Cities Index.
Agenda packet, first session

Santa Barbara City Council
February 7, 2023

Document
Agenda packet, first session
Meeting
February 7, 2023
Body
Santa Barbara City Council
Pages
15
Original file
278.4 MB
Text extracted from the city's file for reading and search. Open the original on docs.santabarbaraca.gov. That file is the official record.

CITY OF SANTA BARBARA

CITY COUNCIL
Randy Rowse
Mayor
Rebecca Bjork
City Administrator
Alejandra Gutierrez
Mayor Pro Tempore
Oscar Gutierrez
Ordinance Committee Chair
Sarah J. Knecht
City Attorney
Eric Friedman
Finance Committee Chair
Meagan Harmon
Mike Jordan
Kristen W. Sneddon
City Hall
735 Anacapa Street
http://www.SantaBarbaraCA.gov
FEBRUARY 7, 2023, 2:00 PM
AGENDA
IN-PERSON PUBLIC COMMENT: At the beginning of each meeting of the City Council, Finance Committee, or Ordinance Committee, any member of the public may address the City Council concerning any item not on the Council's agenda. Any person wishing to make such address should first complete and deliver a "Request to Speak" form prior to the time that public comment is taken up by the City Council. Each speaker will be given a total of 3 minutes to address the Council. Pooling of time is not allowed during general public comment. The time allotted for general public comment at the beginning of the 2:00 p.m. session is 30 minutes.

Any member of the public who did not speak during the 2:00 p.m. session but who submitted a request to do so during the 2:00 p.m. 30 minute session may do so at the end of the meeting when the additional “Public Comment (If Necessary)” is announced. The City Council, upon majority vote, may decline to hear a speaker on the grounds that the subject matter is beyond their jurisdiction.

REMOTE PUBLIC COMMENT: Members of the public wishing to speak must “raise their hand” in the Zoom platform by selecting the virtual hand icon when their item is called. The keyboard shortcut for this is Alt+Y for Windows and Option+Y for Macs. City staff will activate the speaker’s microphone when the speaker’s name is called. The speaker will then need to unmute themselves. The keyboard shortcut for this is Alt+M for Windows or Command-Shift-A for Macs.

HOW TO REMOTELY OBSERVE AND/OR SPEAK LIVE AT A MEETING
• Web: https://santabarbaraca-gov.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_6qBzhd1OQ_iNFgvfSw-R0Q (Participation via Zoom)
• Telephone: Dial 1-669-900-6833, Enter Webinar ID: 859 7587 0615 (press *9 to raise/lower hand; press *6 to mute/unmute) • Online Streaming: Council meetings are streamed live at www.SantaBarbaraCA.gov/CAP • TV: Each regular City Council meeting is broadcast live in English and Spanish on City TV Channel 18 and rebroadcast in English on Wednesdays and Thursdays at 7:00 p.m. and Saturdays at 8:00 a.m., and in Spanish on Sundays at 3:00 p.m.

Each televised Council meeting is closed captioned for the hearing impaired. Check the City TV program guide at www.santabarbaraca.gov/citytv for rebroadcasts of Finance and Ordinance Committee meetings.

WRITTEN PUBLIC COMMENT: Public comments may also be submitted via email to [email protected] prior to the beginning of the Council Meeting. All public comments submitted via email will be provided to City Council and will become part of the public record.

ORDER OF BUSINESS: Regular meetings of the Finance Committee and the Ordinance Committee begin at 12:30 p.m. The regular City Council meeting begins at 2:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers at City Hall. (CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE)
REPORTS: Copies of the reports relating to agenda items are available for review at http://www.SantaBarbaraCA.gov/CAP.In accordance with state law requirements, this agenda generally contains only a brief general description of each item of business to be transacted or discussed at the meeting. Should you wish more detailed information regarding any particular agenda item, you are encouraged to obtain a copy of the Council Agenda Report (a "CAR") online at the City's website (http://www.SantaBarbaraCA.gov/CAP). Materials related to an item on this agenda submitted to the City Council after distribution of the agenda packet are posted to the City’s website as soon as reasonably feasible.

CONSENT CALENDAR: The Consent Calendar is comprised of items that will not usually require discussion by the City Council. A Consent Calendar item is open for discussion by the City Council upon request of a Councilmember, City staff, or member of the public. Items on the Consent Calendar may be approved by a single motion. Should you wish to comment on an item listed on the Consent Agenda, after turning in your "Request to Speak" form, you should come forward to speak or raise your hand in Zoom at the time the Council considers the Consent Calendar.

SPANISH INTERPRETATION: If you need interpretation of your communications to Council from Spanish into English, please contact the City Clerk’s Office at 564-5309 or by email at [email protected]. If possible, notification of at least 48 hours will usually enable the City to make arrangements.

INTERPRETACIÓN EN ESPAÑOL: Si necesita una interpretación del español al inglés, para sus comunicaciones al Consejo, comuníquese con la Oficina del Secretario Municipal al 564-5309, o por correo electrónico a [email protected]. Si es posible, la notificación de al menos 48 horas generalmente permitirá a la Ciudad hacer los arreglos.

AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT: If you need auxiliary aids or services or staff assistance to attend or participate in this meeting, please contact the City Administrator's Office at 564-5305 or by email at [email protected]. If possible, notification at least 48 hours prior to the meeting will usually enable the City to make reasonable arrangements. For those who need accessibility accommodation in using the “raise hand” function and/or registering to participate in the Zoom session, please contact the Clerk’s office by 5:00 p.m. the day before the meeting for assistance. Additionally, a speaker may email [email protected] by 5:00 p.m. the day before a meeting, stating which item they wish to speak on. Specialized services, such as sign language interpretation or documents in Braille, may require additional lead time to arrange. 02/07/2023 Santa Barbara City Council Final Agenda Page 1 FEBRUARY 7, 2023 AGENDA
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 2:00 P.M.

CALL TO ORDER

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

ROLL CALL

CEREMONIAL ITEMS

1. Subject: Employee Recognition – Service Award Pins
Recommendation: That Council authorize the City Administrator to express the City’s appreciation to employees who are eligible to receive service award pins for their years of service through February 28, 2023.

2. Subject: Black History Month February 2023 (120.04)

CHANGES TO THE AGENDA

PUBLIC COMMENT

CONSENT CALENDAR

3. Subject: Water Efficient Landscape Standards Ordinance Adoption [Ordinance Adoption] (540.05)
Recommendation: That City Council adopt, by reading of title only, an Ordinance of the Council of the City of Santa Barbara Repealing Chapter 22.80 and Amending Sections 14.23.005, 28.80.150, and 30.185.440 of the Santa Barbara Municipal Code Relating to Water Efficient Landscape Standards.

4. Subject: Second Amendment to the Solar Photovoltaic Power Purchase Agreement at the Granada Garage [Ordinance Adoption; Agreement] (630.06)
Recommendation: That Council adopt, by reading of title only, an Ordinance of the Council of the City of Santa Barbara Approving and Authorizing the Sustainability and Resilience Director to Execute a Second Amendment to the Power Purchase Agreement with SB Granada Garage Solar LLC to Increase the Energy Purchase Rates for the Renewable Energy System at the Granada Garage. 02/07/2023 Santa Barbara City Council Final Agenda Page 2

5. Subject: Establish Low-Income Homeowner Rehabilitation Pilot Program for City Residents through Habitat for Humanity with $50,000 Allocation from Inclusionary Housing Reserve Funds [Resolution; Agreement] (660.01) Recommendation: That Council:

A. Approve the establishment of a new Low-Income Homeowner Rehabilitation Pilot Program by providing up to $50,000 in grant funding to Habitat for Humanity of Southern Santa Barbara County to operate the program, and authorize the Community Development Director to execute such agreements and related documents, subject to approval as to form by the City Attorney, as necessary; and
B. Adopt, by reading of title only, a Resolution of the Council of the City of Santa Barbara Amending Resolution No. 22-059, Adopting the Budget for Fiscal Year 2023, to Approve an Increase in Fiscal Year 2023 Expenditure Appropriations in the General Fund in the Amount of $50,000 Funded by General Fund Inclusionary Housing Reserve Funds to Fund the Habitat for Humanity Homeowner Rehabilitation Program.

6. Subject: Authorization to Amend the Legal Services Agreement with Colantuono, Highsmith & Whatley, PC for Special Counsel Services [Agreement] (160.03)
Recommendation: That Council authorize the City Attorney to execute an amended legal services agreement with Colantuono, Highsmith & Whatley, PC, to increase the not-to-exceed amount from $100,000 to $250,000 for special counsel services related to the Boring case.

7. Subject: Professional Services Agreement with SummitWest Environmental Inc. for Biological Services Associated with the Hazardous Fuels Mitigation Project [Agreement] (570.05)
Recommendation: That Council authorize the Parks and Recreation Director to execute a Professional Services agreement with SummitWest Environmental Inc. in the amount of $95,927 to complete biological services associated with Phase 1 of the Hazardous Fuels Mitigation Project.
02/07/2023 Santa Barbara City Council Final Agenda Page 3

8. Subject: New City Administrator Employment Agreement [Agreement] (170.01)
Recommendation: That Council approve and authorize the Mayor to execute a new employment agreement between the City of Santa Barbara and Rebecca Bjork, to adjust base salary in Agreement No. 28,031, and amend the method for future salary adjustment percentage to be ½ (one half), but no more than 5% annually, of any increase to the Consumer Price Index (CPI) during the preceding June through May twelve month period.

This concludes the Consent Calendar.

CITY COUNCIL ADMINISTRATIVE AND ATTORNEY REPORTS

PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT

9. Subject: Water Supply Update and Annual Water Supply Management Report (540.08)
Recommendation: That Council:

A. Receive an update on the Three-Year Water Supply Strategy; and B. Approve and adopt the City of Santa Barbara Water Supply Management Report for the 2022 Water Year, finding that the groundwater resources are in long-term balance in accordance with the conjunctive management element of the City’s Enhanced Urban Water Management Plan.

QUASI JUDICIAL HEARING RULES APPLY TO THE FOLLOWING AGENDA ITEM

PUBLIC HEARINGS

10. Subject: Appeals of Planning Commission’s Approval of a Coastal Development Permit at 2315 Edgewater Way (640.07)
Recommendation: That Council:

A. Consider the appeals of Mahesh Balakrishnan and Jill Ryan of the Planning Commission’s Approval of a Coastal Development Permit at 2315 Edgewater Way and the determination that the project is exempt from further environmental review under California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15303 (New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures); and
B. Direct staff to return to Council with a Decision and Findings Resolution reflecting the outcome of the appeal hearing.
02/07/2023 Santa Barbara City Council Final Agenda Page 4

COUNCIL AND STAFF COMMUNICATIONS

COUNCILMEMBER COMMITTEE ASSIGNMENT REPORTS

PUBLIC COMMENT (IF NECESSARY)

ADJOURNMENT

CITY OF SANTA BARBARA

COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
AGENDA DATE: February 07, 2023
TO: Mayor and Councilmembers
FROM: City Administrator’s Office
SUBJECT: Employee Recognition – Service Award Pins
RECOMMENDATION:

That Council authorize the City Administrator to express the City’s appreciation to employees who are eligible to receive service award pins for their years of service through February 28, 2023.

DISCUSSION:

The City appreciates the loyalty to the community and the dedication to public service that are demonstrated by City employees throughout the organization every day. Since 1980, the City Employees’ Recognition Program has recognized length of City Service. Service award pins are presented to employees for every five years of service. Those employees achieving 25 years of service or more are eligible to receive their pins in front of the City Council.

Attached is a list of those employees who will be awarded pins for their service through February 28, 2023.

ATTACHMENT(S): February 2023 Service Awards
PREPARED BY: Talhia Dorado, Administrative Specialist
SUBMITTED BY: Rebecca Bjork, City Administrator
APPROVED BY: City Administrator's Office
Agenda Item No. 1

ATTACHMENT
February 2023 SERVICE AWARDS
February 07, 2023 Council Meeting
5 Years
Lucas Signorelli, Police Officer, Police Department
10 YEARS
Margarita Moreno, Police Records Manager, Police Department Ernestina Valle, Assistant Parking Coordinator, Public Works Department Lisa Gonzalez, Senior Librarian, Library Department
15 YEARS
Craig Burleigh, Police Officer, Police Department
25 YEARS
Martin Alexander, Senior Network Applications Analyst, Police Department Agenda Item No. 2
File Code No. 120.04
1 ORDINANCE NO. ______

AN ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF SANTA BARBARA REPEALING CHAPTER 22.80
AND AMENDING SECTIONS 14.23.005, 28.80.150,
AND 30.185.440 OF THE SANTA BARBARA

MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO WATER

EFFICIENT LANDSCAPE STANDARDS

THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA BARBARA DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. Chapter 22.80 of the Santa Barbara Municipal Code is repealed.

SECTION 2. Section 14.23.00 Chapter 14.23, which chapter shall be titled Water Efficient Landscaping and Recycled Water Use, of the Santa Barbara Municipal Code is amended to read as follows:

14.23.005 Water Efficient Landscape Standards.

A. The California State Legislature has found that the limited supply of state waters are subject to ever increasing demands; that California’s economic prosperity depends on adequate supplies of water; that state policy promotes conservation and efficient use of water; that landscapes provide recreation areas, clean the air and water, prevent erosion, offer fire protection, and replace ecosystems displaced by development; and that landscape design, installation, and maintenance can and should be water efficient.

Consistent with the legislative findings, the purpose of this section is to promote the values and benefits of landscapes while recognizing the need to use water and other resources as efficiently as possible; to establish a structure for designing, installing, and maintaining water efficient landscapes, and to establish provisions for water management practices and water waste prevention.

B. A landscape plan that complies with the City’s Water Efficient Landscape Standards, as adopted by resolution of the City Council, must be submitted by the project applicant and approved by the City before commencement of construction of a development or redevelopment project that requires a landscape plan under any provision of the Santa Barbara Municipal Code other than this section, or when a building permit or design review approval is required for the following projects:
(1) Construction of a new building that exceeds 500 square feet; (2) Substantial redevelopment of a building, as described in Section 30.140.200 of this Code, that exceeds 500 square feet;
(3) Addition of more than 500 square feet of floor area to an existing building; (4) Projects where a landscape plan is required by any City design review or land use review body, including but not limited to, the Architectural Board of Review, Historic Landmarks Commission, Single Family Design Board, Staff Hearing Officer, or the Planning Commission.

C. Compliance with subdivision B of this section is required as a condition of City water service to a parcel. The City will not provide water service or provide evidence of Agenda Item No. 3
File Code No. 540.05
2 a ability or commitment to provide water service for a parcel located outside of the City’s jurisdictional limits unless the owner of the parcel agrees submits an agreement to comply with the requirements of this section in a form satisfactory to the Public Works Director.

SECTION 3. Section 28.80.150 of the Santa Barbara Municipal Code is amended to read as follows:

28.80.150 Landscaping.

A complete landscaping and irrigation plan shall be submitted to and approved by the Community Development Department prior to the issuance of building permits for a twounit residential development. All landscape plans shall comply with the following:

A. Water conservation standards for landscaping in Section 14.23.005 of this Code.

B. Defensible space requirements pursuant to Section 4907 of the International Fire Code and California Fire Code as amended by Section 8.04.020 R. of this Code, when required in the High Fire Hazard Area.

C. The limitations for vegetation removal in the Hillside Design District, pursuant to Chapter 22.10 of this Code.

SECTION 4. Subdivision O of Section 30.185.440 of the Santa Barbara Municipal Code is amended to read as follows:

30.185.440 Two-Unit Residential Development.

O. Landscape Plans. A complete landscaping and irrigation plan shall be submitted to and approved by the Community Development Department prior to the issuance of building permits for a two-unit residential development. All landscape plans shall comply with the following:

1. City’s water conservation standards in adopted under Section 14.23.005 of this Code.

2. Defensible space requirements pursuant to Section 4907 of the International Fire Code and California Fire Code as amended by Section 8.04.020 R. of this Code, when required in the High Fire Hazard Area.

3. The limitations for vegetation removal in the Hillside Design District, pursuant to Chapter 22.10 of this Code.

ORDINANCE NO.______________

AN ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF

SANTA BARBARA APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING THE

SUSTAINABILITY AND RESILIENCE DIRECTOR TO

EXECUTE A SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE POWER

PURCHASE AGREEMENT WITH SB GRANADA GARAGE

SOLAR LLC TO INCREASE THE ENERGY PURCHASE

RATES FOR THE RENEWABLE ENERGY SYSTEM AT THE
GRANADA GARAGE.

THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA BARBARA DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. In accordance with the provisions of Section 521 of the Charter of the City of Santa Barbara, a Second Amendment to the power purchase agreement between the City and SB Granada Garage Solar LLC dated December 17, 2019, which amendment is on file in the Sustainability and Resilience Departement, is approved and the Sustainability and Resilience Director is authorized to execute the amendment, in a form approved by the City Attorney, on behalf of the City of Santa Barbara Agenda Item No. 4
File Code No. 630.06

22.85.030 Installation of Erosion and Sediment Control Measures.

It shall be unlawful for any person to perform any grading or for any property owner to allow anyone to perform any grading on any lot within the City without installing or implementing the required erosion and sediment control measures in accordance with the approved erosion and sediment control plan.

22.85.040 Maintenance of Erosion and Sediment Control Measures.

It shall be unlawful for any person to perform any grading or for any property owner to allow anyone to perform any grading on any lot within the City without maintaining the required erosion and sediment control measures in accordance with the approved erosion and sediment control plan. No person shall be deemed to have satisfied the requirements of an approved erosion and sediment control plan until a final inspection of the work has been approved.

22.85.050 Additional Erosion and Sediment Control Measures.

The Building Official may require additional erosion and sediment control measures to be installed or implemented if an inspection of the lot demonstrates that the erosion and sediment control measures shown on the approved erosion and sediment control plan are insufficient to prevent sediment or other materials from leaving the lot or the construction activities occurring on the lot differ from those indicated on the approved erosion and sediment control plan. Any additional erosion and sediment control measures required by the Building Official shall be incorporated into the approved erosion and sediment control plan.

CITY OF SANTA BARBARA

COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
AGENDA DATE: February 7, 2023
TO: Mayor and Councilmembers
FROM: Housing and Human Services Division, Community Development SUBJECT: Establish Low-Income Homeowner Rehabilitation Pilot Program for City Residents through Habitat for Humanity with $50,000 Allocation from Inclusionary Housing Reserve Funds [Resolution; Agreement] RECOMMENDATION: That Council:

A. Approve the establishment of a new Low-Income Homeowner Rehabilitation Pilot Program by providing up to $50,000 in grant funding to Habitat for Humanity of Southern Santa Barbara County to operate the program, and authorize the Community Development Director to execute such agreements and related documents, subject to approval as to form by the City Attorney, as necessary; and B. Adopt, by reading of title only, a Resolution of the Council of the City of Santa Barbara Amending Resolution No. 22-059, Adopting the Budget for Fiscal Year 2023, to Approve an Increase in Fiscal Year 2023 Expenditure Appropriations in the General Fund in the Amount of $50,000 Funded by General Fund Inclusionary Housing Reserve Funds to Fund the Habitat for Humanity Homeowner Rehabilitation Program.

DISCUSSION:

Background
Established in 2000, Habitat for Humanity of Southern Santa Barbara County (Habitat) is a local nonprofit committed to building strength, stability, and self-reliance through shelter.

Habitat partners with low-income individuals and families in Southern Santa Barbara County to build or improve a place to call home. Homeowners build alongside volunteers and purchase their home, paying an affordable mortgage. Habitat has built 22 new homes for 84 people (half of whom are children) and led efforts to rebuild and repair 180 homes across Santa Barbara’s south county. Habitat has also contributed to more than 430 new homes constructed internationally. Habitat is an equal housing agency.

Agenda Item No. 5
File Code No. 660.01
Council Agenda Report
Establish Low-Income Homeowner Rehabilitation Pilot Program for City Residents through Habitat for Humanity with $50,000 Allocation from Inclusionary Housing Reserve Funds [Resolution; Agreement]
February 7, 2023

Page 2 ends

Proposal
Habitat’s Neighborhood Revitalization Homeowner Rehabilitation Program (Program) assists low-income individuals, families, and seniors with necessary home repairs, accessibility modifications, and aging-in-place adaptations to remain safely in their homes. Home repairs are confirmed for applicants who own their home, earn an income below 80 percent of the area median income (AMI), live within city limits, and demonstrate urgent need based on other criteria.

Funding Request
Habitat is requesting grant funding from the City of Santa Barbara (City) totaling up to $50,000 to operate a pilot program that will help low-income owners living in the City make needed repairs on their residences. Habitat staff will manage the pilot program from the initial application solicitations, through application submissions, evaluations, and qualifications. Habitat will work directly with homeowners, contractors, and subcontractors to develop the necessary scope of work, obtain any required permits, and oversee the construction process to successful completion. This work will include payment of funds to contractors and subcontractors for completed work. No funding will be paid directly to homeowners.

Program Need
Investment in the Program is beneficial for several reasons:
 A one-time investment in a home repair can greatly extend the life of the home and is far more cost-effective than new construction. The average cost of a home repair is approximately $5,000 while new construction costs can be as high as $500/square foot (ref: SIMA Corp).
 It is critical that Santa Barbara retains its current affordable housing stock through rehabilitations that ensure decent and sustainable housing.  Safe, decent, and affordable housing creates an environment of safety and security for all residents.
 The vast majority of government funding targets rental housing exclusively. While this is important, Santa Barbara has a vast array of affordable housing needs, including low- and very low-income households who own their home but have scarce resources for needed repairs.

Program Statistics
Habitat Program data captured since the beginning of the COVID pandemic in 2020 indicates as follows:
 Habitat’s home repair clients are 78 years old, on average.  Seventy percent of households served include homeowners who have a disability.

Council Agenda Report
Establish Low-Income Homeowner Rehabilitation Pilot Program for City Residents through Habitat for Humanity with $50,000 Allocation from Inclusionary Housing Reserve Funds [Resolution; Agreement]
February 7, 2023

Page 3 ends

 Average annual income of homeowner repair clients is below $30,000 annually.  All homeowners served are at or below 80 percent of the AMI for Santa Barbara County.

Conclusion
Staff supports Habitat’s request to establish and operate a pilot program to assist lowincome homeowners with needed home repairs. Attending to repair and rehabilitation needs will ensure preservation of housing, enabling low-income households to remain in their homes.

This effort will also contribute to the City’s goals as outlined in the City’s General Plan Housing Element, Housing Opportunities Policy, Section H2, which states: “Promote equal housing opportunities for all segments of the community, with special emphasis given to extremely low, very low, low, moderate, middle income and special needs households.” Looking forward, this new program will address the City’s updated 2023 Housing Element Goal 5 – Preserve Housing Policy 5.1, which states: “Encourage the maintenance and repair of existing owner-occupied housing to prevent deterioration and assist property owners that can demonstrate financial need in upgrading substandard units.”
Habitat has operated the same Program for the County of Santa Barbara for the past year and has an excellent record of providing successful rehabilitation projects that address the needs of several households in the community. By offering a one-year pilot program, the City can assess its success before committing to support an ongoing program.

On January 24, 2023, the Finance Committee voted unanimously to recommend that City Council approve the $50,000 pilot program in order to provide low-income households residing in the City with the resources needed to repair and preserve their housing.

BUDGET/FINANCIAL INFORMATION:

There are sufficient funds available in the General Fund Inclusionary Housing Reserve to fully fund the proposed $50,000 pilot program. The Inclusionary Housing Reserve has approximately $717,000 in available reserve funds. If the proposed $50,000 grant is approved, the Inclusionary Housing Reserve will be left with approximately $667,000 in available reserve funds. Any funds that are not used during the initial pilot program will remain in the Inclusionary Housing Reserve. If the pilot program is deemed successful and Council supports continued funding, the unexpended funds will be used to fund the next program year.

Council Agenda Report
Establish Low-Income Homeowner Rehabilitation Pilot Program for City Residents through Habitat for Humanity with $50,000 Allocation from Inclusionary Housing Reserve Funds [Resolution; Agreement]
February 7, 2023

Page 4 ends

ATTACHMENTS: 1. Habitat’s Request Letter

2. Habitat’s Home Repair Program Selection Policy and Operating Manual
PREPARED BY: Laura Dubbels, Housing and Human Services Manager SUBMITTED BY: Elias Isaacson, Community Development Director APPROVED BY: City Administrator’s Office
Contact: Jessica Wishan, CEO Habitat for Humanity of Southern Santa Barbara County - [email protected] or (805) 453-9648 City of Santa Barbara Request for Funding for Homeowner Rehabilitation Program Submitted by: Jessica de L’Arbre, December 16, 2022
About Habitat Santa Barbara:

Established in 2000, Habitat for Humanity of Southern Santa Barbara County is a local nonprofit committed to building strength, stability and self-reliance through shelter. We partner with low-income individuals and families in Southern Santa Barbara County to build or improve a place to call home. Homeowners build alongside volunteers and purchase their home, paying an affordable mortgage. Habitat for Humanity of Southern Santa Barbara County has built 22 new homes for 84 people, 50% of which are children, led efforts to rebuild and repair 180 homes across Santa Barbara’s south county, and contributed to 430+ new homes constructed internationally. Habitat Santa Barbara is an equal housing agency.

About Neighborhood Revitalization & Home Repair Program:

Habitat for Humanity’s Neighborhood Revitalization Homeowner Rehabilitation Programs assist low-income individuals, families and seniors with necessary home repairs, accessibility modifications and aging-in-place adaptations to remain safely in their homes. Home repairs are confirmed for applicants who own their home, are income verified below 80% AMI, and demonstrate an urgent need among other selection criteria.

Under the Neighborhood Revitalization program, we operate the A Brush with Kindness program which provides external home repairs which may include stair repairs, wheelchair ramps, clearing pathways, etc. and the Critical Home Repair program which provides larger interior kitchen and bathroom accessibility modifications, roof replacement, partial or whole-home repairs in critical need safety areas.

We leverage all grants with donated volunteer labor, in-kind donations of appliances and building materials and in-kind donations of professional labor. A typical home repair will include a few of these home repair examples, depending upon the needs of the home and the age and ability of the household.

All home repair recipients complete an eligibility screening and extensive application process that includes income verifications and homeowner status at minimum. Home repairs are a grant to the homeowner, not a loan. There is no repayment back to Habitat and the program grant is currently in compliance with CDBG funds from the county already in-place for other areas of Santa Barbara. The homes we support are not deed restricted but rather are naturally affordable and we aim to preserve them as such.

The importance of the Habitat Santa Barbara Home Repair Program:

A one-time investment in a home repair can often last a lifetime – and is far more cost-efficient than new construction. The average cost of a home repair may range from $5,000 to $25,000 while new construction costs can be as high as $500/sq foot (ref: SIMA Corp).

Our community must maintain the naturally affordable housing we already have – otherwise a sale of that home is lost as affordable to the community’s housing continuum (homes without an affordability covenant).

Exacerbated by the pandemic, home is a form of health care and a route to stability – as a community, we must ensure that safe, decent, and affordable housing can create an environment of safety and security for all.

ATTACHMENT 1
Contact: Jessica Wishan, CEO Habitat for Humanity of Southern Santa Barbara County - [email protected] or (805) 453-9648 A vast majority of available government funding is available exclusively to rental housing. While this is important, our Santa Barbara community has a vast array of affordable housing needs, including low and very low income homeownership households who may own their home but have essentially no resources.

Program Data (Captured since beginning of Pandemic in 2020):

Since the start of the pandemic, the average of a home repair client is 78 years old. 70% of households served since the pandemic include homeowners who have a disability Average annual income of homeowner repair clients is below $30,000 annually.

All homeowners served are at or below 80% of the Area Median Income (AMI) for Santa Barbara County.

Leverage / Strength of Habitat Home Repair Model:

Donated Services - Many times, professional construction/trade services are donated or given at a discount, and our volunteer model is implemented wherever appropriate. Support of households is managed by trained leadership volunteers via a Family Services Committee.

Donated Materials - Community members donate construction materials in-kind (ex: flooring, heaters, and more!).

Sweat Equity - Homeowners and their families contribute “sweat equity” as a part of our self-sufficiency model.

Government funding is leveraged with private monetary donations, strengthening the program outcomes.

Program Benefits of PRESERVING affordable homeownership:

Preservation of naturally affordable housing stock
Aging in Place and health and safety improvements.

Accessibility Modifications
Addressing issues that are out of compliance with local building codes.

Program complies with fair and equal housing and addresses a critical, unmet community need.

Homelessness prevention
Examples of past home repairs completed:

Widening doorways to support aging in place.

Bathroom remodels to accommodate for accessibility needs.

Fixing / replacing a heater for individuals with health conditions.

Installation of ADA ramps for home entries.

Roof repairs and replacements.

Repairing plumbing issues where running water previously did not exist.

Repairing holes in flooring.

Addressing infestation issues.

Tree trimming and brush removal in dangerous circumstances and/or high-risk to fire neighborhoods.

City of Santa Barbara Funding Request:

Habitat for Humanity of Southern Santa Barbara County respectfully requests $50,000 from the City of Santa Barbara to support an initial start-up, pilot program in support of Neighborhood Revitalization, Home Repairs & Housing Preservation. Depending upon the needs and scope of the work, projects can range from $2,000 - $25,000 to complete work at each household which includes permits, qualifying applicants, project management, professional labor and building materials at minimum. These home repairs will be limited to within the City of Santa Barbara and all repairs will benefit individuals/families with a total annual income below 80% AMI. We anticipate being able to Contact: Jessica Wishan, CEO Habitat for Humanity of Southern Santa Barbara County - [email protected] or (805) 453-9648 repair 3 homes for local, low-income residents with the possibility of a maximum of 6 households served with this initial funding.

In addition to providing safe housing for households in need of repairs to their home, this program’s outcomes may include aging-in-place solutions, fall prevention, housing stability, retaining affordable housing and maintaining a healthy place to live. The broader community impact is homelessness prevention, fall prevention for seniors, community revitalization through blighted homes repaired, building code improvements, the maintenance of our local affordable housing stock and a decrease in expensive emergency community services. Improved exteriors also add to healthier, safer and more walkable neighborhoods as a whole.

Habitat Santa Barbara is the recipient of funding from the County of Santa Barbara for a CDBG program, and other Habitat affiliates across California partner with cities to successfully implement these programs. Our local organization has more than a decade of experience in operating its home repair and neighborhood revitalization program locally.

Habitat continues to focus on housing as the foundation for health, wellness, and education. We anticipate the need for home repairs to not just continue but to grow as a result of the challenges created by the COVID-19 pandemic.

City of Santa Barbara 2021 Home Repair Success Story:

Barbara, a homeowner partner of Habitat Santa Barbara, is 87 and owns a home in the Hidden Valley neighborhood, but as her physical mobility deteriorated, she couldn’t afford to make the accommodations that would allow her to stay there safely and with self-sufficiency.

Barbara uses a walker to get around her house. Her severe arthritis makes it hard to move and to drive. She had an urgent surgery coming up, and bathing in a renovated bathroom was essential for her recovery. That’s when her daughter, Kim, reached out to Habitat Santa Barbara. “As a homeowner, you’re usually excluded from so many housing resources,” Kim told Habitat Santa Barbara. “But my mom is low-income. When we saw that Habitat for Humanity might be a resource for her as a homeowner on a small, fixed income, we thought it could be our only hope to keep Mom in her home.”
A crew skilled at plumbing replaced the bathtub with a walk-in shower, changed built-in fixtures that blocked Barbara’s walker, and installed a new toilet that was easier to use and reduced the risk of falls. Her adult children agreed to paint the walls and complete the finishings in the bathroom –the kind of work the nonprofit refers to as “sweat equity.” When the repair was completed, Barbara had a completely remodeled bathroom that improved her self-sufficiency, housing stability and safety.

Contact: Jessica Wishan, CEO Habitat for Humanity of Southern Santa Barbara County - [email protected] or (805) 453-9648 2022 Project Needs for a home in the City of Santa Barbara:

ATTACHMENT 2

1 RESOLUTION NO.

A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
SANTA BARBARA AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 22-059,
ADOPTING THE BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2023, TO
APPROVE AN INCREASE IN FISCAL YEAR 2023

EXPENDITURE APPROPRIATIONS IN THE GENERAL
FUND IN THE AMOUNT OF $50,000 FROM AVAILABLE

INCLUSIONARY HOUSING RESERVE FUNDS TO FUND

THE HABITAT FOR HUMANITY HOMEOWNER

REHABILITATION PILOT PROGRAM
WHEREAS, in accordance with the City Charter, the City Administrator filed with the Council a proposed budget for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2022; and WHEREAS, the City Council is required to adopt a budget before the beginning of the fiscal year on July 1, 2022; and
WHEREAS, the City Charter provides that at any public meeting after the adoption of the budget, the City Council may amend or supplement the budget by motion adopted by the affirmative votes of at least a majority of the total members of the City Council; and WHEREAS, as authorized by Resolution No. 22-059, this Resolution approves the amendment to the budget as provided herein.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA BARBARA THAT:

In accordance with the provisions of Section 1205 of the City Charter, the budget for the fiscal year 2023, as adopted by Resolution No. 22-059, is hereby amended as follows:

1. City Council approves of appropriating available inclusionary housing reserve funds that exist in the General Fund budget in Fiscal Year 2023 in the amount of $50,000 in order to fund a low-income homeowner rehabilitation pilot program for City residents through Habitat for Humanity of Southern Santa Barbara County.

CITY OF SANTA BARBARA

COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
AGENDA DATE: February 7, 2023
TO: Mayor and Councilmembers
FROM: City Attorney’s Office
SUBJECT: Authorization to Amend the Legal Services with Colantuono, Highsmith & Whatley, PC for Special Counsel Services [Agreement]
RECOMMENDATION:

That Council authorize the City Attorney to execute an amended legal services agreement with Colantuono, Highsmith & Whatley, PC, to increase the not-to-exceed amount from $100,000 to $250,000 for special counsel services related to the Boring case.

DISCUSSION:

The staffing needs associated with defending the case of Boring v. Murrillo, et al. exceed the current capacity of the City Attorney’s Office.

The staff from the City Attorney’s Office will provide legal guidance for the Colantuono firm. Risk Management staff will handle the contract administration and financial oversight. The City Attorney’s Office and the Risk Management team routinely collaborate to effectively defend the City in similar types of legal matters.

BUDGETARY IMPACTS:

The cost for legal support and related costs for this case will be paid from the SelfInsurance Fund (SIF) using the existing expenditure appropriations established in Fiscal Year 2023. The SIF maintains adequate funding to cover the expected costs anticipated under this contract for services. Staff will monitor expenditure appropriations and actual expenses throughout the fiscal year and may propose additional expenditure appropriation using SIF available reserves as necessary.

SUBMITTED BY: Sarah J. Knecht, City Attorney
APPROVED BY: Sarah J. Knecht, City Attorney
APPROVED BY: City Administrator's Office
Agenda Item No. 6
File Code No. 160.03

CITY OF SANTA BARBARA

COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
AGENDA DATE: February 7, 2023
TO: Mayor and Councilmembers
FROM: Administration Division, Parks and Recreation Department SUBJECT: Professional Services Agreement with SummitWest Environmental Inc. for Biological Services Associated with the Hazardous Fuels Mitigation Project [Agreement]
RECOMMENDATION:

That Council authorize the Parks and Recreation Director to execute a Professional Services agreement with SummitWest Environmental Inc. in the amount of $95,927 to complete biological services associated with Phase 1 of the Hazardous Fuels Mitigation Project.

DISCUSSION:

Project Background
The Fire Department and the Parks and Recreation Department are developing a hazardous fuels mitigation project (Project) for seven open space parks: Parma Park, Honda Valley Park, Elings Park, Hale Park, Franceschi Park, Stevens Park, and the Douglas Family Preserve. The primary goal of the Project is to implement a comprehensive and sustainable approach to reducing hazardous vegetation in open space parks located within High Fire Hazard Areas of the City, in accordance with the objectives stated in the City’s 2021 Community Wildfire Protection Plan (CWPP).

