed around them. We established no grading zones around the trunks and hand grading zones, within the rest of the critical root zone and, specifically designed around them. Same thing on Lot 3. We have two trees. This fence is actually gonna move to being behind this tree, and it'll become the yard for Lot 3.

You could see there's the two trees, the critical root zones, and the building footprint. I don't know if you want me to go back through the findings. I will say, I I think I'm gonna skip through this, and if you have any specific questions about any of them, please let me know. But for the sake of your time, I'm gonna just, trust that you were listening when Barbara read them. I wanna close.

Here's a rendering we have for when we take go back to HLC. This is a draft still. We had some different colors on the house when we were there, at HLC before. We are because we're a housing project, we're only required to address objective standards, but we are the property owner is, very passionate about this project and has been open and willing to take, their input. So we have, we're revising the plans based on some of the subjective, feedback they've given us.

And, so this is this is still rough, but, I just also wanna close out by saying I think this property ended up in the right hands. I think for those of you that went to the site, you could see for yourself that a lot of care was given to the design and the restoration of those houses. And I hope you can support the project, and let me know if you have any questions.

Thank you very much for your presentation. Ms. Carmen, would you please let the applicant know how much time they have remaining?

Female Thank you, Chair Wardlow. Yes, you have six minutes and thirty nine seconds if you need to use it.

Female All right. You'll have the opportunity to utilize your remaining time after questions if you'd so like to.

With that, that takes

us to public comment. Do we have any members of the public that would like to make comment on this specific item?

Thank you, Chair Wardlow. At this time, I do have one speaker set for in person public comments. So Diane Berickman Duncan, you can approach the podium at this time. You will have three minutes to speak. I'm going to pass out your handout first, and then I'll start your timer.

So hold on until I do that. That one right there is perfect.

Can you make it go on the big screen?

Oh, okay.

Thank you.

Good afternoon. My name is Diane Berickman Duncan, and I'm also representing Seymour W. Duncan, as we are the owners of 1246 Cliff Drive since 2005. We have concerns regarding our safety as it pertains to the proposed recreated pier in front of this, the island at the entrance of 1250 Development. Our safety concerns date back to 2022.

I'd like to provide you with a little bit of history. On page one, it showed the development that you've already seen. It shows the site plan in relation to our property 1246, which is that White House right on the right as you enter the development. Page two, hopefully you guys all have this, shows the survey of the entrance to 1250 Development in relation to Cliff Drive, as well as the island directly adjacent to our driveway, which I've highlighted in yellow and put the address. Page three shows a picture taken after the island border and boulder was placed in front of the island, and that was done in 2022.

Page four shows a letter that I wrote to Mr. Paris expressing our safety concerns highlighted in yellow. And these concerns were addressed after a rain and windstorm in January '23 knocked the small palm tree down and Nathan Slack, Urban Forest Superintendent approved the removal of the small palm. Mr. Paris approved showing up shoring up and retracting the island so that we could exit our property more safely to and avoid quickly incoming vehicles onto Cliff Drive as we back out.

Now we need to back out and cross over the easement and go into the exit driveway to then exit Cliff Drive. Page five shows the proposed development and the recreated entry piers. Page six shows, and I'm really focusing on the pier in the center of the island that appears to be proposed to go in front of a large boulder in front of the island. Page six shows a letter that I drafted to mister Paris after on '20 on 10/2225 following the city of Santa Barbara Historic Land Commission meeting. Is my three minutes up?

Okay, I have everything in writing. And basically what I'm asking for is that center pier to be moved over to the left, the far west side. Because we are at risk trying to exit our property. Cars come off a cliff drive at a high speed.

All right. Thank you for your public comment.

Appreciate it. Female And it is a safety risk for us. Thank you.

Female Thank you. Do we have any other public comments?

Female Thank you. At this time, I don't have any more speaker slips for in person public comment. So, will move to virtual participation. If anyone online would like to speak, you can raise your hand at this time. I'm not seeing any raised hands, and I will acknowledge that we received written correspondence from Diane and Seymour Duncan, and give

it back to you. Thank you. We will now close public comment on this item. I will now turn it over to my fellow commissioners for questions. Commissioner Barnwell.

Thank you, Madam Chair. This is directed to the staff. Recognizing that the driveway is can be seen from the public right of way, Puth Drive. And I'm curious if we have and there's landscaping on that driveway. Are you satisfied with the maintenance agreement on that driveway such that money will be available on a monthly basis to do like landscaping things?

