Agenda packet, first session — Santa Barbara City Council, July 28, 2026 (part 3 of 3)

2: Planning Commission Meeting Minutes; Attachment 3: Planning Commission Resolution #004-26).

The appeal by Alexandra Hack was timely filed and asserts that Planning Commission’s approval was not supported by evidence that the project complies with applicable development standards, as described below (Attachment 4: Appellant’s Letter).

1. The Maximum Net Floor Area (Floor to Lot Area Ratio) was calculated using incorrect net lot area, by not accounting for the lot area lost by the Lot Line Adjustment in 2024.

2. The Maximum Net Floor Area (Floor to Lot Area Ratio) was calculated using an incorrect average slope of 25 percent, rather than 31 percent average slope.

3. A Net Floor Area (Floor to Lot Area Ratio) Modification should have been required for grading over 500 cubic yards outside the main building footprint when the development is over 17 feet in height.

4. A Setback Modification should have been required for encroachments in the eastern interior setback.

5. SFDB Concept Review comments remain unresolved regarding Floor to Lot Area Ratio (FAR), an easterly second-floor deck, and plate heights.

6. The utility pole relocation was omitted from the CDP conditions of approval.

7. Fire Department access comments remain unresolved.

8. The proposed building height is stated differently in three locations.

The appeal issues, discussed below, have been divided into the following categories: Maximum Net Floor Area (Floor to Lot Area Ratio), Setback Encroachments, Single Family Design Board Review, Utility Pole Relocation, Fire Access, and Height.

Discussion of Appeal Issues
Maximum Net Floor Area (Floor to Lot Area Ratio)
Santa Barbara Municipal Code (SBMC) §28.15.083, Maximum Net Floor Area (Floor to Lot Area Ratio), commonly referred to as FAR requirements, limits the floor area of a new residence; however, this code section only applies to lots that have a net lot area of less than 15,000 square feet. The intention of these regulations was to ensure that residences on smaller lots (less than 15,000 square feet) are appropriately proportional to their lot size.

The net lot area of the subject site is 31,461 square feet, which accounts for the lot area that was transferred from the subject property to the neighboring property through a lot line Council Agenda Report
Appeal of the Planning Commission’s Approval of a Coastal Development Permit for Residential Development at 2339 Edgewater Way [Resolution]

Page 3 ends

adjustment in 2024. Even with this reduced lot area, the FAR requirements do not apply to the project because the lot exceeds 15,000 square feet.

The Single Family Design Board (SFDB) often uses the floor-to-lot-area ratio as a guideline on lots greater than 15,000 square feet when making applicable compatibility findings related to size, bulk, scale, and overall appropriateness of the design, but a reduction in floor area is not required to meet zoning requirements. Staff and the SFDB refer to the ratio as a “guideline FAR” to distinguish that the maximum floor-to-lot-area ratio is not required by zoning.

Net Lot Area
The lot area of the subject site is 31,461 square feet, the average slope is 31 percent, the proposed net floor area is 4,730 square feet, and the Guideline FAR is 98 percent.

Average Slope
The FAR calculator printed on the plans incorrectly gives the average slope of the lot as 25 percent. The City relies on parcel data from the County of Santa Barbara Assessor when determining the average slope of a lot, which is then exported to City GIS mapping. In this case, the Assessor identifies the average slope of the subject site as 31 percent. Given that the lot area is greater than 15,000 square feet, the FAR remains a guideline FAR even when the average slope is corrected from 25 percent to 31 percent.

Grading
FAR standards, including those related to grading, do not apply to the subject lot because it has a net lot area greater than 15,000 square feet. Thus, a FAR Modification is not required for grading, even if grading exceeds 500 cubic yards outside the main building footprint on a residence taller than 17 feet.

Setback Encroachments
The encroachments cited are access wells that extend eight inches in height above grade. An access well is a retaining structure installed below ground level that provides a protected opening to a basement for emergency egress, natural light, and ventilation. As such, access wells are subject to zoning standards related to walls. Per SBMC §28.87.170.C.1., fences and walls up to a height of eight feet are allowed within setbacks. The access wells are compliant with this standard; therefore, no Setback Modification is required.

Council Agenda Report
Appeal of the Planning Commission’s Approval of a Coastal Development Permit for Residential Development at 2339 Edgewater Way [Resolution]

Page 4 ends

Single Family Design Board (SFDB) Review
Once a project receives its land use approvals, and the 10-day appeal period closes without an appeal being filed, it is scheduled for Project Design Approval consideration before the appropriate design review board. In this case, the subject appeal must be heard by City Council before the project can return to the SFDB for consideration of Project Design Approval.

If Planning Commission’s decision to approve the subject Coastal Development Permit is upheld by City Council, the project would subsequently be scheduled for Project Design Approval consideration at the SFDB, where comments received during the most recent Concept Review (October 24, 2022) would be addressed. The Neighborhood Compatibility Findings and the Hillside Finding would need to be made for Project Design Approval to be granted.

October 2022 SFDB Meeting
The SFDB’s October 24, 2022, meeting motion was to continue the item indefinitely to Planning Commission with a return to SFDB Full Board for Project Design Approval consideration, and included the following comments (Attachment 5: Single Family Design Board Meeting Minutes):
• The proposed size, bulk, and scale of the home are appropriate. • The applicant’s response to SFDB’s previous comments is appreciated. • Study lowering the plate heights of the ADU addition so that the first floor is at nine feet in height and the second floor is at eight feet in height to help the building be more in balance.
• The landscape is appropriate, and the screening provided will help screen the project from the adjacent properties.
• The placement of the residence is appropriately setback from the street, as the style of the architecture and distance from the street cause minimal impacts of size, bulk, and scale in terms of its location on the property.

Floor Area Ratio (Maximum Floor Area)
The SFDB did not comment further at the October 24, 2022, meeting regarding FAR; however, it would be within their purview to discuss if the project returns for consideration of Project Design Approval.

Second-Floor Easterly Deck
The subject deck was removed from the project in 2022.

Council Agenda Report
Appeal of the Planning Commission’s Approval of a Coastal Development Permit for Residential Development at 2339 Edgewater Way [Resolution]

Page 5 ends

Plate Heights
The SFDB did not comment on plate heights of the primary residence at the October 24, 2022, meeting; however, they did comment on plate heights of the proposed ADU. To be clear, the proposed ADU is not within the purview of the SFDB to comment on, per SBMC § 28.86.060; therefore, the comments are not binding. Regardless, the Planning Commission plan set included an overall reduction in height of two feet, two inches to the detached garage/ADU building, consisting of a six-inch reduction of the second-floor plate height, and a one-foot, eight-inch reduction of the parapet height.

Utility Pole Relocation
Permitting relocation of utility poles is not within the jurisdiction of the City. This being the case, the applicant must work directly with the utility company to relocate the utility pole. The City’s role would be limited to the related Coastal Review, and the relocation would likely qualify for a Coastal Exemption under the Utility Connections Exemption, which includes the replacement of any necessary utility connection.

The City is not a party to the "stipulated court order" between the appellant and the subject property owner and has no authority to enforce it.

Fire Access
The Fire Department comment referenced in this appeal point is found in the project’s fourth Application Response Letter, dated May 4, 2025, and states, “Access roadways serving three or fewer single family residences shall have an unobstructed road width of 16 feet to within 150 feet of all exterior walls of the structure.”
The fifth and final Application Response Letter, dated January 24, 2026, wherein the application was deemed complete, did not continue to include this comment because the comment was sufficiently resolved in the fifth submittal plan set. The Fire Department would ensure continued compliance with access requirements prior to issuance of a building permit and a final certificate of occupancy.

Height
Santa Barbara Municipal Code §28.04.020 defines building height as the maximum vertical height of a building or structure, at all points, measured from natural or finished grade, Council Agenda Report
Appeal of the Planning Commission’s Approval of a Coastal Development Permit for Residential Development at 2339 Edgewater Way [Resolution]

Page 6 ends

whichever is lower. Architectural elements that do not add floor area, such as chimneys, vents, and towers, are not considered a part of the height of a building; all portions of the roof are included. No building in the E-3 zone shall exceed a height of 30 feet, per SBMC §28.15.050.

The identified height of the proposed residence ranges from 12 feet, four inches to 25 feet, two inches. Explanation for the various heights identified on the plans and in official documents is provided below.

Cover Sheet
The maximum height listed on the Cover Sheet (Sheet T-1.0) is incorrectly identified as 24 feet, 7¾ inches, which is approximately six inches less than the maximum proposed. This item would be corrected before the project returns to SFDB for Project Design Approval consideration.

Section Drawings
The section drawings (Sheets A-5.1–A-5.4) accurately depict the height from the finished floor to the top of parapet as 23 feet, five inches. The section drawing dimensions provided do not represent the building height as measured per the SBMC, as discussed above.

Staff Report
The maximum proposed height of 25 feet, two inches is identified in the Planning Commission Staff Report Zoning Statistics Table simply to show that the project complies with zoning standards. This is the overall maximum height proposed and is depicted on the East Elevation (Sheet A-3.1). This is the overall maximum height of the proposed residence, measured according to the SBMC, as discussed above.

Staff Recommendation
Based on the appeal issues discussed above, staff recommends that Council deny the appeal and uphold Planning Commission’s approval of the Coastal Development Permit, including the conditions of approval and the CEQA determination in the Planning Commission Resolution.

Staff also recommends that Council approve the draft Decision and Findings Resolution reflecting this outcome. If Council chooses not to uphold Planning Commission’s decision, staff asks that the Council state which findings cannot be made, and staff will return at a future meeting with a revised Decision and Findings Resolution for adoption.

Council Agenda Report
Appeal of the Planning Commission’s Approval of a Coastal Development Permit for Residential Development at 2339 Edgewater Way [Resolution]

Page 7 ends

Budget/Financial Information
There is no fiscal impact to the City.

Environmental Review
The project qualifies for an exemption from further environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15301 [Existing Facilities], 15303 [New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures], and Section 15304 [Minor Alterations to Land], based on staff analysis as described in the Planning Commission Staff Report dated March 12, 2026.

Attachments:

1. Planning Commission Staff Report Dated March 12, 2026 (excluding exhibits; exhibits are available upon request)

2. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Dated March 19, 2026

3. Planning Commission Resolution #004-26

4. Appellant’s Letter Dated March 30, 2026

5. Single Family Design Board Meeting Minutes Dated October 24, 2022 Prepared by: Barbara Burkhart, Project Planner
Submitted by: Allison DeBusk, Community Development Director Approved by: Kelly McAdoo, City Administrator

III

PLANNING COMMISSION

STAFF REPORT
REPORT DATE: March 12, 2026
AGENDA DATE: March 19, 2026
PROJECT ADDRESS: 2339 Edgewater Way (PLN2020-00014)
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Planning Division
Megan Arciniega, Senior Planner
Barbara Burkhart, Project Planner
I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The proposed project includes three components: abatement of an enforcement case; permitting of work completed under an Emergency Coastal Development Permit (Emergency Permit); and redevelopment of the site.

Enforcement Case: The project proposes removal of an unpermitted railroad tie retaining wall, and remedial grading (14.7 cubic yards of cut/export), along the bluff edge to abate violations associated with enforcement case ENF2018-00339. The violations are: 1) construction of retaining walls over 42-inches in height on the hillside without approvals or permits in the coastal zone; and 2) unpermitted grading described as “cut and fill of earth at bluff” and “dirt imported to fill the bluff top”.

Emergency Permit: The project includes a scope of work completed under an Emergency Permit (PLN2023-00383) associated with a 2023 slope failure along a portion of the site’s westerly bluff, granted by the Community Development Director on April 17, 2024. An associated Building Permit was issued on May 17, 2024. The completed work passed final inspection on July 31, 2024, and the Building Permit was closed. A formal Coastal Development Permit (CDP) is required to allow the completed work to remain.

The scope of work includes clearing and grubbing of the slope face to remove large vegetation, loose soils, and rock; installation of Tecco System high-tensile steel wire mesh and soil nails, a minimum of 10 feet in length, and were drilled and grouted into the bedrock slope; and subsequent hydroseeding of the area; as well as demolition of an unpermitted patio cover and outdoor BBQ/ fireplace, immediately adjacent to the slope failure, as they contributed substantial weight to the failure area. The hydroseed consisted of a coastal bluff seed mix prepared for the project by S & S Seeds.

Site Redevelopment: The project proposes demolition of the existing two-story single-unit residence and detached one-car garage; site grading (583 cubic yards of cut, 105 cubic yards of fill, 418 cubic yards of export); construction of a new two-story single-unit residence with basement, and new two-car detached garage with Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) above; new pool and spa, shade structure (cabaña), patios, driveway pavers, drainage improvements, and Item III Page 1 of 513
ATTACHMENT 1

Planning Commission Staff Report
2339 Edgewater Way (PLN2020-00014)
Report Date: March 12, 2026

Page 2 ends

landscaping. Seven site trees are proposed for removal and two are to be retained and protected in place; none are located within the front setback or the street.

The site is a 31,461-square-foot (0.72 acre) bluff-top lot in the appeals jurisdiction of the Coastal Zone.

See Exhibits B and C for project plans and applicant letter, respectively.

II. REQUIRED APPLICATIONS
The actions required at this hearing under the purview of the Planning Commission are:

A. A Coastal Development Permit to allow the proposed development in the Appeals Jurisdiction of the City’s Coastal Zone (SBMC §28.44.060); and B. A CEQA Determination that the project is exempt from further environmental review under Section 15301 [Existing Facilities], 15303 [New Construction of Conversion of Small Structures] and Section 15304 [Minor Alterations to Land] of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines.

Project Design Approval and Final Design Approval by the Single Family Design Board (SFDB) will also be required for the project, if the Planning Commission approves the project (SBMC Chapter 30.220).

APPLICATION DEEMED COMPLETE: January 24, 2026
DATE ACTION REQUIRED: April 24, 2026
III. RECOMMENDATION
If approved as proposed, the project would conform to the City’s Zoning and Building Ordinances and policies of the Coastal Land Use Plan. In addition, the site location; size, bulk, and scale; and landscaping and screening are appropriate, per the Single Family Design Board’s October 24, 2022 concept review comments. Therefore, staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the project, making the findings outlined in Section VI of this report, and subject to the conditions of approval in Exhibit A.