The Project will support vegetation management activities in open space parks. The work products created by this contract comprise the bulk of Phase 1 of this Project, which is to develop planning documents. SummitWest Environmental Inc. (SummitWest) will develop detailed biological resource assessment reports (BRAs). Each report will contain park specific literature reviews, vegetation mapping, habitat suitability assessments, and rare plant surveys. The planning documents will establish the baseline for existing biological resources, approaches to addressing fuels management objectives, and provide guidance for native habitat restoration consistent with wildland fire management objectives.

Agenda Item No. 7
File Code No. 570.05
Council Agenda Report
Professional Services Agreement with SummitWest Environmental Inc. for Biological Services Associated with the Hazardous Fuels Mitigation Project [Agreement] February 7, 2023

Page 2 ends

The vegetation management methods used in Phase 2 (implementation) of the Project will be determined based on the results of Phase 1, detailed in each BRA. The biological services associated with Phase 1 of the Project are consistent with the City’s CWPP and will demonstrate the City’s commitment to a fire-safe community. The professional services agreement with SummitWest will complete Phase 1 of the Project.

Scope of Professional Services
SummitWest shall produce individual BRAs and conduct all associated fieldwork for the following seven open space parks: Parma Park, Honda Valley Park, Elings Park, Hale Park, Franceschi Park, Stevens Park, and the Douglas Family Preserve. The BRAs shall include but are not limited to a literature review, vegetation mapping, habitat suitability assessment, rare plant surveys, recommended avoidance and minimization measures, and, if applicable, special status species submissions to the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB). SummitWest shall also deliver a GIS data package associated with survey results.

Consultant Selection
The Parks and Recreation Department published a request for proposal (RFP) for a Biological Resources Assessment Report for seven park properties. Six firms submitted responses. The Fire Department and Parks and Recreation Department reviewed and scored the proposals. Staff recommend SummitWest as the most qualified company due to the firm’s understanding of the Project scope, and extensive experience with similar hazardous fuel management assessments.

BUDGET/FINANCIAL INFORMATION:

There are sufficient expenditure appropriations in the Adopted Fire Department Fiscal Year 2023 Capital Outlay Fund to fund the contract with SummitWest in the amount of $95,927. The contract amount will be entirely funded by a $525,000 Coastal Conservancy grant for fuel management. The remaining grant funds will be used for Project implementation (Phase 2).

SUSTAINABILITY IMPACT:

This Project will reduce fire risk while avoiding disruption of the natural ecosystem, making the City of Santa Barbara a more fire-wise and resilient community. The Project vision and approach is long term. This Project will support a comprehensive and sustainable approach to hazardous fuels management, and inform work plans within City open space parks.

A copy of the agreement may be requested from the Parks and Recreation Department for public review. Please contact Monique O’Conner at [email protected].

Council Agenda Report
Professional Services Agreement with SummitWest Environmental Inc. for Biological Services Associated with the Hazardous Fuels Mitigation Project [Agreement] February 7, 2023

Page 3 ends

PREPARED BY: Monique O’Conner, Associate Park Planner
SUBMITTED BY: Jill E. Zachary, Parks and Recreation Director APPROVED BY: City Administrator's Office

CITY OF SANTA BARBARA

COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
AGENDA DATE: February 7, 2023
TO: Mayor and Councilmembers
FROM: Wendy Levy, Human Resources Director
SUBJECT: New City Administrator Employment Agreement [Agreement] RECOMMENDATION:

That Council approve and authorize the Mayor to execute a new employment agreement between the City of Santa Barbara and Rebecca Bjork, to adjust base salary in Agreement No. 28,031, and amend the method for future salary adjustment percentage to be ½ (one half), but no more than 5% annually, of any increase to the Consumer Price Index (CPI) during the preceding June through May twelve month period.

DISCUSSION:

City Council must approve any new employment agreement or amendment to an existing employment agreement for the appointed position of City Administrator. The recommended agreement (Attachment) is a new agreement, rather than an amended agreement, to ensure transparency. The public can easily see all existing terms in the new agreement rather than only changes noted in an amendment.

Existing Employment Agreement No. 28,031, Section 3, Subsection B outlines current practice for changes to compensation:
“Employee's compensation, as provided herein, shall be reviewed annually and may, from time to time, be increased based on Employee's satisfactory performance, as solely determined by the City Council. Such increases will be established by ordinance. Any increases so approved shall inure to Employee without amendment of this Agreement.” In the new agreement, the above language is removed and replaced with the following:
“Commencing on the first day of the pay period which includes July 1, 2024, and on the first day of the pay period which includes July 1 of each year thereafter, Employee’s base salary shall be automatically adjusted without further Council action by a percentage amount equal to ½ of any increase to the Consumer Price Index (CPI) during the preceding June through May twelve month period. The CPI used shall be the California Consumer Price index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers as calculated by the California Department of Industrial Relations. CPI adjustments shall be capped at 5% annually.”
Agenda Item No. 8
File Code No. 170.01
Council Agenda Report
New City Administrator Employment Agreement [Agreement] February 7, 2023

Page 2 ends

The existing bi-weekly salary range for City Administrator is $10,897.89 - $13,164.66.

Under the new agreement, annual salary adjustments may be made administratively within this range.

BUDGET/FINANCIAL INFORMATION:

This change incurs no budget impact, as the new agreement outlines an administrative procedural change for annual salary adjustments and does not increase the upper limit of the City Administrator’s salary range.

ATTACHMENT: City Administrator Amended and Restated Contract, effective January 24, 2023
PREPARED BY: Graciela Reynoso, Human Resources Manager
SUBMITTED BY: Wendy Levy, Human Resources Director
APPROVED BY: City Administrator's Office
Council Agenda Report
New City Administrator Employment Agreement [Agreement] February 7, 2023

Page 3 ends
Page 1 ends

EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT
Agreement No. _____
The City of Santa Barbara, a municipal corporation, hereinafter referred to as "Employer" and Rebecca Bjork, an individual, hereinafter referred to as "Employee" enter into this Agreement on January 24, 2023 for Employee's continued services as City Administrator for the City of Santa Barbara.

WHEREAS, this Agreement is made under Article VI of the Santa Barbara City Charter, as a municipal affair; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of Employer, hereinafter "City Council," determined that Employee has the necessary qualifications and experience for the Officeof City Administrator as required by the City Charter; and WHEREAS, on February 15, 2022, the City Council appointed Employee to the Office of City Administrator, with an effective date of February 15, 2022; and WHEREAS, on February 15, 2022, City and Employee entered into an initial employment Agreement No. 28,031;
WHEREAS, Employer and Employee enter into a new Agreement to document the terms and conditions of employment.

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS MUTUALLY AGREED AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. TERM AND STATUS.

A. Employer employs Employee to serve as City Administrator and in that capacity, to also hold the offices of City Clerk and City Treasurer (“ancillary offices”). The duties of the ancillary offices may be delegated to the Director of Finance and the City Clerk Services Manager.

B. Employee's employment status is at-will and at the pleasure of the City Council. Employee understands and agrees that the City Council may terminate her City employment at any time, subject only to the notice, removal and severance provisions of Section 5 of this Agreement and Section 606 of the City Charter.

Employee understands and agrees that Employer has made no implied or express oral or written assurances of continued employment with the City. Employee further understands and agrees that she has no property right in City employment and that Employer requires no cause to suspend or terminate her City employment.

SECTION 2. POWERS AND DUTIES.

A. Employee shall perform the duties of City Administrator as set forth

Page 2 ends

in Article VI of the City Charter and as determined and controlled by the City Council. Employee shall report directly and solely to the City Council.

B. In the performance of the duties of City Administrator, Employee agrees to comply with all federal, state and local laws, ordinances, rules, regulations and City Charter, which are applicable to the Office of the City Administrator. Employee acknowledges that she is subject to the common law and statutory conflict-of-interest provisions, including, but not limited to, the Political Reform Act set forth in California Government Code Section 87100 and following, the Fair Political Practices Commission Regulations set forth in California Code of Regulations, Title 2, Section 18700 and following, and California Government Code Section 1090 and following, as they may be amended. Employee agrees that she will be acquainted with the abovereferenced provisions, comply fully with them and not take any action, which results or could appear to result, in a violation of such provisions.

SECTION 3. COMPENSATION.

A. Base Salary.

As compensation for Employee's services, Employer agrees to pay Employee, on a bi-weekly basis, an annual base salary of $324,180.48.

B. Changes to Compensation.

Commencing on the first day of the pay period which includes July 1, 2024, and on the first day of the pay period which includes July 1 of each year thereafter, Employee’s base salary shall be automatically adjusted without further Council action by a percentage amount equal to ½ of any increase to the Consumer Price Index (CPI) during the preceding June through May twelve month period. The CPI used shall be the California Consumer Price index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers as calculated by the California Department of Industrial Relations. CPI adjustments shall be capped at 5% annually.

C. Health and Welfare Benefits.

Employee shall receive the same health and welfare benefits provided to the City's Group 1 Managers ("Executives"), including, but not limited to, long term disability and life insurance, as set forth in the Management Performance and Compensation Plan.

D. Retirement.

Employee shall receive retirement benefits through the Public Employees Retirement System (hereinafter "PERS") Miscellaneous Plan. Employee shall

Page 3 ends

pay a variable contribution toward retirement under the same formula applicable to the City's Group 1 Managers ("Executives") on the date of this Agreement.

E. Automobile Allowance.

Employee shall receive an automobile allowance of $631 per month which shall be indexed on a percentage basis with changes in the Internal Revenue Service mileage reimbursement rate for business travel, as provided under Resolution 90- 012, and increased or decreased, as appropriate, without amendment of this Agreement.

F. Leave.

Employee shall receive the same leave benefits provided to the City’s Group 1 Managers (“Executives”), including, but not limited to, holiday leave and catastrophic leave, as set forth in the Management Performance and Compensation Plan.

G. Relocation Expenses.

In view of Charter Section 601, Employer shall reimburse Employee for documented moving expenses incurred as a result of Employee relocating her residence to a location within the boundaries of the City, provided that such reimbursement shall be capped at $5,000.00 and shall be paid only if such documented moving expenses are incurred within one year of the effective date of this Agreement. The period for Employee to relocate under Charter Section 601 is extended for a period of one year, subject to further extensions by the City Council.

SECTION 4. PERFORMANCE EVALUATION.

Employer shall evaluate the performance of Employee at its discretion.

SECTION 5. TERMINATION.

A. Termination by Employee.

Employee may voluntarily resign as City Administrator by delivering a letter of resignation to the City Council not less than 30 days prior to the effective date of termination. Employee is not entitled to any severance pay detailed in Section 5(B)(3) if she resigns or retires.

B. Termination by Employer.

1. Employer may unilaterally terminate Employee's employment, with or

Page 4 ends

without cause, in accordance with Sections 600 and 606 of the City Charter. No cause for termination need exist because Employee recognizes that she serves at the pleasure of the City Council as an at-will employee. Except as otherwise provided by this Agreement or by law, Employee agrees that she is exempt from any pre- or post-termination due process rights (such as Skelly rights or a name clearing hearing).

2. Employer shall provide Employee at least 45 days’ notice prior to the effective date of termination except if termination is for cause as detailed in Section six (6) below. Employer shall provide Employee with the reasons for termination upon her request.

3. Employee shall receive six (6) months’ severance pay consisting of Employee's base salary, the cash value of twelve (12) months of cafeteria plan and automobile allowances at the effective date of termination and a cash payment of accrued leaves. The PERS Retirement contribution shall not be included in the severance pay. Nothing in this Section shall extend the amount of time served for purposes of receiving any benefit provided in this Agreement.

SECTION 6. TERMINATION FOR CAUSE.

If Employee is terminated “for cause”, City shall have no obligation provide severance benefits. All payments of salaries and benefits in this Agreement shall cease, however, Employee will be paid salary and benefits through the date of termination in accordance to City policy and the law. The term “for cause”, as used in this Agreement, shall mean any of the following: a) conviction of a felony; b) conviction of an act involving moral turpitude or illegal gain; c) a plea of nolo contendere involving a conviction of a felony or an act involving moral turpitude or illegal gain; d) any act constituting a knowing and intentional violation of the City’s Conflict of Interest Code.

SECTION 7. MISCELLANEOUS.

A. Use and administration of benefits shall conform to the requirements of the Management Performance and Compensation Plan and any other City policy or regulation, unless otherwise specified in thisAgreement.

B. Agreement no. 28,031 is now void in its entirety and unenforceable C. This Agreement may be modified only upon the written consent of the parties.

D. This Agreement is a personal services agreement, and as such, may not be assigned by eitherparty.

Page 5 ends

E. This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement between the parties and shall be interpreted in accordance with the laws of the State of California.

The parties hereto have executed this Agreement in duplicate the day and year noted above.

Attest:

Sarah Gorman Rebecca Bjork, an individual
City Clerk Services Manager
Approved as to form: CITY OF SANTA BARBARA
John Doimas Randy Rowse, Mayor
Assistant City Attorney IV

CITY OF SANTA BARBARA

COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
AGENDA DATE: February 7, 2023
TO: Mayor and Councilmembers
FROM: Water Resources Division, Public Works Department SUBJECT: Water Supply Update and Annual Water Supply Management Report RECOMMENDATION: That Council:

A. Receive an update on the Three-Year Water Supply Strategy; and B. Approve and adopt the City of Santa Barbara Water Supply Management Report for the 2022 Water Year, finding that the groundwater resources are in long-term balance in accordance with the conjunctive management element of the City’s Enhanced Urban Water Management Plan.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

This water supply update provides an overview of the City of Santa Barbara’s (City) water supplies following the conclusion of Water Year (WY) 2022 and includes an analysis with the conclusion that the City’s available water supplies are sufficient to meet demands for at least the next three years. Recent above-average rainfall in January has filled Gibraltar Reservoir to 100% capacity; the reservoir began spilling on January 5, 2023. Lake Cachuma is also at capacity. The January storms have significantly improved the City’s water supply situation, eliminating the potential for a supply shortage for at least the next three years. This report also provides a summary of the 2022 Annual Water Supply Management Report (WSMR), which is a backward-looking document summarizing water supplies and issues for WY 2022 (October 1, 2021 through September 30, 2022). The report fulfills a mitigation requirement for the Coastal Branch of the State Water Project (SWP) to manage water supplies in a manner that prevents the long-term overdraft of local groundwater supplies.

DISCUSSION:

Water Supply Update
WY 2023 began on October 1, 2022, ending WY 2022. At the start of each new WY, staff update the City’s water supply planning charts to reflect actual water used during the previous WY (in this case, October 1, 2021, through September 30, 2022) and extends the three-year water supply strategy one additional year for water security purposes.

Thus, this supply strategy extends through WY 2025. Updates to the City’s water supply Agenda Item No. 9
File Code No. 540.08
Council Agenda Report
Water Supply Update and Annual Water Supply Management Report February 7, 2023

Page 2 ends

planning strategy are conservative to ensure water security for our community. This conservative planning approach allows staff to determine if the City has sufficient water to meet demands under three additional years of drought or during unanticipated supply interruptions due to equipment or infrastructure failure.

The recent update to the City’s water supply planning strategy demonstrates that, even if drought conditions return next year or we experience supply interruptions, the City’s water demands can be met for at least the next three years (through WY 2025) using water from Lake Cachuma, Gibraltar Reservoir, Mission Tunnel infiltration, desalination, and recycled water. A full Gibraltar Reservoir and a nearly full Lake Cachuma means the City can primarily rely on its surface water supplies over the next several years to meet community demands. However, conservatively assuming drought conditions return next year and persist for the next three years, the City should continue to embrace conservation as a way of life. Santa Barbara water customers’ current 12-month running average conservation is 25% compared to 2013 baseline water demands, an approximately 2,500 acre-foot per year savings compared to pre-drought demands.

In May 2022, in response to statewide drought conditions, the California State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) adopted regulations requiring water agencies to implement the water-saving actions associated with a Stage Two Water Shortage, as defined in their Water Shortage Contingency Plans. In June 2022, Council adopted a Stage Two Water Shortage Alert in response to the SWRCB’s regulations. If California experiences another dry winter, additional regulations are expected from the SWRCB.

Staff is monitoring the situation and will report to Water Commission and Council on any new requirements. The analysis provided in this report is based on the City’s specific water supply conditions, regardless of statewide requirements. Based on the aboveaverage precipitation received through the end of January, staff plans to return to Water Commission and Council in spring 2023 with revisions that reflect our improved water supply situation and the State’s amended regulations.

Annual Water Supply Management Report
The WSMR summarizes activities of the past WY (October 2021 through September 2022). The WSMR fulfills a mitigation requirement of the Coastal Branch of the SWP for managing water supplies to prevent long-term overdraft of local groundwater. City staff also uses the WSMR to inform Council and the public of recent activities and current water supply conditions. Council is tentatively scheduled to review and adopt the WSMR at their February 7, 2023, meeting; at that time, the draft report will be finalized.

Summarized below are key issues in the WSMR for each City water source.

Lake Cachuma
One of the most important indicators of the City’s water supply status is storage in Lake Cachuma, which ended WY 2022 at 36% capacity. Around July each year, the United States Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) determines the Cachuma Member Units’, including the City’s, allocation for the upcoming WY. In the past, this determination was Council Agenda Report
Water Supply Update and Annual Water Supply Management Report February 7, 2023

Page 3 ends

based primarily on current lake storage levels and the amount of available unaccountedfor water, or inflows that had not yet been allocated to Cachuma water use or users. In the past two years, Reclamation has modeled projected lake storage and drawdown to determine the allocation, with modeling efforts assuming no new inflows and looking ahead for two years. Cachuma Operation and Maintenance Board (COMB) staff and the Cachuma Member Units also model lake storage and try to work with Reclamation to determine an appropriate allocation based on the best available data. The COMB lake elevation and storage model indicated a 15% allocation was appropriate for WY 2023; however, Reclamation chose to set the allocation at 0%. Key issues for Lake Cachuma are the Cachuma Project State Water Rights Order, Cachuma Project Biological Opinion, and Cachuma Contract 2020. For a complete description of each issue, refer to the attached Draft Water Supply Management Report.

Gibraltar Reservoir
In WY 2022, the City received 1,626 AF of water from Gibraltar. At the end of WY 2022, Gibraltar was functionally empty and ready to capture winter rains. After recent storms, it is now full and spilling. Siltation related to the 2007 Zaca Fire, the 2016 Rey Fire, and the 2017 Thomas Fire has resulted in a significant reduction in storage capacity in Gibraltar.

A bathymetric survey performed in August 2021 indicates Gibraltar has a maximum storage capacity of 4,693 AF, which is approximately one-third of its original capacity. The continued reduction in storage capacity was the impetus for initiating the Pass Through option under the 1989 Upper Santa Ynez River Operations Agreement (Pass Through Agreement). A final environmental assessment (EA) for the Warren Act Contract needed between Reclamation and the City to fully implement the Pass Through Agreement has yet to be released by Reclamation. Staff worked with Reclamation in 2019 to review and negotiate the draft Warren Act Contract language. Staff continues to wait for a response from Reclamation regarding outstanding EA issues.

Groundwater
The City’s practice is to conjunctively use its groundwater basins by increasing pumping during droughts when surface water is limited. In response to recent drought conditions, increased groundwater pumping in WYs 2015 through 2018 provided an important water supply. The City has been resting its groundwater basins since the spring of 2017, and has relied more on surface water supplies and desalinated water. Due to ongoing dry conditions, the City began pumping groundwater from two wells located in the Storage Unit 1 groundwater basin this summer, for a total of 203 AF of groundwater in WY 2022.

The City plans to continue using groundwater supplies through the next three WYs, should dry conditions persist. Based on the remaining estimated yields of the basins, groundwater resources are in long-term balance, and groundwater production does not exceed the estimated basin yield. The City has factored this into its water supply planning and does not plan to use groundwater supplies beyond the estimated remaining yield.

This practice will ensure groundwater resources are kept in long-term balance. The City continues to monitor groundwater levels and water quality for seawater intrusion.

Council Agenda Report
Water Supply Update and Annual Water Supply Management Report February 7, 2023

Page 4 ends

State Water Project
The City receives imported water from the SWP through the Central Coast Water Authority, a joint powers authority formed in 1991 to finance, construct, manage, and operate regional treatment and conveyance facilities delivering State water to member agencies, including the City. The 2022 SWP allocation was historically low at 5% of Table A contract amounts, which is 165 AF for the City. In addition to the 165 AF, the City had 734 AF of unused SWP water stored in the San Luis Reservoir. The City also purchased 862 AF of supplemental water in 2022, which was again stored in the San Luis Reservoir.

The City used 384 AF of SWP water to supply its customers in WY 2022. It also exchanged 139 AF of SWP water for Cachuma allocation with the Sana Ynez River Water Conservation District, Improvement District No. 1, pursuant to the exchange agreement between both parties. Currently, the City has approximately 1,200 AF of SWP water stored in the San Luis Reservoir. Key issues for the SWP include the Delta Conveyance Project, State Water Contract Assignment, and legal action against the County of Santa Barbara. For a complete description of each issue, please refer to the attached Draft WSMR.

Desalination
In response to the severity of the recent drought, the City reactivated the Charles E. Meyer Desalination Plant (Plant) in 2017, which has a production capacity of 3,125 AFY. The City-owned Plant is operated under a contract with IDE Americas, who delivered 2,874 AF of desalinated water to the City’s water system in 2022. In February 2021, Council changed the role of desalinated water within the City’s water supply portfolio from a drought relief/recovery supply to a drought preparedness, response, and recovery supply.

Due to the continuous production of desalinated water since the Plant’s reactivation, the City has been able to store much of its Cachuma allocation in Lake Cachuma as carryover water. As a result, the City currently has nearly two years’ worth (over 18,000 AF) of water demand stored in Lake Cachuma, which provides water supply security and stretches water supplies for future dry years.

Recycled Water
The City’s upgraded recycled water filtration plant went online on November 2, 2015, replacing the previous filtration plant constructed in 1989. The goal of this project was to eliminate or significantly reduce the need to use potable water for blending to meet Title 22 water quality requirements. In 2022, the City supplied recycled water customers with 981 AF of water and 21 AF of potable blend water, marking a continued significant reduction in potable water use due to the project. Recycled water is an important component of the City’s water supply portfolio since every drop of recycled water used to irrigate landscapes or flush toilets offsets potable water that would have been used instead.

Council Agenda Report
Water Supply Update and Annual Water Supply Management Report February 7, 2023

Page 5 ends

Water Conservation
In accordance with the 2020 EUWMP, the City’s Water Conservation Program functions to minimize the use of potable water supplies, meet the requirements of the California Water Efficiency Partnership Best Management Practices, and achieve compliance with State mandates. Water conservation measures are evaluated for cost-effectiveness based on the avoided cost of additional water supplies. The City updated its Water Conservation Strategic Plan in 2020, including its adopted conservation measures and programs. In WY 2022, City customers continued conserving water at high levels (25% compared to 2013 pre-drought water demands).

Supply Summary
The total water supply produced in WY 2022 was 11,450 AF, with 91 gallons used per person per day. The community continues to make water conservation a way of life, with the total demand for water in 2022 comparable to demands in the late 1950s.

BUDGET/FINANCIAL INFORMATION:

The proposed action has no financial impact on the City.

SUSTAINABILITY IMPACT:

A diverse and reliable water supply is essential for sustaining the City. Groundwater resources are in long-term balance in accordance with the conjunctive management element of the City’s Enhanced Urban Water Management Plan.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:

Receiving water supply updates and approving and adopting a water supply management report are exempt from California Environmental Quality Act review.

WATER COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION:

The Water Supply Outlook was presented to the Water Commission on November 17, 2022, and the Annual Water Supply Management Report was presented on December 15, 2022. The Commission voted 3:0:2 in support of staff’s recommendations.

ATTACHMENT: 2022 Draft Water Supply Management Report
PREPARED BY: Joshua Haggmark, P.E., Water Resources Manager/DC/lm SUBMITTED BY: Clifford M. Maurer, P.E., Public Works Director APPROVED BY: City Administrator’s Office
DRAFT
December 6, 2022

ATTACHMENT

Page 1 ends
Page 2 ends

Hydrologic Analysis of the Pass Through Operations at Gibraltar Reservoir Final Environmental Impact Report for the Cachuma Project Water Rights Hearings

Page 3 ends
Page 4 ends
Page 5 ends
Page 6 ends
Page 7 ends
Page 8 ends
Page 9 ends

Cachuma Project State Water Rights Order

Page 10 ends

Cachuma Project Biological Opinion:

Cachuma Contract 2020:

Page 11 ends

Safe and Operational Yields of the Cachuma Project

Page 12 ends

Gibraltar Pass Through Operations
State Water Project/Delta Issues

Page 13 ends
Page 14 ends

Groundwater Management Plan:

Page 15 ends

Lincolnwood Water System Project
Recycled Water Market Assessment
Appendix A Page 1, 2021-2022 Water Supply Management Report Long-Term Rainfall Data
Groundwater Balance
Appendix A Page 2, 2021-2022 Water Supply Management Report Appendix A Page 3, 2021-2022 Water Supply Management Report Projection of Supply Availability

CITY OF SANTA BARBARA

COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
AGENDA DATE: February 7, 2023
TO: Mayor and Councilmembers
FROM: Planning Division, Community Development Department SUBJECT: Appeals of Planning Commission’s Approval of a Coastal Development Permit at 2315 Edgewater Way
RECOMMENDATION: That Council:

A. Consider the appeals of Mahesh Balakrishnan and Jill Ryan of the Planning Commission’s Approval of a Coastal Development Permit at 2315 Edgewater Way and the determination that the project is exempt from further environmental review under California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15303 (New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures); and
B. Direct staff to return to Council with a Decision and Findings Resolution reflecting the outcome of the appeal hearing.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

On October 6, 2022, the Planning Commission approved a Coastal Development Permit to allow the demolition of a two-story, single-unit residence and attached garage totaling 3,538 square feet, and construction of a 3,285-square-foot, two-story, single-unit residence with an attached 730-square-foot, two-car garage, 600-square-foot basement, and 625-square-foot attached Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) on the 22,651-square-foot lot. The property is a blufftop lot in the E-3 (One-Family Residence) Zone and the appealable jurisdiction of the Coastal Zone with a Local Coastal Plan Land Use Designation of Residential (maximum five dwelling units per acre). The project also includes landscaping and associated site improvements, and a 600-square-foot in-ground pool.

On October 13, 2022, the Coastal Development Permit approval was appealed by Mahesh Balakrishnan stating that the size, massing, and design of the project violate Good Neighbor Guidelines and invade the privacy of the neighbors. The appeal letter also states that the project is located on the coastal bluff and will violate the California Agenda Item No. 10
File Code No. 640.07
Council Agenda Report
Appeals of Planning Commission’s Approval of a Coastal Development Permit at 2315 Edgewater Way
February 7, 2023

Page 2 ends

Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the Coastal Act, and the City’s Coastal Land Use Plan, including zoning ordinances and policies (Attachment 1).

On October 17, 2022, the Coastal Development Permit approval was also appealed by Jill Ryan, who expressed concerns about the stability of the bluff where the pool will be constructed and the effect it will have on adjacent properties (Attachment 2).

DISCUSSION:

Project Description
The approved project includes demolition of the existing two-story, single-unit residence and attached garage totaling 3,538 square feet, and construction of a 3,285-square-foot, two-story, single-unit residence with an attached 730-square-foot two-car garage, 600- square-foot basement, and 625-square-foot attached Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) on the 22,651-square-foot lot. The blufftop parcel is in the E-3 (One-Family Residence) Zone and the appealable jurisdiction of the Coastal Zone with a Local Coastal Plan Land Use Designation of Residential (maximum five dwelling units per acre). Approximately 605 cubic yards of grading would take place on the site. The project also includes droughttolerant landscaping with associated site improvements, approximately 3,200 square feet of new/replaced hardscape, and a 600-square-foot in-ground pool. Refer to Attachment 6, Exhibit B for project plans, and Attachment 6, Exhibit C for Applicant Letter.

Background
This project was reviewed conceptually by the Single Family Design Board (SFDB) on two occasions prior to receiving Project Design Approval in December 2022. At the first conceptual review, on April 11, 2022, the SFDB stated that the size, bulk, and scale should be restudied. SFDB also suggested restudying the second-floor plate heights and the south elevation glazing in accordance with the neighborhood compatibility guidelines.

The applicant responded to the SFDB by breaking up the massing and ridgeline, reducing glazing, and lowering the second floor plate height by at least 6 to 16 inches.

The applicant returned to the SFDB for a second conceptual review on May 23, 2022.

The SFDB found that the size, bulk, and scale were aesthetically appropriate and found the massing and roof lines to be an improvement. The Board also found the proposed glazing at all elevations aesthetically appropriate. The project was forwarded to the Planning Commission. Refer to Attachment 6, Exhibit G for SFDB Minutes from April 11, 2022, and May 23, 2022.

On October 6, 2022, the project was considered by the Planning Commission for approval of a Coastal Development Permit. The Planning Commission approved the project and made the required findings. The Planning Commission added conditions of approval requiring that any trenches within the bluff edge development buffer be hand dug (to Council Agenda Report
Appeals of Planning Commission’s Approval of a Coastal Development Permit at 2315 Edgewater Way
February 7, 2023

Page 3 ends

protect the integrity of the bluff) and that tree #8 on the Landscape Plan be assessed by an arborist during construction due to its adjacency to the proposed building. Refer to Attachment 3 for Planning Commission Resolution and Attachment 4 for Planning Commission Minutes.

On December 5, 2022, the applicant presented the project to the SFDB, requesting Project Design Approval. The SFDB approved the project and provided comments stating the project complied with the Neighborhood Preservation Ordinance criteria. The SFDB also made the required Hillside Design District and Sloped Lot Findings, and Grading Findings. Refer to Attachment 5 for SFDB Minutes from December 5, 2022. The SFDBapproved plans are available upon request, but are substantially similar to the plans approved by Planning Commission (Attachment 6, Exhibit B). SFDB’s Project Design Approval was not appealed.

Appeal Issues
Appellants Mahesh Balakrishnan and Jill Ryan (respectively) are appealing the approval of the Coastal Development Permit and the City’s determination that the project is exempt under CEQA. The findings the Planning Commission, and Council on appeal, must make to approve the Coastal Develoment Permit are as follows:

1. The project is consistent with the policies of the California Coastal Act; and

2. The project is consistent with all applicable policies of the City's Local Coastal Plan, all applicable implementing guidelines, and all applicable provisions of the Code.

Size, Massing, and Design
Appellant Balakrishnan, asserts that the size, massing, and design of the project violate Good Neighbor Guidelines and invade the privacy of neighbors.The most relevant coastal policies pertaining to size, massing, and design are Coastal Land Use Plan Policy 4.3-7 and Coastal Act Section 30251, which require development to be visually compatible with the character of the surrounding areas.

The project is a two-story residence in an established residential neighborhood developed with a mix of one- and two-story residences. The project complies with required setbacks and height requirements and is below the guideline maximum floor to lot area ratio, as identified in the Planning Commission Staff Report (Attachment 6).

The Good Neighbor Guidelines are included in the Single Family Residence Design Guidelines, adopted by City Council on June 17, 2011. (Attachment 7.) The Good Neighbor Guidelines are used by the SFDB to advance sound planning with consideration of neighorhood compatibility, views, and privacy. When reviewing projects, SFDB Council Agenda Report
Appeals of Planning Commission’s Approval of a Coastal Development Permit at 2315 Edgewater Way
February 7, 2023

Page 4 ends

considers the Good Neighbor Guidelines along with Neighborhood Preservation Findings (consistency and appearance, compatibility, quality architecture and materials, public views, etc.), understanding that strict compliance may not be possible or necessary.

SFDB provides Planning Commission with conceptual comments regarding the project, including consistency with the Good Neighbor Guidelines, so that Planning Commission can consider that feedback in making neighborhood compatibility findings per coastal policies.

Based on compliance with all zoning requirements, the positive feedback from the SFDB on April 11, 2022, and May 23, 2022, and the added condition for an arborist to assess the eucalyptus tree (tree #8), which provides screening between the subject parcel and the parcels to the west, the Planning Commission was able to make the required coastal findings in support of the project (refer to Attachment 3 for findings).

While the SFDB’s Project Design Approval given on December 5, 2022, was not part of the record before the Planning Commission when granting the Coastal Development Permit, the fact that SFDB found that the project complies with the Neighborhood Preservation Ordinance criteria (refer to Attachment 5 for minutes) and stated that the project generally complies with the Good Neighbor Guidelines regarding landscaping to reinforce privacy impacts, noise, and with minimal lighting proposed, lends credibility to the finding that the project complies with Land Use Plan Policy 4.3-7 and Coastal Act Section 30251, requiring the development to be visually compatible with the character of the surrounding areas. On December 5, 2022, the SFDB also stated that they supported a Minor Zoning Exception to allow a 12-foot-tall hedge along the westerly property line to reduce adjacent neighbor privacy impacts and concerns.

Compliance with CEQA, Coastal Act, and the City’s Local Coastal Program Appellant Balakrishnan, further argues that the project violates the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the California Coastal Act and the City’s Local Coastal Program, including zoning ordinances and policies.

The Planning Commission Staff Report (Attachment 6) describes in greater detail how the project complies with the City’s Zoning and Building Ordinances, and policies of the Coastal Land Use Plan, and qualifies for an exemption from further environmental review under CEQA. The major coastal issues identified for this area include beach and coastal bluff erosion. With regard to these coastal hazards, the project is consistent with the following coastal land use plan (LUP) policies:
 Policy 5.1-29 regarding coastal hazards
 Policy 5.1-32 regarding development on coastal bluff faces  Policy 5.1-33 regarding development on coastal bluff tops  Polciy 5.1-66 regarding hazard evaluations for development on coastal bluff faces  Policy 5.1-67 regarding hazard evaluations for development on coastal bluff tops  Policy 5.1-38 regarding landscaping and irrigation of a coastal bluff Council Agenda Report
Appeals of Planning Commission’s Approval of a Coastal Development Permit at 2315 Edgewater Way
February 7, 2023

Page 5 ends

 Policy 5.1-39 regarding drainage systems on bluff faces  Policy 5.1-70 regarding calculating the Coastal Bluff Edge Development Buffer An Engineering Geology and Geotechnical Engineering Report (Attachment 6, Exhibits E and F) was prepared for the project to address the geologic conditions of the site and potential impacts relating to the proposed project. The report states that the long-term rate of retreat is approximately 0.33 feet per year (4 inches per year). Based on this rate of retreat, the projected amount of retreat of the top of bluff is estimated to be approximately 25 feet in 75 years (the estimated lifespan of the residence), not accounting for accelerating sea level rise. With anticipated accelerating sea level rise, the Coastal Bluff Edge Development Buffer for this property (per LUP Policy 5.1-70) increases to 41.5 feet from the existing bluff edge.

All proposed development is sited landward of the 41.5-foot Coastal Bluff Edge Development Buffer, consistent with coastal policies. The report concludes that the project site is suitable for the proposed replacement residence from an engineering geology and geotechnical engineering standpoint, provided that the report’s recommendations are followed.

Stability of Cliff for a New Pool
Appellant Ryan identifies concerns regarding stability of the cliff with the proposed development, including a new pool, and the effect this will have on adjoining properties.

She also notes that significant slippage of the cliffs has occurred.

Based on the Engineering Geology and Geotechnical Engineering Report, the Coastal Bluff Edge Development Setback is 41.5 feet inland from the Coastal Bluff Edge. The pool is proposed to be located outside of the buffer. The report concludes that the project site is suitable for the proposed replacement residence and pool from an engineering geology and geotechnical engineering standpoint.

Additionally, in order to satisfy Storm Water Management Plan requirements, all site stormwater is proposed to go directly into drains throughout the property, and due to the natural slope of the property, would tie into the southern sump pump that would be located just north of the Bluff Edge Development Buffer. Stormwater within the Bluff Edge Development Buffer area is being captured via a linear trench drain, which drains into the southern sump pump. From there, all water would be pumped up to the northern side of the property into the below-ground cistern, and then discharged onto the street via another pump. These drainage improvements are intended to improve the current drainage situation and should be a net benefit to the stability of the bluff.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:

The project qualifies for an exemption from further environmental review under CEQA Guidelines Section 15303 (New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures), which Council Agenda Report
Appeals of Planning Commission’s Approval of a Coastal Development Permit at 2315 Edgewater Way
February 7, 2023

Page 6 ends

allows for construction of one single-family dwelling in a residential zone, as well as accessory/appurtenant structures such as garages, patios, swimming pools, and fences.