Because I I kinda come down heavy on that maintenance of these rights of ways. There's a lot of different ways to do it, and I just wondered if we have drafted what we think is a sufficient maintenance agreement. Because there's going to be every 30 days, there's going to be a need to have a professional person come in and tend to the landscaping. Notwithstanding the pavement, etcetera.

The maintenance agreement does address maintenance and financial obligations. It's not a monthly stipulation

No, but I mean, is there money available whenever is it an annual set aside by each property owner? Or how are the property owners truly maintaining that?

Commissioner Barnwell, through the chair, if you don't mind, I'll let the applicant take these questions. Female Hi.

Thank you.

Female Through the chair, Commissioner Barnwell. I was not the attorney that drafted the agreement, so unfortunately, can't answer your specific questions. But it is included in the staff report, But it will be in addition to another agreement that the city will require to record, which is, you know, defining specifically what the agreement is, or what they approved, and including the maintenance of the right of way. Rather than establishing like an HOA through the state, we have opted to have a four party agreement. And it says that either one of the homeowners or a property manager do the accounting for the four units, and I allocate, you know, a certain amount, whatever is determined to be the appropriate amount at the time, and reserve funds each month.

And so that then those funds are available for the to pay for their landscaping and, the water within the common area.

Okay. Good. I'm I'm glad to hear that. I'm I'm only saying this because I mentioned at one of our prior meetings, as a professional, I go to court frequently where these road maintenance agreements break down. And the only avenue is to take it to court and force people to put in their dollar amount. Wouldn't want to see this happen here, particularly because there's going to be a continued maintenance issue associated with the landscaping and things. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you to the oh, and one other question. The undergrounding of the electricity, the poles, I spoke on the site visit.

Commissioner Barnwell, through the chair. I did look into that. So all electrical will be placed underground from those poles to the new single family residences. Lines along the westerly property line will And we did double check with our public works lead on that. That's Okay.

The direction you very

we gave.

Sure. Thank you, Commissioner Barnwell. Commissioner Balki.

Thank you, Madam Chair. A question to staff, and I just want clarity as to process and discussion with AHLC regarding landscape and these proposed placement of peers. Have they had a conversation as to that at this point in time, or are we hearing something that they're going to hear later?

Commissioner Belke, through the chair, the HLC did express a desire to see that peer in question moved all the way to the westerly side of the new driveway. So that's what they were suggesting at their last meeting.

Do you have something to add?

We to just add to that, that we have studied that at option, but I'm going to let Tim speak to that.

I'm Tim Hazeltine from Post Hazeltine Associates. We prepared the phase one and two historic resources reports. And we had the project had proposed reconstructing the piers and putting them reasonably close to the original location, which is different now because Cliff Drive has been widened and that whole area in front is not as it was, as you could tell from the older photo. So it was our conclusion that putting them closer to their original location would be helpful in terms of meeting the Secretary of the Interior Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties because it's returning the front of the property to a closer approximation of its original appearance. And also we wanted to create some sort of visual demarcation between the historic driveway and the new egress driveway to the west.

So we thought if we put one pier on each side, it would well, historically it would be confusing. And secondly, it wouldn't give a kind of a visual marker that this is the exit and the egress. And also as was discussed at HLC, we thought that each of the piers at the base should have a nice smaller sign at the base saying entrance, egress, or exit. But from a historic preservation perspective, it's better to have the piers closer to their original location than marking the new driveway, which is not historic.

Thank you.

Okay. Thank you. And then the next question was about landscaping. Have they had a conversation about the landscaping? Because, you know, now that the fire department's required this wider, it's no longer in balance, and you've got a whole bunch of palm trees on one side, and you have a bunch of them in the median. Seems completely out of balance. And if you go back and look historically at what they had, you had a balanced situation of palm trees in the median and on one side. And the question is, has there been any consideration about putting a few palm trees on the new exit portion on the the western side to balance this out aesthetically?

Commissioner Balkhy, through the chair, I don't believe that was part of the HLC discussion or concept review. They do further review landscape plans, subsequent project design approval and final approval hearings when those plans are more fully developed. But no, they did not discuss any issue with that new driveway in terms of its appearance in regards to the trees.

Okay. Thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner Balkhy. Commissioner Wiskum?

Thank you, Madam Chair. Mr. Hazleton, may I ask you another question, please? Thank you. I'm just curious. I understand your rationale for locating them where they are. But do you, when you do your evaluations, consider safety? Because I think the property owners at 1246, if they're backing out of the driveway are really affected by having that pier right, the middle pier right there as opposed to on the western side?