Item III Page 2 of 513

Planning Commission Staff Report
2339 Edgewater Way (PLN2020-00014)
Report Date: March 12, 2026

Page 3 ends

Mesa Lane Steps
Project Site
Vicinity Map, 2339 Edgewater Way
Item III Page 3 of 513

Planning Commission Staff Report
2339 Edgewater Way (PLN2020-00014)
Report Date: March 12, 2026

Page 4 ends

IV. BACKGROUND
Between 2015 and 2018, the previous owner of the site expanded the rear yard, without the benefit of permits, by installing railroad tie retaining walls along portions of the bluff face and importing soil fill, as depicted in the aerials below. In 2018, City Code Compliance staff opened an enforcement case to address the violations.
2015 Aerial 2020 Aerial
On April 24, 2020, the subject application was submitted to abate the violations of said enforcement case, and also proposed to improve the existing single-unit residence with a remodel and addition, as well as a new detached garage, site drainage, and landscaping. The application went through three rounds of completeness review1 and was deemed incomplete each time. A Phase I Archaeological Report for the site was accepted by the Historic Landmarks Committee (HLC)2 , and a Single Family Design Board
(SFDB) Concept Review3 of the project, also occurred during this time.

On October 1, 2021, the subject application was revised to propose demolition of the existing residence and construction of a new two-story single-unit residence, a detached two-car garage with ADU above, a pool and pool cabaña, and abatement of the enforcement case. The revised application went through two rounds of completeness review4 and was deemed incomplete each time. The project also went before the SFDB three times for Concept Review5 during this time. The SFDB continued the item to the Planning Commission (PC) on October 24, 2022; however, no such meeting was ever scheduled. 1 5/12/2020, 10/15/2020, 02/02/2021 2 1/22/2020
3 12/07/2020
4 11/01/2021, 05/09/2022
5 6/06/2022, 8/15/2022, 10/24/2022
Item III Page 4 of 513

Planning Commission Staff Report
2339 Edgewater Way (PLN2020-00014)
Report Date: March 12, 2026

Page 5 ends

In the winter of 2023, a slope failure occurred along a westerly portion of the bluff, within the nearsurface, weathered colluvial soils that mantle the underlying Tertiary-age bedrock of the Monterey Formation, as depicted in the images below. The failure included a portion of the railroad-tie retaining wall, which slid down the bluff within a mass of soil. The failure area was measured at approximately 25 feet in height and 90 feet in width, in an area with a variable slope gradient ranging from approximately 1:1 to 2:1 (1- horizontal to 1-vertical). (Earth Systems Pacific, 2023; ENGEO, 2025) View Southeast View Northwest
On April 17, 2024, an Emergency Permit was granted by the City’s Community Development Director to allow expedited installation of a slope stabilization system, and demolition of the patio cover and outdoor BBQ/ fireplace, in the area of the slope failure. The approval was conditioned to require a formal CDP application to be submitted within 90 days (July 16, 2024).

On May 17, 2024, a Building Permit for the Emergency Permit was issued. The completed work passed final inspection on July 31, 2024, and the Building Permit was closed. The slope stabilization system, as installed, is shown in the image below.

Item III Page 5 of 513

Planning Commission Staff Report
2339 Edgewater Way (PLN2020-00014)
Report Date: March 12, 2026

Page 6 ends

Slope Repair, Applicant Photo submitted April 4, 2025
On July 16, 2024, a formal CDP Planning application6 for the work of the Emergency Permit was submitted. This application was required to be processed prior to, or concurrently with, the subject application as it determines whether the slope stabilization system would remain in place.

Between 2024 and 2025, the subject application was resubmitted three more times in response to completeness reviews. A major component of these reviews was regarding the slope failure and establishment of an Alternate Coastal Bluff Edge Line7 (alternate line), which is required by the City’s Coastal Land Use Plan (LUP) when there are substantial changes to a Coastal Bluff Edge8 , defined as
the upper termination of a bluff.

In this case, the upper termination of the bluff shifted substantially landward as a result of the slope failure; therefore, the alternate line was defined by the natural head scarp of the failure and replaces the previously established Coastal Bluff Edge line in that area.

The applicant submitted geologic and geotechnical reports and exhibits, prepared by Earth Systems Pacific, to establish the extent of the slope failure and its impact on the Coastal Bluff Edge location. The reports and exhibits were reviewed by geotechnical engineer Walt Crampton of ENGEO, the City’s geotechnical peer reviewer. After a series of submittals and reviews, and a meeting9 between staff, the applicant team, and Mr. Crampton, the location of the alternate line was established. 6 PLN2024-00292
7 CLUP Policy 5.1-69.C. 8 CLUP Policy 5.1-54. 9 10/03/2025 Item III Page 6 of 513

Planning Commission Staff Report
2339 Edgewater Way (PLN2020-00014)
Report Date: March 12, 2026

Page 7 ends

As a result, the corresponding Coastal Bluff Edge Development Buffer10 (buffer) also shifted in this area.

The buffer is a site-specific distance from the Coastal Bluff Edge, where slope stability is met (the minimum factor of safety)11and the development is not endangered by erosion (factoring in sea level rise), without the need for slope and shoreline protective devices over the expected life of the structure.

In this case, the buffer is 38 feet from the Coastal Bluff Edge, as determined by the project geologist, and confirmed by the City’s geotechnical peer reviewer. The minimum factor of safety is analyzed without the use of slope stabilization or shoreline protection devices; therefore, the slope stabilization system was not considered in the subject site’s buffer analysis12.

On December 12, 2025 the subject application was resubmitted with revised plans that accurately show the Coastal Bluff Edge, Alternate Coastal Bluff Edge, Coastal Bluff Edge Development Buffer, and that the residence and accessory structures securely located on the bluff top, outside of the buffer. The subject application was also revised to include the scope of work of the Emergency Permit, which had previously been proposed on a separate application. On January 24, 2026 the subject application was deemed complete.
10 LUP Policy 5.1-70
- 12 Per the October 17, 2025 Earth Systems -nail
Item III Page 7 of 513
11 Planning Commission Staff Report
2339 Edgewater Way (PLN2020-00014)
Report Date: March 12, 2026

Page 8 ends

Also of note, on September 12, 2024 a Lot Line Adjustment13, for a transfer of 2,497.73 square feet of land from the subject site to the adjacent site at 2337 Edgewater Way14, was granted by the PC, and is currently pending Public Works approval. The area to be transferred is highlighted in green below.

Subject Site
2337
Edgewater
2327
Edgewater
13 PLN2022-00368 14
wide
access to
site.
allow the extra width required to -
and APN 041-350-005 (unaddressed 10- wide x 198- oo
and 2327 . The LLA also allows -
strip) to
the subject
Item III Page 8 of 513

Planning Commission Staff Report
2339 Edgewater Way (PLN2020-00014)
Report Date: March 12, 2026

Page 9 ends

V. SITE INFORMATION AND PROJECT STATISTICS
A. SITE INFORMATION
Applicant: Vanguard Planning LLC; Jarrett Gorin, AICP
Property Owner: Curt Custard
Site Information
Parcel Number: 041-350-003 Lot Area: 31,461 square feet (0.72 acres) Zoning: E-3/S-D-3 (One-Family Residence/Coastal Overlay) Land Use Designation (Coastal Land Use Plan): Residential (Max 5 du/acre) Existing Use: Single-Unit Residential Topography: 31% average slope Adjacent Zoning and Land Uses
North: E-3/S-D-3 Public Right-of-Way (Edgewater Way); Single-Unit Residential
East: E-3/S-D-3 Single-Unit Residential
South: E-3/S-D-3 Sandy Beach; Pacific Ocean
West: E-3/S-D-3 Single-Unit Residential; Mesa Lane Steps B. PROJECT STATISTICS
Existing Proposed
Living Area (includes basement) 1,976 sf 4,343 sf
Garage 200 sf 494 sf
Detached Accessory Space (ADU) n/a 452 sf
VI. ISSUES
Coastal bluff retreat is a continual, natural process caused by both marine and terrestrial erosion and landslide processes that cause the bluffs to move landward. Wave action is the predominant erosion process as waves can erode the base of the bluff and remove support for overlying material, which increases the potential for landslides to occur. Terrestrial processes, such as erosion by water runoff over the face of the bluff, can also be a cause of coastal bluff retreat.

Grading, vegetation removal, overwatering, poor drainage designs, and other development that contributes to excessive loading on the coastal bluff face and bluff top lands can also exacerbate erosion and instability on bluffs.15
Due to the perpetual nature of these erosion processes, and the resulting landward retreat of the coastal bluffs, these areas should be recognized as temporary in nature. The City’s goals are to:
1) minimize exposure of new development and substantial redevelopment to the hazards of coastal bluff retreat and coastal erosion, 2) minimize risks to life and property through siting and design, 3) avoid project-induced exacerbation of erosion hazards, and 4) avoid the need for slope 15 Coastal Land Use Plan Chapter 5.1
Item III Page 9 of 513

Planning Commission Staff Report
2339 Edgewater Way (PLN2020-00014)
Report Date: March 12, 2026

Page 10 ends

and shoreline protection devices that negatively impact natural landforms, beach widths, sand accretion, public access along the beach, and the aesthetic and biological resources of the beach and coastal bluff area. The overarching goal is to strictly limit development on the coastal bluff face to minimize risks to life and property from coastal bluff erosion and wave impacts. With these goals in mind, the City also recognizes the need for owners of coastal properties to make reasonable use of their property by constructing and maintaining reasonable residential improvements. To this end, the City’s Coastal LUP policies outline allowed development on the coastal bluff face, allowed development within the Coastal Bluff Edge Development Buffer, conditions for development in coastal erosion hazard areas, and a process to undertake if certain development standards cannot feasibly be met.16
VII. MUNICIPAL CODE CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS
A. ZONING STATISTICS
The project is compliant with all applicable zoning regulations.

Standard Requirement/
Allowance
Existing
(to be demolished) Proposed
Setbacks
-Front
-Interior
20 feet
6 feet n/a 20 feet Variable, Compliant
Building Height 30 feet n/a 25’-2”
Open Yard 1,250 s.f. n/a 1,250 s.f.

Automobile Parking17
-Primary Residence
-ADU
Two covered
n/a
One covered
n/a
Two covered
None
VIII. POLICY CONSISTENCY
The project site is located within the Appealable Jurisdiction of the Coastal Zone and must be found consistent with the California Coastal Act and the City’s Local Coastal Program which implements the California Coastal Act. The City’s Local Coastal Program consists of the Coastal Zoning Ordinance and the Coastal Land Use Plan (LUP).

The project site is located within the Mesa Component of the LUP, commonly referred to as “The Mesa,” which spans eastward from Arroyo Burro Beach to the westerly boundary of Santa Barbara City College and extends inland to Cliff Drive. The primary land use of this area is single-unit residential. A major coastal issue identified for this Area is coastal erosion of the bluff and beach. The majority of the subject site is located within Screening Area 4 (the coastal bluff top) and Screening Area 3 (the coastal bluff face), with a very minor portion within Screening Area 2 (a bluff backed beach).
16 Coastal Land Use Plan Chapter 5.1
Item III Page 10 of 513
17 Planning Commission Staff Report
2339 Edgewater Way (PLN2020-00014)
Report Date: March 12, 2026

Page 11 ends

A complete list of policies that apply to the project is attached as Exhibit E. Policies include those related to coastal hazards, in addition to scenic resources and visual quality.

A. COASTAL HAZARDS
Under the Coastal Act, development is required to be sited and designed to minimize risks, assure stability and structural integrity, and neither create nor contribute significantly to erosion of the site or surrounding areas over the expected life of the development, factoring in sea level rise. The goal of bluff top policies is to establish adequate building setbacks for new development such that the normal rates of erosion and coastal bluff material loss would not seriously affect the structure during its expected lifetime. Additionally, the policies seek to drain water away from the coastal bluff top and edge, and control or prohibit activities that contribute to coastal bluff erosion and instability.
i. SHORELINE HAZARDS & STABILITY
Per the LUP, “New development and substantial redevelopment shall be designed and sited to minimize impacts of coastal bluff erosion and coastal bluff slope failure to life and property; assure stability and structural integrity; and neither create nor contribute significantly to erosion, geologic instability, or destruction of the site or surrounding areas over the expected life of the development, factoring in the effects of sea level rise.” To this end, the LUP requires the preparation of a Shoreline Hazard Evaluation by a qualified California licensed professional for development in Shoreline Hazard Screening Areas to analyze development to ensure consistency with these policies.

In 2019 and 2020, an Engineering Geology and Geotechnical Engineering Report (Report) prepared by Earth Systems Pacific, was submitted for the original project scope of work. The report was authored by qualified California-licensed professionals Meng Wei Lu, Civil Engineer, and Todd J. Tranby, Engineering Geologist, and included slope stability analyses that considered sea level rise over the life of the project. The Report concluded that the project site was suitable for the proposed residential construction from an engineering geology and geotechnical standpoint, provided that the recommendations of the report were properly implemented. Earth Systems stated that a conventional footing system with slab-on-grade floors would be suitable to support the proposed construction. (Exhibit F) In 2021, Earth Systems Pacific reviewed the revised project scope of work and concluded that the 2019-2020 Report recommendations continued to apply because the proposed construction was located outside of the previously determined Coastal Bluff Edge Development Buffer18. (Exhibit G)
As discussed in Section IV of this report, as a result of the 2023 slope failure an Alternate Coastal Bluff Edge Line was required to be established, which moved the 38-foot Buffer further landward. In 2025, Earth Systems Pacific acknowledged this and stated that the safety factor for slope stability of the current soil-nail mitigated slope face should remain the same, if not improved; and that the recommendations of Item III Page 11 of 513
18 Planning Commission Staff Report
2339 Edgewater Way (PLN2020-00014)
Report Date: March 12, 2026

Page 12 ends

the reports and letters attached to the subject letter (References 1 - 9), and the current bluff edge exhibit (Reference 10) should be applied to the project. (Exhibit I) In 2025, Earth Systems Pacific provided a letter stating that the proposed development would minimize risks to life and the property, and assure stability and structural integrity of the site and immediately adjacent areas over its expected life when considering sea level rise; and that the proposed new residence should not increase risks to life and the property, and would assist in the stability and structural integrity, with implementation of the recommendations included in the referenced reports; and should neither create nor contribute to erosion instability of destruction of the site or surrounding areas from a geologic or geotechnical perspective. (Exhibit J) The City’s third-party geotechnical peer reviewer, ENGEO, has reviewed all geologic and geotechnical reports, studies, letters, and plans related to the slope stabilization system, establishment of the Alternate Coastal Bluff Edge and the Coastal Bluff Edge Development Buffer. ENGEO found that the current iteration of the project conforms to all relevant Coastal Act and LUP policies as they relate to geology and coastal hazards. (Exhibit K)
ii. COASTAL BLUFF FACE
The Coastal Act strictly limits development on the coastal bluff face, with the intent of minimizing risks to life and property from coastal bluff erosion and wave impacts.