Based on review of the project, there would be no significant project-specific or cumulative impacts on the environment as a result of the project; the project does not have the potential to damage scenic highways or historic resources; and the project site is not identified as a hazardous waste site. The project site does not contain any historical resources. The project location is not within a particularly sensitive environment with mapped resources. None of the exceptions to the exemption under CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2 apply.

CONCLUSION
Staff recommends that City Council consider the Planning Commission’s approval of the project. If Council concurs with the Planning Commission that the Coastal Development Permit Findings can be made, and the project is exempt from further environmental review under CEQA, then the appeals should be denied. If Council cannot make these findings, the appeals may be upheld and Council should idenitify how the project does not comply with the findings necessary to approve a Coastal Develoment Permit. Staff also recommends that Council direct staff to return to Council with a decision and findings resolution reflecting the outcome of the appeals.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Appeal Letter from Mehesh Balakrishnan Dated October 6, 2022

2. Appeal Letter from Jill Ryan Dated October 19, 2022

3. Planning Commission Resolution No. 007-22 Dated October 6, 2022

4. Planning Commission Minutes from December 6, 2022

5. SFDB Minutes from December 5, 2022

6. Planning Commission Staff Report Dated September 29, 2022 with Exhibits A. Draft Conditions of Approval
B. Project Plans
C. Applicant's Letter Dated July 15, 2022
D. Existing Foundation Exhibit
E. Engineering Geology and Geotechnical Engineering Report Dated July 20, 2021
F. Addendum to Engineering Geology Report Dated July 11, 2022 G. SFDB Minutes from April 11, 2022, and May 23, 2022
H. Applicable Coastal Act and LUP Policies

7. Good Neighbor Guidelines – Design Guidelines Checklist PREPARED BY: Kelly Brodison, Associate Planner
SUBMITTED BY: Elias Isaacson, Community Development Director APPROVED BY: City Administrator’s Office
ATTACHMENT 1
ATTACHMENT 2
ATTACMENT 3

City of Santa Barbara

PLANNING COMMISSION

MINUTES
OCTOBER 6, 2022
1:00 P.M.

City Hall, Council Chambers
735 Anacapa Street; and
1026 Via Los Padres
Santa Barbara 93111
COMMISSION MEMBERS:

Gabriel Escobedo, Chair
Roxana Bonderson, Vice Chair
John M. Baucke
Jay D. Higgins
Sheila Lodge
Devon Wardlow
Lesley Wiscomb
STAFF:

Tava Ostrenger, Assistant City Attorney
Allison DeBusk, Senior Planner
Gillian Fennessy, Commission Secretary

CALL TO ORDER
Chair Escobedo called the meeting to order at 1:01 p.m.

I. ROLL CALL
Chair Gabriel Escobedo, Vice Chair Roxana Bonderson, Commissioners Jay D. Higgins, Sheila Lodge, Devon Wardlow, and Lesley Wiscomb

Absent: John M. Baucke

STAFF PRESENT
Tava Ostrenger, Assistant City Attorney
Allison DeBusk, Senior Planner
Kelly Brodison, Associate Planner
Pilar Plummer, Associate Planner
Janet Ahern, City TV Production Specialist
Gillian Fennessy, Commission Secretary
II. PRELIMINARY MATTERS
A. Requests for continuances, withdrawals, postponements, or addition of ex-agenda items:

No requests.

B. Announcements and appeals:

Ms. DeBusk announced the following:

1. Advisory group recruitment including for Planning Commission, is underway. The deadline to apply is October 10th at 5 pm.

ATTACHMENT 4
Planning Commission Minutes October 6, 2022 Page 2 of 5

2. Renee Brooke, City Planner, has accepted a position with the city of Bend Oregon; Dan Gullet will be filling in while we recruit for the position.

C. Review, consideration, and action on the following draft Planning Commission minutes and resolutions:

1. September 15, 2022 Planning Commission Minutes
MOTION: Lodge /Higgins
Approve the minutes as presented.

The motion carried by the following vote:

Ayes: 6 Noes: 0 Abstain: 0 Absent: 1 (Baucke)
D. Comments from members of the public pertaining to items not on this agenda:

Public comment opened at 1:03 p.m., and as no one wished to speak, it closed.

Written correspondence from Rob Fredericks and Francesca Galt was acknowledged.

III. NEW ITEMS
A. ACTUAL TIME: 1:05 P.M.
2315 EDGEWATER WAY
Assessor’s Parcel Number: 041-350-024
Zoning Designation: E-3/S-D-3 (One-Family Residence/Coastal Overlay) Application Number: PLN2021-00584; Filing Date: January 4, 2022 Applicant / Owner: Shaheen Ghazvinizadeh / Ralf Pohl (2315 Edgewater, LLC) The project consists of demolition of the existing, two-story, single-family residence and attached garage totaling 3,538 square feet, and construction of a 3,285-square-foot, twostory, single-family residence with an attached 730-square-foot two-car garage, a 600- square-foot basement, and a 625-square-foot attached Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) on the 22,651-square-foot lot. The project would also include drought-tolerant landscaping with associated site improvements, approximately 3,200 square feet of new/replaced hardscape, and a 600-square-foot in-ground pool.

The discretionary application required for this project is a Coastal Development Permit (CDP2022-00003) to allow the proposed development in the Appealable Jurisdiction of the City’s Coastal Zone (SBMC §28.44.060).

Kelly Brodison, Associate Planner, gave the Staff presentation.

Ken Radtkey, Blackbird Architects, gave the Applicant presentation, and Shaheen Ghazvinizadeh, Applicant and Courtney Miller, Landscape Architect were available to answer questions.

Planning Commission Minutes October 6, 2022 Page 3 of 5 Public comment opened at 1:28 p.m., and the following individuals spoke:

1. Mahesh Balakrishnan

2. Jill Ryan
Public comment closed at 1:33 p.m.

MOTION: Wiscomb/Bonderson Assigned Resolution No. 007-22 Approve the project, making the findings for the Coastal Development Permit as outlined in the Staff Report dated September 29, 2022, subject to the Conditions of Approval as outlined in the Staff Report, with the following additions to the Conditions of Approval:

1. Add a condition that any trenches within the bluff edge development buffer be hand dug.

2. Add a condition that tree #8, listed as fair in the arborist report, be assessed by an arborist during construction, with steps taken to reduce liability to the building.

The motion carried by the following vote:

Ayes: 6 Noes: 0 Abstain: 0 Absent: 1 (Baucke)
The ten-calendar-day appeal period was announced.

B. ACTUAL TIME: 2:00 P.M.
222 MESA LANE
Assessor’s Parcel Number: 041-322-009
Zoning Designation: E-3/S-D-3 (One-Family Residence/Coastal Overlay) Application Number: PLN2020-00612
Applicant / Owner: Matt Hepner / Tyler Dobson
The 8,009-square-foot site is currently developed with a single-unit residence and detached garage. The proposed project involves improvements and additions to the existing residence, comprised of a 544-square-foot first-floor addition, a 690-square-foot second-story Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU), 275-square-foot covered patio, 390- square-foot porch, and 224-square-foot roof deck. The project includes a new 420- square-foot attached garage, and the existing 303-square-foot detached garage will be converted into an accessory building. To accommodate the new garage location, the project includes demolition of the existing driveway and curb cut and construction of a new driveway and curb cut. The proposed total of 3,410 square feet on an 8,009-squarefoot lot is 107% of the maximum required floor-to-lot area ratio.

The discretionary applications required for this project are:

1. A Net Floor Area (Floor to Lot Area Ratio) Modification of the net floor area standards to allow 3,410 square feet on an 8,009 square foot lot (SBMC §28.15.083.D and §28.92.110); and

2. A Front Setback Modification to allow one of the parking spaces for the primary residence to be uncovered and located in the driveway within the required 20-foot front setback (SBMC §20.15.060.A and §28.92.110).

Planning Commission Minutes October 6, 2022 Page 4 of 5 Pilar Plummer, Associate Planner, gave the Staff presentation.

Matt Hepner, Applicant, gave the Applicant presentation, and was joined by Tyler Dobson, Owner.

Public comment opened at 2:20 p.m., and as no one wished to speak, it closed.

Written correspondence from Paulina Conn and Robert Chao was acknowledged.

MOTION: Lodge/Bonderson Assigned Resolution No. 008-22
Approve the project, making the findings for the Net Floor Area (Floor to Lot Area Ratio) Modification and Front Setback Modification as outlined in the Staff Report dated September 29, 2022.

The motion carried by the following vote:

Ayes: 6 Noes: 0 Abstain: 0 Absent: 1 (Baucke)
The ten-calendar-day appeal period was announced.

IV. ADMINISTRATIVE AGENDA
ACTUAL TIME: 2:28 P.M.

A. Committee and Liaison Reports:

1. Staff Hearing Officer Liaison Report
No report.

2. Other Committee and Liaison Reports
a. Commissioner Lodge reported on the September 26, 2022 meeting of the Single Family Design Board and announced the upcoming October 11, 2022 meeting of the City Council Ordinance Committee regarding changes to SFDB membership.
b. Commissioner Lodge reported on the September 19, 2022 meeting of the Sustainability Committee.
c. Commissioner Bonderson reported on the September 6, 2022 and September 19, 2022 meetings of the Architectural Board of Review.

Planning Commission Minutes October 6, 2022 Page 5 of 5 V. ADJOURNMENT
Chair Escobedo adjourned the meeting at 2:42 p.m.

Submitted by,
__________________________________________
Gillian Fennessy, Commission Secretary
City of Santa Barbara

SINGLE FAMILY DESIGN BOARD

MINUTES
DECEMBER 5, 2022
3:00 P.M.

David Gebhard Public Meeting Room
630 Garden Street
SantaBarbaraCA.gov
BOARD MEMBERS:

Brian Miller, Chair
Leslie Colasse, Vice Chair
Lauralee Anderson
Ohan Arakelian
Katie Klein
CITY COUNCIL LIAISON:

Meagan Harmon
PLANNING COMMISSION LIAISON:

Sheila Lodge
STAFF:

Ellen Kokinda, Design Review Supervisor
Holly Garcin, Assistant Planner
Kathleen Goo, Commission Secretary
(4:40PM) CONTINUED ITEM: PROJECT DESIGN APPROVAL

3. 2315 EDGEWATER WAY
Assessor's Parcel Number: 041-350-024
Zone: E-3/SD-3
Application Number: PLN2021-00584
Owner: Ralf Pohl
Owner: 2315 Edgewater LLC
Architect/Applicant: Kenneth Radtkey, Blackbird Architects (Proposal to demolish the existing two-story single-unit residence and attached garage located in the Hillside Design District and Appealable Jurisdiction of the Coastal Zone and construct a new 3,285 square foot two-story residence with an attached 730 square foot two-car garage, 600 square foot basement, and 625 square foot Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU). Project includes a new pool, driveway replacement, removal of several non-specimen trees, and hardscape and landscape improvements.

The proposed total of 4,640 square feet on a 22,651 square foot lot it 99% of the maximum guideline floor-to-lot area ratio. Approval of a Coastal Development Permit was granted by the Planning Commission on October 6, 2022. Subsequently appeals were filed by Mahesh Balakrishnan and Jill Ryan. The project is scheduled to be heard on appeal by the City Council on February 7, 2022.) Project Design Approval is requested. Neighborhood Preservation Findings, Hillside Design District & Sloped Lot Findings, and Grading Findings are required. Project was last reviewed on May 23, 2022.

Actual time: 5:43 p.m.

Present: Kenneth Radtkey and Shaheen Ghazvinizadeh, Applicants from Blackbird Architects; Courtney Miller, Landscape Architect; and Kelly Brodison, Associate Planner ATTACHMENT 5
Single Family Design Board Minutes December 5, 2022 Page 2 of 3 RECUSAL: To avoid any actual or perceived economic conflict of interest, Board Member Arakelian recused himself from hearing this item.

Individual comment: For the record, Board Member Colasse and Board Member Anderson announced that they have reviewed the previous SFDB meeting minutes regarding the project and are therefore able to review, comment, and vote on the returning item.

Staff comments: Ms. Brodison clarified that there was a subsequent appeal filed after the last review of the project that is scheduled to be reviewed by City Council on February 7, 2023, not 2022, and she requested the Board make a motion with sufficient comments for City Council, or if deemed ready for Project Design Approval, then to grant that approval.

Public comment opened at 6:05 p.m., and as no one wished to speak, it closed.

Written correspondence from Mahesh & Monisha Balakrishnan was acknowledged.

Motion: Project Design Approval and continue indefinitely to Consent with comments:

1. One Board Member suggested reducing the plate height of the garage.

2. The Board would be willing to support a Minor Zoning Exception for a 12-foot hedge along the westerly property line to reduce adjacent neighbor privacy impacts and concerns.

3. The Neighborhood Preservation Ordinance criteria have been met as stated in Subsection 22.69.050 of the City of Santa Barbara Municipal Code:
a. The proposed development is consistent with the scenic character of the City and will enhance the appearance of the neighborhood, specifically the proposed architectural style seems to fit in well with the neighboring properties. b. Although the proposed project is 99% of the maximum guideline floor-to-lot area ratio (FAR), this includes the proposed Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU), and the proposed development’s size, bulk, and scale still remains appropriate to the site, and compatible with the neighborhood even with inclusion of the ADU. c. The proposed buildings and structures are designed with quality architectural materials and details. The proposed materials and colors maintain the natural appearance of the ridgeline or hillside.
d. Removal of healthy, non-invasive trees has been addressed in the Arborist Report and has been accepted by the Planning Commission. If the project includes the removal of any healthy, non-invasive tree with a diameter of four inches (4”) or more measured four feet (4’) above natural grade, the project includes a plan to mitigate the impact of such removal by planting replacement trees in accordance with applicable tree replacement ratios.
e. The public health, safety, and welfare are appropriately protected and preserved, specifically through the removal of possibly hazardous trees. f. The project generally complies with the Good Neighbor Guidelines regarding landscaping to reinforce privacy impacts, noise, and with minimal lighting proposed.
g. The development, including proposed structures and grading, preserves significant public scenic views of and from the hillside.

4. The Hillside Design District and Sloped Lot criteria have been met as stated in Subsection 22.69.050 of the City of Santa Barbara Municipal Code:
a. The development, including the proposed structures and grading, is appropriate to the site, is designed to avoid visible scarring, and does not significantly modify the variation and step-down natural topography of the site.

Single Family Design Board Minutes December 5, 2022 Page 3 of 3 b. The development maintains a scale and form that blends with the hillside by minimizing the visual appearance of structure(s) and the overall height of structures.

5. The Grading Findings have been met as stated in Section 22.69.030 of the City of Santa Barbara Municipal Code:
a. Since there is a Storm Water Management Plan in place, the proposed grading will not significantly increase siltation in or decrease the water quality of streams, drainages or water storage facilities to which the property drains; and b. The proposed grading will not cause a substantial loss of southern oak woodland habitat.

Action: Colasse/Klein, 4/0/0. (Arakelian stepped down.) Motion carried.

The ten-day appeal period was announced.

ATTACHMENT 6

SANffs(RBARA

PLANNING

GOOD NEIGHBOR

GUIDELINES

DESIGN GUIDELINES CHECKLIST
�eu
@ GENERAL INFORMATION
WHAT ARE DESIGN GUIDELINES?

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
630 GARDEN ST. SANTA BARBARA, CA 93101
(805) 564-5578 I SantaBarbaraCA.gov
The City's Design Guidelines establish a set of goals, values, and qualities by which projects are evaluated in design review. They outline clear expectations that projects must demonstrate to be successfully entitled. Design guidelines assist applicants and the public in understanding both the design review meeting procedures and to define the major concerns and objectives of the design review process. Separate documents provide detailed direction for certain areas or types of projects.

HOW DO I APPLY THE GUIDELINES?
Not all guideline techniques or approaches are appropriate or practical for every development project.

When designing your project, identify as many of the design techniques and approaches used in order to achieve the guideline objectives. Other creative and innovative design techniques and approaches may be considered in order to achieve the intended objectives of the listed guidelines. Guidelines using the words "encouraged" or "discouraged" are desirable or undesirable but are not mandatory.

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN DOCUMENTS
These checklists have been provided as a reference to be used in conjunction with the text of the City's existing discretionary Design Guidelines. It is not meant to replace a full reading of the Guidelines text.

In such cases where multiple sets of guidelines apply, the respective guidelines are viewed as "layers," where the most specific guidelines - in the unlikely event of a conflict - would take precedent.

Planning Handouts I Design Guidelines Checklist Page 1 of 5 ATTACHMENT 7

2315 Edgewater Way
City Council
1 APPLICANT DOCUMENTS
Aerial - City & Context
2 Site Aerial - Context
3 Site Aerial
4 2321
2327
2325
2317
2315
2307
2305
Street view at Edgewater Way
2315 Edgewater Way
10 30
20 50
40 60
80 70
90 100
120
110
4 6
8 132
134
140
144
142
130
130
140
138
136
134
132
142
134
135
137
143
141
141
139
138
137
136
139
135
2317 Edgewater Way
(E) 1-story structure
2307 Edgewater Way (E) 2-story structure
2321 Edgewater Way (E) 2-story structure 2317 Edgewater Way (E) 1-story structure
2307 Edgewater Way (E) 2-story structure
2321 Edgewater Way (E) 2-story structure
20'-0" setback
property line
6'-0" setback
property line
6'-0" setback
property line
coastal bluff edge,
per geotech report

41.5' bluff edge
development setback
50' bluff edge buffer
Edgewater Way
10 30
20 50
40 60
80 70
90 100
120
110
4 6
8 132
134
140
144
142
130
130
140
138
136
134
132
142
134
135
137
143
141
141
139
138
137
136
139
135
pool
13'-0' x 32'-6"
hot tub
5'-6' x 8'-0"
-44"
2%
slope
1%
slope
pool equipment vault
below
pool cover
stormwater well &
pumps below
1%
slope
+136.00' +135.70'
(-3 5/8" BFF)

DS DS DS
DS
W-301
DS
DS
DS
2317 Edgewater Way (E) 1-story structure
2307 Edgewater Way
(E) 2-story structure
2321 Edgewater Way
(E) 2-story structure 2317 Edgewater Way (E) 1-story structure 2307 Edgewater Way
(E) 2-story structure
2321 Edgewater Way
(E) 2-story structure
20'-0" setback
property line
6'-0" setback
property line
6'-0" setback
property line
coastal bluff edge,
per geotech report

41.5' bluff edge
development setback
50' bluff edge buffer
Edgewater Way
Vicinity Map
N.T.S. 1
feet 0 40' 80'
Topographic/Demo Plan
20' 1"=40'-0" 3
feet 0 40' 80'
Proposed Site Plan
20' 1"=40'-0" 4

PROJECT LOCATION
(p) y gy
(p) pool with cover (13'x33')
(e) 3,538 NSF residence and attached garage to be demolished (e) residence encroaches 3' into front setback, 1' into westerly side-yard setback, 3'-5" into easterly side-yard setback Stormwater Narrative
This project is to meet the City of Santa Barbara's Tier 3 SWMP requirements by treating the 1 inch, 24-hour storm. Please refer to civil drawings and SWMP report. (e) building footprint to be demolished
(e) 3,200 sf hardscape to be demolished
Bus Stop Vicinity Map
N.T.S. 2

PROJECT LOCATION

0.45 mile to closest bus stop
• The accessory dwelling unit shall not be rented for less than 31 days • No unauthorized or unpermitted residential units shall be developed or maintained on the property. The installation of unauthorized or unpermitted food preparation facilities apart from the kitchens shown on the approved plans on file with the City of Santa Barbara shall constitute a violation of the terms of this Covenant
Sheet Index
general
A0.0 Cover Sheet
A0.1 Existing Site Photos and Survey
A0.2 Reports
A0.3 Reports
A0.4 Reports
civil
C-0.1 Title Sheet
C-.02 Notes Sheet
C-3.1 Utility Plan
C-2.1 Grading and Drainage Plan
C-4.1 Detail Sheet
C-5.1 Erosion Control Plan
landscape
L-0.0 Title Sheet
L-1.0 Tree Disposition Plan
L-1.1 Arborist Report
L-2.0 Construction Plan, Notes & Schedule
L-3.0 Planning Notes & Schedule
L-3.1 Planting Plan
L-4.0 Irrigation Plan, Notes & Schedule
L-4.1 Stormwater to Landscape Dispersal Plan
L-5.0 Lighting Plan
L-6.1 Construction Details
L-6.2 Planting Details
L-6.3 Irrigation Details
architectural
D1.0 Demolition Site Plan
A1.0 Site Plan
A2.1 First Floor Plan & Basement Plan
A2.2 Second Floor Plan
A2.3 Roof Plan
A3.0 Site Elevation
A3.1 Elevations
A3.2 Elevations
A4.1 Building Sections
A4.2 Building Sections
A4.3 Building Sections
A4.4 Building Sections
A6.1 Details
A6.2 Details
A6.3 Details
A6.4 Details
A6.5 Details
A6.13 Details
A7.1 Door & Window Schedule
A7.2 Door & Window Types
mechanical
M1.0 Cut Sheets
Site Context
5 Site Context
2210 Edgewater Way
202 Mohawk Road
108 Mohawk Road
2312 Edgewater Way
6 (1) Neighboring 2-story residence to the east (2307 Edgewater Way) Site Context
2 CR
Z
TP

FOOTPRI
NT
GARAGE

RESIDENCE
1 inch = ft.
( IN FEET )

GRAPHIC SCALE
0 20 20 40
20 80 10
.
10 20
30 60
50 40
80 70
90 100
120
110
4 6
8 132
134
136
140
142
144
142
140
130 130
140
138
136
134
132
142
PHONE.PULL BOX
(UNDER VEGETATION)
HEDGE + DEBRIS
HEDGE
134
HEDGE
135
137
143
141
141
140
139
138
137
136
4 PINE
12 SYC 8 MONKEY TREE
139
135
20'-0" setback
property line
6'-0" setback
property line
6'-0" setback
property line
coastal
bluff edge

41.5' bluff edge development setback
50' bluff edge buffer
6 3
1 9
10 4
5a
8 7
5b
7 Site Context
2 CR
Z
TP

FOOTPRI
NT
GARAGE

RESIDENCE
1 inch = ft.
( IN FEET )

GRAPHIC SCALE
0 20 20 40
20 80 10
.
10 20
30 60
50 40
80 70
90 100
120
110
4 6
8 132
134
136
140
142
144
142
140
130 130
140
138
136
134
132
142
PHONE.PULL BOX
(UNDER VEGETATION)
HEDGE + DEBRIS
HEDGE
134
HEDGE
135
137
143
141
141
140
139
138
137
136
4 PINE
12 SYC 8 MONKEY TREE
139
135
20'-0" setback
property line
6'-0" setback
property line
6'-0" setback
property line
coastal
bluff edge

41.5' bluff edge development setback
50' bluff edge buffer
6 3
1 9
10 4
5a
8 7
5b
(2) Neighboring 2-story residence to the west (2321 Edgewater Way) 8 (3) North elevation of existing residence
Site Context
2 CR
Z
TP

FOOTPRI
NT
GARAGE

RESIDENCE
1 inch = ft.
( IN FEET )

GRAPHIC SCALE
0 20 20 40
20 80 10
.
10 20
30 60
50 40
80 70
90 100
120
110
4 6
8 132
134
136
140
142
144
142
140
130 130
140
138
136
134
132
142
PHONE.PULL BOX
(UNDER VEGETATION)
HEDGE + DEBRIS
HEDGE
134
HEDGE
135
137
143
141
141
140
139
138
137
136
4 PINE
12 SYC 8 MONKEY TREE
139
135
20'-0" setback
property line
6'-0" setback
property line
6'-0" setback
property line
coastal
bluff edge

41.5' bluff edge development setback
50' bluff edge buffer
6 3
1 9
10 4
5a
8 7
5b
9 (4) East elevation of existing residence
Site Context
2 CR
Z
TP

FOOTPRI
NT
GARAGE

RESIDENCE
1 inch = ft.
( IN FEET )

GRAPHIC SCALE
0 20 20 40
20 80 10
.
10 20
30 60
50 40
80 70
90 100
120
110
4 6
8 132
134
136
140
142
144
142
140
130 130
140
138
136
134
132
142
PHONE.PULL BOX
(UNDER VEGETATION)
HEDGE + DEBRIS
HEDGE
134
HEDGE
135
137
143
141
141
140
139
138
137
136
4 PINE
12 SYC 8 MONKEY TREE
139
135
20'-0" setback
property line
6'-0" setback
property line
6'-0" setback
property line
coastal
bluff edge

41.5' bluff edge development setback
50' bluff edge buffer
6 3
1 9
10 4
5a
8 7
5b
10 (5a) West elevation of existing residence (5b) West elevation of existing residence - further south Site Context
2 CR
Z
TP

FOOTPRI
NT
GARAGE

RESIDENCE
1 inch = ft.
( IN FEET )

GRAPHIC SCALE
0 20 20 40
20 80 10
.
10 20
30 60
50 40
80 70
90 100
120
110
4 6
8 132
134
136
140
142
144
142
140
130 130
140
138
136
134
132
142
PHONE.PULL BOX
(UNDER VEGETATION)
HEDGE + DEBRIS
HEDGE
134
HEDGE
135
137
143
141
141
140
139
138
137
136
4 PINE
12 SYC 8 MONKEY TREE
139
135
20'-0" setback
property line
6'-0" setback
property line
6'-0" setback
property line
coastal
bluff edge

41.5' bluff edge development setback
50' bluff edge buffer
6 3
1 9
10 4
5a
8 7
5b
11 (6) South elevation of existing residence
Site Context
2 CR
Z
TP

FOOTPRI
NT
GARAGE

RESIDENCE
1 inch = ft.
( IN FEET )

GRAPHIC SCALE
0 20 20 40
20 80 10
.
10 20
30 60
50 40
80 70
90 100
120
110
4 6
8 132
134
136
140
142
144
142
140
130 130
140
138
136
134
132
142
PHONE.PULL BOX
(UNDER VEGETATION)
HEDGE + DEBRIS
HEDGE
134
HEDGE
135
137
143
141
141
140
139
138
137
136
4 PINE
12 SYC 8 MONKEY TREE
139
135
20'-0" setback
property line
6'-0" setback
property line
6'-0" setback
property line
coastal
bluff edge

41.5' bluff edge development setback
50' bluff edge buffer
6 3
1 9
10 4
5a
8 7
5b
12 (7) Looking east towards neighbor
Site Context
2 CR
Z
TP

FOOTPRI
NT
GARAGE

RESIDENCE
1 inch = ft.
( IN FEET )

GRAPHIC SCALE
0 20 20 40
20 80 10
.
10 20
30 60
50 40
80 70
90 100
120
110
4 6
8 132
134
136
140
142
144
142
140
130 130
140
138
136
134
132
142
PHONE.PULL BOX
(UNDER VEGETATION)
HEDGE + DEBRIS
HEDGE
134
HEDGE
135
137
143
141
141
140
139
138
137
136
4 PINE
12 SYC 8 MONKEY TREE
139
135
20'-0" setback
property line
6'-0" setback
property line
6'-0" setback
property line
coastal
bluff edge

41.5' bluff edge development setback
50' bluff edge buffer
6 3
1 9
10 4
5a
8 7
5b
13 (8) Looking south-west at residence yard
Site Context
2 CR
Z
TP

FOOTPRI
NT
GARAGE

RESIDENCE
1 inch = ft.
( IN FEET )

GRAPHIC SCALE
0 20 20 40
20 80 10
.
10 20
30 60
50 40
80 70
90 100
120
110
4 6
8 132
134
136
140
142
144
142
140
130 130
140
138
136
134
132
142
PHONE.PULL BOX
(UNDER VEGETATION)
HEDGE + DEBRIS
HEDGE
134
HEDGE
135
137
143
141
141
140
139
138
137
136
4 PINE
12 SYC 8 MONKEY TREE
139
135
20'-0" setback
property line
6'-0" setback
property line
6'-0" setback
property line
coastal
bluff edge

41.5' bluff edge development setback
50' bluff edge buffer
6 3
1 9
10 4
5a
8 7
5b
14 Site Context
(9) Southern view towards ocean from patio (10) Looking south down bluff 2 CR
Z
TP

FOOTPRI
NT
GARAGE

RESIDENCE
1 inch = ft.
( IN FEET )

GRAPHIC SCALE
0 20 20 40
20 80 10
.
10 20
30 60
50 40
80 70
90 100
120
110
4 6
8 132
134
136
140
142
144
142
140
130 130
140
138
136
134
132
142
PHONE.PULL BOX
(UNDER VEGETATION)
HEDGE + DEBRIS
HEDGE
134
HEDGE
135
137
143
141
141
140
139
138
137
136
4 PINE
12 SYC 8 MONKEY TREE
139
135
20'-0" setback
property line
6'-0" setback
property line
6'-0" setback
property line
coastal
bluff edge

41.5' bluff edge development setback
50' bluff edge buffer
6 3
1 9
10 4
5a
8 7
5b
15 Survey
Lot Info
• 22,651 SF Lot
• 3,538 NSF Existing Structures
• Garage in Front-Yard Setback, structures in side-yard setbacks GARAGE

RESIDENCE

EDGEWATER WAY
50'
S03°05'00"W 322.37'(R1)
S03°05'00"W 232.53'(R1)
L 22.64, Ang.1°57'02", R 665.00
2317 EDGEWATER WAY APN 041-350-010
2307 EDGEWATER WAY APN 041-350-012
2305 EDGEWATER WAY APN 041-350-030
L 56.18, Ang.7°51'03", R 410.00
200.00'(M.)
257.00'(M.)
S54°57'05"E

56.28'(M.)
2321EDGEWATER WAY APN 041-350-009

PACIFIC
OCEAN
LEGEND

AC ASPHALT CONCRETE

BLD BUILDING

BRK BRICK
CP CONTROL POINT (surv

CRB CURB
CRZ CRITICAL ROOT ZONE (oa

DK DECK
E. ELECTRICAL (und

EM ELECTRIC METER

EP EDGE OF PAVEMENT

EUC EUCALYPTUS TREE
FD FOUND (su

FF FINISH FLOOR

FL FLOWLINE

FN FENCE

FOB FACE OF BUILDING
G GRADE (underg
G. GASLINE

GAR GARAGE
M. MEASURED DATA

MHTL MEAN HIGH TIDE LINE (

PL PARCEL LINE

RS RECORD OF SURVEY

SDMH STORM DRAIN MANHOL

SMH SEWER MANHOLE

SYC SYCAMORE TREE
T. TARGET (drone)

TC TOP OF CURB

TCN TOP OF CONCRETE

TH THRESHOLD
TS TOP OF STEP(s)

TW TOP OF WALL

WM WATER METER
6’ side setbacks
20’ front setback

41.5’ bluff edge
development setback
coastal bluff edge
per geotech
16 Site Plan
feet 0 20' 40'
Proposed Site Plan
10' 1"=20'-0" 1
LEGEND: SITE PLAN
property line
setback
(E) contour
(E) tree
176
10 30
20 50
40 60
80 70
90 100
120
110
4 6
8 132
134
140
144
142
140
130
130
140
138
136
134
132
142
134
135
137
143
141
141
139
138
137
136
139
135
Type 3
36x54
36"
cooktop
W/D
20'-0" setback
property line
6'-0" setback
property line
6'-0" setback
property line
coastal bluff edge, per geotech report

41.5' bluff edge development setback
50' bluff edge buffer
Edgewater Way
Pacific Ocean
proposed 2-story
single-family
residence
(e) 2-story residence
(e) 2-story residence
(e) 1-story residence
(e) 2-story residence
(e) 1-story residence
(e) 1-story residence
(e) 2-story residence
(e) 1-story
garage
(e) 2-story residence
(e) 2-story residence (e) 1-story residence
2321
2327 2325
2317
2315
2307
17 NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
E

IA N R OFI

OF CA L

T A T S

T C E IT C H

E D A R

SN ECI L
KENNETH G. RADTKEY
C - 26761
REN. 7.31.2021
xA1.2
Site Plan - APN
The design ideas and plans represented by these
documents are the property of Blackbird Architects,
Inc.. Use or copy is permitted by contract only. The
use or revisions of these ideas or plans is prohibited
without the written permission of Blackbird
Architects, Inc..

Edgewater
Residence
Revisions
SFDB PDA 11.23.22
2315 Edgewater Way
Santa Barbara
041-350-024
PLN2021-00584
© 2022 Blackbird Architects, Inc.
architect:

Ken Radtkey
Blackbird Architects
235 Palm Ave
Santa Barbara, CA 93101
t 805.957.1315
geotech engineer:

Todd Tranby
Earth Systems Pacific
1731-A Walter Street
Ventura, CA 93003
t 805.826.1474
civil engineer:

Bruce Jones
Ashley & Vance Engineering, Inc.
210 East Cota Street
Santa Barbara, CA 93101
t 805.962.9966
structural engineer:

Thom Hume
Thom Hume Consulting Engineers
954 Toro Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
t 805.962.6311
landscape architect:

Courtney Jane Miller
CJM::LA
1221 State Street, Suite 206
Santa Barbara, CA 93101
t 805.698.2120
mechanical / plumbing / T-24:

Tom Hughes
Mechanical Engineering Consultants
315 E. Canon Perdido Street, Suite B
Santa Barbara, CA 93101
t.805.957.4632 x205
electrical:

Alan Noelle
Alan Noelle Engineering
315 E. Canon Perdido Street, Suite B
Santa Barbara, CA 93101
t.805.563.5444
surveyor:

Jeffery Prober
Prober Land Surveying
645 Flora Vista Drive
Santa Barbara, CA 93109
t: 805.452.9690
feet 0 20' 40'
Proposed Site Plan
10' 1"=20'-0" 1
LEGEND: SITE PLAN
property line
setback
(E) contour
feature above
feature below
(E) building footprint
low site wall
proposed hardscape, see
landscape drawings
(E) tree
(P) tree
(E) non-specimen
tree to be removed,
see D1.0
176
downspout, painted to
match fascia or wall
10 30
20 40
50 60
80 70
90 100
120
110
4 6
8 132
134
140
144
142
140
130
130
140
138
136
134
132
142
134
135
137
143
141
141
139
138
137
136
139
135
Type 3
36x54 36" cooktop
W/D
20'-0" setback
property line
6'-0" setback
property line
6'-0" setback
property line
coastal bluff edge, per geotech report

41.5' bluff edge development setback
50' bluff edge buffer
Edgewater Way
Pacific Ocean
proposed 2-story
single-family
residence
(e) 2-story residence
(e) 2-story residence
(e) 1-story residence
(e) 2-story residence
(e) 1-story residence
(e) 1-story residence
(e) 2-story residence
(e) 1-story
garage
(e) 2-story residence
(e) 2-story residence (e) 1-story residence
20’ front setback

41.5’ bluff edge
development setback
coastal bluff edge
per geotech
Demolition Site Plan
feet 0 10' 20'
Demolition Plan
5' 1"=10'-0" 1
LEGEND: DEMO PLAN
property line
setback
(E) contour
feature above
feature below
(E) building and site feature
to be removed
(E) permeable paving to be
removed
(E) impermeable paving to
be removed
(E) tree
(E) non-specimen
tree to be removed
KEY NOTES: DEMO PLAN

1. 2.

3. 4.

5. 6.

7. 8.

9. 10.

11. 12.

Existing building to be removed
Existing front concrete steps with tile finish to be removed Existing wood patio with wood handrails and wood steps to be removed
Existing concrete step to be removed
Existing exterior utility closet to be removed
Existing brick pavers to be removed.

Existing foundation to be removed
Existing non-specimen trees to be removed; see arborist report
Existing stump to be removed
Existing wrought iron gate to be removed
Existing mailbox with brick base to be removed
Existing vegetation to be removed
176
GENERAL NOTES: DEMOLITION PLAN
A.

B.

C.

D.

E.

F.

G.

H.

See Civil Plans for Grading, Drainage, Storm Water
Management, Tree Protection, and Site Utilities.