Through the chair Commissioner Wiskum. We don't, we're not traffic experts and we're not certainly experts on vehicular safety. So our charge is to look at the preservation guidelines and see how the project can meet them as best, as much as feasible, let's put it that way. But I would go back to what I had just mentioned earlier is we don't want three piers because that would even be getting farther away from what was there historically. And we still have a concern about moving the other, the recreated pier to the other side.

It gives equal visual weight to each driveway, and only one is historic. And that actually falls back on a question that, a comment from Commissioner, I mispronounce your name, apologies. Balki? Thank you. We had considered what, at a general level, what sort of vegetation should go along the new driveway.

And we weren't supportive of palm trees because then we'll have two driveways, a historic driveway that had palm trees on both sides, and a new driveway with palm trees on both sides. And also there was a concern about how much landscaping to put along there that would just block more views towards the house from the public vista, which is Cliff Drive. So we are still supportive of of putting the piers closer to their original location, but not exactly. And that is has been our conclusion. Now there may be other you know scenarios or solutions. But that was the solution that we were supportive of.

So the central pier, the one in question that that miss Duncan was talking about is there's a boulder in back of it. And is that any does that have any historical significance?

No. And in fact, to be blunt, we didn't think that that boulder would likely stay. That's there now. But once the pier goes in, would be the pier set back. My understanding, and Doctor. Post is a senior partner, was that the pier would be within that landscape area around the tree. So it wouldn't be set in front of it within the driveway area or the entrance or egress area. So it would be in the behind the curb rather than in front of it.

So if if the if the pier if the boulder gets removed, the pier can move back a little bit and give more room

to That is my understanding.

Residence at 1246.

Correct. Yeah. Commissioner Riskem.

Okay. So and that's that would be fine with you if the boulder went away and the piers got moved back so that there's there's more protection for backing out of 1246.

Correct. Commissioner Wiskum.

Okay. Thank you very much for that. You're welcome. I really appreciate your being here.

Barbara Oh, thank you.

Barbara Thank

you. Yeah,

think that's all I have. Thank you.

Barbara Thank you, Commissioner Wiskum. Commissioner DeLucio?

Thank you for addressing the peer situation. That would be a recommendation though to HLC, correct? For them to make a movement of that. I have a couple of some questions. I know this is under SB three thirty. So, the major components of that would be subjective review versus subjective, correct?

Female That's correct for Okay. Maybe in terms of design review for

Female Okay. So, HLC, are they do they have a set and then they made some subjective comments. And I know that the applicant has been amenable to try to accommodate those suggestions on the design. But do they have, do they get the objective guidelines? Have they been trained on those? And I know they weren't. They were in part of when we composed all those. But how do they, how's that work? Do they follow those objectives? Design standards?

Commissioner Deluccio, through the chair, are you referring to our new odds? Yes. Odds is not subject to this project. Their pre application is in prior to that. At this time, they don't need to come

up So, how do you determine what's objective?

We do have objective standards within HLC guidelines. I will say this applicant has been very, very good about working with us in terms of subjective design guidelines. And I have every faith that they will continue to do so.

So, there's objective guidelines in our current ordinance? I know odds is going to go is in effect now.

Female They're more in the design guidelines that are for HLC Okay.

Okay. I know we have an HLC representative here, Keith Butler. Can I ask if he has any questions? Do you have anything you want to share with us on design or you just hand more for questions? I'm putting him on the spot. We used to work together.

Good afternoon, I'm Keith Butler here on behalf of the historic landmark commission. Yes. We had several comment. Remember this is concept design. So this is the first appearance of the structure, the land, the history, etcetera, to come before us.

And they will obviously come again for a PDA at some point. One point relevant to the curbing, we did feel that the curbing changes, both the street frontage modifications, etcetera, which the city had supported in the past, we supported those changes in that as well. I think that was part of your agenda today, two considerations. We were generally supportable of the entire project. We had a few comments about the proposed elevations for the two new structures to go in, to try to make them a little more in support of the craftsman style of the main house.

As you notice, the main house is a very strong red. We had a few comments about coordinating the color of the new structures possibly to integrate and make it a little more unified look against the main structure. Regarding the driveway, so we advocated the driveway actually be concrete. You'll notice, I don't if you can tell, part of it is, part of it's gravel, etcetera. The original driveway in the historic photo was dirt.