To this end, Policy 5.1-32 includes development standards for new development and substantial redevelopment on coastal bluff faces and limits them to specific types.

These include re-establishment of natural landforms that have been altered by previous development activities; slope stabilization devices, consistent with Policy

5.1-23, necessary to protect existing habitable structures; habitat restoration; and drainage systems consistent with Policy 5.1-39. Subsections G and M, of Policy 5.1- 66, establish design requirements of slope stability systems.

Bluff Face Retaining Wall and Grading
Abatement of the enforcement case includesremoval of the railroad tie retaining wall, and remedial grading to remove approximately 14.7 cubic yards of unpermitted fill, along portions of the bluff face. (It should be acknowledged here that the slope failure has eliminated the westernmost portion of unpermitted work.) The Report determined that removal of the wall would create an increase in bluff stability because the horizontal pressure of the fill was likely not accounted for in the wall design, even though the footings appear to be adequately supported; and that removal of the wall is not anticipated to increase the erosional retreat rate beyond prewall conditions because the Report used pre-wall erosional retreat rates and accounted for erosion of the bluff below the wall. (Exhibit H)
The proposed abatement is consistent with Policy 5.1-32 because it would serve to re-establish the natural bluff face where it was previously altered by the unpermitted development and is sited and designed to minimize risks, assure stability and structural integrity, and would neither create nor contribute significantly to erosion of Item III Page 12 of 513

Planning Commission Staff Report
2339 Edgewater Way (PLN2020-00014)
Report Date: March 12, 2026

Page 13 ends

the site or surrounding areas over the expected life of the development, factoring in sea level rise.

Bluff Face Slope Failure and Stabilization
In response to the 2023 slope failure, the applicant and staff worked with Earth Systems Pacific, DRS Engineering Inc., and ENGEO to determine the minimum action necessary to protect the existing residence from the effects of further erosion, that would also be the least environmentally damaging option. As a result of this effort, it was determined that a slope stability system consisting of a TECCO® mesh erosion control system, utilizing soil nails embedded into the underlying Monterey Formation, and followed by hydroseeding, was the best option to meet the criteria.

The scope of work included clearing and grubbing of the slope face to remove large vegetation, loose soils, and rock; installation of high-tensile steel wire mesh and soil nails, a minimum of 10 feet in length, which were drilled and grouted into the bedrock slope; and subsequent hydroseeding of the area; as well as demolition of an unpermitted patio cover and outdoor BBQ/ fireplace, immediately adjacent to the slope failure, as they contributed substantial weight to the failure area. The hydroseed consisted of a coastal bluff seed mix prepared for the project by S & S Seeds.

Allowing the completed work to remain in place is supported by staff because it conforms to requirements of Policies 5.1-23 and 5.1-32; it was the minimum action necessary to protect the existing residence, and the least environmentally damaging option; and is sited and designed to minimize risks, assure stability and structural integrity, and would neither create nor contribute significantly to erosion of the site or surrounding areas over the expected life of the development, factoring in sea level rise.

Bluff Face Landscaping
Per Policy 5.1-38, all new plantings are required to be native, drought-tolerant vegetation. Sprinkler systems, irrigation plumbing, and in-ground irrigation systems are not allowed. Watering within the buffer is limited to that necessary for the establishment of new plantings and shall be achieved manually. The landscape plans show that either coastal bluff native container plantings, or a hydroseed application of a coastal bluff seed mix, would occur within the bluff face areas. With the implementation of the conditions of approval, the project would comply with Policy

5.1-38.
iii. COASTAL BLUFF EDGE DEVELOPMENT BUFFER
In general, development is required to be sited landward of the Coastal Bluff Edge Development Buffer (Buffer) to reduce hazards associated with development near the coastal bluff edge.

Demolition Within the Buffer
The unpermitted patio cover and BBQ/ fireplace, and the majority of the existing residence, are located within the Buffer. The patio cover and BBQ/ fireplace were located within 5 feet of the bluff edge, added substantial weight to the bluff, and were Item III Page 13 of 513

Planning Commission Staff Report
2339 Edgewater Way (PLN2020-00014)
Report Date: March 12, 2026

Page 14 ends

considered unsafe and unusable due to geologic instability within the Buffer. The existing residence also adds considerable weight to the bluff and is considered unsafe and unstable due to geologic instability within the Buffer. Therefore, the demolition of these project components is consistent with Policy 5.1-33.

Landscaping and Minor Improvements Within the Buffer
Minor types of development can be allowed within the Buffer. These include landscaping and other plantings, consistent with Policy 5.1-38; patios, walkways, and pavers, located at least 10 feet from the bluff edge; and drainage systems.

Additionally, removal of development from the buffer is required when erosion puts it within 5 feet of the bluff edge, or it is deemed unsafe due to imminent threat from geologic instability, erosion, or other coastal hazards.

The landscape plans include a preliminary plant palette with the water use classification (WUCOLS); most are either low or very low (drought-tolerant), however, the plans do not indicate whether they are native.

A permeable synthetic lawn is proposed over much of the Buffer. Although not explicitly discussed in the LUP policies, synthetic lawn has been found to be consistent with the types of improvements allowed within the Buffer. However, to prevent synthetic materials from making their way down the bluff, staff is recommending a condition of approval that requires the synthetic lawn be located a minimum of ten feet from the coastal bluff edge, and monitored by the owner regularly, to then be removed as needed where erosion results in it being within five feet or less of the coastal bluff edge similar to other manmade minor improvements described in Policy 5.1-33.

The landscape plans include a preliminary plant palette, and state that final plant selections will be simplified in the final planting plan. The plans indicate each plant’s water use classification (WUCOLS) and most are either low or very low (droughttolerant); however, the plans do not indicate whether they are native.

Final landscape plans are not typically produced until design review final approval consideration is scheduled; as such, staff has included conditions of approval stating that the final landscape plan submitted for design review final approval shall be consistent with Policies 4.3-11 and 5.1-38, and shall clearly show that only native, drought-tolerant vegetation is proposed, and that only minimal watering, achieved manually or with easily removable drip irrigation tubing, needed for the establishment of new plantings is to occur. With the implementation of the conditions of approval above the project would comply with Policy 4.3-11 and 5.1-38. iv. COASTAL BLUFF TOP –OUTSIDE THE BUFFER
The proposed residence, pool and spa, shade structure (cabaña), and patios are proposed securely landward of the Buffer yet close enough to the bluff edge to take advantage of views toward the coastline and ocean consistent with Policy 5.1-33. The proposed garage and ADU are situated further north toward Edgewater Way, also consistent with Policy 5.1-33.

Item III Page 14 of 513

Planning Commission Staff Report
2339 Edgewater Way (PLN2020-00014)
Report Date: March 12, 2026

Page 15 ends

v. DRAINAGE SYSTEMS
Policy 5.1-39 includes development standards for drainage systems on lots containing coastal bluff faces and coastal bluff edge development buffers, which states that new development shall have drainage systems carrying runoff landward away from these areas, and which meet specific criteria. A portion of the proposed drainage system would be located within the site’s Coastal Bluff Edge Development Buffer.

The project has been reviewed by City Creeks staff and determined to be a Tier 3 project, as defined by the City’s Storm Water BMP Guidance Manual. Tier 3 projects are required to select and implement Site Design and/or Storm Water Runoff BMPs to capture and treat runoff generated from a 1” storm19 from at least 95% of the project site’s impervious area. Creeks staff is satisfied with the submittal at this stage of development; however, a set of information is required to be met before design review Final Approval, and another set before Building Permit issuance; these have been included as project conditions of approval.

The drainage system is designed to collect stormwater runoff in a 3-foot-wide rocklined v-ditch which would drain to four drainage inlets, 8-inches in diameter, along the ditch. A 6-inch storm drain pipe, sloped at a minimum of 1% toward a concrete holding tank with a sump pump, would connect the inlets. Runoff would also be collected via inlets and storm drain pipes to enter the concrete holding tank from the north. The runoff would then enter an underground infiltration chamber system (located at the northern side of the site), which would hold and infiltrate the required volume, and overflow to an 8-inch gravity storm drain pipe connecting to the existing storm drain pipe within Edgewater Way. The proposed drainage system has been reviewed and accepted by ENGEO.

The proposed drainage system is consistent with Policy 5.1-39 because it meets the required design criteria and would collect runoff before it reaches the bluff edge, diverting it landward to the existing City storm drain pipe within Edgewater Way.

B. NEIGHBORHOOD PLANNING
Coastal Act Section 30250, Location; existing developed area, requires new residential development be located within, contiguous with, or in close proximity to, existing developed areas able to accommodate it, and LUP Policy 4.3-7, Compatible Development, requires it to be sited and designed to be visually compatible with the character of surrounding areas.

Policy 3.1-29, Off-Street Parking for New Development and Substantial Redevelopment, requires off-street parking for new development be consistent with the Zoning Ordinance to avoid significant adverse impacts to public access to the shoreline and coastal recreation areas.

The project site is located in an existing, developed single-family neighborhood with access to adequate public services including public transportation, fire prevention, police, and utility 19 Item III Page 15 of 513

Planning Commission Staff Report
2339 Edgewater Way (PLN2020-00014)
Report Date: March 12, 2026

Page 16 ends

services. The closest public access parking area is along Mesa Lane, and the closest access point is the Mesa Lane Stairs, which begin approximately 180 feet west of the subject site.

The project proposes single-unit residential development consistent with the site’s zoning classification and LUP land use designation, and proposes automobile parking that conforms to the Zoning Ordinance, The site does not contain public access parking or public access points.

As discussed in Section IV of this report, the revised project has been before the SFDB three times for concept review. It received positive comments and was continued to the PC on October 24, 2022, where the SFDB found the site planning, landscaping and screening, and size, bulk, and scale of the residence, to be appropriate.

Therefore, no significant impact related to services, or significant adverse effects to the coast or coastal resources, are anticipated to occur as a result of the project.

C. SCENIC RESOURCES
Policies of the Coastal Act and the LUP require that development be sited and designed to protect scenic and visual resources of coastal areas: Coastal Act Sections 30251 Scenic and visual qualities, and 30251 Scenic and visual qualities; LUP Policy 4.3-5 Protection of Scenic Resources and Public Scenic View, and Policy 4.3-6 Obstruction of Scenic View Corridors.

Policy 4.3-18, Coastal Bluff Top Development, requires that the natural and scenic quality of the shoreline bluffs be preserved, particularly as viewed from the beach below.

The site is located on the bluff-side (south) of Edgewater Way and includes coastal bluffs that are considered scenic resources, per LUP Figure 4.3-1, Scenic Resources.

The closest public scenic view corridor is that of the Pacific Ocean as taken from Oliver Road, looking south to the blufftop overlook at its southern terminus. The intersection of Edgewater Way and Oliver Road is approximately 1,000 feet east of the site.

Alterations to the bluff face, associated with abatement of the enforcement case and installation of the slope stability system, have been designed to minimize risks, assure stability and structural integrity, and would neither create nor contribute significantly to erosion of the site or surrounding areas over the expected life of the development, factoring in sea level rise, as confirmed by ENGEO.

The proposed new development has been sited and designed to protect and minimize further alteration of the site’s natural landforms, thereby preserving the natural and scenic quality of the shoreline bluffs, to the extent feasible.

As discussed in Section IV of this report, the revised project has been before the SFDB three times for Concept Review. It received positive comments and was continued to the PC on October 24, 2022, where the SFDB found the site planning, landscaping and screening, and size, bulk, and scale of the residence, to be appropriate. Story poles have been erected ahead of this meeting, for both the PC and SFDB, as well as the public, to consider when viewing the site from the public beach below.

Significant adverse impacts to scenic and visual resources of coastal areas, or the natural and scenic quality of the shoreline bluffs, are not anticipated to occur as a result of the project.

Item III Page 16 of 513

Planning Commission Staff Report
2339 Edgewater Way (PLN2020-00014)
Report Date: March 12, 2026

Page 17 ends

D. CULTURAL RESOURCES
California Coastal Act Policy 30244, and Coastal LUP Policies 4.4-1 through 4.4-10 seek to protect archaeological resources by requiring that new and proposed development be sited and designed to avoid adverse impacts.

The project site is in the Prehistoric Watercourse Buffer archaeological sensitivity zone. A Phase I Archaeology Report was prepared for the site in 2020 and concluded that the likelihood of undiscovered, significant cultural resources existing in the project area is very low, and therefore no additional archaeological monitoring or additional cultural resource testing was recommended. However, the standard conditions alerting to the possibility of discovery during ground disturbance were recommended, consistent with the City’s Master Environmental Assessment Guidelines for Archeological Resources.

The report was reviewed by the City Environmental Analyst, Julia Pujo, and the Historic Landmarks Commission Advisory Member, Dr. Glassow, and accepted by the Historic Landmarks Commission on January 22, 2020. The City’s standard discovery conditions are included in the draft conditions of approval (Exhibit A), per the recommendation. Therefore, the project avoids disturbance to archeological resources, consistent with this policy.

E. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Policy 4.1-15 governs new development and substantial redevelopment in areas adjacent to Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas (ESHA), wetlands, and creeks. The site contains coastal sage scrub, a biological resource, over a small portion of land where the site meets the sandy beach. Due to its location away from the buildable area of the subject site, a biological evaluation was not required to be submitted.

The habitat buffer for any coastal sage scrub considered an ESHA is 25 feet from the outer edge of habitat. No physical development is proposed within approximately 140 feet from the outer edge of the resource, at its closest point.

No impacts to biological resources are anticipated to occur as a result of the project.

IV. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Staff has determined that the project qualifies for an exemption from further environmental review under Section 15301 [Existing Facilities], 15303 [New Construction of Conversion of Small Structures], and Section 15304 [Minor Alterations to Land] of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. Section 15301 allows demolition and removal of a single-unit residence and accessory structures including garages and patios; Section 15303 allows construction of a new single-unit residence, a second dwelling unit, and accessory structures including garages, patios, swimming pools, and fences; and Section 15304 allows minor private alterations in the condition of land and vegetation which do not involve removal of healthy, mature, scenic trees. Staff has reviewed the proposal and site conditions and has determined that the project complies with all conditions of this exemption.