See Landcsape sheets for Irrigation, Planting,
Landscape Screening, Groundcover, Materials,
Features, Tree Protection and Hardscape information.

See landscape drawings for Arborist Report and Tree
Protection Recommendations.

See BMP sheets for construction staging, erosion
control.

See Electrical sheets for electrical panels, fixtures and applicable notes.

See Mechanical sheets for mechanical equipment and
applicable notes.

See Plumbing sheets for plumbing equipment and
applicable notes.

Utility coordination has not been completed. The
contractor shall be responsible for coordinating all
I.

J.

K.
service requirements with the respective utilities
companies and the existing site conditions.

Site access shall comply with Santa Barbara City Fire
Department, Fire Prevention Division Private Road and
Driveways Standards:
1) The private roadways and driveways providing
access to this structure shall comply with Section 503 of the 2016 CFC.
2) Brush clearance and hazard abatement shall be in
compliance with the 2016 CFC as adopted by the
District.

Coordinate extent of site fence with Client, Landscape
and Civil. Coordinate site fence maintenance with Client.

All fences, screens, walls & hedges must meet the
requirements of the City of Santa Barbara "Fence,
Screen, Wall, Hedge Guidelines".
120
110
132
134
140
144
142
130
130
140
138
136
134
132
142
134
135
137
143
141
141
139
138
137
136
139
135
2307 Edgewater Way
(E) 2-story structure
2307 Edgewater Way
(E) 2-story structure
(d) 36" palm (d) 6" eucalyptus (e) oleander hedge (e) 8" araucaria (e) 12" sycamore (e) 24" canary island
pine
(e) 3" oak
(e) 10" sycamore
(e) ligustrum hedge
(e) 12" pepper tree
(e) 24" peppermint eucalyptus
(d) 8" palm
(d) 8" palm
(e) pittosporum hedge
(e) bamboo
(e) aloe
(e) ivy hedge (e) dense vegetation
(e) 12" rubber tree
(d) 24x36" eucalyptus
(e) 36" monterey cypress
(d) 18" peppermint eucalyptus (d) 7" eucalyptus (e) 11x13" eucalyptus 20'-0" setback
property line
6'-0" setback
property line
6'-0" setback
property line
coastal bluff edge, per geotech report

41.5' bluff edge
development setback
50' bluff edge buffer
Edgewater Way
Demo (E) 3,538 NSF residence +
attached garage
F.F. = +141.36 / +143.25 / +138.85
1 6
6 7
7 7
8 3
8 8
8 11
10 5 4
2 12
12 12
12 12
9 T
d
In
u
w
A
S
©
feet 0 10' 20'
Demolition Plan
5' 1"=10'-0" 1
LEGEND: DEMO PLAN
property line
setback
(E) contour
feature above
feature below
(E) building and site feature
to be removed
(E) permeable paving to be
removed
(E) impermeable paving to
be removed
(E) tree
(E) non-specimen
tree to be removed
KEY NOTES: DEMO PLAN

1. 2.

3. 4.

5. 6.

7. 8.

9. 10.

11. 12.

Existing building to be removed
Existing front concrete steps with tile finish to be removed Existing wood patio with wood handrails and wood steps to be removed
Existing concrete step to be removed
Existing exterior utility closet to be removed
Existing brick pavers to be removed.

Existing foundation to be removed
Existing non-specimen trees to be removed; see arborist report
Existing stump to be removed
Existing wrought iron gate to be removed
Existing mailbox with brick base to be removed
Existing vegetation to be removed
176
GENERAL NOTES: DEMOLITION PLAN
A.

B.

C.

D.

E.

F.

G.

H.

See Civil Plans for Grading, Drainage, Storm Water
Management, Tree Protection, and Site Utilities.

See Landcsape sheets for Irrigation, Planting,
Landscape Screening, Groundcover, Materials,
Features, Tree Protection and Hardscape information.

See landscape drawings for Arborist Report and Tree
Protection Recommendations.

See BMP sheets for construction staging, erosion
control.

See Electrical sheets for electrical panels, fixtures and applicable notes.

See Mechanical sheets for mechanical equipment and
applicable notes.

See Plumbing sheets for plumbing equipment and
applicable notes.

Utility coordination has not been completed. The
contractor shall be responsible for coordinating all
I.

J.

K.
service requirements with the respective utilities
companies and the existing site conditions.

Site access shall comply with Santa Barbara City Fire
Department, Fire Prevention Division Private Road and
Driveways Standards:
1) The private roadways and driveways providing
access to this structure shall comply with Section 503 of the 2016 CFC.
2) Brush clearance and hazard abatement shall be in
compliance with the 2016 CFC as adopted by the
District.

Coordinate extent of site fence with Client, Landscape
and Civil. Coordinate site fence maintenance with Client.

All fences, screens, walls & hedges must meet the
requirements of the City of Santa Barbara "Fence,
Screen, Wall, Hedge Guidelines".
100
120
110
132
134
140
144
142
130
130
140
138
136
134
132
142
134
135
137
143
141
141
139
138
137
136
139
135
2307 Edgewater Way
(E) 2-story structure
2307 Edgewater Way
(E) 2-story structure
(d) 36" palm (d) 6" eucalyptus (e) oleander hedge (e) 8" araucaria (e) 12" sycamore (e) 24" canary island
pine
(e) 3" oak
(e) 10" sycamore
(e) ligustrum hedge
(e) 12" pepper tree
(e) 24" peppermint eucalyptus
(d) 8" palm
(d) 8" palm
(e) pittosporum hedge
(e) bamboo
(e) aloe
(e) ivy hedge (e) dense vegetation
(e) 12" rubber tree
(d) 24x36" eucalyptus
(e) 36" monterey cypress
(d) 18" peppermint eucalyptus (d) 7" eucalyptus (e) 11x13" eucalyptus 20'-0" setback
property line
6'-0" setback
property line
6'-0" setback
property line
coastal bluff edge, per geotech report

41.5' bluff edge
development setback
50' bluff edge buffer
Edgewater Way
Demo (E) 3,538 NSF residence +
attached garage
F.F. = +141.36 / +143.25 / +138.85
1 6
6 7
7 7
8 3
8 8
8 11
10 5 4
2 12
12 12
12 12
9 D
Th
doc
Inc
use
wit
Arc
SF
©
e
A
A
3 S
t
s
J
P
6 S
t
feet 0 10' 20'
Demolition Plan
5' 1"=10'-0" 1
LEGEND: DEMO PLAN
property line
setback
(E) contour
feature above
feature below
(E) building and site feature
to be removed
(E) permeable paving to be
removed
(E) impermeable paving to
be removed
(E) tree
(E) non-specimen
tree to be removed
KEY NOTES: DEMO PLAN

1. 2.

3. 4.

5. 6.

7. 8.

9. 10.

11. 12.

Existing building to be removed
Existing front concrete steps with tile finish to be removed Existing wood patio with wood handrails and wood steps to be removed
Existing concrete step to be removed
Existing exterior utility closet to be removed
Existing brick pavers to be removed.

Existing foundation to be removed
Existing non-specimen trees to be removed; see arborist report
Existing stump to be removed
Existing wrought iron gate to be removed
Existing mailbox with brick base to be removed
Existing vegetation to be removed
176
GENERAL NOTES: DEMOLITION PLAN
A.

B.

C.

D.

E.

F.

G.

H.

See Civil Plans for Grading, Drainage, Storm Water
Management, Tree Protection, and Site Utilities.

See Landcsape sheets for Irrigation, Planting,
Landscape Screening, Groundcover, Materials,
Features, Tree Protection and Hardscape information.

See landscape drawings for Arborist Report and Tree
Protection Recommendations.

See BMP sheets for construction staging, erosion
control.

See Electrical sheets for electrical panels, fixtures and applicable notes.

See Mechanical sheets for mechanical equipment and
applicable notes.

See Plumbing sheets for plumbing equipment and
applicable notes.

Utility coordination has not been completed. The
contractor shall be responsible for coordinating all
I.

J.

K.
service requirements with the respective utilities
companies and the existing site conditions.

Site access shall comply with Santa Barbara City Fire
Department, Fire Prevention Division Private Road and
Driveways Standards:
1) The private roadways and driveways providing
access to this structure shall comply with Section 503 of the 2016 CFC.
2) Brush clearance and hazard abatement shall be in
compliance with the 2016 CFC as adopted by the
District.

Coordinate extent of site fence with Client, Landscape
and Civil. Coordinate site fence maintenance with Client.

All fences, screens, walls & hedges must meet the
requirements of the City of Santa Barbara "Fence,
Screen, Wall, Hedge Guidelines".
100
120
110
142
130
140
138
136
134
132
142
134
135
137
141
139
138
137
136
139
135
(d) 36" palm (d) 6" eucalyptus (e) oleander hedge
araucaria (e) 12" sycamore
ry island
(e) 10" sycamore
(d) 8" palm
(d) 8" palm
(e) pittosporum hedge
(e) bamboo
(e) aloe
(e) ivy hedge (e) dense vegetation
(d) 24x36" eucalyptus
(e) 36" monterey cypress
(d) 18" peppermint
eucalyptus (d) 7" eucalyptus (e) 11x13" eucalyptus
20'-0" setback
property line
6'-0" setback
property line
6'-0" setback
property line
coastal bluff edge, per geotech report
41 .5' bluff edge development setback
50' bluff edge buffer
Demo (E) 3,538 NSF residence +
attached garage
F.F. = +141.36 / +143.25 / +138.85
1 6
6 7
7 7
8 3
8 8
8 10
5 4
2 12
12 12
12 12
9 Demolition
• Remove existing building
• Remove existing driveway and hardscape
• Partially remove existing foundations up to bluff edge setback • Remove 7 non-specimen trees
KEY NOTES: DEMO PLAN

1. 2.

3. 4.

5. 6.

7. 8.

9. 10.

11. 12.

Existing building to be removed
Existing front concrete steps with tile finish to be removed Existing wood patio with wood handrails and wood steps to be removed
Existing concrete step to be removed
Existing exterior utility closet to be removed
Existing brick pavers to be removed.

Existing foundation to be removed
Existing non-specimen trees to be removed; see arborist report
Existing stump to be removed
Existing wrought iron gate to be removed
Existing mailbox with brick base to be removed
Existing vegetation to be removed
GENERAL NOTES: DEMOLITION PLAN
A.

B.

C.

D.

E.

F.

G.

H.

See Civil Plans for Grading, Drainage, Storm Water
Management, Tree Protection, and Site Utilities.

See Landcsape sheets for Irrigation, Planting,
Landscape Screening, Groundcover, Materials,
Features, Tree Protection and Hardscape information.

See landscape drawings for Arborist Report and Tree
Protection Recommendations.

See BMP sheets for construction staging, erosion
control.

See Electrical sheets for electrical panels, fixtures and applicable notes.

See Mechanical sheets for mechanical equipment and
applicable notes.

See Plumbing sheets for plumbing equipment and
applicable notes.

Utility coordination has not been completed. The
contractor shall be responsible for coordinating all
I.

J.

K.
service requirements with the respective utilitie
companies and the existing site conditions.

Site access shall comply with Santa Barbara C
Department, Fire Prevention Division Private R
Driveways Standards:
1) The private roadways and driveways provid
access to this structure shall comply with Sect
the 2016 CFC.
2) Brush clearance and hazard abatement sha
compliance with the 2016 CFC as adopted by
District.

Coordinate extent of site fence with Client, Lan
and Civil. Coordinate site fence maintenance w
All fences, screens, walls & hedges must meet
requirements of the City of Santa Barbara "Fen
Screen, Wall, Hedge Guidelines".
144
142
140
138
136
134
132
142
134
135
137
143
141
139
138
137
136
139
135
(d) 36" palm (d) 6" eucalyptus (e) oleander hedge (e) 8" araucaria (e) 12" sycamore (e) 24" canary island
pine
(e) 3" oak
(e) 10" sycamore
(e) ligustrum hedge
(d) 8" palm
(d) 8" palm
(e) pittosporum hedge
(e) bamboo
(e) ivy hedge (e) dense vegetation
(e) 12" rubber tree
(d) 24x36" eucalyptus
(d) 18" peppermint
eucalyptus (d) 7" eucalyptus (e) 11x13" eucalyptus
20'-0" setback
property line
6'-0" setback
property line
6'-0" setback
property line
41 .5' bluff edge development setback
50' bluff edge buffer
Edgewater Way
Demo (E) 3,538 NSF residence +
attached garage
F.F. = +141.36 / +143.25 / +138.85
1 6
6 7
7 7
8 3
8 8
8 11
10 5 4
2 12
12 12
12 12
9 18
120
110
132
134
140
144
142
130
130
140
138
136
134
132
142
134
135
137
143
141
141
139
138
137
136
139
135
2,000 SF
open yard
Type 3
36x54
18" x 31"
36"
cooktop
W/D 18" x 31"
18" x 23"
slope
2%
slope
10%
-1/4"
(135.98')
-3"
(135.75')
-1'-7"
(134.37')
-6.0'
(130.0')
+0.0'
(136.0')
+5.5'
(141.5')
+4'-4"
(140.33')
+4'-0"
(140.0')
3 R @ 6" 3 R @ 6" 3.5% slope
slope
5% max
+2'-10"
(138.8')
+1'-4"
(137.3')
-3"
(135.75')
-1'-6"
(134.50')
-3"
(135.75')
-1'-6"
(134.50')
2 R @ 7"
+4'-8"
(140.67')
+3'-6"
(139.5')
2317 Edgewater Way
(E) 1-story structure
2307 Edgewater Way
(E) 2-story structure
2321 Edgewater Way
(E) 2-story structure 2317 Edgewater Way
(E) 1-story structure
2307 Edgewater Way
(E) 2-story structure
2321 Edgewater Way
(E) 2-story structure
(e) oleander hedge (e) 8" araucaria (e) 12" sycamore
(e) 24" canary island
pine
(e) 3" oak
(e) 10" sycamore
(e) ligustrum hedge
(e) 12" pepper tree
(e) 24" peppermint eucalyptus
(e) pittosporum hedge
(e) bamboo
(e) aloe
(e) ivy hedge (e) dense vegetation
(e) 12" rubber tree
(e) 36" monterey cypress
(e) 11x13" eucalyptus
G-01
G-02
20'-0" setback
property line
6'-0" setback
property line
6'-0" setback
property line
coastal bluff edge, per geotech report

41.5' bluff edge
development setback
50' bluff edge buffer
vehicular
access
Edgewater Way
(p) pool with cover (e) foundations (e) foundations
(N) 4,015 NSF
proposed residence
F.F. = +136.0'
(garage F.F. = +140.3')
Construction Type: VB, sprinklered
Occupany: R3
pedestrian
access
5 4
3 6
2 1
7 8
9 10
3 3
demo (e)
2-story
residence
11 8 4
12 13
14 15
17 18
19 16
feet 0 10' 20'
Proposed Site Plan
5' 1"=10'-0" 1
KEYNOTES: SITE PLAN GENERAL NOTES: SITE PLAN
LEGEND: SITE PLAN
property line
setback
(E) contour
feature above
feature below
(E) building footprint
low site wall
proposed hardscape, see
landscape drawings
(E) tree
(P) tree
(E) non-specimen
tree to be removed,
see D1.0
KEY NOTES: SITE PLAN

1. 2.

3. 4.

5. 6.

7. 8.

9. 10.

Stormwater retention chamber per Civil drawings
Existing sidewalk, curb, and gutter
Proposed landscaping to be drought resistant per
landscape drawings
Existing 66" wood fence to remain as is (and if
necessary replaced with like for like)
Existing hedge on property to be thinned for
hardscape access
Existing 42" chain link fence to remain as is (and if
necessary replaced with like for like)
Buried 250 gallon propane tank
Storm drain sump pump per Civil
Existing tree to be assessed by an arborist during
construction. Arborist to provide recommendations to
reduce liability to the new structure. Contractor to
coordinate. Reference landscape plans for additional
notes.

CMU stone veneer retaining wall per Landscape
drawings

11. 12.

13. 14.

15. 16.

17. 18.

19. Below grade vault for pool equipment
(E) telephone pole
(E) electrical lines above
(E) water meter (5/8 inch). A larger water meter is
needed; reference civil drawings. Contractor to
provide a Public Work Order for larger water meter.

Water usage for ADU to be measured by sub-meter.

General contractor to coordinate.
(E) electric meter, general contractor to coordinate
relocation
(E) gas meter
(P) trash, recycling, green waste bins in outdoor
enclosure area (35 gal. each)
(P) utility P.O.C.

Provide hand dug linear trench drain. See Civil
drawings for additional information.
176

EXTERIOR LIGHTING NOTES
A.

B.

C.

D.

E.

F.

All exterior sconces shall be full cut-off.

All exterior light fixtures shall be dark sky friendly.

All exterior lighting shall be LED with a warm
(2700K) color temperature.

Landscape accent lights shall be less than 3 watts
and focused on landscape elements.

Path and driveway border lights shall be full cut-off.

All exterior ceiling recessed lighting fixtures shall be LED and less than 3 watts.

GENERAL NOTES: SITE PLAN
A.

B.

C.

D.

E.

F.

G.

See Civil Plans for Grading, Drainage, Storm
Water Management, Tree Protection, and
Site Utilities.

See Landscape sheets for Irrigation,
Planting, Landscape Screening,
Groundcover, Materials, Features, and Tree
Protection.

See Arborist Report on sheet A0.2 for Tree
Protection Recommendations.

See BMP sheets for construction staging,
erosion control.

See Electrical & Landscape sheets for
electrical panels, fixtures and applicable
notes.

See Mechanical sheets for mechanical
equipment and applicable notes.

See Plumbing sheets for plumbing
equipment and applicable notes.

H. Site drainage shall comply with 2019 CRC
R401.3 (refer to Civil drawings for additional
information):
1) Surface drainage shall be diverted to a
storm water conveyance or other approved
point of collection that does not create a
hazard. Lot shall be graded to drain surface
water away from foundation walls. The grade
shall fall a minimum of 6 inches within the
first 10 feet.
2) Exception: where lot lines, walls, slopes or
other physical barriers prohibit 6 inches of
fall within 10 feet, drains or swales shall be
constructed to ensure drainage away from
the structure. Impervious surfaces within 10
feet of the building foundation shall be
I.

J.

K.

L.

M.

N.

O.

P.
sloped a minimum of 2% away from the
building.

Refer to Finish Schedule (A7.Xs) for interior
finishes.

Refer to Elevations (A3.Xs) for exterior
finishes.

Refer to Sections (A4.Xs) and Details
(A6.Xs) for construction assemblies.

Dimensioning:
1) all dimensions are to face of stud U.N.O.

Roof covering, valleys, and gutters per 2019
CBC Section 705A (High Fire Hazard -
Chapter 7A)
Exterior wall protection and openings per
2019 CBC Section 707A (High Fire Hazard)
Roof pitch for roof covering per 2019 CBC
Chapter 15.

F.F. (finish floor) refers to top-of-finish-floor,
Q.

R.

S.

T.

U.

U.N.O.

Utility coordination has not been completed.

The contractor shall be responsible for
coordinating all service requirements with
the respective utilities companies and the
existing site conditions.

Exterior building materials, systems and/or
assemblies shall meet 2019 CBC Chapter
7A, CRC Section R327 & S.B. Ordinance
No. 5639 requirements (High Fire Hazard)
Pool is under seperate permit. Pool drawings
communicate the basis of design and
installation is design build. Coordinate with
pool contractor. Install per current applicable
codes.

Coordinate extent of site fence with Client,
Landscape and Civil. Coordinate site fence
design with Client.

All fences, screens, walls & hedges must
meet the requirements of the SFDB
Guidelines.
downspout, painted to
Proposed Site Plan match fascia or wall
T
d
In
u
w
A
S
©
100
120
110
132
134
140
144
142
130
130
140
138
136
134
132
142
134
135
137
143
141
141
139
138
137
136
139
135
2,000 SF
open yard
Type 3
36x54
18" x 31"
36"
cooktop
W/D 18" x 31"
18" x 23"
slope
2%
slope
10%
-1/4"
(135.98')
-3"
(135.75')
-1'-7"
(134.37')
-6.0'
(130.0')
+0.0'
(136.0')
+5.5'
(141.5')
+4'-4"
(140.33')
+4'-0"
(140.0')
3 R @ 6" 3 R @ 6" 3.5% slope
slope
5% max
+2'-10"
(138.8')
+1'-4"
(137.3')
-3"
(135.75')
-1'-6"
(134.50')
-3"
(135.75')
-1'-6"
(134.50')
2 R @ 7"
+4'-8"
(140.67')
+3'-6"
(139.5')
2317 Edgewater Way
(E) 1-story structure
2307 Edgewater Way
(E) 2-story structure
2321 Edgewater Way
(E) 2-story structure 2317 Edgewater Way
(E) 1-story structure
2307 Edgewater Way
(E) 2-story structure
2321 Edgewater Way
(E) 2-story structure
(e) oleander hedge (e) 8" araucaria (e) 12" sycamore
(e) 24" canary island
pine
(e) 3" oak
(e) 10" sycamore
(e) ligustrum hedge
(e) 12" pepper tree
(e) 24" peppermint eucalyptus
(e) pittosporum hedge
(e) bamboo
(e) aloe
(e) ivy hedge (e) dense vegetation
(e) 12" rubber tree
(e) 36" monterey cypress
(e) 11x13" eucalyptus
G-01
G-02
20'-0" setback
property line
6'-0" setback
property line
6'-0" setback
property line
coastal bluff edge, per geotech report

41.5' bluff edge
development setback
50' bluff edge buffer
vehicular
access
Edgewater Way
(p) pool with cover (e) foundations (e) foundations
(N) 4,015 NSF
proposed residence
F.F. = +136.0'
(garage F.F. = +140.3')
Construction Type: VB, sprinklered
Occupany: R3
pedestrian
access
5 4
3 6
2 1
7 8
9 10
3 3
demo (e)
2-story
residence
11 8 4
12 13
14 15
17 18
19 16
feet 0 10' 20'
Proposed Site Plan
5' 1"=10'-0" 1
KEYNOTES: SITE PLAN GENERAL NOTES: SITE PLAN
LEGEND: SITE PLAN
property line
setback
(E) contour
feature above
feature below
(E) building footprint
low site wall
proposed hardscape, see
landscape drawings
(E) tree
(P) tree
(E) non-specimen
tree to be removed,
see D1.0
KEY NOTES: SITE PLAN

1. 2.

3. 4.

5. 6.

7. 8.

9. 10.

Stormwater retention chamber per Civil drawings
Existing sidewalk, curb, and gutter
Proposed landscaping to be drought resistant per
landscape drawings
Existing 66" wood fence to remain as is (and if
necessary replaced with like for like)
Existing hedge on property to be thinned for
hardscape access
Existing 42" chain link fence to remain as is (and if
necessary replaced with like for like)
Buried 250 gallon propane tank
Storm drain sump pump per Civil
Existing tree to be assessed by an arborist during
construction. Arborist to provide recommendations to
reduce liability to the new structure. Contractor to
coordinate. Reference landscape plans for additional
notes.

CMU stone veneer retaining wall per Landscape
drawings

11. 12.

13. 14.

15. 16.

17. 18.

19. Below grade vault for pool equipment
(E) telephone pole
(E) electrical lines above
(E) water meter (5/8 inch). A larger water meter is
needed; reference civil drawings. Contractor to
provide a Public Work Order for larger water meter.

Water usage for ADU to be measured by sub-meter.

General contractor to coordinate.
(E) electric meter, general contractor to coordinate
relocation
(E) gas meter
(P) trash, recycling, green waste bins in outdoor
enclosure area (35 gal. each)
(P) utility P.O.C.

Provide hand dug linear trench drain. See Civil
drawings for additional information.
176

EXTERIOR LIGHTING NOTES
A.

B.

C.

D.

E.

F.

All exterior sconces shall be full cut-off.

All exterior light fixtures shall be dark sky friendly.

All exterior lighting shall be LED with a warm
(2700K) color temperature.

Landscape accent lights shall be less than 3 watts
and focused on landscape elements.

Path and driveway border lights shall be full cut-off.

All exterior ceiling recessed lighting fixtures shall be LED and less than 3 watts.

GENERAL NOTES: SITE PLAN
A.

B.

C.

D.

E.

F.

G.

See Civil Plans for Grading, Drainage, Storm
Water Management, Tree Protection, and
Site Utilities.

See Landscape sheets for Irrigation,
Planting, Landscape Screening,
Groundcover, Materials, Features, and Tree
Protection.

See Arborist Report on sheet A0.2 for Tree
Protection Recommendations.

See BMP sheets for construction staging,
erosion control.

See Electrical & Landscape sheets for
electrical panels, fixtures and applicable
notes.

See Mechanical sheets for mechanical
equipment and applicable notes.

See Plumbing sheets for plumbing
equipment and applicable notes.

H. Site drainage shall comply with 2019 CRC
R401.3 (refer to Civil drawings for additional
information):
1) Surface drainage shall be diverted to a
storm water conveyance or other approved
point of collection that does not create a
hazard. Lot shall be graded to drain surface
water away from foundation walls. The grade
shall fall a minimum of 6 inches within the
first 10 feet.
2) Exception: where lot lines, walls, slopes or
other physical barriers prohibit 6 inches of
fall within 10 feet, drains or swales shall be
constructed to ensure drainage away from
the structure. Impervious surfaces within 10
feet of the building foundation shall be
I.

J.

K.

L.

M.

N.

O.

P.
sloped a minimum of 2% away from the
building.

Refer to Finish Schedule (A7.Xs) for interior
finishes.

Refer to Elevations (A3.Xs) for exterior
finishes.

Refer to Sections (A4.Xs) and Details
(A6.Xs) for construction assemblies.

Dimensioning:
1) all dimensions are to face of stud U.N.O.

Roof covering, valleys, and gutters per 2019
CBC Section 705A (High Fire Hazard -
Chapter 7A)
Exterior wall protection and openings per
2019 CBC Section 707A (High Fire Hazard)
Roof pitch for roof covering per 2019 CBC
Chapter 15.

F.F. (finish floor) refers to top-of-finish-floor,
Q.

R.

S.

T.

U.

U.N.O.

Utility coordination has not been completed.

The contractor shall be responsible for
coordinating all service requirements with
the respective utilities companies and the
existing site conditions.

Exterior building materials, systems and/or
assemblies shall meet 2019 CBC Chapter
7A, CRC Section R327 & S.B. Ordinance
No. 5639 requirements (High Fire Hazard)
Pool is under seperate permit. Pool drawings
communicate the basis of design and
installation is design build. Coordinate with
pool contractor. Install per current applicable
codes.

Coordinate extent of site fence with Client,
Landscape and Civil. Coordinate site fence
design with Client.

All fences, screens, walls & hedges must
meet the requirements of the SFDB
Guidelines.
downspout, painted to
match fascia or wall
T
d
I
u
w
A
S
©
100
120
110
142
130
140
138
136
134
132
142
134
135
137
141
139
138
137
136
139
135
2,000 SF
open yard
Type 3
36x54
18" x 31"
36"
cooktop
W/D 18" x 31"
18" x 23"
slope
2%
slope
10%
-1/4"
(135.98')
-3"
(135.75')
-1'-7"
(134.37')
-6.0'
(130.0')
+0.0'
(136.0')
+5.5'
(141.5')
+4'-4"
(140.33')
+4'-0"
(140.0')
3 R @ 6" 3 R @ 6" 3.5% slope
slope
5% max
+2'-10"
(138.8')
+1'-4"
(137.3')
-3"
(135.75')
-1'-6"
(134.50')
-3"
(135.75')
-1'-6"
(134.50')
2 R @ 7"
+4'-8"
(140.67')
+3'-6"
(139.5')
2317 Edgewater Way
(E) 1-story structure
2321 Edgewater Way
(E) 2-story structure 2317 Edgewater Way
(E) 1-story structure
2321 Edgewater Way
(E) 2-story structure
(e) oleander hedge
8" araucaria (e) 12" sycamore
nary island
ne
(e) 10" sycamore
(e) 12 pepper tree
(e) pittosporum hedge
(e) bamboo
(e) aloe
(e) ivy hedge (e) dense vegetation
(e) 36" monterey cypress
(e) 11x13" eucalyptus
G-01
G-02
20'-0" setback
property line
6'-0" setback
property line
6'-0" setback
property line
coastal bluff edge, per geotech report
41 .5' bluff edge development setback
50' bluff edge buffer
vehicular
access
(p) pool with cover (e) foundations (e) foundations
(N) 4,015 NSF
proposed residence
F.F. = +136.0'
(garage F.F. = +140.3')
Construction Type: VB, sprinklered
Occupany: R3
destrian
access
5 4
3 6
1 7
8 9
10 3
3 demo (e)
2-story
residence
11 8 4
14 15
17 18
19 16
feet 0 10' 20'
Proposed Site Plan
5' 1"=10'-0" 1
GENERAL NOTES: SITE PLAN
LEGEND: SITE PLAN
property line
setback
(E) contour
feature above
feature below
(E) building footprint
low site wall
proposed hardscape, see
landscape drawings
(E) tree
(P) tree
(E) non-specimen
tree to be removed,
see D1.0
er Civil drawings
er
ght resistant per
n as is (and if
ike)
thinned for
emain as is (and if
ike)
an arborist during
recommendations to
re. Contractor to
e plans for additional
per Landscape

11. 12.

13. 14.

15. 16.

17. 18.

19. Below grade vault for pool equipment
(E) telephone pole
(E) electrical lines above
(E) water meter (5/8 inch). A larger water meter is
needed; reference civil drawings. Contractor to
provide a Public Work Order for larger water meter.

Water usage for ADU to be measured by sub-meter.

General contractor to coordinate.
(E) electric meter, general contractor to coordinate
relocation
(E) gas meter
(P) trash, recycling, green waste bins in outdoor
enclosure area (35 gal. each)
(P) utility P.O.C.

Provide hand dug linear trench drain. See Civil
drawings for additional information.
176

EXTERIOR LIGHTING NOTES
A.

B.

C.

D.

E.

F.

All exterior sconces shall be full cut-off.

All exterior light fixtures shall be dark sky friendly.

All exterior lighting shall be LED with a warm
(2700K) color temperature.

Landscape accent lights shall be less than 3 watts
and focused on landscape elements.

Path and driveway border lights shall be full cut-off.

All exterior ceiling recessed lighting fixtures shall be LED and less than 3 watts.

GENERAL NOTES: SITE PLAN
A.

B.

C.

D.

E.

F.

G.

See Civil Plans for Grading, Drainage, Storm
Water Management, Tree Protection, and
Site Utilities.

See Landscape sheets for Irrigation,
Planting, Landscape Screening,
Groundcover, Materials, Features, and Tree
Protection.

See Arborist Report on sheet A0.2 for Tree
Protection Recommendations.

See BMP sheets for construction staging,
erosion control.

See Electrical & Landscape sheets for
electrical panels, fixtures and applicable
notes.

See Mechanical sheets for mechanical
equipment and applicable notes.

See Plumbing sheets for plumbing
equipment and applicable notes.

H. Site drainage shall comply with 2019 CRC
R401.3 (refer to Civil drawings for additional
information):
1) Surface drainage shall be diverted to a
storm water conveyance or other approved
point of collection that does not create a
hazard. Lot shall be graded to drain surface
water away from foundation walls. The grade
shall fall a minimum of 6 inches within the
first 10 feet.
2) Exception: where lot lines, walls, slopes or
other physical barriers prohibit 6 inches of
fall within 10 feet, drains or swales shall be
constructed to ensure drainage away from
the structure. Impervious surfaces within 10
feet of the building foundation shall be
I.

J.

K.

L.

M.

N.

O.

P.
sloped a minimum of 2% away from the
building.

Refer to Finish Schedule (A7.Xs) for interior
finishes.

Refer to Elevations (A3.Xs) for exterior
finishes.

Refer to Sections (A4.Xs) and Details
(A6.Xs) for construction assemblies.

Dimensioning:
1) all dimensions are to face of stud U.N.O.

Roof covering, valleys, and gutters per 2019
CBC Section 705A (High Fire Hazard -
Chapter 7A)
Exterior wall protection and openings per
2019 CBC Section 707A (High Fire Hazard)
Roof pitch for roof covering per 2019 CBC
Chapter 15.

F.F. (finish floor) refers to top-of-finish-floor,
Q.

R.

S.

T.

U.

U.N.O.

Utility coordination has not been completed.

The contractor shall be responsible for
coordinating all service requirements with
the respective utilities companies and the
existing site conditions.

Exterior building materials, systems and/or
assemblies shall meet 2019 CBC Chapter
7A, CRC Section R327 & S.B. Ordinance
No. 5639 requirements (High Fire Hazard)
Pool is under seperate permit. Pool drawings
communicate the basis of design and
installation is design build. Coordinate with
pool contractor. Install per current applicable
codes.

Coordinate extent of site fence with Client,
Landscape and Civil. Coordinate site fence
design with Client.

All fences, screens, walls & hedges must
meet the requirements of the SFDB
Guidelines.
downspout, painted to
match fascia or wall
Site Plan
• Replace driveway
• Terraced entry courtyard
• South patio with pool
T
d
I
u
w
A
S
©
100
120
110
142
130
140
138
136
134
132
142
134
135
137
141
139
138
137
136
139
135
2,000 SF
open yard
Type 3
36x54
18" x 31"
36"
cooktop
W/D 18" x 31"
18" x 23"
slope
2%
slope
10%
-1/4"
(135.98')
-3"
(135.75')
-1'-7"
(134.37')
-6.0'
(130.0')
+0.0'
(136.0')
+5.5'
(141.5')
+4'-4"
(140.33')
+4'-0"
(140.0')
3 R @ 6" 3 R @ 6" 3.5% slope
slope
5% max
+2'-10"
(138.8')
+1'-4"
(137.3')
-3"
(135.75')
-1'-6"
(134.50')
-3"
(135.75')
-1'-6"
(134.50')
2 R @ 7"
+4'-8"
(140.67')
+3'-6"
(139.5')
2317 Edgewater Way
(E) 1-story structure
2321 Edgewater Way
(E) 2-story structure 2317 Edgewater Way
(E) 1-story structure
2321 Edgewater Way
(E) 2-story structure
(e) oleander hedge
8" araucaria (e) 12" sycamore
nary island
ne
(e) 10" sycamore
(e) 12 pepper tree
(e) pittosporum hedge
(e) bamboo
(e) aloe
(e) ivy hedge (e) dense vegetation
(e) 36" monterey cypress
(e) 11x13" eucalyptus
G-01
G-02
20'-0" setback
property line
6'-0" setback
property line
6'-0" setback
property line
coastal bluff edge, per geotech report
41 .5' bluff edge development setback
50' bluff edge buffer
vehicular
access
(p) pool with cover (e) foundations (e) foundations
(N) 4,015 NSF
proposed residence
F.F. = +136.0'
(garage F.F. = +140.3')
Construction Type: VB, sprinklered
Occupany: R3
destrian
access
5 4
3 6
1 7
8 9
10 3
3 demo (e)
2-story
residence
11 8 4
14 15
17 18
19 16
feet 0 10' 20'
Proposed Site Plan
5' 1"=10'-0" 1
GENERAL NOTES: SITE PLAN
LEGEND: SITE PLAN
property line
setback
(E) contour
feature above
feature below
(E) building footprint
low site wall
proposed hardscape, see
landscape drawings
(E) tree
(P) tree
(E) non-specimen
tree to be removed,
see D1.0
er Civil drawings
er
ght resistant per
n as is (and if
ike)
thinned for
emain as is (and if
ike)
an arborist during
recommendations to
re. Contractor to
e plans for additional
per Landscape

11. 12.

13. 14.

15. 16.

17. 18.

19. Below grade vault for pool equipment
(E) telephone pole
(E) electrical lines above
(E) water meter (5/8 inch). A larger water meter is
needed; reference civil drawings. Contractor to
provide a Public Work Order for larger water meter.

Water usage for ADU to be measured by sub-meter.

General contractor to coordinate.
(E) electric meter, general contractor to coordinate
relocation
(E) gas meter
(P) trash, recycling, green waste bins in outdoor
enclosure area (35 gal. each)
(P) utility P.O.C.