So where you saw the two pillars and the parallel. So we recommended that it be in concrete, etcetera. And basically, we're supportive of the columns, the pillars, the caps, and that consideration. And a good comment made about putting them on the existing, we'll call it old original driveway. To call out that more significantly, as the entry point, okay? And not to confuse it with the other new driveway as the exit. That's it.

Any Thank you.

Thank you.

I have a couple more questions.

Oh, sure.

Unless somebody has. Thank you. I'm thank you for sharing that with us. I had my question is like where this is five a streamlined five hearings, and this is is this considered the second hearing today?

Commissioner DeLucia, through the chair, that's

Okay. And then, when it goes to counsel, is that going be a consent item it goes if we approve the 10:00 map or do they have a hearing also? How's that handled? It's considered a hearing. That's number three. So, they there's only two left?

After this hearing, we have three hearings left. Right. Yes.

One could be city council. Maybe you can share that with us.

Yeah. We've run the math ourselves. So, we did HLC concept, which we needed before today. Today's the second. We're going back to HLC for project design approval next month. And we don't have a date for city council, but that would be the fourth hearing. And staff has recommended reserving one hearing or not using it in the event of an appeal.

So, Got we'd have Thank you for clarifying that. I had one final question about it says this project has paid an inclusionary housing in lieu fee prior to the map being recorded. So, help me under it's just like one line and it says that, is this where is the logistics of this? Is that another document we're not going to see The way it's it'll it's paid or something? How is it is it an in lieu fee based on a square footage? And, is it is it based and is it based on what square footage? I'm trying to understand that.

Commissioner Deluccio, through the chair, there is a a pretty involved code section that describes the calculation. Cannot actually explain it to you. It's very it's confusing. But I can tell you we did run those calculations with our housing staff this week. The number we're looking at currently would be $41,050 We are looking at a couple additional things that may change, but that's where we're at at the moment. And that is in the conditions of approval in terms of timing for payment.

Thank you for that. I know we're looking at the in lieu fees right now. Should they change with this project fall under the existing ones because of the SB three thirty?

Kimberly Commissioner Deluccio, through the chair, is not my understanding. No, they would not.

They would not change. They would go by what we have on the books right now, the square footage?

Kimberly Correct. Okay.

Thank you. Those are my questions.

Thank you, Commissioner DeLucia. Do we have any other questions? All right. We'll move over to deliberations. Who would like to go first? Commissioner Barnwell. Doctor.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I think it's a great project. I'm supportive of it. I appreciate the neighbors' concern about the driveway, and I hope we can find a way to put those two pillars back to create that historical feeling. And I remember that because I was a kid, and I remember that strange house. And I'm really glad that it's come back again. So, thank you for all the work you're doing, and I am supportive of the project. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Commissioner Barnwell. Vice Chair Abbas?

Thank you, Chair. I live a block and a half away, and so have seen the evolution over the past couple years. So, thank you. I've noticed the improvements, and appreciate them, and the owner's intent. I'd also be supportive if we wanted in a motion to give comments to HLC specifying our recommendation to move the pillars back or consider safety,

if that's appropriate. Thank you, Vice Chair Boss. I'm going to go to Commissioner Bauke, unless administrative staff is on the docket, because I have a blank no? Okay. Commissioner Bauke.

Okay.

Madam chair, I I definitely support the project. I I if somebody has done some historic preservation project, I definitely wanna shout out to the applicant. The the the owners definitely put a lot of time and effort to bring this property up and definitely should be commended for your efforts doing that. I do note that I would like the HLC to give a hard thought process to the peers about the safety issues the neighbors have. And also, to the applicant, take a good look at the current objectives design standards.

Your lawyers will tell you, you don't have to live by. But the folks that did them are very, very good, outstanding architects. And they really encapsulate what's important about craftsman style in Santa Barbara. So, do take a look at that as to when you get into the hard architecture of this. I think you're really close to it already, but there's stuff there. And it's all the devil's in the details. And I know you know that from what you've done with your buildings. So, please look at that. And yes, we can't enforce them because they came in beforehand. But they do exist now, and they are the law now if somebody came in. I just want to put that out there. So, I'll be supporting the project.

Thank you. Thank you, Commissioner Balki. Commissioner Wiskum.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I also support the project. I think it's very exciting and it's going to be exciting to get more housing and ADUs here. It's really a great project. It's a beautiful piece of land.