Item III Page 17 of 513

Planning Commission Staff Report
2339 Edgewater Way (PLN2020-00014)
Report Date: March 12, 2026

Page 18 ends

Based on review of the project, there would be no significant project-specific or cumulative impact on the environment due to unusual circumstances, 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. None of the exceptions to the exemption under CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2 apply.

V. DESIGN REVIEW
This project was reviewed by the SFDB on four separate occasions (meeting minutes are attached as Exhibit D). On October 24, 2022, the SFDB found the placement and size, bulk, and scale of the residence, and the site landscaping and screening, to be appropriate.

VI. RECOMMENDED FINDINGS
The Planning Commission finds the following:

A. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW (SBMC §22.100.160.C; CEQA GUIDELINES) The determination of exemption, as discussed in the staff report dated March 12, 2026, is appropriate.

B. COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT (SBMC §28.44.150)

1. The project is consistent with the policies of the California Coastal Act because it has been sited and designed to minimize risks, assure stability and structural integrity, and neither create nor contribute significantly to erosion of the site or surrounding areas over the expected life of the development, factoring in sea level rise, as described in Section VIII of the Staff Report dated March 12, 2026.

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, because it has been designed and sited to minimize impacts of coastal bluff erosion and coastal bluff slope failure to life and property; assure stability and structural integrity; and neither create nor contribute significantly to erosion, geologic instability, or destruction of the site or surrounding areas over the expected life of the development, factoring in the effects of sea level rise, as described in Section VIII of the Staff Report dated March 12, 2026.

EXHIBITS
A. Conditions of Approval
B. Project Plans
C. Applicant's Letter, dated March 5, 2026
D. SFDB Minutes
E. Applicable Policies
F. Engineering Geology and Geotechnical Engineering Report; Earth Systems Pacific, prepared July 30, 2019, revised August 18, 2020
G. Supplemental Letter, Engineering Geology and Geotechnical Engineering Report; Earth Systems Pacific, dated October 1, 2021
H. Response Letter, Engineering Geology and Geotechnical Engineering Report; Earth Systems Pacific, dated December 16, 2020, revised February 2, 2021 Item III Page 18 of 513

Planning Commission Staff Report
2339 Edgewater Way (PLN2020-00014)
Report Date: March 12, 2026

Page 19 ends

I. Update Letter with References, Engineering Geology and Geotechnical Engineering Report; Earth Systems Pacific, dated October 17, 2025, revised December 5, 2025 J. Response Letter, Engineering Geology and Geotechnical Engineering Report; Earth Systems Pacific, dated February 27, 2025
K. Response Letter, Engineering Geology and Geotechnical Engineering Report, Earth Systems Pacific, dated December 4, 2024
Contact/Case Planner: Barbara Burkhart, Project Planner ([email protected])
630 Garden Street, Santa Barbara, CA 93101
Phone: (805) 560-7587
Item III Page 19 of 513

City of Santa Barbara

PLANNING COMMISSION

MINUTES
MARCH 19, 2026
1:00 P.M.

City Hall, Council Chambers
735 Anacapa Street
SantaBarbaraCA.gov
COMMISSION MEMBERS:

Lucille Boss, Chair
Donald DeLuccio, Vice Chair
Brian Barnwell
John M. Baucke
Benjamin Peterson
Devon Wardlow
Lesley Wiscomb
CITY COUNCIL LIAISON:

Mike Jordan
STAFF:

Tava Ostrenger, Chief Assistant City Attorney
Megan Arciniega, Senior Planner
Jasper Carman, Commission Secretary

CALL TO ORDER
Vice Chair DeLuccio called the meeting to order at 1:00 p.m.

I. ROLL CALL
Vice Chair Donald DeLuccio, Commissioners Brian Barnwell, John M. Baucke, Benjamin Peterson, and Lesley Wiscomb

Absent: Chair Lucille Boss and Commissioner Devon Wardlow

STAFF PRESENT
Tava Ostrenger, Chief Assistant City Attorney
Tina Dye, Chief Building Official
Jose Barajas, Building and Safety Supervisor
Megan Arciniega, Senior Planner
Barbara Burkhart, Project Planner
Kelly Brodison, Associate Planner
Sebastian Herics, Assistant Planner
Christopher Bell, City TV Production Supervisor
Janet Ahern, City TV Production Specialist
Jasper Carman, Commission Secretary
II. PRELIMINARY MATTERS
A. Requests for continuances, withdrawals, postponements, or addition of ex-agenda items:

No requests.

ATTACHMENT 2

Planning Commission Minutes March 19, 2026 Page 2 of 5
B. Announcements and appeals:

No announcements.

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

1. March 5, 2026 Planning Commission Special Lunch Meeting Minutes

2. March 5, 2026 Planning Commission Minutes

3. Planning Commission Resolution No. 003-26
1422 San Andres St.

MOTION: Barnwell / Wiscomb
Approve the minutes and resolutions as presented.

The motion carried by the following vote:

Ayes: 5 Noes: 0 Abstain: 0 Absent: 2 (Boss and Wardlow) D. Comments from members of the public pertaining to items not on this agenda:

Public comment opened at 1:02 p.m., and as no one wished to speak, it closed.

III. NEW ITEM
ACTUAL TIME: 1:02 P.M.
2339 EDGEWATER WAY
Assessor’s Parcel Number: 041-350-003
Zoning Designation: E-3 / S-D-3 (One-Family Residence / Coastal Overlay) Application Number: PLN2020-00014 Filing Date: 4/24/2020 Applicant: Jarrett Gorin / Vanguard Planning Inc.

Owner: Curt Custard
The proposed project includes three components: abatement of an enforcement case; permitting of work completed under an Emergency Coastal Development Permit (Emergency Permit); and redevelopment of the site.

Emergency Permit: The project includes a scope of work completed under an Emergency Permit (PLN2023-00383) associated with a 2023 slope failure along a portion of the site’s westerly bluff.

The scope of work includes clearing and grubbing of the slope face to remove large vegetation, loose soils, and rock; installation of Tecco System high-tensile steel wire mesh and soil nails, a

Planning Commission Minutes March 19, 2026 Page 3 of 5
minimum of 10 feet in length, and were drilled and grouted into the bedrock slope; and subsequent hydroseeding of the area; as well as demolition of an unpermitted patio cover and outdoor BBQ/ fireplace, immediately adjacent to the slope failure, as they contributed substantial weight to the failure area.

The discretionary applications under the jurisdiction of the Planning Commission at this hearing are:

A. A Coastal Development Permit to allow the proposed development in the Appeal Jurisdiction of the City’s Coastal Zone (SBMC §28.44.060); and B. A CEQA Determination that the project is exempt from further environmental review under Section 15301 [Existing Facilities], 15303 [New Construction of Conversion of Small Structures] and Section 15304 [Minor Alterations to Land] of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines.

Barbara Burkhart, Project Planner, gave the Staff presentation. Tina Dye, Chief Building Official; Jose Barajas, Building and Safety Supervisor; and Sebastian Herics, Assistant Planner were available to answer questions.

Jarrett Gorin, Vanguard Planning Inc., gave the Applicant presentation.

Public comment opened at 1:31 p.m., and the following individuals spoke:

1. Maddy Boar

2. Alexandra Hack
Written correspondence from David Bacher, Alexandra Hack, Timothy, Marie, & Michel Boudreaux, Courtney O’Donnell, Kelli Bacher, and Claire Bacher was acknowledged.

Public comment closed at 1:37 p.m.

MOTION: Wiscomb / Peterson Assigned Resolution No. 004-26 Approve the project, making the findings for the Coastal Development Permit and CEQA Exemption as outlined in the Staff Report dated March 12, 2026, subject to the Conditions of Approval as outlined in the Staff Report, with the following revisions to the Conditions of Approval:

1. On page 4, section 11, revise subsection c to state “If the improvements located within the Coastal Bluff Edge Development Buffer are deemed unusable or unsafe due to imminent threat of damage or destruction from geologic instability, erosion, flooding, wave impact hazards, or other hazards associated with development on a coastal bluff or beach, their

Planning Commission Minutes March 19, 2026 Page 4 of 5
removal is required. Removal of said improvements shall also be required when erosion reaches less than 5 feet from said improvements.”

2. On page 4, section 11, revise subsection d to state “The approval of the improvements located within the Coastal Bluff Edge Development Buffer is limited to a maximum 20 years from the Coastal Development Permit date of issuance. When the permit term ends, the Owner shall initiate a re-evaluation of said improvements with the City. If said re-evaluation shows said improvements still meet the standards and conditions listed above, a new Coastal Development Permit shall be obtained to retain the minor improvements. If said re-evaluation shows said improvements do not meet the standards and conditions listed above, approval by the City shall be obtained to allow removal of said improvements.”

3. On page 6, section 2, strike all subsections a through j.

4. On page 11, section 3, add the following sentence to the end of the clause, “However, parking on-site shall be accommodated whenever possible.”
The motion carried by the following vote:

Ayes: 4 Noes: 1 (Baucke) Abstain: 0 Absent: 2 (Boss and Wardlow) Commissioner Baucke voted to deny the project as he found it to be inconsistent with the California Coastal Act sections 30251 and 30253 as the intensity of the project for the site that is remaining after remediation of the slope is beyond what should exist on this site. He stated that the applicant did a great job, but the intensity of the project doesn’t fit the neighborhood or site.

The ten calendar day appeal period was announced.
* THE COMMISSION RECESSED FROM 2:48 TO 2:58 P.M. *
IV. DISCUSSION ITEM
ACTUAL TIME: 2:58 P.M.
25 EAST MASON STREET
Assessor’s Parcel Number: 033-082-014
Zoning Designation: HRC-2 / OC / S-D-3 (Hotel & Related Commerce / Ocean-Oriented Commercial / Coastal Overlay)
Application Number: PRE2026-00006
Applicant: Clay Aurell / AB Design Studio, Inc.

Owner: USA San Diego, LLC
The Planning Commission is being asked to determine if a wedding venue business could be a permitted use in the HRC-2 (Hotel and Related Commerce) zone. In order to make that determination, the Planning Commission must find that the use is a visitor-serving or commercial recreational use deemed appropriate by the Planning Commission (SBMC §28.22.030.B.2.f).

Kelly Brodison, Associate Planner, gave the Staff presentation.

Clay Aurell, AB Design Studio, gave the applicant presentation.

Planning Commission Minutes March 19, 2026 Page 5 of 5
Public comment opened at 3:03 p.m., and as no one wished to speak, it closed.

MOTION: Barnwell / Peterson
The Planning Commission determines that a wedding venue business qualifies as a visitorserving use in the HRC-2 (Hotel and Related Commerce) Zone, in accordance with Santa Barbara Municipal Code, Section 28.22.030.B.2.F.The motion carried by the following vote:

Ayes: 5 Noes: 0 Abstain: 0 Absent: 2 (Boss and Wardlow) V. ADMINISTRATIVE AGENDA
ACTUAL TIME: 3:22 P.M.

A. Committee and Liaison Reports:

1. Staff Hearing Officer Liaison Report
Commissioner DeLuccio reported on the Staff Hearing Officer meeting of March 18, 2026.

2. Other Committee and Liaison Reports
No reports.

B. Discussion on Subcommittees and Workshops
No discussion held.

VI. ADJOURNMENT
Vice Chair DeLuccio adjourned the meeting at 3:24 p.m.

Submitted by,
__________________________________________
Jasper Carman, Commission Secretary

CITY OF SANTA BARBARA PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO. 004-26
2339 EDGEWATER WAY

COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT
MARCH 19, 2026
Assessor’s Parcel Number: 041-350-003
Zoning Designation: E-3 / S-D-3 (One-Family Residence / Coastal Overlay) Application Number: PLN2020-00014 Filing Date: 4/24/2020 Applicant: Jarrett Gorin / Vanguard Planning Inc.

Emergency Permit: The project includes a scope of work completed under an Emergency Permit (PLN2023- 00383) associated with a 2023 slope failure along a portion of the site’s westerly bluff. The scope of work includes clearing and grubbing of the slope face to remove large vegetation, loose soils, and rock; installation of Tecco System high-tensile steel wire mesh and soil nails, a minimum of 10 feet in length, and were drilled and grouted into the bedrock slope; and subsequent hydroseeding of the area; as well as demolition of an unpermitted patio cover and outdoor BBQ/ fireplace, immediately adjacent to the slope failure, as they contributed substantial weight to the failure area.

The discretionary applications under the jurisdiction of the Planning Commission at this hearing are:

A. A Coastal Development Permit to allow the proposed development in the Appeal Jurisdiction of the City’s Coastal Zone (SBMC §28.44.060); and
B. A CEQA Determination that the project is exempt from further environmental review under Section 15301 [Existing Facilities], 15303 [New Construction of Conversion of Small Structures] and Section 15304 [Minor Alterations to Land] of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines.

Project Design Approval and Final Design Approval by the Single Family Design Board (SFDB) will also be required for the project (SBMC Chapter 30.220).

ATTACHMENT 3

PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 004–26
2339 EDGEWATER WAY
MARCH 19, 2026
PAGE 2
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has held the required public hearing on the above application, and the Applicant was present.

WHEREAS, two people appeared to speak and the following exhibits were presented for the record:

1. Staff Report with Attachments, March 12, 2026

2. Project Plans

3. Correspondence received:
a. David Bacher
b. Alexandra Hack
c. Timothy, Marie, and Michel Bourdreaux
d. Courtney O’Donnell
e. Kelli Bacher
f. Claire Bacher
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Planning Commission:

I. Approved the subject application, making the following findings and determinations:

A. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW (SBMC §22.100.160.C; CEQA Guidelines) The determination of exemption, as discussed in the staff report dated March 12, 2026, is appropriate.

B. COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT (SBMC §28.44.150)

II. Said approval is subject to the following conditions:

A. Order of Development. In order to accomplish the proposed development, the following steps shall occur in the order identified:

1. Obtain all required design review approvals.

2. Record any required documents (see Recorded Conditions Agreement section).

PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 004–26
2339 EDGEWATER WAY
MARCH 19, 2026
PAGE 3

3. Submit an application for and obtain a Building Permit (BLD) to demolish any structures / improvements and/or perform rough grading. Comply with condition E “Construction Implementation Requirements.”

4. Permits.
a. Submit an application for and obtain a Building Permit (BLD) for construction of approved development and complete said development.
b. Submit an application for and obtain a Public Works Permit (PBW) for all required public improvements and complete said improvements.