Provide hand dug linear trench drain. See Civil
drawings for additional information.
176

EXTERIOR LIGHTING NOTES
A.

B.

C.

D.

E.

F.

All exterior sconces shall be full cut-off.

All exterior light fixtures shall be dark sky friendly.

All exterior lighting shall be LED with a warm
(2700K) color temperature.

Landscape accent lights shall be less than 3 watts
and focused on landscape elements.

Path and driveway border lights shall be full cut-off.

All exterior ceiling recessed lighting fixtures shall be LED and less than 3 watts.

GENERAL NOTES: SITE PLAN
A.

B.

C.

D.

E.

F.

G.

See Civil Plans for Grading, Drainage, Storm
Water Management, Tree Protection, and
Site Utilities.

See Landscape sheets for Irrigation,
Planting, Landscape Screening,
Groundcover, Materials, Features, and Tree
Protection.

See Arborist Report on sheet A0.2 for Tree
Protection Recommendations.

See BMP sheets for construction staging,
erosion control.

See Electrical & Landscape sheets for
electrical panels, fixtures and applicable
notes.

See Mechanical sheets for mechanical
equipment and applicable notes.

See Plumbing sheets for plumbing
equipment and applicable notes.

H. Site drainage shall comply with 2019 CRC
R401.3 (refer to Civil drawings for additional
information):
1) Surface drainage shall be diverted to a
storm water conveyance or other approved
point of collection that does not create a
hazard. Lot shall be graded to drain surface
water away from foundation walls. The grade
shall fall a minimum of 6 inches within the
first 10 feet.
2) Exception: where lot lines, walls, slopes or
other physical barriers prohibit 6 inches of
fall within 10 feet, drains or swales shall be
constructed to ensure drainage away from
the structure. Impervious surfaces within 10
feet of the building foundation shall be
I.

J.

K.

L.

M.

N.

O.

P.
sloped a minimum of 2% away from the
building.

Refer to Finish Schedule (A7.Xs) for interior
finishes.

Refer to Elevations (A3.Xs) for exterior
finishes.

Refer to Sections (A4.Xs) and Details
(A6.Xs) for construction assemblies.

Dimensioning:
1) all dimensions are to face of stud U.N.O.

Roof covering, valleys, and gutters per 2019
CBC Section 705A (High Fire Hazard -
Chapter 7A)
Exterior wall protection and openings per
2019 CBC Section 707A (High Fire Hazard)
Roof pitch for roof covering per 2019 CBC
Chapter 15.

F.F. (finish floor) refers to top-of-finish-floor,
Q.

R.

S.

T.

U.

U.N.O.

Utility coordination has not been completed.

The contractor shall be responsible for
coordinating all service requirements with
the respective utilities companies and the
existing site conditions.

Exterior building materials, systems and/or
assemblies shall meet 2019 CBC Chapter
7A, CRC Section R327 & S.B. Ordinance
No. 5639 requirements (High Fire Hazard)
Pool is under seperate permit. Pool drawings
communicate the basis of design and
installation is design build. Coordinate with
pool contractor. Install per current applicable
codes.

Coordinate extent of site fence with Client,
Landscape and Civil. Coordinate site fence
design with Client.

All fences, screens, walls & hedges must
meet the requirements of the SFDB
Guidelines.
downspout, painted to
match fascia or wall
144
142
140
138
136
142
137
143
141
139
138
137
139
Type 3
36x54
18" x 31"
36"
cooktop
W/D 18" x 31"
18" x 23"
slope
2%
slope
10%
+0.0'
(136.0')
+5.5'
(141.5')
+4'-4"
(140.33')
+4'-0"
(140.0')
3 R @ 6" 3 R @ 6"
slope
5% max
+2'-10"
(138.8')
+1'-4"
(137.3')
2 R @ 7"
+4'-8"
(140.67')
+3'-6"
(139.5')
2321 Edgewater Way
(E) 2-story structure
2321 Edgewater Way
(E) 2-story structure
(e) oleander hedge (e) 8" araucaria (e) 12" sycamore
(e) 24" canary island
pine
(e) 3" oak
(e) 10" sycamore
(e) ligustrum hedge
(e) 12 pepper tree
(e
(e) 12" rubber tree
(e) 11x13" eucalyptus
G-01
G-02
20'-0" setback
property line
6'-0" setback
property line
6'-0" setback
property line
vehicular
access
Edgewater Way
(N) 4,015 NSF
proposed residence
F.F. = +136.0'
(garage F.F. = +140.3')
Construction Type: VB, sprinklered
Occupany: R3
destrian
access
4 3
6 1
7 3
3 8
14 15
17 18
16 KEYNOTES: SITE PLAN GENERAL NOTES: SITE PLAN
KEY NOTES: SITE PLAN

1. 2.

3. 4.

5. 6.

7. 8.

9. 10.

Stormwater retention chamber per Civil drawings
Existing sidewalk, curb, and gutter
Proposed landscaping to be drought resistant per
landscape drawings
Existing 66" wood fence to remain as is (and if
necessary replaced with like for like)
Existing hedge on property to be thinned for
hardscape access
Existing 42" chain link fence to remain as is (and if
necessary replaced with like for like)
Buried 250 gallon propane tank
Storm drain sump pump per Civil
Existing tree to be assessed by an arborist during
construction. Arborist to provide recommendations to
reduce liability to the new structure. Contractor to
coordinate. Reference landscape plans for additional
notes.

CMU stone veneer retaining wall per Landscape
drawings

11. 12.

13. 14.

15. 16.

17. 18.

19. Below grade vault for pool equipment
(E) telephone pole
(E) electrical lines above
(E) water meter (5/8 inch). A larger water meter is
needed; reference civil drawings. Contractor to
provide a Public Work Order for larger water meter.

Water usage for ADU to be measured by sub-meter.

General contractor to coordinate.
(E) electric meter, general contractor to coordinate
relocation
(E) gas meter
(P) trash, recycling, green waste bins in outdoor
enclosure area (35 gal. each)
(P) utility P.O.C.

Provide hand dug linear trench drain. See Civil
drawings for additional information.

EXTERIOR LIGHTING NOTES
A.

B.

C.

D.

E.

F.

All exterior sconces shall be full cut-off.

All exterior light fixtures shall be dark sky friendly.

All exterior lighting shall be LED with a warm
(2700K) color temperature.

Landscape accent lights shall be less than 3 watts
and focused on landscape elements.

Path and driveway border lights shall be full cut-off.

All exterior ceiling recessed lighting fixtures shall be LED and less than 3 watts.

GENERAL NOTES: SITE PLAN
A.

B.

C.

D.

E.

F.

G.

See Civil Plans for Grading, Drainage, Storm
Water Management, Tree Protection, and
Site Utilities.

See Landscape sheets for Irrigation,
Planting, Landscape Screening,
Groundcover, Materials, Features, and Tree
Protection.

See Arborist Report on sheet A0.2 for Tree
Protection Recommendations.

See BMP sheets for construction staging,
erosion control.

See Electrical & Landscape sheets for
electrical panels, fixtures and applicable
notes.

See Mechanical sheets for mechanical
equipment and applicable notes.

See Plumbing sheets for plumbing
equipment and applicable notes.
19 Proposed Landscape Plan CJM : LA

SD SD SD

SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD

SD SD SD SD SD SD SD

SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD
SD
SD

SD SD SD
SD
W
S S
S
S
SD
SD
W
W
SD
SD SD

SD SD SD
SD
134
132
136
140
142
142
130 130
140
138
136
134
132
142
134
135
137
143
141
141
140
139
138
137
136
139
135

LIMIT OF WORK

LIMIT OF WORK

LIMIT OF WORK
⅊
⅊
⅊

LIMIT OF WORK
50' BLUFF EDGE
BUFFER

41.5' BLUFF EDGE

DEVELOPMENT SETBACK

PER GEOTECH REPORT

COASTAL BLUFF EDGE

RESIDENCE
GARAGE
POOL
3-WES MDI
16-ARC MIS
1-GAR ELL
3-SAL WAV
1-PER LI4
10-DYM MAR
2-CIT SW2
1-RHO EVE
2-WES MOR
4-DIE JOH
2-CHO TEC
1-OLE SWA
9-DIE JOH
1-RHO EVE
3-CHO TEC
3-GAU LIN
1-TIB HET
6-CAR DIV
2-PAR HCR
7-FAL CR2
2-FRA CHI
1-ANE AND
2-STA BYZ
3-COT OB6 1-CUP SEM
1-CUP SEM
5-DYM MAR
1-CIT SW2
1-ROS TUS
1-FIC BRO
17-DIE JOH
1-JAS POL
2-CAS COU
6-LAV NIK
6-CAR FLA
3-LOM NYA
2-WES MDI
1-CIT SW2
4-WES MOR
9-RHA MOU
3-CAR FLA
8-LAV NIK
2-RHA DWA
3-WES MDI
5-CAS COU
3-GAU LIN
1-ROS TUS
3-ECH CAN
45-CAR FLA
3-GAU LIN
2-CYN SCO
2-WES MOR
3-CAS COU
3-SAL WAV
36-POD GRA
3-CHO TEC
3-WES MOR
5-WES MDI
5-DIE JOH
2-SAL WAV
1-WES MOR
3-CAR FLA
6-CAR FLA
3-LAV NIK
1-SAL WAV
1-ROS TUS 1-TIB HET
55-POD GRA
2-GAU LIN
13-CAR DIV
27-CAR DIV 3-COT OB6
2-COT OB6
2-NEP WAL
3-GAU LIN
2-CAR FLA
25-CAR DIV
2-LOM NYA
13-LAV NIK
3-COT OB6
2-STA BYZ
2-FRA CHI
8-FAL CR2
2-ANE AND
1-GAR ELL
3-VER BON
1-CLE ARM
6-WES MDI
8-LOM NYA
6-GAU LIN
6-CAS COU
6-CAR FLA
4-ECH CAN 1-JAS POL
7-LOM NYA
15-CAR FLA
5-WES MDI
2-WES MDI
1-OLE LIT
18-POD GRA
4-GRE MOO
31-POD GRA
2-DIE JOH
14-CAR FLA
24-POD GRA

HEDGES CODE QTY BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME SIZE WATER USE SPACING REMARKS POD GRA 164 PODOCARPUS GRACILIOR COLUMN FERN PINE 24"BOX LOW 24" o.c. ALT: FICUS SPP.

SOURCE TALLEST AVAILABLE

ORNAMENTAL GRASSES CODE QTY BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME SIZE WATER USE SPACING REMARKS CAR DIV 71 CAREX DIVULSA EUROPEAN GREY SEDGE 1 GAL MEDIUM 24" o.c.

CAR FLA 100 CAREX FLACCA BLUE SEDGE 1 GAL LOW 18" o.c.

LOM NYA 20 LOMANDRA LONGIFOLIA `NYALLA` NYALLA BREEZE GRASS 5 GAL LOW 36" o.c.

PERENNIALS CODE QTY BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME SIZE WATER USE SPACING REMARKS ANE AND 3 ANEMONE X HYBRIDA 'ANDREA ATKINSON' ANDREA ATKINSON JAPANESE ANEMONE 1 GAL MEDIUM 24" o.c.

CYN SCO 2 CYNARA SCOLYMUS ARTICHOKE 5 GAL MEDIUM 36" o.c.

DIE JOH 37 DIETES IRIDIOIDES 'JOHN'S RUNNER' JOHN'S RUNNER FORTNIGHT LILY 1 GAL LOW 24" o.c.

FAL CR2 15 FALKIA REPENS CREEPING FALKIA 6" POT MEDIUM 12" o.c.

FRA CHI 4 FRAGARIA CHILOENSIS BEACH STRAWBERRY 6" POT MEDIUM 12" o.c.

GAU LIN 20 GAURA LINDHEIMERI WHITE GAURA 1 GAL LOW 18" o.c.

NEP WAL 2 NEPETA X FAASSENII 'WALKER'S LOW' WALKER'S LOW CATMINT 1 GAL LOW 27" o.c.

STA BYZ 4 STACHYS BYZANTINA LAMB'S EAR 1 GAL MEDIUM 18" o.c.

SUCCULENTS CODE QTY BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME SIZE WATER USE SPACING REMARKS COT OB6 11 COTYLEDON ORBICULATA OBLONGA 'FLAVIDA' COTYLEDON 1 GAL LOW 24" o.c.

VINE/ESPALIER CODE QTY BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME SIZE WATER USE SPACING REMARKS CLE ARM 1 CLEMATIS ARMANDII EVERGREEN CLEMATIS 15 GAL MEDIUM 48" o.c.

JAS POL 2 JASMINUM POLYANTHUM PINK JASMINE 5 GAL LOW 72" o.c.

PAR HCR 2 PARTHENOCISSUS X 'HACIENDA CREEPER' HACIENDA CREEPER 5 GAL MEDIUM 72" o.c.

RHO EVE 2 RHOICISSUS CAPENSIS EVERGREEN GRAPE 15 GAL MEDIUM 48" oc

TREES CODE QTY BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME CONT WATER USE REMARKS CUP SEM 2 CUPRESSUS SEMPERVIRENS `GLAUCA` BLUE ITALIAN CYPRESS 36"BOX LOW 15' TALL MIN.

OLE SWA 1 OLEA EUROPAEA `SWAN HILL` MULTI SWAN HILL OLIVE (FRUITLESS) 60"BOX LOW

FRUIT TREES CODE QTY BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME CONT WATER USE REMARKS CIT SW2 4 CITRUS X SPP. DWARF CITRUS VARIETY 36"BOX MEDIUM TBS BY CLIENT FIC BRO 1 FICUS CARICA 'BROWN TURKEY' ESPALIER BROWN TURKEY (OR SIM.) FIG 24"BOX MEDIUM ESPALIER SPECIMEN

TBS BY CLIENT
PER LI4 1 PERSEA AMERICANA `LITTLE CADO` LITTLE CADO DWARF AVOCADO 36"BOX MEDIUM

SHRUBS CODE QTY BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME SIZE WATER USE SPACING REMARKS CAS COU 16 CASUARINA GLAUCA `COUSIN IT` COUSIN IT SWAMP OAK 1 GAL LOW 24" o.c.

CHO TEC 8 CHONDROPETALUM TECTORUM CAPE RUSH 5 GAL LOW 42" o.c.

ECH CAN 7 ECHIUM CANDICANS PRIDE OF MADEIRA 15 GAL LOW 60" o.c.

GAR ELL 2 GARRYA ELLIPTICA `EVIE` COAST SILKTASSEL 24"BOX LOW 72" o.c.

GRE MOO 4 GREVILLEA X `MOONLIGHT` GREVILLEA 24"BOX LOW 60" o.c.

LAV NIK 30 LAVANDULA X INTERMEDIA 'NIKO' TM PHENOMENAL LAVENDIN 5 GAL LOW 30" o.c.

OLE LIT 1 OLEA EUROPAEA `LITTLE OLLIE` TM LITTLE OLLIE OLIVE 15 GAL LOW 60" o.c.

RHA MOU 9 RHAMNUS CALIFORNICA `MOUND SAN BRUNO` CALIFORNIA COFFEEBERRY 5 GAL VERY LOW 60" o.c.

RHA DWA 2 RHAPHIOLEPIS UMBELLATA 'MINOR' DWARF YEDDA HAWTHORN STANDARD 5 GAL LOW 36" o.c.

ROS TUS 3 ROSMARINUS OFFICINALIS 'TUSCAN BLUE' TUSCAN BLUE ROSEMARY 5 GAL LOW 48" o.c.

SAL WAV 9 SALVIA WAVERLY WAVERLY SAGE 5 GAL LOW 48" o.c.

PLANT SCHEDULE

TREES CODE QTY BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME CONT WATER USE REMARKS

PLANT SCHEDULE
SCALE: 1
8" = 1'-0"
0 4 8 16

SD SD SD

SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD

SD SD SD SD SD SD SD

SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD
SD
SD

SD SD SD
SD
W
S S
S
S
SD
SD
W
W
SD
SD SD

SD SD SD
SD
134
132
136
140
142
142
130 130
140
138
136
134
132
142
134
135
137
143
141
141
140
139
138
137
136
139
135

LIMIT OF WORK

MIT OF WORK

LIMIT OF WORK
⅊
⅊
⅊

LIMIT OF WORK
50' BLUFF EDGE
BUFFER

41.5' BLUFF EDGE

DEVELOPMENT SETBACK

PER GEOTECH REPORT

COASTAL BLUFF EDGE

RESIDENCE
GARAGE
POOL
L WAV
1-PER LI4
10-DYM MAR
2-CIT SW2
1-RHO EVE
2-WES MOR
4-DIE JOH
2-CHO TEC
1-OLE SWA
9-DIE JOH
1-RHO EVE
3-CHO TEC
3-GAU LIN
1-TIB HET
6-CAR DIV
2-PAR HCR
7-FAL CR2
2-FRA CHI
1-ANE AND
2-STA BYZ
3-COT OB6 1-CUP SEM
1-CUP SEM
5-DYM MAR
1-CIT SW2
1-ROS TUS
1-FIC BRO
17-DIE JOH
1-JAS POL
2-CAS COU
6-LAV NIK
6-CAR FLA
3-LOM NYA
2-WES MDI
1-CIT SW2
ES MOR
HA MOU
3-CAR FLA
8-LAV NIK
2-RHA DWA
3-WES MDI
5-CAS COU
3-GAU LIN
1-ROS TUS
3-ECH CAN
45-CAR FLA
3-GAU LIN
2-CYN SCO
2-WES MOR
3-CAS COU
3-SAL WAV
36-POD GRA
3-CHO TEC
3-WES MOR
5-WES MDI
5-DIE JOH
2-SAL WAV
1-WES MOR
3-CAR FLA
6-CAR FLA
3-LAV NIK
1-SAL WAV
1-ROS TUS 1-TIB HET
55-POD GRA
2-GAU LIN
13-CAR DIV
27-CAR DIV 3-COT OB6
2-COT OB6
2-NEP WAL
3-GAU LIN
2-CAR FLA
25-CAR DIV
2-LOM NYA
13-LAV NIK
3-COT OB6
2-STA BYZ
2-FRA CHI
8-FAL CR2
2-ANE AND
1-GAR ELL
3-VER BON
1-CLE ARM
6-WES MDI
8-LOM NYA
6-GAU LIN
6-CAS COU
6-CAR FLA
CH CAN 1-JAS POL
7-LOM NYA
15-CAR FLA
5-WES MDI
2-WES MDI
1-OLE LIT
18-POD GRA
4-GRE MOO
31-POD GRA
2-DIE JOH
14-CAR FLA
24-POD GRA

HEDGES CODE QTY BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME SIZE WATER USE SPACING REMARKS POD GRA 164 PODOCARPUS GRACILIOR COLUMN FERN PINE 24"BOX LOW 24" o.c. ALT: FICUS SPP.

SOURCE TALLEST AVAILABLE

ORNAMENTAL GRASSES CODE QTY BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME SIZE WATER USE SPACING REMARKS CAR DIV 71 CAREX DIVULSA EUROPEAN GREY SEDGE 1 GAL MEDIUM 24" o.c.

CAR FLA 100 CAREX FLACCA BLUE SEDGE 1 GAL LOW 18" o.c.

LOM NYA 20 LOMANDRA LONGIFOLIA `NYALLA` NYALLA BREEZE GRASS 5 GAL LOW 36" o.c.

PERENNIALS CODE QTY BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME SIZE WATER USE SPACING REMARKS ANE AND 3 ANEMONE X HYBRIDA 'ANDREA ATKINSON' ANDREA ATKINSON JAPANESE ANEMONE 1 GAL MEDIUM 24" o.c.

CYN SCO 2 CYNARA SCOLYMUS ARTICHOKE 5 GAL MEDIUM 36" o.c.

DIE JOH 37 DIETES IRIDIOIDES 'JOHN'S RUNNER' JOHN'S RUNNER FORTNIGHT LILY 1 GAL LOW 24" o.c.

FAL CR2 15 FALKIA REPENS CREEPING FALKIA 6" POT MEDIUM 12" o.c.

FRA CHI 4 FRAGARIA CHILOENSIS BEACH STRAWBERRY 6" POT MEDIUM 12" o.c.

GAU LIN 20 GAURA LINDHEIMERI WHITE GAURA 1 GAL LOW 18" o.c.

NEP WAL 2 NEPETA X FAASSENII 'WALKER'S LOW' WALKER'S LOW CATMINT 1 GAL LOW 27" o.c.

STA BYZ 4 STACHYS BYZANTINA LAMB'S EAR 1 GAL MEDIUM 18" o.c.

SUCCULENTS CODE QTY BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME SIZE WATER USE SPACING REMARKS COT OB6 11 COTYLEDON ORBICULATA OBLONGA 'FLAVIDA' COTYLEDON 1 GAL LOW 24" o.c.

VINE/ESPALIER CODE QTY BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME SIZE WATER USE SPACING REMARKS CLE ARM 1 CLEMATIS ARMANDII EVERGREEN CLEMATIS 15 GAL MEDIUM 48" o.c.

JAS POL 2 JASMINUM POLYANTHUM PINK JASMINE 5 GAL LOW 72" o.c.

PAR HCR 2 PARTHENOCISSUS X 'HACIENDA CREEPER' HACIENDA CREEPER 5 GAL MEDIUM 72" o.c.

RHO EVE 2 RHOICISSUS CAPENSIS EVERGREEN GRAPE 15 GAL MEDIUM 48" o.c.

GROUND COVERS CODE QTY BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME CONT WATER USE SPACING REMARKS ARC MIS 16 ARCTOSTAPHYLOS X `PACIFIC MIST` PACIFIC MIST MANZANITA 1 GAL LOW 36" o.c.

DYM MAR 15 DYMONDIA MARGARETAE SILVER CARPET DYMONDIA FLAT LOW 12" o.c.

TREES CODE QTY BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME CONT WATER USE REMARKS CUP SEM 2 CUPRESSUS SEMPERVIRENS `GLAUCA` BLUE ITALIAN CYPRESS 36"BOX LOW 15' TALL MIN.

OLE SWA 1 OLEA EUROPAEA `SWAN HILL` MULTI SWAN HILL OLIVE (FRUITLESS) 60"BOX LOW

FRUIT TREES CODE QTY BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME CONT WATER USE REMARKS CIT SW2 4 CITRUS X SPP. DWARF CITRUS VARIETY 36"BOX MEDIUM TBS BY CLIENT FIC BRO 1 FICUS CARICA 'BROWN TURKEY' ESPALIER BROWN TURKEY (OR SIM.) FIG 24"BOX MEDIUM ESPALIER SPECIMEN

TBS BY CLIENT
PER LI4 1 PERSEA AMERICANA `LITTLE CADO` LITTLE CADO DWARF AVOCADO 36"BOX MEDIUM

SHRUBS CODE QTY BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME SIZE WATER USE SPACING REMARKS CAS COU 16 CASUARINA GLAUCA `COUSIN IT` COUSIN IT SWAMP OAK 1 GAL LOW 24" o.c.

CHO TEC 8 CHONDROPETALUM TECTORUM CAPE RUSH 5 GAL LOW 42" o.c.

ECH CAN 7 ECHIUM CANDICANS PRIDE OF MADEIRA 15 GAL LOW 60" o.c.

GAR ELL 2 GARRYA ELLIPTICA `EVIE` COAST SILKTASSEL 24"BOX LOW 72" o.c.

GRE MOO 4 GREVILLEA X `MOONLIGHT` GREVILLEA 24"BOX LOW 60" o.c.

LAV NIK 30 LAVANDULA X INTERMEDIA 'NIKO' TM PHENOMENAL LAVENDIN 5 GAL LOW 30" o.c.

OLE LIT 1 OLEA EUROPAEA `LITTLE OLLIE` TM LITTLE OLLIE OLIVE 15 GAL LOW 60" o.c.

RHA MOU 9 RHAMNUS CALIFORNICA `MOUND SAN BRUNO` CALIFORNIA COFFEEBERRY 5 GAL VERY LOW 60" o.c.

RHA DWA 2 RHAPHIOLEPIS UMBELLATA 'MINOR' DWARF YEDDA HAWTHORN STANDARD 5 GAL LOW 36" o.c.

ROS TUS 3 ROSMARINUS OFFICINALIS 'TUSCAN BLUE' TUSCAN BLUE ROSEMARY 5 GAL LOW 48" o.c.

SAL WAV 9 SALVIA WAVERLY WAVERLY SAGE 5 GAL LOW 48" o.c.

TIB HET 2 TIBOUCHINA HETEROMALLA SILVERLEAVED PRINCESS FLOWER 15 GAL MEDIUM 48" o.c.

VER BON 3 VERBENA BONARIENSIS PURPLETOP VERVAIN 5 GAL LOW 24" o.c.

WES MDI 26 WESTRINGIA FRUTICOSA `MUNDI` MUNDI COAST ROSEMARY 2 GAL LOW 30" o.c.

WES MOR 12 WESTRINGIA FRUTICOSA 'MORNING LIGHT' MORNING LIGHT COAST ROSEMARY 5 GAL LOW 42" o.c.

QTY

PLANT SCHEDULE

TREES CODE QTY BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME CONT WATER USE REMARKS

PLANT SCHEDULE
L-3.1
SCALE: 1
8" = 1'-0"
0 4 8 16
1 8" = 1'-0" 2315 Edgewater Way
Santa Barbara, CA 93109

REVISIONS
11/22/22
2204
AZ
06/10/22

CLIENT SHALL RETAIN COPIES OF THE WORK

PERFORMED BY LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT IN

CAD FORM ONLY FOR INFORMATION AND USE

BY CLIENT FOR THE SPECIFIC PURPOSE FOR

WHICH LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT WAS
ENGAGED. SAID MATERIALS SHALL NOT BE

USED BY CLIENT, OR TRANSFERRED TO ANY

OTHER PARTY, FOR USE IN OTHER PROJECTS,

ADDITIONS TO THE CURRENT PROJECT, OR

ANY OTHER PURPOSE FOR WHICH THE

MATERIAL WAS NOT STRICTLY INTENDED BY

LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT WITHOUT LANDSCAPE
ARCHITECT'S EXPRESS WRITTEN PERMISSION.

ANY UNAUTHORIZED MODIFICATION OR REUSE

OF THE MATERIALS SHALL BE AT CLIENT'S

SOLE RISK AND CLIENT AGREES TO DEFEND,

INDEMNIFY, AND HOLD LANDSCAPE

ARCHITECT HARMLESS, FROM ALL CLAIMS,

INJURIES, DAMAGES, LOSSES, EXPENSES, AND

ATTORNEY'S FEES ARISING OUT OF THE

UNAUTHORIZED MODIFICATION OR USE OF
THESE MATERIALS.

THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURAL DOCUMENTS

ARE INSTRUMENTS OF SERVICE AND ARE THE
PROPERTY OF THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT.

THE DOCUMENTS ARE AVAILABLE TO THE

CLIENT FOR USE ONLY ON THIS PROJECT
DURING THE EXISTENCE OF THE CONTRACT.

RE-USE OF THE DOCUMENTS FOR PROJECTS

NOT A PART OF THE CONTRACT REQUIRE THE

EXPRESS AUTHORIZATION OF THE LANDSCAPE
ARCHITECT.
11/22/22 SFDB
Landscape
• Maintain front and backyard yard screening
• Avoid large view-blocking trees
• Designed to accommodate existing grade
• All proposed planting to be drought-resistant
• Partial renovation/replacement of fences along
side lot lines
• Add olive tree and citrus trees in front yard
• Various planting at backyard
• No work in bluff edge setback

ALL EXISTING

TO REMAIN
20 CRZ
GARAGE

RESIDENCE
120
132
134
136
140
142
142
130
130
140
138
136
134
132
142
134
135
137
143
141
141
140
139
138
137
136
139
135
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
SD SD
SD SD
SD

SD SD SD SD

SD SD SD SD SD
SD
SD

SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
S
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD SD
8 141.84 FS
140.94 FS
142.39 FS
140.71 FS
139.78 FS
139.89 FS
140.87 FS
140.87 TS
139.37 BS
139.13 TS
137.49 TS
137.63 BS
135.99 BS
139.65 TG
137.50 INV
139.00 TG
137.50 INV
135.29 TG
132.23 INV
133.90 TG
132.40 INV
134.15 TG
131.67 INV
135.35 TG
131.90 INV
135.73 TG
133.58 INV
137.44 TG
133.73 INV
139.08 TG
135.50 INV
139.23 TG
136.89 INV
139.08 TG
135.55 INV
137.44 TG
134.15 INV
135.77 TG
133.67 INV
137.41 INV
137.58 INV
135.00 INV
133.13 INV
132.32 INV
136.76 INV
129.60 TG
127.34 INV
129.60 TG
129.60 TG
129.60 TG
132.23 INV
126.60 INV
131.81 INV
133.48 INV
133.68 INV
137.38 INV
137.03 INV
133.98 INV
140.02 FS
140.23 FS
140.21 FS
140.33 FS
140.02 FS
140.33 FS
140.33 FS
FFE: 140.33
FFE: 136.00
135.98 FS
135.98 FS
135.66 FS
135.76 FS
140.20 TS
138.70 BS
137.0 FL
135.72 FS
134.40 FS
134.48 FS
134.20 FS
140.02 FS
140.67 FS
140.33 FS
135.88 FS
136.00 FS
136.09 FS 136.10 FS
136.08 FS
135.87 FS 136.05 FS
2321EDGEWAY WAY
APN 041-350-009
2317 EDGEWAY WAY
APN 041-350-010
2307 EDGEWAY WAY
APN 041-350-012

EDGEWATER WAY
N03°06'00"E
144.12'(29 RS 52)
S03°05'00"W
S03°05'00"W
141.95 TC
141.88 FL
141.39 TC
141.32 FL
142.49 TC
141.99 FL
141.72 TC
141.22 FL
141.51 TC
141.01 FL
142.91 TC
142.41 FL
143.08 TC
142.58 FL
TC
142.64 INV
(141.58 FS)
134.98 INV
134.98 INV
142

1.00% (SD)

1.00% (SD)

7.55% (SD)

1.00% (SD)

2.00% (SD)

1.00% (SD)

1.00% (SD) 2.17% (SD)

2.17% (SD) 2.17% (SD)

1.00% (SD)

14.65% (SD)

15.00% (SD)

15.00% (SD)

1.00% (SD)
140.33 FS
136.96 INV 137.41 INV
134.98 INV
133.98 INV
138.60 TS
137.10 BS
137.0 FG
137.33 TW
136.08 FS
135.87 FS
135.86 FS
135.60 FS
135.67 FS
135.72 FS
135.72 FS
135.69 FS
136.4 FG
139.1 FG
141.70 TW
141.70 TW
141.70 TW
133.74 INV
138.00 TW
138.00 TW
139.00 TW
139.43 TW
139.43 TW
138.83 TW
139.00 TW
138.83 TW
145.25 TW
140.60 TW
140.60 TW
136.2 FL
137.33 TW
131.39 INV
135.80 FS 135.72 FS
135.81 FS 135.72 FS
135.72 TG
133.46 INV
135.6 FL
135.74 FS
135.63 FS
135.63 FS
135.59 FS
134.38 FS
134.51 FS
134.51 FS
134.47 FS
SITE CONSTRUCTION NOTES:

CONSTRUCT CONCRETE DRIVEWAY SECTION W/ COBBLESTONE PAVERS MORTARED ONTO CONCRETE PER LANDSCAPE PLANS AND DETAIL 1, SHEET C-4.1.

CONSTRUCT CONCRETE WALKWAY SECTION PET DETAIL 2, SHEET C-4.1.

CONSTRUCT STONE SLAB STEPS PER LANDSCAPE PLANS.
1 2
3 RIGHT OF WAY CONSTRUCTION NOTES:

CONSTRUCT CONCRETE CURB AND GUTTER WITH 6" CONCRETE CURB AND 18" GUTTER PER CITY OF SANTA BARBARA STANDARD DETAILS H-01.0, H-02.0 AND 02.1.

CONSTRUCT RESIDENTIAL DRIVEWAY PER CITY OF SANTA BARBARA STANDARD DETAILS H-01.0 AND H-03.0.

CONSTRUCT CONCRETE SIDEWALK PER CITY OF SANTA BARBARA STANDARD DETAILS H-01.0 AND H-06.0.

CONSTRUCT TYPE A CURB OUTLET PER CITY OF SANTA BARBARA STANDARD DETAIL D-05.0. 1 2
3 4
STORM DRAIN CONSTRUCTION NOTES:

INSTALL ROOF DRAIN CONNECTION PER DETAIL 7, C-4.1.

INSTALL 8-INCH PEDESTRIAN RATED ATRIUM GRATE DRAIN PER DETAIL 9, SHEET C-4.1.

INSTALL STORM DRAIN SUMP PUMP PER DETAIL 12, SHEET C-4.1.

INSTALL STORM DRAIN SUMP PUMP W/ GRUNDFOS CMBE 1-44-IXCBDH FOR IRRIGATION PUMP PER DETAIL 13, SHEET C-4.1. SEE LANDSCAPE PLANS FOR CONNECTION TO IRRIGATION PUMP.

CONSTRUCT UNDERGROUND RETENTION CHAMBERS W/ IMPERMEABLE LINER PER DETAIL 5, SHEET C-4.1.

INSTALL ACO KLASSIKDRAIN K100 TRENCH DRAIN W/ K1-901G IN-LINE CATCH BASIN AT OUTLET PER MANUFACTURERS SPECIFICATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND PER DETAIL 8, SHEET C-4.1. AREA OF INSTALLATION TO BE DUG BY HAND.

INSTALL 3-INCH SCH-40 FORCE MAIN PER DETAIL 11, SHEET C-4.1.

INSTALL 12-DUAL WALL HDPE WT STORM DRAIN LINE PER MANUFACTURERS SPECIFICATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND PER DETAIL 14, SHEET C-4.1.

SD1
SD2
SD3
SD4
SD5
SD6
SD7
SD8
1 1
1 (MATCH

EXISTING)
1 1
2 3
(MATCH

EXISTING)
4 2
10 10 2
10 10
2 2
3 3
3 8 11
11 11
11 2
11 2
5 4

EXISTING

PATIO TO
REMAIN

EXISTING PATIO

TO REMAIN

EXISTING PATIO

TO REMAIN
SD1
SD1
SD1
SD1
SD1
SD1 SD1
SD2
SD2
SD2
SD2
SD2
SD2
SD2
SD2
SD2
SD2
SD2
SD2
SD2
SD3
SD4
SD5
SD6
SD7
SD7
SD7
SD7
SD7
SD8
SD9 SD9
SD9
SD9
SD9
SD9
SD9
SD9
SD9
SD9
SD9
SD9
6 6
6 6
6 9
6 SD9
SD9
SD9
SD9
SD9
3 3
7 SD10
SD10
SD10
NG PT.50
BASIS OF BEARING PT.51

BENCHMARK

SEWER MANHOLE RIM
ELEV=140.73

INSPECTION
PORT

41.5 COASTAL BLUFF EDGE

DEVELOPMENT SETBACK

COASTAL

BLUFF EDGE
9 10
10 6
N
10 0 10 20
HORIZONTAL SCALE: 1" = 10'
SITE CONSTRUCTION NOTES:

CONSTRUCT CONCRETE DRIVEWAY SECTION W/ COBBLESTONE PAVERS MORTARED ONTO CONCRETE PER LANDSCAPE PLANS AND DETAIL 1, SHEET C-4.1.

CONSTRUCT CONCRETE WALKWAY SECTION PET DETAIL 2, SHEET C-4.1.

CONSTRUCT STONE SLAB STEPS PER LANDSCAPE PLANS.

CONSTRUCT PLANTER PER ARCHITECTURAL PLANS.

CONSTRUCT POOL PER ARCHITECTURAL PLANS.

CONSTRUCT STONE VENEER RETAINING WALL PER LANDSCAPE PLANS.

INSTALL UNDERGROUND 250 GALLON PROPANE TANK. SPECIFICS BY OTHERS.

CONSTRUCT CONCRETE STAIRWAY PER DETAIL 4, SHEET C-4.1.

CONSTRUCT 6-FT CMU WALL PER STRUCTURAL PLANS.