Absolutely gorgeous. I was very pleased to be up there at the site visit. And I appreciate the owner for it seems like worked really hard with with the neighbors and just, you know, making accommodations wherever it's possible to do so. So and I do support a motion to forward a recommendation to HLC to at least at a minimum remove the boulder and move the piers back as far as possible so that twelve forty six has clear access to their property if they need to back out of the driveway. And I just thank everyone for being here today.

I think our questions because it's such a large project and there's, you know, historic value, there were lots of questions in a lot of different areas. So I appreciate everyone being here today to answer the questions. Thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner Wiskum. Any other? Commissioner Delegio?

Yeah, I just want to commend Commissioner Bonwell. We had the decoration of easements in here. And I know you're the expert at that. So, that must have pleased you. And I do want to commend HLC. I did watch the meeting and they've done a terrific job on this as usual. And Barbara, you do a great job. You're very detailed and we appreciate that. And I know and I appreciate the applicants for really caring about their property and for the improvements that you're suggesting. And I'm fully in support. And I'm also in support of removing the boulder to move back the pier if we make that recommendation to HLC. And those are my comments. Thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner Deluccio. And I echo my fellow commissioner's comments. Thank you to staff for a great staff report. We really enjoyed the site visit. It's beautiful property. I appreciate the work that you're doing to protect the existing trees and a lot of the, you know, wonderful beautifulness of how it is today. But I do think that this will be an improvement. So, I'm supportive of the project and my fellow commissioner's comments regarding making in the motion the HLC recommendation to push back a little bit. Does anyone have any Commissioner Peterson? Anyone? No? Okay. Can I get a motion, please?

I'd like to make a motion to approve the staff report findings and also the commission's suggestion that we support HLC in finding a good solution for that driveway entrance.

I'll second that motion.

Thank you. Can we please have roll call?

Thank you, Chair Wardlow. I'll begin with Commissioner Delicchio.

Yes. Commissioner Barnwell. Yes.

Commissioner Wiskum.

Yes.

Commissioner Balkhy?

Brian Yes.

Mary Commissioner Peterson?

Yes.

Vice Chair Boss? Brian Yes. And Chair Wardlow? Yes. Mary Motion passes. Thank you.

Mary Thank you, Ms. Carmen. This action by the commission is subject to ten calendar day appeal period. We will now close this item and move on to our administrative portion of the agenda. Do we have any committee or liaison reports?

Nope. Commissioner Balkhy, do you want

I just want to make sure that we have either the chair or somebody at the city council meeting discussion on Paseo Nuevo on the December 2, since we we should definitely make sure our thoughts are put out there. The development agree the dispositions and development agreement draft is not public, but the council has it at this point in time. And so, it keeps evolving. It's definitely different than what we saw, so we'll need to react to that. And I just want to make sure we, as a commission, are part of that conversation.

Thank you, Commissioner Valky. Definitely agree. Do we have anyone on the commission that's interested in going, available to go?

I'm going to be there, for sure.

All right. To represent the

Most definitely to represent the PC.

Great. Commissioner Barnwell will be there and can report back, Godspeed. Any other discussion on subcommittees or workshops? I know that in a previous hearing, it was discussed about creating a subcommittee. Did you want to talk about that?

Megan can talk about that.

Chair Wardle.

Oh, we're not. Okay.

Yeah. So, we'll be adding that discussion to the December 18 funding We commission will also have Tess Harris, who's a State Street master planner, available at she's going to be here at that hearing anyway the item on the agenda. So, we felt it would be best to use her time at the end of the agenda to discuss the State Street planning efforts. Wonderful. I do have one announcement. Just wanted realized I wanted to add for the planning commission and the public that's listening. There's a package of ordinance amendments intended to streamline single family development. It's a very large package. It's scheduled for planning commission review. The first review being on December 4.

But given the, volume of that package, we have released it early to provide additional time for the commission and the public to start looking at those proposed amendments. They are intended to address the directive, from the city council to, kind of streamline and improve processing, through ordinance amendments. So, we do welcome you to go ahead and start looking at those changes. Wanted to reiterate that although it is agendized for December 4, we do expect you to take more than one hearing to give your comments. But do you please look at them in advance and be prepared to, kinda get the introduction on the fourth, and then we'd be returning to you the following week on December 11, to finish, like, that discussion.

So I just wanted to draw your attention to that matter.

Wonderful. Thank you. It is now 02:34, and that concludes our November 20 Planning Commission hearing. I hope everybody has a wonderful day, and our next hearing will be tentatively scheduled for December 4.