Details on implementation of these steps are provided throughout the conditions of approval.

B. Recorded Conditions Agreement. The Owner shall execute a written instrument, which shall be prepared by Planning staff, reviewed as to form and content by the City Attorney and Community Development Director, recorded in the Office of the County Recorder, and shall include the following:

1. Approved Development. The development of the Real Property approved by the Planning Commission on March 19, 2026 is limited to the three project components, as follows below and as described in the Applicant Letter dated March 5, 2026 and as shown on the plans signed by the chairperson of the Planning Commission on said date and on file at the City of Santa Barbara.

PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 004–26
2339 EDGEWATER WAY
MARCH 19, 2026
PAGE 4
(ADU) above; new pool and spa, shade structure (cabaña), patios, driveway pavers, drainage improvements, and landscaping. Seven site trees are proposed for removal and two are to be retained and protected in place; none are located within the front setback or the street.

2. Building Height Restriction. The height of the residence shall not exceed 30 feet above finished grade, and the height of the garage/ADU shall not exceed 30 feet above finished grade.

3. Uninterrupted Water Flow. The Owner shall allow for the continuation of any historic flow of water onto the Real Property including, but not limited to, swales, natural watercourses, conduits and any access road, as appropriate.

4. Recreational Vehicle Storage Limitation. No recreational vehicles, boats, or trailers shall be stored on the Real Property unless enclosed or concealed from view as approved by the Single Family Design Board (SFDB).

5. Landscape Plan Compliance. The Owner shall comply with the Landscape Plan approved by the Single Family Design Board (SFDB). Such plan shall not be modified unless prior written approval is obtained from the SFDB. The landscaping on the Real Property shall be provided and maintained in accordance with said landscape plan, including any tree protection measures. If said landscaping is removed for any reason without approval by the SFDB, the owner is responsible for its immediate replacement.

6. Storm Water Pollution Control and Drainage Systems Maintenance. Owner shall maintain the drainage system and storm water pollution control devices in a functioning state and in accordance with the Storm Water BMP Guidance Manual and Operations and Maintenance Procedure Plan approved by the Creeks Division. Should any of the project’s surface or subsurface drainage structures or storm water pollution control methods fail to capture, infiltrate, and/or treat water, or result in increased erosion, the Owner shall be responsible for any necessary repairs to the system and restoration of the eroded area.

Should repairs or restoration become necessary, prior to the commencement of such repair or restoration work, the Owner shall submit a repair and restoration plan to the Community Development Director to determine if an amendment or a new Building Permit and/or Coastal Development Permit is required to authorize such work. The Owner is responsible for the adequacy of any project-related drainage facilities and for the continued maintenance thereof in a manner that will preclude any hazard to life, health, or damage to the Real Property or any adjoining property.

7. Accessory Dwelling Unit Restrictions. The ADU shall remain at all times consistent with the City’s Ordinance requirements.

8. Future Threats to Development. By acceptance of this permit, the Owner agrees, on behalf of him/herself and all successors and assigns, that the Owner shall remove the development authorized by this permit, including the primary residence, garage, ADU, pool & spa, decks, patios, foundations, landscape, and hardscape, if any government agency has ordered that the structure(s) is not to be occupied or is otherwise unsafe due to imminent threat of damage or destruction from any shoreline hazard, including but not limited to waves, erosion, storm conditions, liquefaction, flooding, sea level rise. In the event that portions of the development fall to the bluff face, the beach, or are swept to

PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 004–26
2339 EDGEWATER WAY
MARCH 19, 2026
PAGE 5
another location before they are removed, the Owner shall remove all recoverable debris associated with the development and lawfully dispose of the material in an approved disposal site. Such removal shall require an emergency and/or regular Coastal Development Permit.

9. Ownership Limitation. This Coastal Development Permit is limited to only that time period that the land underlying the development is under the ownership of the applicant or successor in interest. If the public trust boundary moves landward resulting in the development encroaching onto public trust lands, the Coastal Development Permit will expire and the development on such public trust lands must be removed at the property owner’s expense, unless the property owner obtains appropriate legal authorization from the trustee of the public trust lands (e.g., City of Santa Barbara or State Lands Commission) and obtains a new Coastal Development Permit from the California Coastal Commission to authorize any development of public tidelands. Authorization for such development on public trust lands is restricted by the Coastal Act and Public Trust Doctrine and may not be allowed if the proposed use significantly interferes with public access or other public trust uses.

10. Coastal Hazards Liability Limitation. The Owner understands and is advised that the project site and public services to the site (utilities, roads, etc.) may be subject to beach erosion, bluff erosion, coastal bluff slope failure, coastal flooding, wave impacts, or other extraordinary hazards associated with development on a coastal beach, coastal bluff face or top, or in a coastal flood and/or wave impact area, now and in the future, factoring in the effects of sea level rise. The Owner acknowledges that public services to the site may not be maintained in perpetuity due to the impacts of sea level rise. The Owner assumes the risks of injury and damage from such hazards in connection with the permitted development. The Owner unconditionally waives any present, future, and unforeseen claims of damage or liability on the part of the City for injury or damage arising from the aforementioned or other natural hazards and relating to this permit approval, as a condition of this approval. Further, the Owner agrees to indemnify and hold harmless the City and its employees for any alleged or proven acts or omissions and related cost of defense, related to the City's approval of this permit and arising from the aforementioned or other natural hazards whether such claims should be stated by the Owner's successor-in-interest or third parties.

11. Development within Coastal Bluff Edge Development Buffer. The slope stabilization device, and the components of the landscape, hardscape, and drainage system that are located within the Coastal Bluff Edge Development Buffer, shall be subject to the following conditions:
a. Proper maintenance of the improvements is required so that they do not become a safety issue or begin to affect erosion, geologic instability, or destruction of the site or surrounding area;
b. No mechanized construction equipment shall be used for installation or removal; c. If the improvements located within the Coastal Bluff Edge Development Buffer are deemed unusable or unsafe due to imminent threat of damage or destruction from geologic instability, erosion, flooding, wave impact hazards, or other hazards

PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 004–26
2339 EDGEWATER WAY
MARCH 19, 2026
PAGE 6
associated with development on a coastal bluff or beach, their removal is required.

Removal of said improvements shall also be required when erosion reaches less than 5 feet from said improvements; and
d. The approval of the improvements located within the Coastal Bluff Edge Development Buffer is limited to a maximum 20 years from the Coastal Development Permit date of issuance. When the permit term ends, the Owner shall initiate a re-evaluation of said improvements with the City. If said re-evaluation shows said improvements still meet the standards and conditions listed above, a new Coastal Development Permit shall be obtained to retain the minor improvements. If said re-evaluation shows said improvements do not meet the standards and conditions listed above, approval by the City shall be obtained to allow removal of said improvements.

12. Tsunami and Seiche Liability Limitation.
a. The Owner acknowledges that the project site may be subject to hazards from tsunamis and/or seiches. The Owner assumes the risks of injury and damage from such hazards in connection with the permitted development. The Owner waives any claim of damage or liability against the City for injury or damage from such hazards.
b. In the event of a tsunami and/or seiche hazard event that damages the development, the Owner shall remove all recoverable debris associated with the development from the beach and the ocean and lawfully dispose of the material at an approved disposal site. Such removal shall require authorization through an emergency and/or regular Coastal Development Permit process.

13. Geotechnical Liability Limitation. The Owner understands and is advised that the site may be subject to extraordinary hazards from landslides, erosion, retreat, settlement, or subsidence and assumes liability for such hazards. The Owner unconditionally waives any present, future, and unforeseen claims of liability on the part of the City arising from the aforementioned or other natural hazards and relating to this permit approval, as a condition of this approval. Further, the Owner agrees to indemnify and hold harmless the City and its employees for any alleged or proven acts or omissions and related cost of defense, related to the City's approval of this permit and arising from the aforementioned or other natural hazards whether such claims should be stated by the Owner's successor-in-interest or third parties.

14. Areas Available for Parking. All parking areas and access thereto shall be kept open and available in the manner in which it was designed and permitted.

C. Design Review. The project is subject to the review and approval of the Single Family Design Board (SFDB). The SFDB shall not grant project design approval until the following Planning Commission land use conditions have been satisfied.

1. Landscape Plan. The final landscape plans submitted for design review Final Approval shall include the following, which shall be verified by the Community Development Director.

PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 004–26
2339 EDGEWATER WAY
MARCH 19, 2026
PAGE 7
a. Demonstrate consistency with Policies 4.3-11, Landscape Plans Required, and 5.1- 38, Landscaping, Watering, Weight, and Drainage on Coastal Bluff Faces and Coastal Bluff Edge Development Buffers.
b. Clearly show that only native, drought-tolerant vegetation is proposed. c. Clearly show that only minimal manual watering needed for the establishment of new plantings is to occur on the Coastal Bluff Face.
d. Clearly show that only minimal watering, achieved manually or with easily removable drip irrigation tubing, needed for the establishment of new plantings is to occur, within the Coastal Bluff Edge Development Buffer. e. Statement of Compliance signed by the plans preparer certifying that the landscape design complies with the City’s mandatory water conservation elements.

2. Storm Water Management Program (SWMP). Before Design Review Final Approval can be granted the proposed BMPs must comply with specifications described in Chapter 6 of the BMP Guidance Manual, to be verified by Creeks staff. Include cross-section details of all proposed BMPs that demonstrate compliance with these requirements. This includes the grass-crete pavers, and any other permeable hardscape or surface that reduces the amount of impervious area.

3. Tree Protection Measures. The landscape plan and grading plan shall include the following tree protection measures:
a. Tree Protection. All trees four inches in diameter or greater at four feet six inches above grade in height not indicated for removal on the approved landscape plan shall be preserved, protected, and maintained.
b. Replacement. All trees removed shall be replaced on-site on a 1:1 basis with minimum 24-inch box sized trees of an appropriate species or like species, in order to maintain the site’s visual appearance and reduce impacts resulting from the loss of trees.
c. Landscaping Under Trees. Landscaping under the trees shall be compatible with the preservation of the trees, as determined by the SFDB.

4. Appropriate Plants on Coastal Bluff Face and within the Coastal Bluff Edge Development Buffer. Special attention shall be paid to the appropriateness of the existing and proposed plant material on the Coastal Bluff Face and within the Coastal Bluff Edge Development Buffer. All new plantings shall be native, drought tolerant vegetation. All existing succulent plants that add weight to the bluff and/or contribute to erosion shall be removed in a manner that does not disturb the root system and replaced with appropriate plant material in a manner that does not increase the rate of erosion.

5. Irrigation System. The irrigation system shall be designed and maintained with the most current technology to prevent a system failure. Watering of vegetation on the coastal bluff edge shall be kept to the minimum necessary for plant survival. The drip system along the coastal bluff edge shall be removed after one full season of plant growth.

PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 004–26
2339 EDGEWATER WAY
MARCH 19, 2026
PAGE 8

6. Screened Backflow Device. The backflow devices for fire sprinklers, pools, spas and/or irrigation systems shall be provided in a location screened from public view or included in the exterior wall of the building, as approved by the SFDB.

7. Location of Dry Utilities. Dry utilities (e.g. above-ground cabinets) shall be placed on private property unless deemed infeasible for engineering reasons. If dry utilities must be placed in the public right-of-way, they shall painted “Malaga Green,” and if feasible, they shall be screened as approved by SFDB.

D. Requirements Prior to Permit Issuance. The Owner shall submit the following, or evidence of completion of the following, for review and approval by the Department listed below prior to the issuance of any permit for the project. Some of these conditions may be waived for demolition or rough grading permits, at the discretion of the department listed. Please note that these conditions are in addition to the standard submittal requirements for each department.

1. Public Works Department.
a. Approved Public Improvement Plans. Public Improvement Plans as identified in condition D.1.c. “Edgewater Way Public Improvements” shall be submitted to the Public Works Department for review and approval. Upon acceptance of completed public improvement plans, a Building permit may be issued if the Owner has bonded for public improvements and executed the Agreement to Construct and Install Improvements (Not a Subdivision).
b. Water Rights Assignment Agreement. The Owner shall assign to the City of Santa Barbara the exclusive right to extract ground water from under the Real Property in an Agreement Assigning Water Extraction Rights. Engineering Division Staff prepares said agreement for the Owner’s signature. c. Edgewater Way Public Improvements. The Owner shall submit C-1 public improvement plans for construction of improvements along the property frontage on Edgewater Way. Plans shall be submitted separately from plans submitted for a Building Permit, and shall be prepared by a licensed civil engineer registered in the State of California. As determined by the Public Works Department, the improvements shall include new and/or remove and replace to City standards, the following: non-City Standard driveway apron modified to meet Title 24 requirements with a maximum width of 14 feet, crack seal to the centerline of the street along entire subject property frontage and slurry seal a minimum of 20 feet beyond the limits of all trenching, connection to City water and sewer mains and utilities, public drainage improvements with supporting drainage calculations and/or hydrology report for installation of drainage pipe or connection to existing City storm drain system, preserve and/or reset survey monuments, supply and install directional/regulatory traffic control signs per the CA MUTCD during construction, and provide adequate positive drainage from site. Any work in the public right-of-way requires a Public Works Permit.
d. Haul Routes Require Separate Permit. Apply for a Public Works permit to establish the haul routes for all construction-related trucks with a gross vehicle weight rating of three tons or more entering or exiting the site.

PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 004–26
2339 EDGEWATER WAY
MARCH 19, 2026
PAGE 9
e. Construction-Related Truck Trips. Construction-related truck trips for trucks with a gross vehicle weight rating of three tons or more shall not be scheduled during peak hours (7:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m.) in order to help reduce truck traffic on adjacent streets and roadways. f. Agreement to Construct and Install Improvements. The Owner shall submit an executed Agreement to Construct and Install Improvements, prepared by the Engineering Division, an Engineer’s Estimate, signed and stamped by a registered civil engineer, and securities for construction of improvements prior to execution of the Agreement.