CONSTRUCT GRAVEL WALKWAY SECTION PER LANDSCAPE PLANS.

CONSTRUCT TILE STEPPERS W/ GRAVEL JOINT PER LANDSCAPE PLANS. 1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 RIGHT OF WAY CONSTRUCTION NOTES:

CONSTRUCT CONCRETE CURB AND GUTTER WITH 6" CONCRETE CURB AND 18" GUTTER PER CITY OF SANTA BARBARA STANDARD DETAILS H-01.0, H-02.0 AND 02.1.

CONSTRUCT RESIDENTIAL DRIVEWAY PER CITY OF SANTA BARBARA STANDARD DETAILS H-01.0 AND H-03.0.

CONSTRUCT CONCRETE SIDEWALK PER CITY OF SANTA BARBARA STANDARD DETAILS H-01.0 AND H-06.0.

CONSTRUCT TYPE A CURB OUTLET PER CITY OF SANTA BARBARA STANDARD DETAIL D-05.0. 1 2
3 4
STORM DRAIN CONSTRUCTION NOTES:

INSTALL ROOF DRAIN CONNECTION PER DETAIL 7, C-4.1.

INSTALL 8-INCH PEDESTRIAN RATED ATRIUM GRATE DRAIN PER DETAIL 9, SHEET C-4.1.

INSTALL STORM DRAIN SUMP PUMP PER DETAIL 12, SHEET C-4.1.

INSTALL STORM DRAIN SUMP PUMP W/ GRUNDFOS CMBE 1-44-IXCBDH FOR IRRIGATION PUMP PER DETAIL 13, SHEET C-4.1. SEE LANDSCAPE PLANS FOR CONNECTION TO IRRIGATION PUMP.

CONSTRUCT UNDERGROUND RETENTION CHAMBERS W/ IMPERMEABLE LINER PER DETAIL 5, SHEET C-4.1.

INSTALL ACO KLASSIKDRAIN K100 TRENCH DRAIN W/ K1-901G IN-LINE CATCH BASIN AT OUTLET PER MANUFACTURERS SPECIFICATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND PER DETAIL 8, SHEET C-4.1. AREA OF INSTALLATION TO BE DUG BY HAND.

INSTALL 3-INCH SCH-40 FORCE MAIN PER DETAIL 11, SHEET C-4.1.

INSTALL 12-DUAL WALL HDPE WT STORM DRAIN LINE PER MANUFACTURERS SPECIFICATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND PER DETAIL 14, SHEET C-4.1.

INSTALL 6-INCH SDR35 PVC STORM DRAIN LINE PER MANUFACTURERS SPECIFICATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND PER DETAIL 6, SHEET C4.1.

INSTALL SUMP PUMP W/ SCH-40 FORCE MAIN PER DETAIL 11, SHEET C-4.1.

INSTALL ACO KLASSIKDRAIN K100 TRENCH DRAIN W/ K1-901G IN-LINE CATCH BASIN AT OUTLET PER MANUFACTURERS SPECIFICATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND PER DETAIL 10, SHEET C-4.1. AREA OF INSTALLATION TO BE DUG BY HAND.

SD1
SD2
SD3
SD4
SD5
SD6
SD7
SD8
SD9
SD10
SD11
GENERAL NOTES:

TIER 3 BMP COMPLIANCE REQUIREMENT:

BEFORE THE BUILDING INSPECTOR WILL GRANT CERT

FINALIZE THE BUILDING PERMIT, THE CONTRACTOR IS

SAFETY DIVISION CERTIFY POST-CONSTRUCTION BMP

APPROVED AND THAT THEY COMPLY WITH THE CITY O
STORM WATER REQUIREMENTS.

ONSITE BMP DESCRIPTION:

ALL ROOF SURFACES ARE COLLECTED IN A STORM D

UNDERGROUND RETENTION CHAMBERS FOR TREATM
RETENTION CHAMBERS WILL RETAIN THE 1-INCH 24 H
PROPOSED NEW IMPERVIOUS AREA: 1,212 SF
PROPOSED REPLACED IMPERVIOUS AREA: 4,922 S
PROPOSED REMOVED IMPERVIOUS AREA: 746 SF
EXISTING IMPERVIOUS AREA TO REMAIN: 1,270 SF
WATERSHED 1-INCH 24 HOUR STORM VOLUME:

UNDERGROUND RETENTION TREATMENT CAPACITY:

MAINTENANCE CERTIFICATION:

PROPERTY OWNER SHALL BE FULLY RESPONSIBLE FO

FOLLOWING STRUCTURAL BMP'S PURSUANT TO SBMC

UNDERGROUND RETENTION CHAMBERS

OWNER SIGNATURE

B C D E F G H I J K
Stormwater Plan
• Tier 3 project
• Send all stormwater to sump pump at the south
• Trench drain at the south-most patio
• Pump stormwater to retention chamber under the driveway • Connect retention chamber to an irrigation line
• Pump retention chamber water to street
Proposed Civil Plan
Ashley & Vance Engineers, Inc. 21
Ground Floor & Basement Plan

EDGEWATER WAY
120
110
132
134
140
142
130
130
140
138
136
134
132
142
134
135
137
143
141
141
139
138
137
136
139
135
Type 3
36x54
18" x 31"
36"
cooktop
W/D 18" x 31"
18" x 23"
PW EP
PANEL
1st FL
EP
PANEL
Basement
WH
80 ga
+4'-4"
(140.33')
+0.0' (136.0')
+0.0' (136.0')
DN
UP
20' x 20' UP
UP
18 R @ 7"
8 R @ 6 1/2"
18'-0"
+4'-1"
(140.08')
slope
1%
1 R @ 7"
2 +4'-1"
(140.08')
1 5'-6"x10'-10"
BBQ
garage
100
mud room
110
entry
120
pwdr
122
living room
131
dining
132
kitchen
133
pantry
134
pwdr
111
entry vestibule
121
elevator vestibule
135
patio
01 patio
02 utility closet
101
utility closet
102
great room
2317 Edgewater Way
(E) 1-story structure

EDGEWATER WAY
2307 Edgewater Way
(E) 2-story structure
2321 Edgewater Way
(E) 2-story structure 2317 Edgewater Way
(E) 1-story structure
2307 Edgewater Way
(E) 2-story structure
2321 Edgewater Way
(E) 2-story structure
20'-0" setback
property line
6'-0" setback
property line
6'-0" setback
property line
coastal bluff edge,
per geotech report
41 .5' bluff edge
development setback
50' bluff edge buffer
(p) pool with cover (e) foundations (e) foundations
19'
9'
10'
18" x 23"
E-1
sewer
pump
Type 3
36x54
FAU
Sink
Pump
-10'-10"
(125.2')
UP
20 R @ 6 1/2"
wine cave
020
mechanical
030
hallway
010
storage
040
property line
(e) G.M.

T
d
In
u
w
A
©
feet 0 8 16
Basement Plan
4 1/8" = 1'-0" 1
Provide Warmboard-R hydronic radiant heating
system. General contractor to coordinate structure to
provide flush installation over wood framed areas
and slab on grade. Approximate single zone area of
± 1,050 sf.

Footprint where stair meets grade

NOT USED
moveable furniture
feature below
feature above
built-in cabinetry, full height,
coordinate w/ interior elevations
built-in cabinetry, low height,
coordinate w/ interior elevations
downspout
LEGEND: FLOOR PLAN
wood stud wall
partial height wall
furred wall
WALL TYPE LEGEND: FLOOR PLAN
proposed hardscape
GENERAL NOTES: FLOOR PLAN
A.

B.

C.

D.

Refer to Finish Schedule for interior finishes.

Refer to Elevations for exterior finishes.

Refer to Sections and Details for construction
assemblies.

Refer to Plumbing, Mechanical, and Electrical
drawings for applicable notes and equipment.

E.

F.

G.

H.

Refer to Structural drawings for applicable notes.

Refer to Landscape drawings for hardscape,
landscape materials, and features.

Install moisture resistant G.W.B. on all walls in
bathrooms, and rooms subject to wet conditions.

Dimensioning:
1) all dimensions are to face of stud, concrete wall or CMU U.N.O.
2) doors at corners or near intersections of
perpendicular walls are located 4" from face of stud
to face of jamb U.N.O.

I.

J.

K.

Electrical recepticals, switches/controls, and outlets:
1) Refer to Electrical drawings.
2) Switches shall be placed centered at 36" AFF and
4" from door jamb or corner, U.N.O.
3) Convenience recepticals shall be placed centered
at 12" AFF or 6" above countertop, U.N.O.

F.F. (finish floor) refers to top-of-finish-floor or
top-of-finish-deck U.N.O.

See Window and Door Types and Schedules on
sheets A7.1 and A7.2 for details and additional
information.

KEYNOTES: BASEMENT PLAN

1. 2.

3. 4.

Provide R-13 min insulation within wall cavity around
wine cellar.

General contractor to coordinate split system design
for temperature & humidity control system of 1,900
cubic feet wine cellar.

General contractor to coordinate vapor barrier
installation along all walls and ceiling framing as
required.

Provide exterior grade dual-paned insulated door
with weather stripping
KEYNOTES: FIRST FLOOR PLAN

1. 2.

3. Provide Warmboard-R hydronic radiant heating
system. General contractor to coordinate structure to
provide flush installation over wood framed areas
and slab on grade. Approximate single zone area of
± 1,050 sf.

Footprint where stair meets grade

NOT USED
GENERAL NOTES: FLOOR PLAN
A.

B.

C.

D.
feet 0 8 16
First Floor Plan
4 1/8" = 1'-0" 2
120
110
132
134
130
130
138
136
134
132
134
135
137
139
138
137
136
139
135
Type 3
36x54
18" x 31"
36"
cooktop
W/D 18" x 31"
18" x 23"
PW EP
PANEL
1st FL
EP
PANEL
Basement
WH
80 ga
+4'-4"
(140.33')
+0.0' (136.0')
+0.0' (136.0')
DN
UP
UP
8 R @ 6 1/2"
1 5'-6"x10'-10"
BBQ
emud room
110
entry
120
pwdr
122
living room
131
dining
132
kitchen
133
pantry
134
pwdr
111
entry vestibule
121
elevator vestibule
135
patio
01 patio
02 utility closet
101
utility closet
102
great room
2317 Edgewater Way
(E) 1-story structure
2307 Edgewater Way
(E) 2-story structure
2317 Edgewater Way
(E) 1-story structure
2307 Edgewater Way
(E) 2-story structure
6'-0" setback
property line
coastal bluff edge,
per geotech report
41 .5' bluff edge
development setback
50' bluff edge buffer
(p) pool with cover (e) foundations (e) foundations
19'
9'
10'
18" x 23"
E-1
sewer
pump
Type 3
36x54
FAU
Sink
Pump
-10'-10"
(125.2')
UP
20 R @ 6 1/2"
wine cave
020
mechanical
030
hallway
010
storage
040
property line

NOT FOR

CONSTRUCTION
E

IA N R OFI

OF CA L

T A T S

T C E IT C H
D A R

E SN ECI L
KENNETH G. RADTKEY
C - 26761
REN. 7.31.2021
A2.1
First Floor Plan &
Basement Floor Plan
The design ideas and plans represented by these
documents are the property of Blackbird Architects,
Inc.. Use or copy is permitted by contract only. The
use or revisions of these ideas or plans is prohibited
without the written permission of Blackbird
Architects, Inc..

Revisions
SFDB PDA 11.23.22
© 2022 Blackbird Architects, Inc.
civil engineer:

Bruce Jones
Ashley & Vance Engineering, Inc.
210 East Cota Street
Santa Barbara, CA 93101
t 805.962.9966
structural engineer:

Thom Hume
Thom Hume Consulting Engineers
954 Toro Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
t 805.962.6311
landscape architect:

Courtney Jane Miller
CJM::LA
1221 State Street, Suite 206
Santa Barbara, CA 93101
t 805.698.2120
mechanical / plumbing / T-24:

Tom Hughes
Mechanical Engineering Consultants
315 E. Canon Perdido Street, Suite B
Santa Barbara, CA 93101
t.805.957.4632 x205
electrical:

Alan Noelle
Alan Noelle Engineering
315 E. Canon Perdido Street, Suite B
Santa Barbara, CA 93101
t.805.563.5444
surveyor:

Jeffery Prober
Prober Land Surveying
645 Flora Vista Drive
Santa Barbara, CA 93109
t: 805.452.9690
feet 0 8 16
Basement Plan
4 1/8" = 1'-0" 1
moveable furniture
feature below
feature above
built-in cabinetry, full height,
coordinate w/ interior elevations
built-in cabinetry, low height,
coordinate w/ interior elevations
downspout
LEGEND: FLOOR PLAN
wood stud wall
partial height wall
furred wall
WALL TYPE LEGEND: FLOOR PLAN
proposed hardscape
r applicable notes.
or hardscape,
res.

B. on all walls in
to wet conditions.
stud, concrete wall or
rsections of
4" from face of stud
I.

J.

K.

Electrical recepticals, switches/controls, and outlets:
1) Refer to Electrical drawings.
2) Switches shall be placed centered at 36" AFF and
4" from door jamb or corner, U.N.O.
3) Convenience recepticals shall be placed centered
at 12" AFF or 6" above countertop, U.N.O.

F.F. (finish floor) refers to top-of-finish-floor or
top-of-finish-deck U.N.O.

See Window and Door Types and Schedules on
sheets A7.1 and A7.2 for details and additional
information.

KEYNOTES: BASEMENT PLAN

1. 2.

3. 4.

Provide R-13 min insulation within wall cavity around
wine cellar.

General contractor to coordinate split system design
for temperature & humidity control system of 1,900
cubic feet wine cellar.

General contractor to coordinate vapor barrier
installation along all walls and ceiling framing as
required.

Provide exterior grade dual-paned insulated door
with weather stripping
KEYNOTES: FIRST FLOOR PLAN

1. 2.

3. Provide Warmboard-R hydronic radiant heating
system. General contractor to coordinate structure to
provide flush installation over wood framed areas
and slab on grade. Approximate single zone area of
± 1,050 sf.

Footprint where stair meets grade

NOT USED
GENERAL NOTES: FLOOR PLAN
A.

B.

C.

D.
feet 0 8 16
First Floor Plan
4 1/8" = 1'-0" 2

EDGEWATER WAY
120
110
132
134
140
142
130
130
140
138
136
134
132
142
134
135
137
143
141
141
139
138
137
136
139
135
Type 3
36x54
18" x 31"
36"
cooktop
W/D 18" x 31"
18" x 23"
PW EP
PANEL
1st FL
EP
PANEL
Basement
WH
80 ga
+4'-4"
(140.33')
+0.0' (136.0')
+0.0' (136.0')
DN
UP
20' x 20' UP
UP
18 R @ 7"
8 R @ 6 1/2"
18'-0"
+4'-1"
(140.08')
slope
1%
1 R @ 7"
2 +4'-1"
(140.08')
1 5'-6"x10'-10"
BBQ
garage
100
mud room
110
entry
120
pwdr
122
living room
131
dining
132
kitchen
133
pantry
134
pwdr
111
entry vestibule
121
elevator vestibule
135
patio
01 patio
02 utility closet
101
utility closet
102
great room
2317 Edgewater Way
(E) 1-story structure

EDGEWATER WAY
2307 Edgewater Way
(E) 2-story structure
2321 Edgewater Way
(E) 2-story structure 2317 Edgewater Way
(E) 1-story structure
2307 Edgewater Way
(E) 2-story structure
2321 Edgewater Way
(E) 2-story structure
20'-0" setback
property line
6'-0" setback
property line
6'-0" setback
property line
coastal bluff edge,
per geotech report
41 .5' bluff edge
development setback
50' bluff edge buffer
(p) pool with cover (e) foundations (e) foundations
19'
9'
10'
18" x 23"
E-1
sewer
pump
Type 3
36x54
FAU
Sink
Pump
-10'-10"
(125.2')
UP
20 R @ 6 1/2"
wine cave
020
mechanical
030
hallway
010
storage
040
property line
(e) G.M.
feet 0 8 16
Basement Plan
4 1/8" = 1'-0" 1
Provide Warmboard-R hydronic radiant heating
system. General contractor to coordinate structure to
provide flush installation over wood framed areas
and slab on grade. Approximate single zone area of
± 1,050 sf.

Footprint where stair meets grade

NOT USED
moveable furniture
feature below
feature above
built-in cabinetry, full height,
coordinate w/ interior elevations
built-in cabinetry, low height,
coordinate w/ interior elevations
downspout
LEGEND: FLOOR PLAN
wood stud wall
partial height wall
furred wall
WALL TYPE LEGEND: FLOOR PLAN
proposed hardscape
GENERAL NOTES: FLOOR PLAN
A.

B.

C.

D.

Refer to Finish Schedule for interior finishes.

Refer to Elevations for exterior finishes.

Refer to Sections and Details for construction
assemblies.

Refer to Plumbing, Mechanical, and Electrical
drawings for applicable notes and equipment.

E.

F.

G.

H.

Refer to Structural drawings for applicable notes.

Refer to Landscape drawings for hardscape,
landscape materials, and features.

Install moisture resistant G.W.B. on all walls in
bathrooms, and rooms subject to wet conditions.

Dimensioning:
1) all dimensions are to face of stud, concrete wall or CMU U.N.O.
2) doors at corners or near intersections of
perpendicular walls are located 4" from face of stud
to face of jamb U.N.O.

I.

J.

K.

Electrical recepticals, switches/controls, and outlets:
1) Refer to Electrical drawings.
2) Switches shall be placed centered at 36" AFF and
4" from door jamb or corner, U.N.O.
3) Convenience recepticals shall be placed centered
at 12" AFF or 6" above countertop, U.N.O.

F.F. (finish floor) refers to top-of-finish-floor or
top-of-finish-deck U.N.O.

See Window and Door Types and Schedules on
sheets A7.1 and A7.2 for details and additional
information.

KEYNOTES: BASEMENT PLAN

1. 2.

3. 4.

Provide R-13 min insulation within wall cavity around
wine cellar.

General contractor to coordinate split system design
for temperature & humidity control system of 1,900
cubic feet wine cellar.

General contractor to coordinate vapor barrier
installation along all walls and ceiling framing as
required.

Provide exterior grade dual-paned insulated door
with weather stripping
KEYNOTES: FIRST FLOOR PLAN

1. 2.

3. Provide Warmboard-R hydronic radiant heating
system. General contractor to coordinate structure to
provide flush installation over wood framed areas
and slab on grade. Approximate single zone area of
± 1,050 sf.

Footprint where stair meets grade

NOT USED
GENERAL NOTES: FLOOR PLAN
A.

B.

C.

D.
feet 0 8 16
First Floor Plan
4 1/8" = 1'-0" 2
Home Info
• 98.2% FAR, no modifications
• 3-bedroom, 3 bath, two half-baths
• Total main residence - 3,285 NSF
• 2-car attached garage - 730 NSF
• ADU over garage - 625 NSF
• Basement - 600 NSF*
* excluded from FAR calculation
-10’-10”
+0’-0” (136’)
22 Second Floor Plan
T
d
In
u
w
A
©
feet 0 8 16
Second Floor Plan
4 1/8" = 1'-0" 1
pool
13'-0' x 32'-6"
hot tub
5'-6' x 8'-0" -44"
2%
slope
1%
slope
pool equipment vault below
pool cover
stormwater well & pumps below
1%
slope
+136.00' +135.70'
(-3 5/8" BFF)

EDGEWATER WAY
20'-0" setback
property line
6'-0" setback
property line
6'-0" setback
property line
coastal bluff edge,
per geotech report
41 .5' bluff edge
development setback
50' bluff edge buffer
2317 Edgewater Way
(E) 1-story structure

EDGEWATER WAY
2307 Edgewater Way
(E) 2-story structure
2321 Edgewater Way
(E) 2-story structure 2317 Edgewater Way
(E) 1-story structure
2307 Edgewater Way
(E) 2-story structure
2321 Edgewater Way
(E) 2-story structure
3'-6"
6'
Type 3
36x54
5'-6"
5'-6"
7'-7"
5'-9"
5'-9"
2'-6"
2'
4'-7"
2' hamper
chute 6'-9"
18'-4"
EP
PANEL
2nd FL
CLR 30x36
EP
PANEL
ADU
CLR 30x36
2'
queen
queen
8'
queen
D
W
15x54
cal king
16" x 24"
24"
cooktop
FAU
FAU
FAU
+15'-2"
DN
DN
+15'-2"
5 R @ 6 1/2"
5 R @ 6 1/2"
10 R @ 6 1/2"
+9'-9"
+12'-5 1/2"
prime bedroom
220
laundry
210
prime bath
toilet 222
223
prime closet
221
study
230
bed 1
240
closet 1
241
bath 1
242
bed 2
250
bath 2
251
entry
120
ADU entry
260
ADU bath
264
ADU bed
265
hallway
200
ADU living
262
ADU nook
261
ADU kitchen
263
patio
5 patio
3 patio
4 (p) pool with cover (e) foundations (e) foundations
Provide Warmboard-R hydronic radiant heating
system. General contractor to coordinate structure to
provide flush installation over wood framed areas
and slab on grade. Approximate single zone area of
± 1,050 sf.

Footprint where stair meets grade

NOT USED
moveable furniture
feature below
feature above
built-in cabinetry, full height,
coordinate w/ interior elevations
built-in cabinetry, low height,
coordinate w/ interior elevations
downspout
LEGEND: FLOOR PLAN
wood stud wall
partial height wall
furred wall
WALL TYPE LEGEND: FLOOR PLAN
proposed hardscape
GENERAL NOTES: FLOOR PLAN
A.

B.

C.

D.

Refer to Finish Schedule for interior finishes.

Refer to Elevations for exterior finishes.

Refer to Sections and Details for construction
assemblies.

Refer to Plumbing, Mechanical, and Electrical
drawings for applicable notes and equipment.

E.

F.

G.

H.

Refer to Structural drawings for applicable notes.

Refer to Landscape drawings for hardscape,
landscape materials, and features.

Install moisture resistant G.W.B. on all walls in
bathrooms, and rooms subject to wet conditions.

Dimensioning:
1) all dimensions are to face of stud, concrete wall or CMU U.N.O.
2) doors at corners or near intersections of
perpendicular walls are located 4" from face of stud
to face of jamb U.N.O.

I.

J.

K.

Electrical recepticals, switches/controls, and outlets:
1) Refer to Electrical drawings.
2) Switches shall be placed centered at 36" AFF and
4" from door jamb or corner, U.N.O.
3) Convenience recepticals shall be placed centered
at 12" AFF or 6" above countertop, U.N.O.

F.F. (finish floor) refers to top-of-finish-floor or
top-of-finish-deck U.N.O.

See Window and Door Types and Schedules on
sheets A7.1 and A7.2 for details and additional
information.

KEYNOTES: SECOND FLOOR PLAN
+15-2” A. Living F.F.
23 Roof Plan

DS DS DS
DS DS
DS
DS
+20'-8" A.G.F.F. @ T.P.(+20'-9" AEG)
+20'-8" A.G.F.F. @ eave
(+20'-0" AEG)
+24'-8" A.L.F.F. @ T.P.
(+24'-10" AEG)
+28'-6" A.L.F.F. @ parapet
(+25'-3" AEG)
+24'-6" A.G.F.F. @ peak
(+23'-6" AEG)
+20'-4" A.G.F.F. @ T.P.
(+20'-5" AEG)
+28'-0" A.L.F.F. @ ridge
(+28'-2" AEG)
+28'-0" A.L.F.F. @ ridge
(+28'-2" AEG)
+28'-0" A.L.F.F. @ ridge(+29'-4" AEG)
slope

3.5:12
slope

3.5:12
slope

3.5:12
slope
1/4:12
slope
1/4:12
slope

3.5:12
slope

3.5:12
slope
±3.5:12
+21'-11" A.G.F.F. @ parapet
(+22'-2" AEG)
chimney
chimney
2'-0"
TYP.
+22'-4" A.G.F.F. @ ridge
(+23'-2" AEG)
slope TYP.
1/4:12
slope TYP.
1/4:12
slope TYP.
1/4:12
slope TYP.
1/4:12
slope TYP.
1/4:12
slope TYP.
1/4:12
1 1 1
1 1
+24'-8" A.L.F.F. @ T.P.
(+24'-10" AEG)
+24'-8" A.L.F.F. @ T.P.(+26'-0" AEG)

EDGEWATER WAY
2317 Edgewater Way
(E) 1-story structure

EDGEWATER WAY
2307 Edgewater Way
(E) 2-story structure
2321 Edgewater Way
(E) 2-story structure 2317 Edgewater Way
(E) 1-story structure
2307 Edgewater Way
(E) 2-story structure
2321 Edgewater Way
(E) 2-story structure
20'-0" setback
property line
6'-0" setback
property line
6'-0" setback
property line
coastal bluff edge,
per geotech report
41 .5' bluff edge
development setback
50' bluff edge buffer
T
d
In
u
w
A
©
feet 0 8 16
Roof Plan
4 1/8" = 1'-0" 1
feature below
built-up roof membrane system with mineral
finish (Class A); color, earthtone finish
two-piece terra cotta
("Mission C-tile") roof
parapet wall
metal gutter, painted to match fascia
downspout, painted to match fascia or
wall
skylight
DS
GENERAL NOTES: ROOF PLAN LEGEND: ROOF PLAN
A.

B.

C.

D.

E.

F.

G.

Refer to Sections (A4.Xs) and Details (A6.Xs) for
construction assemblies.

Refer to Elevations (A3.Xs) for exterior finishes.

Refer to Mechanical, Plumbing, and Electrical drawings
for applicable notes, equipment and vents.

Dimensioning:
1) all dimensions are to face of stud U.N.O.
2) all T.O. Roof elevations are to top of corrugated metal panel, U.N.O.
3) refer to Sections for Top Plate and Beam heights.

Roof covering, valleys, and gutters per 2016 CBC
Section 705A (High Fire Hazard - Chapter 7A)
Exterior wall protection and openings per 2016 CBC
Section 707A (High Fire Hazard)
Decking, floors, and underfloor protection per 2016 CBC Section 709A (High Fire Hazard)
H.

I.

J.

K.

L.

M.

N.

Roof pitch for roof covering per 2016 CBC Chapter 15.

Required guards at open-sided walking surfaces,
including stairs, porches, balconies or landings, shall be not less than 42" high measured vertically above the
adjacent walking surface, adjacent fixed seating or the line connecting the leading edges of the treads. Guards on the open sides of stairs shall have a height of not
less than 34" measured vertically from a line connecting the leading edges of the treads. (2013 CRC R312.2)
Provide minimum slope of 1/4" per 1'-0" for all roof
crickets.

F.F. (finish floor) refers to top-of-finish-floor or
top-of-finish-deck U.N.O.

Exterior building materails, systems and/or assembiles
shall meet 2016 CBC Chapter 7A, CRC Section R337,
& S.B. County Ordinace requirements (High Fire
Hazard).

Valley flashings are to conform to CRC R337.5.3.

Roof gutters are to conform to CRC R337.5.4.

O.

P.

Q.

R.

S.

Venting material of secondary roof is to conform to CRC R337.6. See details 11 & 12 on A6.3.

Installation of metal roof panels shall comply with CRC R905.10.

Installation of single ply roofing shall comply with CRC R905.

Enclosed roof eaves and roof eave soffits are to comply with CRC R337.7.5. See details.

Maximum roof panel lengths shall be provided where
possible to allow single panels to span entire roof slope.

KEYNOTES: ROOF PLAN

1. Photovoltaics
roof drain overflow
roof drain
24 Site Section
100
110
120
132
134
140
144
142
130
130
140
138
136
134
132
142
134
135
137
143
141 141
136
137
138
139
139
135
Type 3
36x54
18" x 31"
36"
cooktop
W/D 18" x 31"
18" x 23"
20'-0" setback
property line
6'-0" setback
property line
6'-0" setback
property line
coastal bluff edge, per geotech report

41.5' bluff edge development setback
50' bluff edge buffer
CON
E

T A T S

N ECI L
KE
A3
Site Elev
The design ideas a
documents are the
Inc.. Use or copy i
use or revisions of
without the written
Architects, Inc..

Revisions

SFDB PDA
© 2022 Blackbird A
Ken Radtkey
Blackbird Arch
235 Palm Ave
Santa Barbara,
t 805.957.1315
geotech engin
Todd Tranby
Earth Systems
1731-A Walter S
Ventura, CA 93
t 805.826.1474
civil engineer:

Bruce Jones
Ashley & Vanc
210 East Cota S
Santa Barbara,
t 805.962.9966
structural engi
Thom Hume
Thom Hume C
954 Toro Street
San Luis Obisp
t 805.962.6311
landscape arch
Courtney Jane
CJM::LA
1221 State Stre
Santa Barbara,
t 805.698.2120
mechanical / p
Tom Hughes
Mechanical En
315 E. Canon P
Santa Barbara,
t.805.957.4632
electrical:

Alan Noelle
Alan Noelle En
315 E. Canon P
Santa Barbara,
t.805.563.5444
surveyor:

Jeffery Prober
Prober Land S
645 Flora Vista
Santa Barbara,
t: 805.452.9690
feet
0 20 40
Site Elevation
10 1/20" = 1'-0"
1 EDGEWATER WAY
20' front setback
41'-6" bluff edge development setback
property line
property line
(E) grade
30 max. building height
coastal bluff edge, per geotech report
50' bluff edge buffer
+0'-0" (136')
Living Finish Floor
+15'-2" A. Living F.F
.

Upper Level
+28'-0" A. Living F.F
.

T.O
. Roof
-6'-0" B
. Living F.F
.

Lower Existing Foundation
1 KEY PLAN
100
110
120
132
134
140
144
142
130
130
140
138
136
134
132
142
134
135
137
143
141 141
136
137
138
139
139
135
Type 3
36x54
18" x 31"
36"
cooktop
W/D 18" x 31"
18" x 23"
20'-0" setback
property line
6'-0" setback
property line
6'-0" setback
property line
coastal bluff edge, per geotech report

41.5' bluff edge development setback
50' bluff edge buffer
feet
0 20 40
Site Elevation
10 1/20" = 1'-0"
1 EDGEWATER WAY
20' front setback
41'-6" bluff edge development setback
property line
property line
(E) grade
30 max. building height
coastal bluff edge, per geotech report
50' bluff edge buffer
+0'-0" (136')
Living Finish Floor
+15'-2" A. Living F.F
.

Upper Level
+28'-0" A. Living F.F
.

T.O
. Roof
-6'-0" B
. Living F.F
.

Lower Existing Foundation
East Elevation
25 Exterior Elevations
North Elevation
Entry Courtyard Elevation
feet 0 8 16
Front Entry Elevation
4 1/8" = 1'-0" 2B
property line
6' side setback6' side setback
(E) grade
property line
outline of building to north
+10'-10" A. Garage F.F.

Upper Level
+28'-6" A. Living F.F.

T.O. Parapet
+0'-0" (140.33')
Garage Level
+0'-0" (136')
Living Finish Floor
+20'-4" A. Garage F.F.

T.P.
9'-6"
+22'-4" A. Garage F.F.

T.O. Ridge
4'-4"
Edgewater
Residence
2315 Edgewater Way
Santa Barbara
041-350-024
PLN2021-00584
architect:

Ken Radtkey
Blackbird Architects
235 Palm Ave
Santa Barbara, CA 93101
t 805.957.1315
geotech engineer:

Todd Tranby
Earth Systems Pacific
1731-A Walter Street
Ventura, CA 93003
t 805.826.1474
civil engineer:

Bruce Jones
Ashley & Vance Engineering, Inc.
210 East Cota Street
Santa Barbara, CA 93101
t 805.962.9966
structural engineer:

Thom Hume
Thom Hume Consulting Engineers
954 Toro Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
t 805.962.6311
landscape architect:

Courtney Jane Miller
CJM::LA
1221 State Street, Suite 206
Santa Barbara, CA 93101
t 805.698.2120
mechanical / plumbing / T-24:

Tom Hughes
Mechanical Engineering Consultants
315 E. Canon Perdido Street, Suite B
Santa Barbara, CA 93101
t.805.957.4632 x205
electrical:

Alan Noelle
Alan Noelle Engineering
315 E. Canon Perdido Street, Suite B
Santa Barbara, CA 93101
t.805.563.5444
surveyor:

Jeffery Prober
Prober Land Surveying
feet 0 8 16
North Elevation
8 16 4 1/8" = 1'-0" 2A Front Entry Elevation
1/8" = 1'-0" 2B
30' max. building height
(E) grade
property line
6' side setback6' side setback
property line
141'
Entry Gate Level
24'-6"
+0'-0" (140.33')
Garage Level
6' max
T.O. Gate
T.O. Ridge
8'-3"
6' side setback
(E) grade
(E) grade
property lineproperty line
6' side setback6' side setback
property line
outline of building to north
141'
Entry Gate Level
+10'-10" A. Garage F.F.

Upper Level
+0'-0" (140.33')
Garage Level
24'-6"
+0'-0" (140.33'
Garage Leve
6' max
T.O. Gate
T.O. Ridge
+20'-4" A. Garage F.F.

T.P.
9'-6"
8'-3"
+22'-4" A. Garage F.F.

T.O. Ridge
26 Edgewater
Residence
2315 Edgewater Way
Santa Barbara
041-350-024
PLN2021-00584
architect:

Ken Radtkey
Blackbird Architects
235 Palm Ave
Santa Barbara, CA 93101
t 805.957.1315
geotech engineer:

Todd Tranby
Earth Systems Pacific
1731-A Walter Street
Ventura, CA 93003
t 805.826.1474
civil engineer:

Bruce Jones
Ashley & Vance Engineerin
210 East Cota Street
Santa Barbara, CA 93101
t 805.962.9966
structural engineer:

Thom Hume
Thom Hume Consulting En
954 Toro Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 t 805.962.6311
landscape architect:

Courtney Jane Miller
CJM::LA
1221 State Street, Suite 206
Santa Barbara, CA 93101
t 805.698.2120
mechanical / plumbing / T-2
Tom Hughes
Mechanical Engineering Co
315 E. Canon Perdido Street
Santa Barbara, CA 93101
t.805.957.4632 x205
electrical:

Alan Noelle
Alan Noelle Engineering
315 E. Canon Perdido Street
Santa Barbara, CA 93101
t.805.563.5444
surveyor:

Jeffery Prober
Prober Land Surveying
645 Flora Vista Drive
Santa Barbara, CA 93109
t: 805.452.9690
feet
08 16
South Elevation
4 1/8" = 1'-0"
2 6' side setback
property line
6' side setback
property line
6' side setback
property line
ADU bedroom
garage utility closet
outline of building to south
property line
6' side setback
6' side setback
+10'-10" A. Garage F.F.

Upper Level
+24'-6" A. Garage F.F.

T.O. Roof
+20'-4" A. Garage F.F.

B.O. Ceiling
+0'-0" (140.33')
Garage F.F.

Site Section
West / East Section at Entry Courtyard Looking North
27 feet 0 8 16
East Elevation
4 1/8" = 1'-0" 1
feet 0 8 16
feet 0 8 16 4 1/8" = 1'-0" 2A
y
4 1/8" = 1'-0" 2B
1 2A

KEY PLAN

SH SCHEDULE
ant wood (class A)
wn
tta ("Mission C-tile") roof
oors & windows)
tegral color
y beige
DULE
ease *05 sandblast
nder 12" in any
ture and Trim
Burnt Hickory
gnition resistant)
Wood Trusses
s A ignition resistant)
Steel, Exposed
refinished
olor
ns)
gnition resistant)
Exposed Metal
shed Streaked Rust
d wire mesh mount
m - See SCHED.
1" Insulated Glazing
ors at west wall, lift
Roofing
two-piece terra cotta ("Mission C-tile") roof
5 Fenestrations (doors & windows)
steel frames (bronze), ultra clear (low iron) insulated glazing
6 Railings
wrought iron (bronze)
7 Railings
laminated glazing, ultra clear
8 Site Gates
wrought iron (bronze)
9 10 Exterior Screen
100
120
110
132
134
140
144
142
130
130
140
138
136
134
132
142
134
135
137
143
141
141
139
138
137
136
139
135
Type 3
36x54
18" x 31"
36"
cooktop
W/D 18" x 31"
18" x 23"
20'-0" setback
property line
6'-0" setback
property line
6'-0" setback
property line
coastal bluff edge,
per geotech report

41.5' bluff edge
development setback
50' bluff edge buffer
2B
30' max. building height
property line
6' side setback6' side setback
property line
141'
EtGtLl
25'-6"
+4'-0" (140')
6' max
T.O. Gate
T.O. Ridge
property line
6' side setback
141'
EtGtLl
6' max
T.O. Gate

EDGEWATER WAY
20' front setback
41'-6" bluff edge development setback
property line
(E) grade
30 max. building height
coastal bluff edge, per geotech report
50' bluff edge buffer
141'
Entry Gate Level
+0'-0" (136')
Living Finish Floor
+15'-2" A. Living F.F.