2. Community Development Department.
a. Recordation of Agreements. The Owner shall provide evidence of recordation of the written instrument that includes all of the Recorded Conditions identified in condition B “Recorded Conditions Agreement” to the Community Development Department prior to issuance of any Building Permits.
b. Implementation of Engineering Geology and Geotechnical Report Recommendations. The project shall comply with the recommendations contained in the Engineering Geology and Geotechnical Engineering Report, prepared by Earth Systems Pacific, dated July 30, 2019 and revised August 18, 2020; and subsequent letters, prepared by Earth Systems Pacific, dated August 14, 2020; February 2, 2021; October 1, 2021; August 17, 2023; December 6, 2023; December 4, 2024; January 22, 2025; February 27, 2025; and the Bluff Edge Exhibits, prepared by Thomas Oschner Architect, dated November 25, 2025. c. Requirement for Archaeological Resources. The following information shall be printed on the grading plans:

If archaeological resources are encountered or suspected, work shall be halted or redirected immediately and the Planning Division shall be notified. The archaeologist shall assess the nature, extent, and significance of any discoveries and develop appropriate management recommendations for archaeological resource treatment, which may include, but are not limited to, redirection of grading and/or excavation activities, consultation and/or monitoring with a Barbareño Chumash representative from the most current City Qualified Barbareño Chumash Site Monitors List, etc.

If the discovery consists of possible human remains, the Santa Barbara County Coroner shall be contacted immediately. If the Coroner determines that the remains are Native American, the Coroner shall contact the California Native American Heritage Commission. A Barbareño Chumash representative from the most current City Qualified Barbareño Chumash Site Monitors List shall be retained to monitor all further subsurface disturbance in the area of the find. Work in the area may only proceed after the Planning Division grants authorization.

If the discovery consists of possible prehistoric or Native American artifacts or materials, a Barbareño Chumash representative from the most current City Qualified Barbareño Chumash Site Monitors List shall be retained to monitor all

_____________________________________________________________

PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 004–26
2339 EDGEWATER WAY
MARCH 19, 2026
PAGE 10
further subsurface disturbance in the area of the find. Work in the area may only proceed after the Planning Division grants authorization. d. Arborist’s Monitoring Contract. Submit to the Planning Division an executed contract with a qualified arborist for monitoring of all work within the drip line of trees during construction. The contract shall include a schedule for the arborist's presence during grading and construction activities, and is subject to the review and approval of the Planning Division.
e. Design Review Requirements. Plans shall show all design, landscape and tree protection elements, as approved by the appropriate design review board and as outlined in Section C “Design Review,” and all elements/specifications shall be implemented on-site.
f. Conditions on Plans/Signatures. The final Resolution shall be provided on a fullsize drawing sheet as part of the drawing sets. Each condition shall have a sheet and/or note reference to verify condition compliance. If the condition relates to a document submittal, indicate the status of the submittal (e.g., Final Map submitted to Public Works Department for review). The following statement shall be signed prior to issuance of any permits:

The undersigned have read and understand the required conditions, and agree to abide by all conditions.

Signed:

Property Owner Date
Property Owner Date
E. Construction Implementation Requirements. All of these construction requirements shall be carried out in the field by the Owner and/or Contractor for the duration of the project construction, including demolition and grading.

1. Construction Contact Sign. Immediately after Building permit issuance, signage shall be posted at the points of entry to the site that list the contractor’s name, contractor’s telephone number, construction work hours, site rules, and construction-related conditions, to assist Building Inspectors and Police Officers in the enforcement of the conditions of approval.

The font size shall be a minimum of 0.5 inches in height. Said sign shall not exceed six feet in height from the ground if it is free-standing or placed on a fence. It shall not exceed 24 square feet if in a multi-family or commercial zone or six square feet if in a single family zone.

2. Construction Storage/Staging. Construction vehicle/ equipment/ materials storage and staging shall be done on-site. No parking or storage shall be permitted within the public right-of-way, unless specifically permitted by the Public Works Director with a Public Works permit.

PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 004–26
2339 EDGEWATER WAY
MARCH 19, 2026
PAGE 11

3. Construction Parking. During construction, free parking spaces for construction workers shall be provided on-site or off-site in a location subject to the approval of the Public Works Director. However, parking on-site shall be accommodated whenever possible.

4. Nesting Birds. Birds and their eggs nesting on or near the project site are protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and pursuing, hunting, taking, capturing, killing, or attempt to do any of the above is a violation of federal and state regulations. No trimming or removing brush or trees shall occur if nesting birds are found in the vegetation. All care should be taken not to disturb the nest(s). Removal or trimming may only occur after the young have fledged from the nets(s).

5. Arborist Monitoring and Tree Protection. Trees not approved for removal shall be protected during grading and construction activities as follows:
a. All trees within 25 feet of proposed construction activity shall be fenced three feet outside the dripline for protection.
b. No grading shall occur within three feet of the driplines of the existing trees. c. A qualified arborist shall be present during any excavation beneath the driplines of the trees which are required to be protected. All excavation within the driplines of the trees shall be minimized and shall be done with hand tools. d. Any roots encountered shall be cleanly cut and sealed with a tree-seal compound. e. Any root pruning and trimming shall be done under the direction of a qualified Arborist.
f. No heavy equipment, storage of materials or parking shall take place under the dripline of any tree.

6. Air Quality and Dust Control. The following measures shall be shown on grading and building plans and shall be adhered to throughout grading, hauling, and construction activities:
a. During construction, use water trucks or sprinkler systems to keep all areas of vehicle movement damp enough to prevent dust from leaving the site. At a minimum, this should include wetting down such areas in the late morning and after work is completed for the day. Increased watering frequency should be required whenever the wind speed exceeds 15 mph. Reclaimed water should be used whenever possible. However, reclaimed water should not be used in or around crops for human consumption.
b. Minimize amount of disturbed area and reduce on site vehicle speeds to 15 miles per hour or less.
c. If importation, exportation and stockpiling of fill material is involved, soil stockpiled for more than two days shall be covered, kept moist, or treated with soil binders to prevent dust generation. Trucks transporting fill material to and from the site shall be tarped from the point of origin.
d. Gravel pads shall be installed at all access points to prevent tracking of mud onto public roads.

PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 004–26
2339 EDGEWATER WAY
MARCH 19, 2026
PAGE 12
e. After clearing, grading, earth moving or excavation is completed, treat the disturbed area by watering, or revegetating, or by spreading soil binders until the area is paved or otherwise developed so that dust generation will not occur. f. The contractor or builder shall designate a person or persons to monitor the dust control program and to order increased watering, as necessary, to prevent transport of dust offsite. Their duties shall include holiday and weekend periods when work may not be in progress. The name and telephone number of such persons shall be provided to the Air Pollution Control District prior to land use clearance for map recordation and land use clearance for finish grading of the structure. g. All portable diesel-powered construction equipment shall be registered with the state’s portable equipment registration program OR shall obtain an APCD permit. h. Fleet owners of mobile construction equipment are subject to the California Air Resource Board (CARB) Regulation for In-use Off-road Diesel Vehicles (Title 13 California Code of Regulations, Chapter 9, § 2449), the purpose of which is to reduce diesel particulate matter (PM) and criteria pollutant emissions from in-use (existing) off-road diesel-fueled vehicles. For more information, please refer to the CARB website at www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/ordiesel/ordiesel.htm. i. All commercial diesel vehicles are subject to Title 13, § 2485 of the California Code of Regulations, limiting engine idling time. Idling of heavy-duty diesel construction equipment and trucks during loading and unloading shall be limited to five minutes; electric auxiliary power units should be used whenever possible. j. Diesel construction equipment meeting the California Air Resources Board (CARB) Tier 1 emission standards for off-road heavy-duty diesel engines shall be used. Equipment meeting CARB Tier 2 or higher emission standards should be used to the maximum extent feasible.
k. Diesel powered equipment should be replaced by electric equipment whenever feasible.
l. If feasible, diesel construction equipment shall be equipped with selective catalytic reduction systems, diesel oxidation catalysts and diesel particulate filters as certified and/or verified by EPA or California.
m. Catalytic converters shall be installed on gasoline-powered equipment, if feasible. n. All construction equipment shall be maintained in tune per the manufacturer’s specifications.
o. The engine size of construction equipment shall be the minimum practical size. p. The number of construction equipment operating simultaneously shall be minimized through efficient management practices to ensure that the smallest practical number is operating at any one time. Construction worker trips should be minimized by requiring carpooling and by providing for lunch onsite.

PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 004–26
2339 EDGEWATER WAY
MARCH 19, 2026
PAGE 13

7. Discovery of Paleontological Resources. If paleontological resources are discovered in the course of construction, including earth-moving activities or other ground disturbances, the following shall occur:
a. All activity that could damage or destroy these resources shall be immediately halted;
b. A Registered Professional Paleontologist shall examine the site and provide an evaluation of the nature and importance of the resources; c. Mitigation measures shall be implemented to address the impacts of the construction on the resources following the guidance of the City’s Coastal Land Use Plan Policy 4.4-8 In-Situ Preservation and Avoidance Preferred and Policy

4.4-9 Mitigation if In-Situ Preservation is not Feasible; d. The City’s Environmental Analyst shall determine whether the construction or mitigation measures require additional environmental review and/or a new or amended Coastal Development Permit; and
e. The City shall notify the Coastal Commission staff that important paleontological resources were discovered during construction.

Activities that may adversely impact these resources shall not resume without written authorization from the City’s Environmental Analyst that construction may proceed.

8. Unanticipated Archaeological Resources Contractor Notification. Standard discovery measures shall be implemented per the City master Environmental Assessment throughout grading and construction: Prior to the start of any vegetation or paving removal, demolition, trenching or grading, contractors and construction personnel shall be alerted to the possibility of uncovering unanticipated subsurface archaeological features or artifacts.

If such archaeological resources are encountered or suspected, work shall be halted immediately, the City Environmental Analyst shall be notified and the Owner shall retain an archaeologist from the most current City Qualified Archaeologists List. The latter shall be employed to assess the nature, extent and significance of any discoveries and to develop appropriate management recommendations for archaeological resource treatment, which may include, but are not limited to, redirection of grading and/or excavation activities, consultation and/or monitoring with a Barbareño Chumash representative from the most current City qualified Barbareño Chumash Site Monitors List, etc.

A Barbareño Chumash representative from the most current City Qualified Barbareño Chumash Site Monitors List shall be retained to monitor all further subsurface disturbance in the area of the find. Work in the area may only proceed after the Environmental Analyst grants authorization.

PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 004–26
2339 EDGEWATER WAY
MARCH 19, 2026
PAGE 14
in the area of the find. Work in the area may only proceed after the Environmental Analyst grants authorization.

A final report on the results of the archaeological monitoring shall be submitted by the City-approved archaeologist to the Environmental Analyst within 180 days of completion of the monitoring and prior to any certificate of occupancy for the project.

F. Prior to Certificate of Occupancy. Prior to issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy, the Owner of the Real Property shall complete the following:

1. Repair Damaged Public Improvements. Repair any public improvements (curbs, gutters, sidewalks, roadways, etc.) or property damaged by construction subject to the review and approval of the Public Works Department per SBMC §22.60. Where tree roots are the cause of the damage, the roots shall be pruned under the direction of a qualified arborist.

2. Complete Public Improvements. Public improvements, as shown in the public improvement plans or building plans, shall be completed.

G. General Conditions.

1. Compliance with Requirements. All requirements of the city of Santa Barbara and any other applicable requirements of any law or agency of the State and/or any government entity or District shall be met. This includes, but is not limited to, the Endangered Species Act of 1973 [ESA] and any amendments thereto (16 U.S.C. § 1531 et seq.), the 1979 Air Quality Attainment Plan, and the California Code of Regulations.

2. Approval Limitations.
a. The conditions of this approval supersede all conflicting notations, specifications, dimensions, and the like which may be shown on submitted plans. b. All buildings, roadways, parking areas and other features shall be located substantially as shown on the plans approved by the Planning Commission. c. Any deviations from the project description, approved plans or conditions must be reviewed and approved by the City, in accordance with the Planning Commission Guidelines. Deviations may require changes to the permit and/or further environmental review. Deviations without the above-described approval will constitute a violation of permit approval.

3. Site Maintenance. The existing site/structures shall be maintained and secured. Any landscaping shall be watered and maintained until demolition occurs.

4. Litigation Indemnification Agreement. In the event the Planning Commission approval of the Project is appealed to the City Council, Applicant/Owner hereby agrees to defend the City, its officers, employees, agents, consultants and independent contractors (“City’s Agents”) from any third party legal challenge to the City Council’s denial of the appeal and approval of the Project, including, but not limited to, challenges filed pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (collectively “Claims”). Applicant/Owner further agrees to indemnify and hold harmless the City and the City’s Agents from any award of attorney fees or court costs made in connection with any Claim.

_______________________________________________ ____________________________

April 9, 2026
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 004–26
2339 EDGEWATER WAY
MARCH 19, 2026
PAGE 15
Applicant/Owner shall execute a written agreement, in a form approved by the City Attorney, evidencing the foregoing commitments of defense and indemnification within thirty (30) days of being notified of a lawsuit regarding the Project. These commitments of defense and indemnification are material conditions of the approval of the Project. If Applicant/Owner fails to execute the required defense and indemnification agreement within the time allotted, the Project approval shall become null and void absent subsequent acceptance of the agreement by the City, which acceptance shall be within the City’s sole and absolute discretion. Nothing contained in this condition shall prevent the City or the City’s Agents from independently defending any Claim. If the City or the City’s Agents decide to independently defend a Claim, the City and the City’s Agents shall bear their own attorney fees, expenses, and costs of that independent defense.

III. Said approval is subject to the following time Limits:

A. NOTICE OF COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT TIME LIMITS:

The Planning Commission action approving the Coastal Development Permit shall expire two (2) years from the date of final action upon the application, per Santa Barbara Municipal Code §28.44.230, unless:

1. Otherwise explicitly modified by conditions of approval for the coastal development permit.

2. A Building Permit for the work authorized by the coastal development permit is issued prior to the expiration date of the approval.

3. The Community Development Director grants an extension of the coastal development permit approval. The Community Development Director may grant up to three (3) oneyear extensions of the coastal development permit approval. Each extension may be granted upon the Director finding that: (i) the development continues to conform to the Local Coastal Program, (ii) the applicant has demonstrated due diligence in completing the development, and (iii) there are no changed circumstances that affect the consistency of the development with the General Plan or any other applicable ordinances, resolutions, or other laws.

This motion was passed and adopted on the nineteenth day of March, 2026 by the Planning Commission of the City of Santa Barbara, by the following vote:

AYES: 4 NOES: 1 (Baucke) ABSTAIN: 0 ABSENT: 2 (Boss and Wardlow) I hereby certify that this Resolution correctly reflects the action taken by the City of Santa Barbara Planning Commission at its meeting of the above date.