Upper Level
+28'-0" A. Living F.F.

T.O. Roof
-6'-0" (130.0)
Lower Existing Foundation
23'-10"
-1'-6" (134.5')
Upper Existing Foundation
T.O. Ridge
+24'-8" A. Living F.F.

T.P.
9'-6"
Exterior Elevations
Exterior Palette
• Integral color smooth-troweled plaster (sand-colored) • Sandstone accent facade
• Exposed natural wood structure (warm brown)
• Steel windows/doors/trim (dark bronze) + low-iron glazing • Terracotta roof and accent tile (red-brown)
• Exterior screening
• Laminated glass guardrails
• Wrought iron gates
East Elevation
28 Exterior Elevations
South Elevation
Edgewater
Residence
2315 Edgewater Way
Santa Barbara
041-350-024
PLN2021-00584
architect:

Ken Radtkey
Blackbird Architects
235 Palm Ave
Santa Barbara, CA 93101
t 805.957.1315
geotech engineer:

Todd Tranby
Earth Systems Pacific
1731-A Walter Street
Ventura, CA 93003
t 805.826.1474
civil engineer:

Bruce Jones
Ashley & Vance Engineering, Inc.
210 East Cota Street
Santa Barbara, CA 93101
t 805.962.9966
structural engineer:

Thom Hume
Thom Hume Consulting Engineers
954 Toro Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 t 805.962.6311
landscape architect:

Courtney Jane Miller
CJM::LA
1221 State Street, Suite 206
Santa Barbara, CA 93101
t 805.698.2120
mechanical / plumbing / T-24:

Tom Hughes
Mechanical Engineering Consultants
315 E. Canon Perdido Street, Suite B
Santa Barbara, CA 93101
t.805.957.4632 x205
electrical:

Alan Noelle
Alan Noelle Engineering
315 E. Canon Perdido Street, Suite B
Santa Barbara, CA 93101
t.805.563.5444
surveyor:

Jeffery Prober
Prober Land Surveying
645 Flora Vista Drive
Santa Barbara, CA 93109
t: 805.452.9690
feet
08 16
South Elevation
4 1/8" = 1'-0"
2 (E) grade
property line
6' side setback6' side setback
property line
outline of building to south
-1'-6" (134.5')
Lower Patio
+15'-2" A. Living F.F.

Upper Level
+28'-0" A. Living F.F.

T.O. Roof
+0'-0" (136')
Living Finish Floor
+24'-8" A. Living F.F.

T.P.
9'-6"
41'-6" bluff edge development setback
50' bluff edge buffer
coastal bluff edge, per geotech report
29 Exterior Elevations
feet 0 8 16
South Elevation
4 1/8" = 1'-0" 2
feet 0 8 16
West Elevation
4 1/8" = 1'-0" 1
1 2

KEY PLAN
st
ant)

EXTERIOR FINISH SCHEDULE
Stone
terracotta
3 Exposed Wood
stained fire resistant wood (class A)
stain: mission brown
4 Roofing
two-piece terra cotta ("Mission C-tile") roof
5 6 Fenestrations (doors & windows)
Stone
sandstone
2 Plaster Wall
smooth plaster, integral color
color: warm sandy beige
1 ERIOR FINISH SCHEDULE
Finish
Concrete Flatwork integral color w/ topcast release *05 sandblast finish or approved EQ. color: sandstone
Ojai Sandstone
2 1/2" Stone Veneer
Random Style, Regulars (under 12" in any direction), 1" joint, typ.

Rainchain & Catchment Bowl Unfinished Copper
Exterior Exposed Wood Structure and Trim rough-sawn wood, stained Cabot Stains, Semi-Solid, Burnt Hickory
Exterior Siding 1 corrugated metal (class A ignition resistant) Architectural Grade Exposed Wood Trusses 8'-0" O.C.

Roofing 1 corrugated metal roof (class A ignition resistant) Base Option - Weathering Steel, Exposed Metal Surface
Alternate 1 - Metal Sales Prefinished Weathered Copper Solid Color Roofing 2 8" planted roof
Exposed Sheet Metal (2 options) match roofing material
match roofing color
Exterior Siding 2 - (2 options) corrugated siding (class A ignition resistant) Opt. 1 - Weathering Steel, Exposed Metal Surface
Opt. 2 - Metal Sales Prefinished Streaked Rust
Green Screen over Walls steel tube frame and welded wire mesh mount to wall Windows and Doors Thermally-Broken Aluminum - See SCHED. A7.0 High performance glazing, 1" Insulated Glazing Units
Large sliding aluminum doors at west wall, lift and slide, match windows Bronze anodized finish
Roofing
two-piece terra cotta ("Mission C-tile") roof
5 Fenestrations (doors & windows)
steel frames (bronze), ultra clear (low iron) insulated glazing
6 Railings
wrought iron (bronze)
7 Railings
laminated glazing, ultra clear
8 Site Gates
wrought iron (bronze)
9 10 Exterior Screen
100
120
110
132
134
140
144
142
130
130
140
138
136
134
132
142
134
135
137
143
141
141
139
138
137
136
139
135
Type 3
36x54
18" x 31"
36"
cooktop
W/D 18" x 31"
18" x 23"
20'-0" setback
property line
6'-0" setback
property line
6'-0" setback
property line
coastal bluff edge,
per geotech report

41.5' bluff edge
development setback
50' bluff edge buffer
(E) grade
outline of building to south
-1'-6" (134.5')
Lower Patio
+15'-2" A. Living F.F.

Upper Level
+0'-0" (136')
Living Finish Floor
-0" (140.33')
Garage Level
TO
Ridge
9'-6"

EDGEWATER WAY
20' front setback
41'-6" bluff edge development setback
property line
(E) grade
30 max. building height
50' bluff edge buffer
coastal bluff edge, per geotech report
(p) pool with cover
28'-0"
1'-6" (p) pool
equipment vault
9'-6"
+0'-0" (136')
Living Finish Floor
+15'-2" A. Living F.F.

Upper Level
+28'-0" A. Living F.F.

T.O. Roof
+4'-4" (140.33')
Garage Level
24'-6"
T.O. Ridge
+24'-8" A. Living F.F.

T.P.

West Elevation
30 January 30, 2023 Project No.: 304467-001
Report No.: 23-1-81
Mr. Ralf Pohl
2315 Edgewater LLC
1536 Brook Drive
Downers Grove, IL 60515
Project: 2315 Edgewater Way
Santa Barbara, California
Subject: Comparison of Bluff Top Setbacks for Nearby Earth Systems Projects Introduction
Earth Systems has been notified that there is an appeal from a neighboring property as part of the permit process. It is our understanding that this appeal questions why there is a difference in bluff top setback distances from the geotechnical/geological studies (performed by Earth Systems) for the subject property and the results of geotechnical/geological studies (performed by Adam Simmons-Consulting Geologist and Braun & Associates) for a nearby property located at 2337 Edgewater Way. The table below presents bluff top setbacks for the subject site and selected nearby Earth Systems projects.

Bluff Top Setbacks for Nearby Projects
Earth Systems
Projects
Erosional Retreat by
CoSMoS
Erosional Retreat NonCoSMoSSlope Stability
Setback
2315 Edgewater Way 41.5 ft 25 ft in 75 yrs 0 ft
2339 Edgewater Way 38 ft 25 ft in 75 yrs 0 ft
1509 Shoreline Drive 39 ft 23 ft in 75 yrs 121 ft
3405 Sea Ledge Lane N/A 25 ft in 75 yrs 0 ft
3357 Cliff Drive 20 ft 12.5 ft in 75 yrs 43 ft
4121 Creciente Drive 52 ft 30 ft in 100 yrs 52 ft
The setback values in this table indicate that specific building sites along the Santa Barbara coastal bluff will typically have different setback values depending on differences in bluff geometry, subsurface geology, results of laboratory testing, and results of stability analyses which can vary across relatively short distances.

January 30, 2023 2 Project No.: 304467-001
Report No.: 23-1-81
Conclusions
The consultants for 2327 Edgewater Way provided an erosional retreat setback distance of

18.75 feet and a slope stability setback distance of 88 feet from the bluff top. This slope stability setback appears to be due to their slope stability modeling of a potential bedding plane failure located along the bluff face where dipping bedding planes daylight near the bottom of the bluff face. Earth Systems did not have the same daylighting bedding issue at 2315 Edgewater Way, and, therefore, did not have a slope stability setback. Earth Systems has had other projects with larger slope stability setbacks depending on the bluff geometry, subsurface geology, results of laboratory testing, and results of stability analyses. Earth Systems is confident in our study for the proposed construction at 2315 Edgewater Way where we utilized the assistance of Dr. Larry Gurrola and an Earth Systems staff with extensive experience with stability and erosional retreat along the Santa Barbara coastline.

It is also our understanding that a pool may be located in the backyard of the subject property and that the pool would be located beyond the setback.. The pool should be less overall weight than the existing soil/bedrock that currently occupy the subsurface (i.e. water weighs about

62.4 pounds/cubic foot while soil/bedrock would weight about 130 pounds/cubic foot), therefore, the pool would apply less weight surcharge to the bluff and should result in a slightly higher (better) slope stability factor-of-safety).

Please call if you have any questions, or if we can be of further service.

Respectfully submitted,

EARTH SYSTEMS PACIFIC
Todd Tranby
Engineering Geologist
Copies: 1 - Client (via email)
1 - Project File
1/30/2023
Northern California Office Central California Office Southern California Office 330 Village Lane 6417 Dogtown Road 699 Hampshire Road, Suite 102 Los Gatos, CA 95030-7218 San Andreas, CA 95249-9640 Thousand Oaks, CA 91361 (408) 354-5542 (209) 736-4252 (805) 370-8710
www.cottonshires.com
COTTON, SHIRES AND ASSOCIATES, INC.

CONSULTING ENGINEERS AND GEOLOGISTS
January 10, 2023
E6462
By email to [email protected]
Travis C. Logue, Esq.

ROGERS, SHEFFIELD & CAMPBELL, LLP
150 E. Carrillo Street
Santa Barbara, California 93101
SUBJECT: Geotechnical Peer Review of Proposed Development RE: 2315 Edgewater Way
Santa Barbara, California
References: Engineering Geology and Geotechnical Engineering Report, Proposed Residential Costruction, 2315 Edgewater Way, Santa Barbara, California, by Earth Systems Pacific, dated July 20, 2021;
Updated Geologic Investigation Report – New Seacliff Residential Project, 2327 Edgewater Way, Santa Barbara, California, by Adam Simmons, Consulting Geologist, dated May 8, 2019; and
Dear Mr. Logue:

Cotton, Shires and Associates, Inc. (CSA) is pleased to provide Rogers, Sheffield & Campbell, LLP with this geotechnical peer review of the referenced Earth Systems Pacific reports dated July 20, 2021 and March 11, 2022 (revised July 11, 2022), regarding their geotechnical investigation of the 2315 Edgewater Way property, and their ultimate conclusion that 41.5 feet is an adequate coastal bluff setback for the proposed development in Santa Barbara, California. In this peer review letter, we discuss our qualifications, the scope of work we performed to evaulate the Earth Systems Pacific investigation, our findings and conclusions, and the limitations of our services.

CSA Qualifications
CSA has been providing geologic and geotechnical services for over 48 years and specializes in slope stability issues. The principal investigators and authors of this peer review letter have over 86 years of combined geology and geotechnical engineering experience along the coast of California.

APPELLANT DOCUMENTS
Travis C. Logue, Esq. January 10, 2023

Page 2 ends

COTTON, SHIRES AND ASSOCIATES, INC.

In addition to our private clients up and down the coast of California, CSA regularly provides peer review services, including for 16 communities in the greater San Francisco Bay area (the City and County of San Francisco, San Mateo County, Daly City, Brisbane, San Bruno, Millbrae, Woodside, Menlo Park, Portola Valley, Cupertino, Saratoga, Los Gatos, Fremont, Newark, Berkeley and Morgan Hill), for the County of San Luis Obispo and for the cities of Carpinteria, Malibu, Santa Monica and Rancho Palos Verdes in southern California, and was retained by the California Coastal Commission to assist them with a large and complicated coastal permit peer review near Malibu in the County of Los Angeles.

Scope of Work
In order to evaluate the subject report and investigation, we reviewed documents pertaining to the geology and site conditions present at 2315 Edgewater Way, including the referenced Earth Systems Pacific reports dated July 20, 2021 and March 11, 2022 (revised July 11, 2022). We also reviewed the findings of a geotechnical investigation that we conducted on the coastal bluff with similar underlying geologic conditions to the subject site that we conducted less than a quarter of a mile to the east of the subject site, reviewed multiple stereo pairs of aerial photographs using a stereoscope and Google Earth images of the subject site, conducted a geotechnical reconnaissance of the site (viewed from the adjacent property at 2317 Edgewater Way and from the beach including mapping geologic exposures observed in this location), conducted aerial photoreconnaissance of the site area using our in-house drone in approved airspace, prepared maps using available LiDAR data, conducted geologic and engineering analyses of the resulting information and prepared this peer review letter report summarizing our findings and conclusions.

We completed a review of historic aerial photos from 1928 through 2001 (see attached Table of CSA Aerial Photograph Review) and prepared a preliminary geologic map using 2016 LiDAR topographic contours on a hillshade base with our field mapping and identification of the landslides. This map was prepared using the available data, including boring and test pit locations for Earth Systems (2315 and 2305 Edgewater) and Adam Simmons (2327 Edgewater), as well as their field mapping of geologic structure supplemented by our field mapping of geologic structure and geologic contacts between earth units (see attached Figure 1, Topographic and Hillshade Geologic Map). We also prepared a graphic of the relative ages of the various landslides that have occurred, largely based on what we observed in the aerial photos (see attached Figure 2, Relative Age of Landslides Map).

Travis C. Logue, Esq. January 10, 2023

Page 3 ends

COTTON, SHIRES AND ASSOCIATES, INC.

Site History of Slope Instability
The subject property at 2315 Edgewater Way is located in an area characterized by deep-seated slope instability associated with adverse dip-slope bedding within weak Monterey Formation bedrock materials. These geologic conditions present inherently unstable coastal bluff conditions during bluff retreat scenarios.

In the 1928, 1929 and 1938 aerial photographs there appears an incised drainage running parallel to, and on the west side of, Mohawk Road draining south toward Edgewater Way. Where this drainage exited through the bluff, shallow landsliding was occurring. By 1947, a large-scale bedrock landslide had failed below the properties at 2305, 2215, and 2211 Edgewater Way, resulting in significant retreat of the top edge of the coastal bluff. This landslide apparently destroyed a residence constructed in the 1920’s near the edge of the bluff at 2215 Edgewater Way (but straddling the 2305 Edgewater Way property line), located southwest of the corner of Edgewater Way and Mohawk Road.

The landslide continued to move in subsequent years and is best seen in the 1953 aerial photograph which is at 1:6000 scale, with good resolution (see attached Figure 3, 1953 Aerial Photograph Showing Recent Landslide Activity).

In 1956, it appears some grading was conducted in the landslide area, with grading access (a haul route?) ramping in from the corner of Edgewater/Mohawk. While it is not clear what the grading was for (but presumably an effort to create support for developed properties upslope), a cut or back-cut was apparently made south of the 2305 Edgewater residence rear yard and soil was pushed around on the landslide mass. A mass of fill may have been regraded against the above-mentioned back-cut. In the 1965 aerial photograph, a portion of the 1947-1953-era failure had reactivated, but extended farther west, and it appears this landslide had a southeasterly direction of movement. This expansion of the landslide represents further retreat of the upper edge of the coastal bluff. By the time of the 1976 photo, the 1975 landslide (documented in newspaper articles) is clear and extended further west, failing directly below the main residence at the subject property (causing the 2315 Edgewater Way residence to be red-tagged and rebuilt further landward) and also carving into the southeast portion of the 2317 Edgewater Way property. The relative ages of these landslides (based on aerial photograph dates) and the locations of the landslides and grading are shown on attached Figure 2.

In summary, through aerial photograph review (see attached list of aerial photographs reviewed) we observed episodic, expanding landslide masses forming a landslide complex across multiple blufftop properties, with each landslide event probably triggered by rainfall and adverse drainage conditions, toe-of-bluff erosion due to wave attack, and response to the loss of lateral support created by the previous landslide event. The landslide geometry appears to be controlled by geologic structure, Travis C. Logue, Esq. January 10, 2023

Page 4 ends

COTTON, SHIRES AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
predominantly adverse (i.e., 22- to 33-degree) south-dipping bedding within the Monterey Formation. The east margin of the overall landslide complex occurs where it does due to local folding and steepening of structure. The west margin is less obvious, but is probably also controlled by local bedrock folding and possibly faulting within the bedrock. While the 1975 landslide seems to be characterized as a "new" event (as portrayed in local newspaper articles at that time), in fact there had been active landsliding and corresponding bluff retreat going back at least 28 years prior. Therefore, it is obvious that slope stability of the coastal bluff in this area is characterized by sequential large failures of earth material along weak bedding planes within the Monterey Formation bedrock.

CSA Investigation of Properties to the East of 2315 Edgewater Way CSA conducted extensive geotechnical investigations of two adjacent properties about a quarter mile to the east of the 2315 Edgewater property from 2008 through 2022.

These properties had very similar geologic conditions to the 2315 Edgewater property in that they were both underlain by Monterey Formation bedrock adversely dipping toward the ocean that had experienced previous landsliding along bedding in 1975.

As part of our 2008-2022 investigation of those properties, we reviewed logs from nine previously drilled large-diameter borings and we then drilled and downhole-logged three large-diameter borings, drilled and logged an additional five small-diameter borings at these properties, and found that there was another deeper layer of weak bedding material consisting of a soft clay seam 16 feet in depth beneath the 1975 failure zone. Through slope stability analyses, we determined that the site needed mitigation in order to render the properties buildable (having adequate static and seismic factors of safety for slope stability) from a geotechnical standpoint. Without downhole-logging (lowering a geologist down the hole to clean and carefully log the exposures revealed in the boring) of the large-diameter borings, we would not have recognized the weak, soft clay seam that would likely have led to the next progressive sequence of bedding plane failure within the adversely dipping Monterey Formation bedrock. We recommended the installation of two rows of deep, reinforced concrete shear pins with tie beams with the lower row of shear pins secured with tiebacks to pin the bedrock in place so that the site could be safely developed. While the City did not disagree with our investigation of and conclusions regarding slope stability and mitigation, the development was ultimately not approved by the City.

Travis C. Logue, Esq. January 10, 2023

Page 5 ends

COTTON, SHIRES AND ASSOCIATES, INC.

Adam Simmons, Consulting Geologist, Updated Geologic Investigation Report – New Seacliff Residential Project, 2327 Edgewater Way
We reviewed the referenced report by Adam Simmons (Simmons), dated May 8, 2019, for the property at 2327 Edgewater Way that is two lots to the west of the 2315 Edgewater Way property. Simmons indicates that the dip angle of the Monterey Formation bedrock in the area is 28 to 32 degrees to the southwest. Simmons indicated “… a retreat of approximately 88 feet north of the top of bluff has been determined based on a potential bedding plane failure located along the sea bluff after 18.75 inches (sic) of erosion in 75 years.” Simmons meant “18.75 feet of erosion” as expressed elsewhere in his report.

Simmons indicated that a site specific slope stability analysis was conducted for the property by Braun & Associates in 2017 based on direct shear strength testing of four samples and that their analysis suggested an approximate 65-foot setback from the top of the bluff for a static factor of safety of 1.5 (the minimum static FS required for new development). By projecting his consideration of 18.75 feet of erosion and consequent bluff failure on a weak bedding plane within Monterey Formation bedrock, Simmons recommended an 88-foot setback from the top of bluff. Because long-term bluff retreat in this region typically occurs in larger episodic events which are caused by both erosion and slope instability, the 88-foot setback can be equated to an average bluff retreat rate of approximately 14 inches per year over the 75-year life of the development at 2327 Edgewater Way. This setback presumes impacts from sea level rise and includes wave erosion at the toe of bluff and loss of lateral support for adversely-dipping bedding planes within the Monterey Formation.

Earth Systems Pacific Report dated July 20, 2021
We reviewed the Earth Systems Pacific (ESP) report dated July 20, 2021. In their report, they provide a stick log for theirlarge-diameter boring that does not show geologic structure, with no attitudes of structure or discontinuities described in the log.

Consequently, it appears that this large-diameter boring was not downhole-logged, which falls short of best practices and leaves a lot of important subsurface geologic information undocumented.

ESP performed five Direct Simple Shear (DSS) tests for the subject site and one DSS from an adjacent site, measuring peak, ultimate and residual shear strengths. As mentioned previously, no geologic structure is documented on the log for BA-1, and we cannot determine what material ESP is testing (i.e., intact rock-strength, bedding strength, sheared/gouge material etc.) It is not clear whether the DSS testing was conducted on saturated or unsaturated samples. In the body of the report, ESP reports the samples were Travis C. Logue, Esq. January 10, 2023

Page 6 ends

COTTON, SHIRES AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
saturated. However, the DSS reports indicate between 87.6 and 100 percent saturation.

The moisture content on the log of BA-1 matches the moisture contents shown on the DSS results. It is not clear if this value is the in-situ moisture content or the saturated moisture content. DSS testing of unsaturated samples would affect the results, adding apparent cohesion. The results are scattered in that a lot of lighter normal-loaded samples resulted in higher strengths than heavier-loaded samples and some tests seemed to show variable peak/brittle behavior. The normal loads are relatively bunched together (which could skew the results) and varied by 500 psf to 1,000 psf per test, or about 5 to 10 feet of equivalent depth pressure. Overall, normal loads varied between 500 psf and 4,500 psf.

Consequently, the basis for earth material strengths used in analyses are unclear and therefore suspect.

While results were scattered, ESP compiled them and used average shear strengths, which is not a conservative procedure. Many public entities (such as the City of Los Angeles) require consultants to use the weakest strengths obtained from their laboratory testing in their slope stability analyses. Justification for ESP’s landslide strength parameters is missing and they apparently did not check them using backcalculation of one or more of the previous landslide failures. They did not conduct Atterberg limits tests (for checking shear strength correlations). No groundwater was accounted for in their slope stability analyses despite failures reportedly occurring during periods of higher than normal rainfall. Therefore, the bases for their slope stability analyses are unclear and not conservative.

ESP conducted slope stability analyses using five different earth materials in their model. The fill material strength was based on the remolded Direct Simple Shear (DSS) ultimate strength test result of 120 psf cohesion and 30 degrees friction angle for static conditions and peak results of 300 psf cohesion and 29 degrees friction angle for seismic conditions. The landslide material was modelled using strengths of 200 psf cohesion and 28 degrees friction angle for both static and seismic conditions (“based on experiences and judgements” per the body of the Strength Parameters portion of the report). Three material models were used for the Monterey Formation using an anisotropic strength function. Beneficial, or cross-bedding strengths were based on the average of the DSS peak test results, a cohesion of 321.8 psf and 38.1 degrees friction angle were used.

Adverse, or along-bedding strengths were derived from the DSS residual shear strength test result from an adjacent site, a cohesion of 0 psf and 34 degrees friction angle. The difference between the three Monterey Formation models is the dip angles of the weak bedding planes analyzed; each material defines a +/- 2-degree weak zone orientation based on the apparent dip shown on Cross Section A-A’ (between 22 and 35 degrees). We note that in the body of their report they state an apparent bedding dip between 22 and 38 degrees. ESP defines adverse bedding zones with dip angles between 20 to 24 degrees, 25 to 29 degrees, and 33 to 37 degrees, which lacks smooth transitions between zones, and Travis C. Logue, Esq. January 10, 2023

Page 7 ends

COTTON, SHIRES AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
contains gaps in adverse bedding conditions when transitioning between materials in the slope stability analysis. Consequently, ESP’s slope stability analyses results appear to be insufficiently conservative for residential development.

These strengths varied widely from the strengths we used in slope stability analyses for the Monterey Formation bedrock and landslide materials to the east. There, we used much lower anisotropic strengths for weathered bedrock of 0 psf cohesion and 25 degrees friction angle for adverse bedding and 0 psf cohesion and 45 degrees friction angle for beneficial bedding. For unweathered bedrock, we used anisotropic strengths of cohesion of 1 psf and friction angle of 32 degrees for adverse bedding and 2,000 psf cohesion and 40 degrees friction angle for beneficial bedding. We used 0 psf cohesion and a friction angle of 19 degrees for existing landslide debris and 0 psf cohesion and a friction angle of 25 degrees for fill. It is important to note that the residual strength of a relatively recent (failure during historic times) landslide typically is assigned only friction angle and no cohesion, yet ESP used 200 psf cohesion for landslide debris in their slope stability analyses. These differences indicate yet another piece of evidence that ESP’s slope stability analyses results appear to be insufficiently conservative for residential development.

Atterberg Limit tests for bedrock and landslide materials to the east resulted in Liquid Limits between 57 and 68 percent, and Plasticity Indexes between 18 and 35 percent. Clay fraction tests for the same materials were between 39 and 42 percent clay.

These results correspond to correlated friction angles between 24 to 27 degrees for fully softened friction angle and 15 to 20 degrees for a residual strength friction angle.

Torsional ring shear tests resulted in friction angles between 14 and 28 degrees for normal loads between 2,000 and 8,000 psf. The results of our torsional ring shear friction angles agreed well with the correlated values. ESP is using a residual friction angle 6 degrees higher than our highest torsional ring shear test results, likely due to the sample chosen and method of testing.

The landslide debris strength parameters and adverse bedding strength parameters for the Monterey Formation used by ESP appear too high based on correlated and torsional residual shear strength test results from a nearby site. CSA recommends that the landslide debris strength parameters be justified with a back-calculation supporting the parameters chosen. CSA also recommends that cohesion not be used for landslide debris or for residual strength parameters.

ESP chose not to model groundwater for their slope stability analysis. While shallow slip surfaces may not be impacted by groundwater, deeper slip surfaces may become potentially more critical if groundwater were to be considered. The depth of their investigation was 41 feet at the northern margin of the site and conducted during a Travis C. Logue, Esq. January 10, 2023

Page 8 ends

COTTON, SHIRES AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
drought period. The critical slip surface shown for the planar failure mode is over 50 feet deep, and near the toe of the slope which is at sea level. CSA installed and monitored piezometers at a nearby site and found groundwater to be between 24 to 40 feet below ground surface. Monitoring of both deep and shallow piezometers revealed neither perched nor artesian conditions were present at that site. It is unconservative to assume no groundwater at the site, especially for deeper slip surfaces that would be impacted by groundwater. The depth of the ESP investigation is less than the depth of the critical surfaces analyzed. A subsurface investigation was not conducted by ESP to the full depth within a majority of the critical slip surface masses shown in their slope stability analyses figures and only a surficial investigation was conducted in the toe region of the slope.

CSA Reconnaissance of the Beach Area below 2315 Edgewater Way CSA conducted a geologic reconnaissance of the beach area below 2315 Edgewater and adjacent properties on November 1, 2022. Our reconnaissance of the beach area revealed that the beach was predominantly sandy with the foreshore slope dipping at 5.5 degrees, but became cobbly/bouldery at the top of the foreshore slope and across the back beach to the base of bluff. A review of Google Earth images of this area between about 2000 to present reveals dynamic changes of the beach over time, with sand coming and going, and geologic structure consisting of two folds (an anticline and a syncline) visible in the intertidal zone on some of the images (with the 2015 image exhibiting this structure most prominently). Just west of the west landslide margin, we observed 33-degree southdipping bedding. The landslide toe exposure consisted of material that was very jumbled, loose, and rubbly at the base of bluff across a broad expanse moving east.

The landslide debris exposed at the base of the bluff is significantly less resistant to erosion by wave action compared to adjacent bedrock exposures, and appears to have been recently undercut by wave action, hollowing out a recessed area 1 to 3 feet wide (thus resulting in an overhang) at the base of bluff/back-beach interface. This condition persisted across most of the landslide, but then the base of slide emerged above the base of bluff, due to geologic structure changes, and there is a good exposure of the base of the landslide in the eastern portion. Where observed the landslide was failing on an extremely thin (1/8" thick) clayey bed within the Monterey Formation bedrock. We prepared a topographic hillshade map from 2016 LiDAR data and portrayed the results of our geologic mapping on this base map (see attached Figure 1, Topographic and Hillshade Geologic Map). On this map we have also depicted the estimated pre-landslide top of bluff and the current top of bluff at the 2315 Edgewater Way property. The bluff retreat indicated within this minimum 75-year period (1947-2022) ranges from 60 to 77 feet (with an average of 68.5 feet), which results in an average rate of bluff retreat of 0.91 feet (about 11 inches) per year. While this comports with the historical bluff retreat rate Travis C. Logue, Esq. January 10, 2023

Page 9 ends

COTTON, SHIRES AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
determined by the USGS-CoSMoS for the subject site, it is almost three times greater than the 4 inches per year rate of retreat determined by ESP.

CSA Peer Review Comments
Earth System Pacific’s mapping of the landslide and controlling geologic structure at 2315 Edgewater Way shows an angle (dip) of bedding that we believe is too steep in the lower portion of the bluff and below the beach. They mapped 38- to 39-degree structure on some in-place outcrops in the intertidal zone, whereas we measured the bedding in these outcrops to be 31 to 33 degrees (6 to 7 degrees difference). This could impact the geologic structural model and the range of dips in the lower slope used for anisotropic strength in slope stability analyses. If the bedding is less steep at the toe of the slope, then the slope is considered to be less stable because the weak bedding planes are less buttressed by the bedrock below the beach plane and hence the weak layers can fail through cross bedding more easily and cause a landslide to break out near the toe of the slope.

More importantly, the stratigraphic section of Monterey Formation bedrock that is exposed in the coastal bluff and has resulted in bluff instability (large-scale landsliding), as well a 60-foot thick section below the stratigraphic section that was involved in historical landsliding, was not penetrated by the single ESP boring excavated near the north end of the property. As can be seen in ESP’s cross-section (see attached Figure 4, CSA Annotated Earth Systems Pacific Cross Section A-A’), the stratigraphic section that was penetrated by the boring is significantly shallower than the section that was impacted by (or is controlling/resulting in) landsliding. Furthermore, because the single bucket auger boring was simply sampled at 5-foot intervals (rather than being continuously cored) and apparently not downhole-logged by an engineering geologist, the bedrock lithology and potential presence of weak layers is essentially unknown. Overall, as seen on Figure 4, a 100-foot thick stratigraphic section of bedrock has not been properly investigated for the presence of typically thin, weak layers. Proper investigation and geologic modeling of this stratigraphic section is critical to the slope stability evaluation of the bluff and determination of an appropriate structural setback for a safe building site over the next 75 years. The approach taken is not consistent with the standard of practice for either coastal bluff or slope stability evaluations when adverse geological conditions are present, as is the case here.

ESP’s approach to bluff retreat, considering impacts of sea level rise (approximately 6.6 feet out to the year 2097) was also evaluated. Their analysis in the Rate of Retreat section of the report is significantly flawed and should not have been accepted or approved by the City. In their evaluation, which established a retreat rate of

0.33 feet (4 inches) per year, ESP only considered historical retreat since 1975, when the Travis C. Logue, Esq. January 10, 2023

Page 10 ends

COTTON, SHIRES AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
reality is that the bluff was involved in large-scale landsliding as early as 1947 and retreated at a significantly higher rate (approximately 0.91 feet per year as noted above).

This is likely the reason why the USGS-CoSMoS historical retreat rate at the site was determined to be 0.91 feet (~11 inches) per year, nearly three times higher than the historical retreat determined by ESP. ESP dismissed determining retreat rates using information prior to 1975 for unfounded reasons (i.e., placement of fill, tree cover). ESP’s own geologic map for 2305/2215 Edgewater Way (Earth Systems, 2008) depicted the pre1938 top of bluff and current top of bluff showing a maximum retreat of 52.5 feet in a 70- year period, which results in an average rate of retreat of 0.75 feet (9 inches) per year. It is therefore unclear how an average rate of retreat less than half of that number was established for the 2315 Edgewater Way property immediately next door. As another point of reference, CSA performed a detailed analysis of bluff retreat along a 1-mile stretch of the Isla Vista Bluffs for the County of Santa Barbara in 2018-19. In that analysis, we determined an average short-term retreat rate (from 1998-2016 based on LiDAR-derived topography) of 0.57 feet (6.8 inches) per year. We also determined an average long-term retreat rate (from 1967 to 2016 based upon aerial photographs and LiDAR-derived topography) of 0.68 feet (7.5 inches) per year. This analysis involved coastal bluffs not affected by large-scale landsliding and in a bedrock formation similar to the Monterey Formation. ESP’s approach to calculating the bluff setback is in conflict with City policy in that the setback should include both slope stability setback and bluff retreat, not just bluff retreat.

ESP’s slope stability analyses were flawed in that they did not take groundwater into account even though the previous landslide events occurred during or following periods of heavy rainfall. Furthermore, ESP used cohesion for residual shear strength to evaluate recently active landslide conditions where significant movement along a shear surface breaks the bonds of cohesion leaving only frictional resistance to renewed landslide movement. Though in any case, because the geology was not properly characterized (as explained above), slope stability analyses were premature for the subject slope.

Conclusion
In conclusion, there are two major issues with the project, slope stability setback and bluff retreat rate setback and both have to be combined in the coastal zone as a matter of City policy (see attached City of Santa Barbara LCP Policy 5.1-70 Excerpt). The ESP report should not have been accepted by the City as being sufficient to evaluate slope stability and/or bluff retreat rates. The City should have retained a geotechnical peer reviewer at the time of application submittal, but apparently did not (unlike most municipalities up and down the coast). Therefore, for all of the reasons discussed above, it is our opinion that the 41.5-foot setback recommended by ESP should be much greater Travis C. Logue, Esq. January 10, 2023

Page 11 ends

COTTON, SHIRES AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
(similar to the 88-foot setback recommended for 2327 Edgewater Way) and should not have been accepted as a sufficient setback by the City for 2315 Edgewater Way.

Limitations
Our services consist of professional opinions and recommendations made in accordance with generally accepted engineering geology and geotechnical engineering principles and practices. No warranty, expressed or implied, or merchantability of fitness, is made or intended in connection with our work, by the proposal for consulting or other services, or by the furnishing of oral or written reports or findings.

We trust that this provides you with the information that you need at this time. If you have any questions, or need additional information, please contact us.

Respectfully submitted,
COTTON, SHIRES AND ASSOCIATES, INC.

Michael B. Phipps
Principal Engineering Geologist
CEG 1832
Patrick O. Shires
Senior Principal Civil and Geotechnical Engineer
GE 770
MP:POS:st
Attachments: Table of CSA Aerial Photograph Review
City of Santa Barbara LCP Policy 5.1-70 Excerpt
Figure 1 – Topographic and Hillshade Geologic Map
Figure 2 – Relative Age of Landslides Map
Figure 3 - 1953 Aerial Photograph Showing Recent Landslide Activity Figure 4 - CSA Annotated Earth Systems Pacific Cross Section A-A’ Travis C. Logue, Esq. January 10, 2023

Page 12 ends

COTTON, SHIRES AND ASSOCIATES, INC.

Table of CSA Aerial Photograph Review
Edgewater Aerials
Vertical Aerial Photograph Analysis
E6242 Edgewater
MP
Flight Frames Date Scale (1:<>) Notes
C-311C A-10, A-11 1928 18,000
Edgewater Lane undeveloped. Terrace surface incised west of Mohawk Road out to bluff. Shallow landsliding in bluff at this location.