Jasper Carman, Commission Secretary Date
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 004–26
2339 EDGEWATER WAY
MARCH 19, 2026
PAGE 16
PLEASE BE ADVISED:

THIS ACTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION CAN BE APPEALED TO THE CITY COUNCIL WITHIN TEN (10) CALENDAR DAYS AFTER THE DATE THE ACTION WAS TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION.

March 30, 2026
City Council of the City of Santa Barbara
City Hall, 735 Anacapa Street
Santa Barbara, California 93101
RE: APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION | PLN2020-00014 | 2339 Edgewater Way | APN 041-350-003 | Decision Date: March 19, 2026
Dear Mayor and Members of the City Council of the City of Santa Barbara:

I hereby appeal the decision of the Santa Barbara Planning Commission approving the project at 2339 Edgewater Way PLN 2020-00014. This appeal is timely filed within the applicable appeal period following the March 19, 2026 Planning Commission hearing.

The Planning Commission's approval rests on an uncorrected floor area ratio (FAR) calculation, contains three irreconcilable building height figures, does not confirm compliance with the 6-foot interior setback along the property boundary shared with Appellant, omits conditions required by the applicant's own written commitments and a stipulated court order, and fails to confirm fire code access— all on a 3–1 vote (one member absent) on a bluff-top site that experienced a documented slope failure in 2023. Each of these failures is an independent and sufficient basis for reversal or remand. Together, they demonstrate that the Commission's findings are not supported.

I. Required Appeal Information
Body Whose Decision Is
Being Appealed
Santa Barbara Planning Commission
Date of Decision March 19, 2026
Decision Being Appealed Approval of Coastal Development Permit PLN2020-00014 by a 3–1 vote (one member absent), authorizing demolition of the existing residence and construction of a new two-story 3,784 SF (net) residence with 559 SF basement, detached 494 SF (net) two-car garage with 452 SF ADU above, pool, spa, cabaña shade structure, covered patio, driveway, drainage improvements, and landscaping at 2339 Edgewater Way, a bluff-top lot in the appealable jurisdiction of the Coastal Zone, E-3/SD-3 zone.

Appellant's Name Alexandra Hack
Mailing Address 2327 Edgewater Way, Santa Barbara, CA 93109 Telephone 626 841 1110
Email [email protected]
Affected Properties 2327 Edgewater Way (APN 041-350-005) and 2337 Edgewater Way (APN 041-350-004), Santa Barbara, CA 93109 — immediately adjacent to the subject parcel and sharing interior property boundaries with it.

ATTACHMENT 4

II. Appellant's Standing and Interest
Appellant Alexandra Hack owns the two parcels immediately adjacent to and sharing interior property lines with the subject parcel: 2327 Edgewater Way (APN 041-350-005) and 2337 Edgewater Way (APN 041-350-004). Appellant participated throughout the entitlement process, submitting written correspondence that is acknowledged in the administrative record at the SFDB concept review hearings of June 6, 2022, August 15, 2022, and October 24, 2022, and at the March 19, 2026 Planning Commission hearing.

Appellant is also a party to a stipulated court order enforcing a lot line adjustment settlement agreement between the subject parcel and the adjacent parcels — an agreement whose obligations bear directly on conditions that the Conditions of Approval fail to include.

The approved project proposes structures that abut and in several places appear to encroach into the 6-foot interior setback shared with Appellant's 2337 Edgewater Way parcel, proposes a mass and scale that the SFDB itself repeatedly asked to be reduced specifically in relation to the neighboring parcels, and carries unresolved obligations running directly to Appellant as courtorder party.

III. Grounds for Appeal
The following grounds each independently support reversal or remand. They are supported by specific citations to the approved plans, the Staff Report dated March 12, 2026, and the ACA case activity history for PLN2020-00014.

Ground 1 — FAR Calculated on incorrect Net Lot Area — Correct Area Is 31,442 SF
Planning Commission Resolution 011-24, adopted at the September 12, 2024 hearing, approved a Lot Line Adjustment (LLA PLN2022-00368) transferring 2,497.73 square feet of land from the subject parcel (2339 Edgewater Way, APN 041-350-003) to Appellant's parcel at 2337 Edgewater Way (APN 041-350-004). Following the adjustment, 2339 Edgewater Way will have a corrected lot area of 31,442 square feet, as established by Resolution 011-24.

The FAR calculations, presented on Cover Sheet T-1.0 of the project plans reference a lot area of 33,945 sf which is grossly overstated and incorrect. This does not reflect the correct post-LLA lot area of 31,442 square feet established by Resolution 011-24.

Under SBMC §28.15, the FAR maximum is calculated as a function of net lot area. Using an overstated lot area inflates the FAR maximum and therefore inflates the apparent headroom available to the project. The Staff Report's zoning statistics table did not include FAR at all, making it impossible for the Commission to have evaluated whether the proposed 4,730 SF (with ADU) complies with the correctly calculated maximum. The Commission's finding that 'the project is compliant with all applicable zoning regulations' is facially unsupported.

The only FAR calculations in the record use a lot area that contradicts the lot area established by the Commission's own prior resolution (011-24). This must be corrected before any approval can be made.

Ground 2 — FAR Calculator Enters 25% Slope —Actual Slope Is 31% The SBMC §28.15 FAR calculator on Cover Sheet T-1.0 enters an average lot slope of 25.00% in all three calculation scenarios. This figure is contradicted by the project's own record:
• The Project Data table on the same sheet (T-1.0) states: SLOPE: 31% • The Staff Report, Section V.A (Site Information), states: Topography: 31% average slope • The topographic survey (Sheet S-1) confirms the site's steep coastal bluff character, consistent with 31% average slope
• The E-3/SD-3 (Hillside Design District) overlay applies to this site precisely because it exceeds hillside slope thresholds
The distinction between 25% and 31% is not a rounding difference — it is a code-significance threshold. Under the SD-3 Hillside Design District overlay, 31% slope crosses the threshold that triggers heightened review standards. Entering 25% instead of 31% artificially inflates the maximum FAR output of the §28.15 formula, creating apparent compliance headroom that does not exist when the correct inputs are used.

The project as proposed —4,730 SF with the ADU — is presented as being 98% of maximum, based on the inflated maximum derived from the wrong slope. On a corrected basis, the true percentages of the true maximum are unknown because no correct calculation appears anywhere in the record. The slope figure in the FAR calculator contradicts the slope stated on the same plan sheet and in the Staff Report. No explanation is offered. No correct FAR analysis has been performed. A corrected FAR analysis using the confirmed 31% slope and the confirmed post-LLA lot area of 31,442 SF should be required before any approval may be reinstated.

Furthermore, the FAR of the adjacent 2327 Edgewater Way, which was built in 2022, is 82% and does not include an ADU. The project at 2339 Edgewater Way is out of context with the surrounding neighborhood, as is further evidenced by the story pole displays shown in photos below. The project is located incredibly close to our property line and encroaches within 6 foot setback requirements from the newly recorded property lines established post-LLA. In particular, 2337 Edgewater Way is severely impacted by the intrusive mass and bulk of the 2339 Edgewater.

It should also be noted that the size and scale of 2339 Edgewater Way as depicted by the story poles grossly exceeds the comparable dimensions of my home at 2327 Edgewater Way, which was recently built in 2022. The mass and height is completely beyond the reasonable scale of the neighborhood and especially my adjacent property. All of the following photos were taken on March 19th 2026 from vantage points located solely on my adjacent properties.

Ground 3 -- Grading Volume Likely Triggers a Mandatory FAR Modification Under SBMC §28.15, a FAR Modification is a separate, required discretionary approval when two conditions are both met: (1) proposed buildings exceed 17 feet in height — here uncontested by any party; and (2) the project includes 500 or more square yards of grading outside the main building footprint.

The Cover Sheet FAR calculator answers 'No' to the second condition, representing that grading outside the main building footprint is less than 500 square yards (4,500 square feet). This representation is not supported by the plans. The project proposes the following improvements entirely outside the main building footprint:
• 583 cubic yards of cut grading and 105 cubic yards of fill • Pool and spa excavation
• New motor court
• Permeable driveway replacement
• Cabaña shade structure (221 SF gross planning area)
• Covered patio (992 SF gross planning area)
• Two bioretention basins for stormwater treatment
• Underground StormTech infiltration chamber system
• V-ditch drainage system and pump station along the bluff edge • Remedial grading along the coastal bluff face
The combined footprint of these improvements — the pool, spa, motor court, driveway, cabaña, covered patio, bioretention basins, and drainage infrastructure — substantially exceeds 4,500 square feet on a 31,442-square-foot lot. If the FAR Modification threshold is triggered, the 'No'

answer in the calculator is incorrect, a FAR Modification would be required as a separate discretionary approval, and the project as approved cannot proceed without it.

Ground 4 — Interior Setback Encroachments Along the East Property Boundary The required interior setback in the E-3 zone is 6 feet from all interior property lines (SBMC §28.87.020). The east interior property line of 2339 Edgewater Way is shared with Appellant's parcel at 2337 Edgewater Way, the property from which the 2,497.73 SF LLA transfer originated.

Dimensions on the Face of the Plans
The Enlarged Site Plan (Sheet A-1.2) shows the following labeled dimensions between the east face of the main residence and the east property line:

Location on East
Elevation
Dimension
Shown
Compliant? Shortfall
Northernmost point
of main house east
wall
6'-0" At limit — no margin 0" — exactly at minimum
Southeastern
portion of main
building
2'-2¾" ENCROACHMENT — ~3'-
9" into setback
~3'-9" short of 6' minimum
Lower southeast
corner / pool deck
area
2'-4¾" ENCROACHMENT — ~3'-
7" into setback
~3'-7" short of 6' minimum
The dimensions of 2'-2¾" and 2'-4¾", appearing between the building wall face and the labeled east property line on Sheet A-1.2, represent encroachments of approximately 3'-9" and 3'-7", respectively, into the required 6-foot interior setback — violations of SBMC §28.87.020.

The March 19th 2026 Staff Report's zoning compliance table notes interior setbacks as 'Variable, Compliant' — a single generic notation without any supporting dimension, without identifying where the minimum is achieved, and without acknowledging the sub-6-foot dimensions clearly visible on the face of the submitted plans. This boilerplate finding is insufficient to establish compliance when the plans themselves show dimensions materially below the required minimum along the boundary shared with Appellant's property.

The plans submitted for approval show dimensions of 2'-2¾" and 2'-4¾" on the east face of the main building — below the 6-foot minimum by nearly 4 feet at the worst point. The Staff Report finding of 'Variable, Compliant' does not address these dimensions.

It should be requirement for Staff to provide a point-by-point setback verification along all four interior boundaries with specific dimensions, and require the applicant to demonstrate that no building element is within 6 feet of any interior property line before any approval may be reinstated.

Ground 5 — SFDB Concept Review Comments Never Confirmed Resolved The Planning Commission made findings and approved the project on the following grounds, as stated in the March 19th 2026 Staff report: “If approved as proposed, the project would conform to the City’s Zoning and Building Ordinances and policies of the Coastal Land Use Plan. In addition, the site location; size, bulk, and scale; and landscaping and screening are appropriate, per the Single Family Design Board’s October 24, 2022 concept review comments. Therefore, staff Staff Report Mischaracterizes the October 2022 SFDB Outcome FAR Reduction Toward 85% of the Maximum Guideline

Removal of Second-Floor Easterly Deck — Privacy Impact on Appellant's Property

SFDB repeatedly references lowering Plate Heights
recommends that the Planning Commission approve the project, making the findings outlined in Section VI of this report, and subject to the conditions of approval in Exhibit A.” The project appeared before the Single Family Design Board for concept review on four occasions between 2020 and 2022. The SFDB made the following specific, recurring requests — directed specifically at the relationship between this project and the adjacent properties, including Appellant's parcels — none of which are confirmed as implemented in the findings.

The Planning March 19th 2026 Staff Report states that size, bulk, and scale are 'appropriate, per the Single Family Design Board's October 24, 2022 concept review comments.' The October 2022 meeting, however, did not produce an approval — it resulted in a continuation with additional reduction requests. The Board's motion was to continue indefinitely to the Planning Commission with comments that included the plate height reduction request. The Staff Report presents the October 2022 continuation as though it were affirmative SFDB endorsement of the current design, which is an inaccurate characterization of the record.

On at least two separate occasions, the SFDB explicitly requested that the applicant reduce the project's FAR:
"Study to reduce the FAR of the primary residence to help reduce the overall site FAR to be closer to 85% of the maximum guideline." — SFDB Concept Review, August 15, 2022
"Consider a reduction in floor-to-lot-area ratio (FAR)." — SFDB Concept Review, June 6, 2022
The project was not reduced. The proposed FAR — calculated with incorrect inputs — remains at 98% with the ADU. On corrected inputs (31% slope, 31,442 SF lot), the FAR percentage may be higher still. The SFDB's explicit, repeated guidance to reduce FAR was disregarded, and the Staff Report does not explain why.
"For privacy reasons the Board requests removal of the deck off the master bath on the second floor on the easterly side of the primary residence. Additionally the balcony cannot be within 18 feet." — SFDB Concept Review, August 15, 2022 The easterly elevation faces Appellant's parcel at 2337 Edgewater Way directly. Whether the second-floor easterly deck was removed, relocated, or remains as proposed is not addressed in the Staff Report. No finding confirms this privacy concern was resolved.

The SFDB concept review on October 24, 2022 requested to “study lowering the plate heights” of the project “as a reduction may help the building be more in balance”. The June 2022 review made the same request: 'Reduce the proposed plate heights.' The building sections in the approved plans do not confirm these reductions were implemented.

It should be required that there is confirmation that all SFDB concept review comments — specifically FAR reduction, easterly deck removal, and plate height reduction — were addressed in the final design, before Project Design Approval, Final Design Approval, and any reinstated CDP can issue.

Ground 6 — Utility Pole Relocation and Service Continuity — Condition Omitted Planning Commission Resolution 011-24, adopted at the September 12, 2024 LLA hearing, references the applicant's written commitment — as stated in the Applicant Letter dated March 4, 2024, authored by Jarrett Gorin of Vanguard Planning — that:
"An existing utility pole located at the northwest corner of APN 041-350-005 will be removed or relocated to provide unobstructed access to Adjusted Parcel 2 (2337 Edgewater Way)." — Applicant Letter, March 4, 2024 / referenced in Resolution 011-24 This commitment is further memorialized in a stipulated court order as part of the settlement agreement regarding the Lot Line Adjustment, to which Appellant is a party. Additionally, the utility power shall be continued through 2339 Edgewater Way to 2337 Edgewater Way — i.e., the live utility wire serving Appellant's parcel must remain uninterrupted throughout construction and upon project completion. This is to be implemented at 2339 Edgewater Way applicant’s complete expense as agreed upon and stipulated in the record.