Apparent structure (?) on 2305 Edgewater property at edge of bluff C-430 A-12, A-13 1929 24,000 No significant change from 1928.

C-4950 SF-72, SF-73 1938 24,000
Edgewater Lane undeveloped. Terrace surface incised by drainage west of Mohawk Road out to bluff. Shallow landsliding in bluff at thi location. Apparent structure on 2305 Edgewater property at edge of bluff
BTM-1943 4B-147, 4B-148 1943 20,000 Edgewater Lane built. Main house built on 2305 Edgewater. Grading (?) or landslide scar/scarp between main house and ancillary structure GS-EM_6 162, 163 1/1/1947 24,000
Small structure now present north side of 2307 Edgewater. Large scale landsliding in bluff south of 2305 and 2211 Edgewater. Failure onto beach.

CC 1-45, 1-46, 1-47 11/18/1953 4,800
Major landslide has expanded south of 2305, 2215 and 2211 Edgewater. Failure onto beach (topography bowed concave south at toe). Small structure on 2315 Edgewater (square foundation?) BTM-1954 7K-67, 7K-66 2/25/1954 20,000 Similar conditions to 1953 photo except landslide bulging further onto beach (still active)
CM 1-66, 1-67, 1-68 5/4/1954 14,400 No significant change from 2/25/54 HA-AN 1-7, 1-8, 1-9 2/17/1956 9,600
Major grading evident in landslide area, accessed from
Edgewater/Mohawk corner. Large cut south of 2305 Edgewater main house. New residence now present on 2211 Edgewater. Pad graded for 2317 Edgewater.

BTM-1961 7BB-89, 7BB-90 7/5/1961 20,000 Poor quality photos HB-IU 239, 240 10/18/1966 12,000 New reactivated lobe further south of 2305 Edgewater (and spanning 2215 and 2211 P/L's). Appears to be failing southeast.

HB-JW 121, 122 1/25/1967 6,000 Dark photos, cannot see much.

HB-QD 109, 110 10/30/1969 12,000 More movement of 1966 reactivation (fresh scarp). New structures built on 2315 Edgewater
HB-WL 239, 240 8/23/1973 12,000 Ground disturbed south of 2315 Edgewater main residence (grading? Improvements?)
NOS-76-BC 3402 3/1/1976 15,000 Major recent landslide in bluff area south of 2317, 2315 and 2305 Edgewater residences. Failed south-southeast
NAPP-2C 6927-169, 6927-170 9/4/1994 40,000 High altitude low resolution photos. Poor.

CCC-BQK-C 72-2, 72-3 5/30/2001 12,000 Moderate resolution color photos. Brush cleared in past landslide area on 2305 Edgewater
Travis C. Logue, Esq. January 10, 2023

Page 13 ends

COTTON, SHIRES AND ASSOCIATES, INC.

City of Santa Barbara LCP Policy 5.1-70 Excerpt
Certified August, 2019

5.1 COASTAL HAZARDS | 65
E. Any Coastal Development Permit application requiring determinations outlined above as to inaccuracies of Figure 5.1-2 Coastal Bluff Edge and alternate coastal bluff edge locations shall include a detailed site-specific topographic survey, prepared by a licensed land surveyor, that includes representative cross sections and a figure showing changes in the slope angle of the coastal bluff.

Peer review by a technical specialist chosen by the City, and paid for by the applicant, may be required.

F. Planning Commission (or City Council or the California Coastal Commission on appeal) shall make all determinations regarding coastal bluff edge to be used in the interpretation of the policies of this Coastal LUP as part of the Coastal Development Permit process.

Policy 5.1-70 Coastal Bluff Edge Development Buffer Calculation. The methodology to be used by California licensed Geotechnical Engineers or Certified Engineering Geologists for analyzing site-specific Coastal Bluff Edge Development Buffer is described below:

Step 1. Identify the coastal bluff edge consistent with Policy 5.1-69 Location of Coastal Bluff Edge.

Step 2. Determine a “slope stability buffer.” Evaluate the stability of points along the coastal bluff edge. If a screening-level analysis of the top of the coastal bluff shows a potential for slope instability, then a detailed field investigation and quantitative slope stability analysis shall be conducted to establish a “slope stability buffer.” The slope stability buffer is the area landward of the coastal bluff edge line where the minimum factor of safety (1.5 static and 1.1 pseudostatic) cannot be met. When determining the slope stability buffer, the minimum factor of safety is analyzed without the use of existing or new slope stabilization or shoreline protection devices, except for existing major public shoreline protection and flood protection devices (breakwater and other protection devices for the Harbor, Laguna Channel Tide Gate, and Pump Station Facility, etc).

Step 3. Determine the “coastal bluff erosion buffer.” A site-specific evaluation of the long-term coastal bluff retreat rate at the site shall be conducted that considers not only historical coastal bluff retreat data, but also acceleration of coastal bluff retreat caused by sea level rise and any known site-specific conditions. Such an evaluation shall be used to determine the distance from the coastal bluff edge line (or from the slope stability buffer line, if applicable) that the coastal bluff might reasonably be expected to erode over the expected life of the principal structure (assumed to be 75 years for single-unit residences and commercial

CITY OF SANTA BARBARA
structures; otherwise determined on a case-by-case basis for public infrastructure), factoring in the effects of sea level rise, and without the use of existing and new slope stabilization or shoreline protection devices, except for existing major public shoreline protection and flood protection devices (breakwater and other protection devices for the Harbor, Laguna Channel Tide Gate, and Pump Station Facility, etc).

Historic erosion rates can be determined by examination of historic records, surveys, aerial photographs, studies, or other evidence showing the location of the bluff edge through time. A minimum of 50 years’ worth of historic data is generally used to evaluate historic erosion rates.

Step 4. Determine the Coastal Bluff Edge Development Buffer.

Development shall be setback from the coastal bluff edge the distance needed to: ensure slope stability (the slope stability buffer), ensure the development is not endangered by erosion (the coastal bluff erosion buffer), and to avoid the need for existing and new slope and shoreline protective devices over the expected life of the structure.

Note: Modifications to the prescribed buffer methodology may be approved by a City Environmental Analyst to reflect updated guidance on sea level rise as it becomes available.

Policy 5.1-71 Historic Coastal Bluff Edge. The line depicted on Figure 5.1-2 Coastal Bluff Edge as “Historic Coastal Bluff Edge” east of Shoreline Park and west of Pershing Park is a historic coastal bluff edge that meets the California Code of Regulations Section 13577(h)(1) definition of coastal bluff that is used to establish the appeal jurisdiction for Coastal Development Permits and to determine whether projects are exempt from obtaining Coastal Development Permits. This definition of coastal bluff includes bluffs that historically (generally within the last 200 years) have been subject to 25 50
75 100
125
Edgewater Way
Edgewater Way
Mohawk Rd
Palisades Dr
2321
2317
2315
2327
2325
25 50
75 100
125
18 78
24 33
30 27
29 59
27 ?
Tm
Tm
Qbd
Qt
Qt
Qbd
Landslide debris exposed
at base of bluff
(undermined 1-3 ft.
by wave action)
Slide plane
exposed over
Tm
Tm outcrops in
surf zone
2307
2305 2215
2211
2201 2111
Estimated pre-landslide
top of bluff
B-1 TP-1
TP-2
TP-3 B-2
B-3
34 32
50 B-1
14 X'
X HA-1 HA-2
BA-1
TP-1 TP-2
A
32 31
36 38
A'
(altered by grading)
Current top of bluff at
2315 Edgewater Way
Qls
Qls
21 28
Tm 30
Qbd
Qls
Qls
Qls
COTTON, SHIRES AND ASSOCIATES, INC.

CONSULTING ENGINEERS AND GEOLOGISTS
E6462
POS
MP
December 2022
1"=40'
FIGURE NO.

PROJECT NO.

DATE
SCALE

APPROVED BY

GEO/ENG BY
1 North

SANTA BARBARA, CALIFORNIA
2315 Edgewater Way
0 20 40 80
(feet)
Notes: Base map compiled from publicly available LiDAR data (2018 USGS Lidar: Southern CA Wildfires) collected between June 13, 2018 and August 6, 2018. Elevation datum TOPOGRAPHIC AND HILLSHADE GEOLOGIC MAP is NAVD88. 1. This is not a map of a boundary survey. No property corners have been set as part of this work.

2. Survey monuments found in the course of this mapping are set by others, and have been used only as a reference for the purpose of topographic mapping, without ourverification of their agreement with applicable legal descriptions and seniority of deeds.

3. Relation of topographic features (i.e., fences, walls, trees, power poles, etc.) to property lines as shown on this map is subject to the adjustments that a boundary survey may require.

4. This survey was prepared without the benefit of a Title Report. Easements, if any, are not shown on this map.

5. If this map is provided in an electronic format as a courtesy to client, delivery of the electronic file does not constitute delivery of a professional work product. The signed paper print delivered with this electronic file constitutes our professional work product and, in the event the electronic file is altered, the print must be referred to for the original and correct survey information. We shall not be responsible for any modifications made to the electronic file or for any products derived from the electronic file which are not reviewed, signed and sealed by us.
125' Major Contour Line
Major Contour Interval =25'Minor Contour LineMinor Contour Interval = 5' CSA mapped landslide with
headscarp

EXPLANATION
Earth Materials
Tm
Qt
Qbd
Terrace DepositsMonterey Formation bedrock
Beach Sand Deposits
Map Symbols
Qls Landslide Deposit
34 CSA bedding attitude
3434
Earth Systems beddingattitude
Simmons bedding attitudeSimmons axis of anticline fold
X'
X'
CSA axis of anticline fold
Simmons geologic cross
section
A
A'
Earth Systems geologic crosssection
TP-3
B-3
B-1
HA-2BA-1
Earth Systems boringEarth Systems hand auger
boring
Earth Systems bucket auger
boring
Earth Systems test pit
Simmons boring
January 2023
1” = 100’
25 50
75 100
125
Edgewater Way
2317
25 50
75 100
125
2305 2215
2211
2201 2111
1956 Cut
Ramp
1953 toe
2315
COTTON, SHIRES AND ASSOCIATES, INC.

CONSULTING ENGINEERS AND GEOLOGISTS
E6462
POS
MP
January 2023
1"=50'
FIGURE NO.

PROJECT NO.

DATE
SCALE

APPROVED BY

GEO/ENG BY
2 North

SANTA BARBARA, CALIFORNIA
2315 Edgewater Way
0 25 50 100
(feet)
RELATIVE AGE OF LANDSLIDES MAP Notes: Base map compiled from publicly available LiDAR data (2018 USGS Lidar: Southern CA Wildfires) collected between June 13, 2018 and August 6, 2018. Elevation datum is NAVD88. Contour interval is 5 feet.

1. This is not a map of a boundary survey. No property corners have been set as part of this work.

2. Survey monuments found in the course of this mapping are set by others, and have been used only as a reference for the purpose of topographic mapping, without our verification of their agreement with applicable legal descriptions and seniority of deeds.

3. Relation of topographic features (i.e., fences, walls, trees, power poles, etc.) to property lines as shown on this map is subject to the adjustments that a boundary survey may require.

4. This survey was prepared without the benefit of a Title Report. Easements, if any, are not shown on this map.

5. If this map is provided in an electronic format as a courtesy to client, delivery of the electronic file does not constitute delivery of a professional work product. The signed paper print delivered with this electronic file constitutes our professional work product and, in the event the electronic file is altered, the print must be referred to for the original and correct survey information. We shall not be responsible for any modifications made to the electronic file or for any products derived from the electronic file which are not reviewed, signed and sealed by us.

Relative Age of Landslides
1976
1966
1947 - 1953

GEOLOGIC UNITS
Tm Monterey Formation
Af Artificial Fill
Holocene
Tertiary
Pleistocene Qt Marine Terrace Deposits
Qls Landslide Deposits
Elevation (Feet)
Horizontal Distance (Feet)
80 0
-40
0 40
80 A A
-80
-120
120 160
Tm
120
160
200 240 280
Elevation (Feet)
Tm
Tm
Af
Qls
Geologic contact, approximate
40 40
0 Horizontal = Vertical
1 Inch = 40 Feet
Scale in feet
LEGEND
July 2021 304467-001
2315 Edgewater Water Way
Santa Barbara, California

SECTION A
Bedding, apparent dip shown;
represents average attitude for
bedding intervals
.OTE!VERAGEBEDDINGATTITUDESMEASUREDONTHEBEACHANDTHESEACLIFF AND
IN40
AND40
AREINDICATEDATTHEIRREPRESENTATIVELOCACTIONSANDINFERRED TOREPRESENTCONDITIONSIN3ECTION!
Tm
Tm
T.D. = 41.0 ft.

Seepage @ 30’
Tm (?)
%ARTH3YSTEMS
T.D. = 9.25 ft.

Existing Residence
Northern Property Line
TP-1TP-2 BA-1
N5E
Southern Property Line
Apparent dip = 22 degrees
Apparent dip = 35 degrees
Apparent dip = 27 degrees
N56W/30SW avg
N67W/37SW avg
N79E/23SW avg
-40
0 40
80 -80
-120
120
160
HA-2
Item III.A. Page 83 of 168

80 Long Court, Suite #2A, Thousand Oaks, CA 91360 Page 1 of 7 Date: December 19, 2022
GDI #: 22.00130.0078
Mr. Travis C. Logue
Rogers, Sheffield & Campbell, LLP
150 E. Carrillo Street | Santa Barbara, CA 93101
t 805.963.9721 f 805.963.2323
Subject: Geotechnical Third-Party Peer Review, Proposed Development at The Site Located at 2315 Edgewater Way, City of Santa Barbara, California.

Geotechnical Reports: Earth Systems Pacific (2021), “Engineering Geology and Geotechnical Engineering Report, Proposed Residential Construction, 2315 Edgewater Way, Santa Barbara, California,” Project No.: 304467-001, dated July 20, 2021.

Additional Reports & See attached list.

References:

Plans: Architectural Plans by Blackbird Architects (2022), “Edgewater Residence, 2315 Edgewater Way, Santa Barbara, Sheets 1-21,” PLN2021-00584, Planning Submittal July 15, 2022.

INTRODUCTION
At your request and authorization, GeoDynamics, Inc. (GDI) is pleased to provide you with our third-party review of geotechnical documents referenced above and in the attached list of references regarding the proposed development at the site located at 2315 Edgewater Way in the City of Santa Barbara, California.

The main focus of this review is related to factors considered in formulating recommendations for setback from the top of a bluff under the prevailing geotechnical and environmental conditions, and conformance of the recommended setback with applicable codes, guidelines, and standards of practice.

GeoDynamics, Inc. (GDI) is a geotechnical firm specializing in providing geotechnical peer-review services for municipal clients. We are currently serving as the geotechnical/geologic and coastal engineering reviewers for nine cities and counties in Southern California including the County of Santa Barbara and the City of Malibu. The undersigned reviewers have combined almost 120 years of working experience, and all have graduate degrees in our fields of practice.

BRIEF PROJECT BACKGROUND
The property at 2315 Edgewater Way includes 22,651 square feet currently occupied by a two-story singlefamily residence with an attached car garage. The proposed development includes demolishing the existing residence and attached garage, and constructing a new 3,285-square-foot, two-story, single-family residence with an attached 730-square-foot, two-car garage, a 600-square-foot basement, a 625-squarefoot attached Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU), and a swimming pool. Other proposed improvements include exterior hardscape and drought-resistant landscaping.

The project site is bounded to the north by Edgewater Way, residential lots to the west and east; and on the south by a slope that descends to the beach over a vertical distance of about 120 feet. Based on a review of the above-referenced report by the Project Geotechnical Consultant, Earth System Pacific (ESP; consultant), the site is underlain by Marine Terrace deposits to a depth of about 10 feet below existing grade, followed by bedrock of the Modelo Formation. A thin veneer of artificial fill is present in some areas (vicinity of BA-1). ESP indicates in the July 20, 2021, report that “The descending sea cliff slope was subvertical and mostly vegetated with few barren areas. A prominent lineation was expressed as a topographic step down to the south, and this feature traverses the site which is likely a buried sea cliff. The buried sea cliff daylights near or on the subject property at the top of bluff.” According to ESP (2021), a “translational landslide” took place in the early 1950s on the slope descending from the blufftop. As described by ESP, City of Santa Barbara GDI # 22.00130.0078
2315 Edgewater Way
80 Long Court, Suite #2A, Thousand Oaks, CA 91360 Page 2 of 7 “part of the head scarp extended to the southeast portion of the subject slope.” Apparently, the slide experienced additional movement in 1967, 1969, and 1975. Further, ESP reports that “Runoff related erosion was observed on the slope face in the 1990’s and a small slide occurred on the lower part of the slope along the west property line. Runoff related erosion has repeatedly occurred in the lower part of the slope along the west property line in the 2000’s. (ESP 2021).” Groundwater was not encountered in the drilled borings or excavation pits during the subsurface investigation at the site. But the consultant appropriately indicates that “fluctuation in groundwater levels may occur because of variations in rainfall, regional climate, and other factors. (ESP 2021).”

SCOPE OF WORK
The scope of geotechnical activities performed for the preparation of this letter includes  Search our files for pertinent geotechnical data/information (see attached list of references);  Review documents you provided us with including:
a) City of Santa Barbara, Planning Commission Staff Report dated September 29, 2022. Attachments to this document include:
1) Earth Systems Pacific (2021), “Engineering Geology and Geotechnical Engineering Report, Proposed Residential Construction, 2315 Edgewater Way, Santa Barbara, California,” Project No.: 304467-001, dated July 20, 2021;
2) Earth Systems Pacific (2022), “Addendum to the Engineering Geology and Geotechnical Engineering Report, 2315 Edgewater Way, Santa Barbara, California,” Project No.: 304467- 001, dated March 11, 2022 (Revised July 11, 2022).
b) California Coastal Commission (2019), “Notice of Appeal Period, Application No. 4-SBC-19-1441, 2327 Edgewater Way, Santa Barbara, CA 93109 (APN(s): 041-350-007),” dated September 13, 2019. Attachments to this document include:
1) Adam Simmons – Consulting Geologist (2019), “Updated Preliminary Geologic Investigation, Hack Residential Project, 2327 Edgewater Way, Santa Barbara, California,” dated May 8, 2019.
2) Braun & Associates, Inc. (2017), “Slope Stability Analysis, 2327 Edgewater Drive, Santa Barbara, CA,” dated August 2, 2017.
3) GSI Soils, Inc. (2016), “Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Addition & Garage, 2327 Edgewater Way, Santa Barbara, California,” Project 16-7354, dated April 6, 2016. c) Architectural Plans by Blackbird Architects (2022), “Edgewater Residence, 2315 Edgewater Way, Santa Barbara, Sheets 1-21,” PLN2021-00584, Planning Submittal July 15, 2022. d) Cotton Shires & Associates, Inc. (2022), “Geotechnical Peer Review of Proposed Development, 2315 Edgewater Way, Santa Barbara, California,” E6462, dated November 29, 2022.  Provide you with this review letter that includes our findings; All aspects of the work were performed by, or under the direct supervision of, a State of California registered geotechnical engineer and certified engineering geologist.

DISCUSSION OF FINDINGS
General
Proposed developments on coastal bluffs need to be setback from the tops of bluffs to accommodate the natural retreat of the bluff over time. The amount of setback required is established considering two primary factors: 1) the static and seismic stability of the slope in the current configuration, and 2) bluff face erosion/retreat that takes place over time due to environmental factors (example: rain, wind, wave action, etc.). Bluff retreat rate is exacerbated by potential rises in sea level. A discussion of these factors as they relate to the project under consideration is provided below.

City of Santa Barbara GDI # 22.00130.0078
2315 Edgewater Way
80 Long Court, Suite #2A, Thousand Oaks, CA 91360 Page 3 of 7 Slope Stability
The City of Santa Barbara requires that slopes that would affect the proposed development should be evaluated and have factors of safety of 1.5 and 1.1 under static and pseudo-static loading conditions, respectively (Coastal LUP Policy 5.1-23, part A-iii). ESP performed slope stability analyses and indicated that the existing bluff slope has the required factors of safety. However, based on our review, we noted the following shortcomings and concerns regarding the ESP slope stability analyses that would render the conclusions provided by ESP regarding the stability of the bluff slope deficient:

1. ESP utilized peak shear strength parameters in both static and pseudo-static slope stability analyses.

Ultimate shear strength should be used for static slope stability analyses.

2. ESP advanced one boring at the site to a total depth of 41.5 feet using a 24-inch-diameter flight auger.

Relatively undisturbed ring samples were obtained at 5-foot intervals. This method of exploration provides no continuous record of the materials encountered, and no downhole logging was performed in the on-site boring to log the soil/bedrock profile and obtain detailed and complete information regarding the type, structure, and variations in the soil/bedrock profile. Hence, no information regarding the soil/bedrock profile between samples was obtained. Additionally, information critical to the stability of the slope such as the presence, depth, attitude/dip angle, and type of materials along bedding was not obtained. Notwithstanding these critical limitations, given the understanding of subsurface structure presented on ESA Section A, the location of BA-1 would not be expected to reveal useful information (at-depth material type, groundwater, .etc.) regarding the stratigraphic section below the bluff critical to the translational slope stability analysis

3. ESP does not recognize folding in the surf zone described by CSA in their report dated November 29, 2022. As mapped by CSA, this folding projects beneath the failed slope and may significantly complicate the otherwise fairly straightforward geologic interpretation presented on ESP Section A.

Further, ESP Section A does not appear to adequately incorporate data from a boring that was logged downhole by ESP on the property at 2305 Edgewater Way.

4. No data regarding groundwater conditions and geologic structure or strength of materials within the entire zone critical to the analyses was obtained. Therefore, the slope stability analyses performed by the consultant do not cover all potential failure scenarios that could occur at the site, and are considered incomplete.

5. The residual shear strengths used for along-bedding materials in the slope stability analyses of c=0 and ϕ=34 degrees appears to be high and not representative of the weakest materials that were encountered in the drilled boring or could potentially be present at greater depth. These weaker materials usually control the stability of the slope. The along-bedding shear strength values used in the slope stability analyses were obtained from an investigation by ESP at 2305 Edgewater Way, located to the east of the subject site. The sample tested for residual strength from the adjacent site was obtained from Boring BA-2 at 10 feet. The tested sample was described in the laboratory as “very fine sandy clayey silt”. But at 14.5 feet in that boring (BA-2), a 4” thick, soft to medium stiff clay seam was encountered. This clay seam would be expected to exhibit a lower residual strength than the material described at 10 feet. Other weaker clayey seams could reasonably be assumed to be present but not logged or sampled by the consultant due to the method of sampling, lack of downhole logging, and limited depth of subsurface exploration at the site. Hence, it seems highly likely that the sample tested for residual strength does not represent the weakest along-bedding materials that could be present. This is critical for evaluating the stability of the slope and determining the safety factors of the slope. Weaker bedding planes could easily result in significantly lower factors of safety than what was calculated by ESP.

6. Material strength testing appears to have been limited to the use of direct shear testing. Using the direct shear test to evaluate residual strengths may misrepresent the actual residual strength of alongbedding materials for several reasons including: a) The undisturbed ring samples are driven vertically in a borehole. The bedding planes at the site are inclined at an angle relative to the vertical direction.

The sample in the direct shear test is sheared horizontally. As a result it is generally not possible to shear a sample in a direction parallel to the bedding surface, and this could result in shear strengths significantly higher than appropriate; b) Establishing the residual shear strength of bedding materials is particularly challenging, even when a sample of the bedding plane is obtained and remolded in a ring City of Santa Barbara GDI # 22.00130.0078
2315 Edgewater Way
80 Long Court, Suite #2A, Thousand Oaks, CA 91360 Page 4 of 7 because of the shortcomings associated with using direct shear machine in establishing the residual shear strength of earth materials (see Watry and Lade, 2000). Generally, the direct shear test tends to give higher residual shear strengths than the actual shear strength of materials (Watry and Lade, 2000).

Because of these limitations and shortcomings of the direct shear test, it is recommended to check and augment the residual direct shear testing with correlations (Stark & McCone, 2001), or back-calculated residual shear strengths from available landslides that occurred within close proximity to the site under investigation. None of these “double-checks” of the direct shear results was considered by ESP.

7. The consultant performed repeated shears for residual strength at a shearing rate of 0.018 in/min.

Considering the type of tested materials, this rate of shearing appears to be significantly higher than what would be recommended by ASTM 3080 “Standard Test Method for Direct Shear Test of Soils Under Consolidated Drained Conditions.” As per ASTM 3080, for highly over-consolidated materials like bedrock, a rate of shearing of 0.003 in/min or slower is expected to be used. The rate of shearing could have a significant impact on the test results. The residual strength of a tested sample could increase with increasing the rate of shearing (Habibbeygi and Nikraz 2018). In addition, high rate of shearing may not allow pore water pressure to dissipate, which could result in a higher shear strength used for the long-term slope stability analyses.

8. ESP performed slope stability analyses and concluded that the existing landslide materials on the face of the bluff slope are potentially unstable and have less than the minimum requirements for factors of safety. This indicates that the landslide debris is highly susceptible to erosion and sloughing. With that being the case, ESP should have accounted for variations in the slope configuration in translational slope stability analyses. Changes in configuration due to rapid erosion at the toe of the landslide could result in shorter “kick-out” paths for potential sliding planes along bedding materials. These would result in lower factors of safety. In simpler terms, one should assume that landslide debris at the toe of the slope is no longer present when evaluating the long-term slope stability of the slope.

Rate of Bluff Retreat and Sea Level Rise
Bluff slope configurations change over time due to several factors including erosion, sloughing and wave action. The City of Santa Barbara LCP LUP, certified August 2019, requires that slopes that could affect a proposed development should have the minimum required factors of safety under static and pseudo-static loading conditions (Policy 5.1-23 Slope Stabilization and Protection, and Policy 5.1-70 Coastal Bluff Edge Development Buffer Calculation). This requirement should be maintained during the life span of the project.

ESP estimated the historical rate of bluff retreat based on aerial photos and survey data for the period from 1975 to 2021 and obtained a bluff retreat of about 15 feet over 75 years period (4 inches per year). When accounting for sea level rise, ESP estimates the bluff retreat at 41.4 feet (6.6 inches per year) by multiplying the historical rate of retreat by a factor that increases over time derived from the increase in sea level rise.

As noted previously, numerous failures occurred on the slope prior to 1975. Although ESP states that these earlier failures could not be considered because the bluff top had been altered and was not clearly visible due to tree cover, it is possible that consideration of these earlier failures would have contributed to a higher estimated rate of historical retreat.

Cotton Shires & Associates (CSA) offers no commentary on sea level rise utilized by ESP to evaluate projected bluff retreat. The 6.6 feet of projected sea level rise utilized by ESP accurately represents the increase for the project period (as presented in Table G-8 “Projected Sea Level Rise, Santa Barbara” of the California Coastal Commission 2018 Sea Level Rise Guidance, and the City’s Sea Level Rise Adaptation Plan, adopted 2021). The risk aversion scenario, rate and total amount of sea level rise is appropriate for the type of development. However, ESP’s baseline historical rate of bluff retreat, to which they apply a sea level rise multiplier to estimate future retreat, appears to be low.

The CoSMoS model (Our Coast Our Future) referenced by the California Coastal Commission Sea Level Rise Guidance (2018) also evaluates historical retreat rates and models future bluff retreat rate (average, with an uncertainty) at specific points along the California coast for each interval of sea level rise. The CoSMoS model historical retreat rate is in part derived regionally but modeled locally and then used for future projections. The purpose behind ESP’s site-specific historical retreat rate evaluation was to provide a rate that may be more locally representative than the CoSMoS model. However, the two CoSMoS model points adjacent to the site have historical retreat rates of about 11 inches per year. This is close to the site- City of Santa Barbara GDI # 22.00130.0078
2315 Edgewater Way
80 Long Court, Suite #2A, Thousand Oaks, CA 91360 Page 5 of 7 specific historical retreat rate of 11 inches per year derived by CSA, which spans a longer period and includes episodic slope failure as well as gradual erosion. A previous study for the site conducted by Rick Hoffman (1986), indicates the historical bluff retreat rate to be on average between 4 to 8 inches per year, and as much as 10 inches per year. The City of Santa Barbara’s online Interactive Hazard Maps (https://santabarbaraca.gov/interactive-slr-hazard-maps), also provide a larger projected cliff retreat, indicating the limits of bluff retreat to be further north than ESP’s, within the existing home footprint during the project life ( 6.6 feet of sea level rise by the year 2100).

ESP’s site-specific historical retreat rate represents a shorter period of time and is almost three times lower than either CSA’s or the CoSMoS model, and is at the low end of the Hoffman site-specific study. This affects ESP’s future bluff retreat estimates, as future retreat is estimated by multiplying historical retreat rate by a factor representing increased retreat due to sea level rise. Therefore, if the historical retreat rate is low or inaccurate, the future bluff retreat rate due to sea level rise, and any resulting bluff edge development buffer, will also be low. Based on the difference in site-specific historical retreat rates, the ESP bluff edge development buffer is too low by almost a factor of three.

CONCLUSION

1. The stability of the bluff slope has not been established, therefore neither has the appropriate bluff edge development buffer in accordance with LUP Policy 5.1-70 Coastal Bluff Edge Development Buffer Calculation. Geologic data critical to the stability of the slope were not obtained. Shear strength parameters, particularly the residual shear strength, used in slope stability analyses does not seem to represent the weakest along bedding materials that were encountered and noted at the site and surrounding areas. The type (direct shear test) and rate of testing method used does not seem to be appropriate for establishing the residual shear strength of materials along bedding planes, which resulted in higher-than-expected factors of safety for slope stability. Surficial slope stability analyses should be performed and the rapid erosion rate of landslide debris on the face of slope should be accounted for in the long-term slope stability analyses. These significant shortcomings lead to the conclusions that the proposed development does not conform to the Coastal Act Section 30253 (Minimization of adverse impacts). Therefore, the conclusions provided by ESP regarding bluff slope stability does not conform to the City of Santa Barbara building code and guidelines. Additional subsurface exploration, laboratory testing and slope stability analyses appear to be warranted to further evaluate the stability of the bluff slope and determine the potential sliding planes with the required minimum factors of safety.

2. A higher bluff retreat rate that accounts for all available historical data should have been considered in establishing the bluff edge development buffer. The consultant should determine the potential sliding plane with minimum required factors of safety (static and pseudo-static) and plot these planes on the section. Bluff setbacks need to be measured from the point where potential sliding planes with minimum factors of safety intersect the pad grade, and then add the setback due to bluff retreat to establish bluff setback (bluff edge development buffer). The Coastal Commission Memorandum of January 16, 2003, and policies within the City of Santa Barbara Local Coastal Program Coastal Land Use Plan, certified August 2019, specifies that a bluff edge development buffer should be provided in addition to the distance required to obtain the prerequisite factors of safety (1.5 and 1.1 for static and pseudo-static loading conditions, respectively). With that being the case, the conclusion by ESP regarding the bluff edge development buffer does not conform to the applicable requirements of the City of Santa Barbara.

If you have any questions regarding this review letter, please contact GDI at (805) 496-1222.

City of Santa Barbara GDI # 22.00130.0078
2315 Edgewater Way
80 Long Court, Suite #2A, Thousand Oaks, CA 91360 Page 6 of 7 Respectfully Submitted,
GeoDynamics, Inc.

Ali Abdel-Haq Christopher J. Sexton
Geotechnical Engineering Reviewer Engineering Geology Reviewer GE 2308 (exp. 12/31/23) CEG 1441 (exp 11/30/24)
[email protected] [email protected]
Lauren J. Doyel
Coastal Engineering Reviewer
GE 2981 (exp. 6/30/23)
[email protected]

City of Santa Barbara GDI # 22.00130.0078
2315 Edgewater Way
80 Long Court, Suite #2A, Thousand Oaks, CA 91360 Page 7 of 7

REFERENCES
Adam Simmons – Consulting Geologist (2019), “Updated Preliminary Geologic Investigation, Hack Residential Project, 2327 Edgewater Way, Santa Barbara, California,” dated May 8, 2019.Braun & Associates, Inc. (2017), “Slope Stability Analysis, 2327 Edgewater Drive, Santa Barbara, CA,” dated August 2, 2017.

California Coastal Commission (2018), “Sea Level Rise Policy Guidance: Interpretive Guidelines for Addressing Sea Level Rise in Local Coastal Programs and Coastal Development Permits,” adopted November 7, 2018.
https://documents.coastal.ca.gov/assets/slr/guidance/2018/0_Full_2018AdoptedSLRGuidanceUpdate.pdf California Coastal Commission (2019), “Notice of Appeal Period, Application No. 4-SBC-19-1441, 2327 Edgewater Way, Santa Barbara, CA 93109 (APN(s): 041-350-007),” dated September 13, 2019.

City of Santa Barbara, (2019), “Local Coastal Program, Coastal Land Use”, Chapter 5.1 (Coastal Hazards), Certified August, 2019.

City of Santa Barbara, (2021), “City of Santa Barbara Sea Level Rise Adaptation Plan,” prepared by ESA, AECOM and Campbell Geo Inc., adopted by City Council February 2, 2021. https://santabarbaraca.gov/sea-level-rise-adaptation-plan-and-vulnerability-assessment Damanhuri Jamalludin, Azura Ahmad1, Mohd Mustaqim Mohd Nordin1, Mohamad Zain Hashim1, Anas Ibrahim, and Fauziah Ahmad (2017) “To Determine the Slow Shearing Rate for Consolidation Drained Shear Box Tests,” AIP Conference Proceedings 1875, 030010 (2017).

Earth Systems Pacific (2021), “Engineering Geology and Geotechnical Engineering Report, Proposed Residential Construction, 2315 Edgewater Way, Santa Barbara, California,” Project No.: 304467-001, dated July 20, 2021.

Earth Systems Pacific (2022), “Addendum to the Engineering Geology and Geotechnical Engineering Report, 2315 Edgewater Way, Santa Barbara, California,” Project No.: 304467-001, dated March 11, 2022 (Revised July 11, 2022).

Farzad Habibbeygi and Hamid Nikraz (2018) “Effect of A shear rate on Residual Shear Strength of PreSheared Clays,” Cogent Geoscience, dated March 20, 2018.

GSI Soils, Inc. (2016), “Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Addition & Garage, 2327 Edgewater Way, Santa Barbara, California,” Project 16-7354, dated April 6, 2016.

Hoffman, Rick, (1986) “Preliminary Sea Cliff Stability Study, Existing Single-Family Residence, 2315 Edgewater Way, Santa Barbara, California,” dated March 19, 1986.

Our Coast Our Future (2021) Hazard Map and Science and Modeling. Online platform for data visualization, synthesis, and download of all output products from the USGS Coastal Storm Modeling System (CoSMoS). https://ourcoastourfuture.org/ main page and supporting model and data download pages at https://ourcoastourfuture.org/hazard-map/ and https://ourcoastourfuture.org/science-and-modeling/.

Pacific Coastal and Marine Science Center of the USGS, (2021), “Coastal Storm Modeling System (CoSMoS)” updated November 21, 2021. Main page https://www.usgs.gov/centers/pcmsc/science/coastalstorm-modeling-system-cosmos; and regional model components “CoSMoS 3.0: Southern California” https://www.usgs.gov/centers/pcmsc/science/cosmos-30-southern-california, updated July 26, 2019.

Stark, T. D. and McCone, D. S., (2002), “Drained Residual and Fully Softened Shear Strength for Slope Stability Analyses,” Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE, Submitted for Publication.

Southern California Earthquake Center (1999), “Recommended Procedures for Implementation of DMG Special Publication 117, Guidelines for Analyzing and Mitigating Liquefaction Hazards in California,” Martin, G. R. and Lew, M. Co-Chairs and Editors, University of Southern California, March 1999.

Watry, S. M. and Lade, P. V. (2000), “Residual Shear Strengths of Bentonites on Palos Verdes Peninsula, California, Slope Stability 2000,” Proceedings at Geo-Denver 2000, Geo-Institute of ASCE, Griffith, D. V, Fenton, G. A., and Martin, T. R. editors, Denver Colorado, August 5 – 8, 2000, pp. 323-342.

← All documents from this meeting