At the March 19, 2026 hearing, the Planning Commission discussed the utility pole relocation, however the CDP Conditions of Approval as adopted do not include this obligation as an express condition. This omission allows the applicant to proceed under the CDP while the utility obligation — which is both an applicant commitment and a stipulated requirement — remains unenforceable through the permitting process.

It is requested that the Conditions of Approval include:
• An express condition requiring removal or relocation of the existing telephone/utility pole at the northwest corner of APN 041-350-005, consistent with Resolution 011-24 and the stipulated court order, as a precondition to building permit issuance. • An express condition of maintenance of continuous, uninterrupted live utility service to 2337 Edgewater Way (APN 041-350-004) throughout all phases of construction and upon project completion.

I humbly request that the City Council modify and add the utility pole relocation and service continuity as express conditions of approval, enforceable through the building permit process, consistent with the applicant's written commitments and the stipulated court order.

Ground 7 — Fire Code Access Requirements —Departmental Comments Unresolved
The ACA case activity history for PLN2020-00014 shows the Santa Barbara Fire Department issued access comments on the current plan set. Neither has been confirmed resolved in the record, and neither is addressed in the Conditions of Approval.

Unobstructed Road Width — MC 8.04, §§503.1.1 and 503.2.1 "ACCESS: MC 8.04, Section 503.1.1 and 503.2.1 — Access roadways serving three or fewer single family residences shall have an unobstructed road width of 16 feet to within 150 feet of all exterior walls of the structure." — Fire Department Review, April 2025
The Site Plan (Sheet A-1.1) annotates 'FIRETRUCK ACCESS TO 150' FROM FURTHEST POINT OF STRUCTURE,' confirming the applicant is aware of the 150-foot standard. However, the plan also shows a new vehicular gate across the driveway entry and a 6-foot high chain-link fence flanking the driveway. The 150-foot measurement must reach all exterior walls of each structure — including the detached garage/ADU, which sits on a separate footprint from the main residence. Whether the driveway, as configured and gated, maintains 16 feet of unobstructed width to within 150 feet of all exterior walls of all structures has not been confirmed in the record.

This is important to address access requirements to 2337 Edgewater Way and 2327 Edgewater Way is not encumbered by 2339 Edgewater Way improvement plans.

No condition of approval requires Fire Department sign-off on this geometry. The record does not show a subsequent Fire Review confirming these comments were resolved on the current plans.

Ground 8 Building Height — Three Irreconcilable Figures Across the Plans and Staff Report
The project's building height is stated differently in three locations within the record, with no explanation for the discrepancy:

Source Height Stated Notes
Cover Sheet T-1.0 — Project
Data table
24'-7¾" Listed under BUILDING HEIGHT in project
data
Building Sections A-5.1 — T.O.

Parapet 1
23'-5" Dimensioned consistently across all f our
section cuts A-5.1 through A-5.4
Staff Report — Zoning Statistics
Table
25'-2" Used as the figure for code compliance
determination
The spread between the lowest figure (23'-5" from the building sections) and the controlling figure used by staff (25'-2") is nearly 22 inches. On a sloped coastal bluff lot, building height is measured from averaged finished grade — a methodology that depends critically on which grade points are selected, how they are averaged, and from what datum they are measured. None of this is disclosed in the record. The Commission's condition of approval states only that height 'shall not exceed 30 feet above finished grade,' which is the code maximum — not an independent verification that the proposed height has been accurately determined. A 22-inch discrepancy across the submitted plans is not a minor annotation difference; it represents a fundamental inconsistency in how this project's most visible code standard is characterized.

Cumulative Scale Impact on Adjacent Properties
2327 Edgewater Way carries a floor-to-lot-area ratio of approximately 82% of the maximum FAR guideline — achieved through careful, code-compliant design on a similarly configured bluff-top lot. The approved project at 2339 Edgewater Way proposes 98% of the maximum guideline under the applicant's own (incorrect) inputs. On a corrected basis — using 31% slope and the post-LLA lot area of 31,442 SF — the actual FAR percentage may be higher.

The SFDB recognized this disparity. On two separate occasions it asked the applicant to reduce the FAR of the primary residence toward 85% of the maximum guideline. It asked for removal of an easterly second-floor deck specifically because of the privacy impact on the adjacent property — Appellant's parcel. It asked for plate height reductions because of the building's visible mass relative to neighbors. None of these requests were confirmed as implemented.

A structure at 98% of maximum FAR, with unconfirmed plate heights, an unresolved easterly deck, and building elements appearing within 2'-2¾" of the shared property line, will bear directly and disproportionately on Appellant's enjoyment of my adjacent property — views, natural light, privacy, and the character of the residential setting.

The Commission's finding of appropriate size, bulk, and scale was reached without verified FAR compliance, without SFDB comment confirmation, and without resolution of the setback issues identified herein.

V. Relief Requested
I respectfully request that the City Council reverse the Planning Commission's approval of CDP PLN2020-00014, or alternatively remand the project to staff with instructions to address all of the aforementioned matters before any approval may be reinstated.

VI. Conclusion
The March 19, 2026 Planning Commission approval of CDP PLN2020-00014 is not supported by substantial evidence that this project complies with applicable development standards. The floor area ratio was computed with two incorrect inputs (wrong slope, wrong lot area), is absent from the zoning compliance table, and was never verified against the standards the Commission was required to apply. The building height is stated three different ways across the record with no resolution. Plans submitted for approval show building dimensions on the shared east boundary of 2'-2¾" — nearly four feet short of the required 6-foot setback minimum. An open Fire Department access comment was not resolved or conditioned. Commitments made by the applicant in writing and memorialized in a stipulated court order are absent from the Conditions of Approval. And the SFDB's repeated, project-specific requests to reduce the mass and scale of a building that bears directly on Appellant's adjacent property were neither implemented nor explained.

I humbly ask the City Council to ensure that a project of this size and complexity — on a documented unstable coastal bluff, immediately adjacent to my property, approved by the narrowest possible majority — is reviewed on a complete and accurate record before proceeding.

Respectfully submitted,
Alexandra Hack
Owner, 2327 Edgewater Way and 2337 Edgewater Way
Santa Barbara, California 93109
(626)841-1110
[email protected]
Date: March 30, 2026
The factual and legal positions stated in this appeal letter are supported by the administrative record for PLN2020-00014, including the approved plan sheets (Cover Sheet T-1.0; Site Plans A-1.1 and A-1.2; Floor Plans A-2.10 and A-2.20; Building Sections A-5.1 through A-5.4), the Staff Report dated March 12, 2026, the ACA case activity history for PLN2020-00014, Planning Commission Resolution 011-24 (September 12, 2024), the Applicant Letter dated March 4, 2024, and the SFDB concept review minutes of June 6, August 15, and October 24, 2022.

City of Santa Barbara

SINGLE FAMILY DESIGN BOARD

MINUTES
OCTOBER 24, 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

CALL TO ORDER
The Full Board meeting was called to order at 3:02 p.m. by Chair Miller.

ATTENDANCE
Members present: Miller, Colasse, Anderson, Arakelian, and Klein (at 3:45 p.m.) Members absent: None
Staff present: Ellen Kokinda (@ 3:45 p.m.) Garcin, and Goo

GENERAL BUSINESS
A. Public Comment:

Two written General correspondence were announced from A. Michael Marzolla regarding 1263 Ferrelo Rd. reviewed at the September 12, 2022 Full Board hearing, and from Ruth Johnson regarding 1239 E Cota Street & 1241 E Cota Street projects reviewed at the October 17, 2022 Consent hearing.

B. Approval of Minutes:

Motion: Approve the minutes of the Single Family Design Board meeting of October 10, 2022, as submitted.

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

C. Approval of the Consent Calendar:

Motion: Ratify the Consent Calendar of October 17, 2022, as reviewed by Board Members Colasse and Klein.

Action: Arakelian/Anderson, 3/0/1. (Colasse abstained. Klein absent.) Motion carried.

ATTACHMENT 5

Single Family Design Board Minutes October 24, 2022 Page 2 of 8 Motion: Ratify the Consent Calendar of October 24, 2022, as reviewed by Board Members Colasse and Klein.

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

D. Announcements, requests by applicants for continuances and withdrawals, future agenda items, and appeals:

1. Ms. Garcin announced the following:
a. An additional special Full Board meeting will be held on Wednesday, November 30, 2022, beginning at 3:00 p.m., and staff thanked the Board for volunteering their personal time in order for staff to reduce the backlog of pending items for Full Board review. b. Advisory Board recruitment applications for appointments closed last week, with interviews scheduled the first half of November, and appointment should be made by December 6, 2022. The City Clerk’s Office will inform staff of any updates and appointments made at that time.
c. On Tuesday, October 25, 2022, at 2:00 p.m., City Council will review and discuss Agenda Item #13, Single Family Design Board Membership Criteria and Quorum Requirements (in-person or Zoom attendance is available).
d. Board member Klein will be stepping down from Item 1, 2501 Medcliff Rd. and will be attending the meeting later.

E. Subcommittee Reports:

No subcommittee reports.
(3:15PM) CONTINUED ITEM: CONCEPT REVIEW

1. 2501 MEDCLIFF ROAD
Assessor's Parcel Number: 041-330-054
Zone: E-3/SD-3
Application Number: PLN2022-00175
Owner: Guillaume de Zwirek & Katie Gerphede
Architect: Martha & Will Gray, Gray / Gray Architects
Applicant: Trish Allen, SEPPS INC.
(Proposal to demolish the existing 970 square-foot, residence and 230 square -foot garage, and construct a two-story 3,970 square-foot single-unit residence, a 478 square-foot below grade basement, and a 586 square-foot garage attached to the residence by a breezeway. The project also includes an on-site guest parking space and a pool/spa. Two oak trees are to be removed and three 36” boxed Oak tree replacements are proposed. The proposed total of 4,556 square feet on a 24,580 square-foot lot is 96% of the maximum guideline floor-to-lot area ratio. The project site is located in the Hillside Design District and the appealable jurisdiction of the Coastal Zone. Planning Commission review and approval of a Coastal Development Permit (CDP) is required.) No final appealable decision will take place at this hearing. Neighborhood Preservation Findings, Hillside Design District & Sloped Lot Findings, and Grading Findings will be required

Single Family Design Board Minutes October 24, 2022 Page 3 of 8 when the project is reviewed for Project Design Approval. Project was last reviewed on September 26, 2022.

RECUSAL: To avoid any actual or perceived conflict of interest, Board Member Klein recused herself from hearing this item.

Actual time: 3:09 p.m.

Present: Trish Allen, SEPPS Inc.; Will Gray, Gray Architects, LLP; and Kelly Brodison, Associate Planner
Staff comments: Ms. Brodison clarified that the lot was originally a much larger lot, and the Applicant had previously complied with reducing the size of the lot, and has also complied with larger setbacks.

Public comment opened at 3:19 p.m., and as no one wished to speak, it closed.

Written correspondence from Ann Bronstein was acknowledged.

Motion: Continue indefinitely to Planning Commission for return to Full Board with comments:

1. The Board agrees that the nature of the design and the proposed detailing is an example of great architecture.

2. The Board appreciates the more muted white color proposed on the body of the residence; some Board Members would like to see a greater depth of color.

3. The Board agrees that the detailing presented reflects true historical farm house architecture.

4. The Board recognizes that the large lot creates a FAR guideline and is not a FAR requirement; however, two Board Members disagree with the size and massing of the home relative to the immediate neighborhood.

Action: Colasse/Miller, 4/0/0. (Klein absent.) Motion carried. (3:55PM) CONTINUED ITEM: CONCEPT REVIEW

2. 2339 EDGEWATER WAY
Assessor's Parcel Number: 041-350-003
Zone: E-3/SD-3
Application Number: PLN2020-00014
Owner: Curt Custard
Architect: Tom Ochsner
Applicant: Jarrett Gorin, Vanguard Planning
(Proposal to demolish the existing 1,976 square foot two-story single-unit residence and the 200 square foot garage, and construct a new 3,707 square foot two-story single-unit residence and a detached accessory building comprised of a 499 square foot garage, and 458 square foot Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) above. Project includes a pool, patios, new pergola, driveway, drainage, hardscape, and landscape improvements. Project will address violations outlined in ENF2018-00339 by removing an unpermitted retaining wall and fill grading. The proposed total of 4,664 square feet on a 33,945 square foot lot is 96% of the maximum guideline floor-to-lot area ratio. Planning Commission review and approval is required for a Coastal Development Permit (CDP).)

Single Family Design Board Minutes October 24, 2022 Page 4 of 8 No final appealable decision will take place at this hearing. Neighborhood Preservation Findings and Hillside Design District & Sloped Lot Findings will be required when the project is reviewed for Project Design Approval. The project was last reviewed on August 15, 2022.

RECUSAL: To avoid any actual or perceived conflict of interest, Board Member Arakelian recused himself from hearing this item due to economic conflicts.

Actual time: 3:58 p.m.

Present: Liz Hughes, Architect; Jarrett Gorin, Vanguard Planning; and Andrew Fowler, Landscape Architect
Staff comments: Ms. Kokinda clarified that from participation stand point, until Board Member Anderson can review all of the available proposed project information, including plans, minutes, videos, public comment, etc., she could only ask questions, and must abstain from project comments and from the motion on the proposed project at this meeting.

Public comment opened at 4:15 p.m., and as no one wished to speak, it closed.

Written correspondence from Carol & Alex Hack was acknowledged.

Motion: Continue indefinitely to Planning Commission for return to Full Board with comments:

1. The Board finds the proposed size, bulk, and scale of the home are appropriate.

2. The Board appreciates the Applicant’s response to the Board’s previous comments.

3. Study lowering the plate heights of the ADU addition so that the first floor is at 9-feet in height and the second floor is at 8-feet in height due to the narrowness of the structure, as a reduction may help the building be more in balance.

4. The Board finds the landscape appropriate, and that the screening provided will help screen the project from the adjacent properties.

5. The Board finds the placement of the residence is appropriately setback from the street, as the style of the architecture and distance from the street causes minimal impacts of size, bulk, and scale in terms of its location on the property.

Action: Miller/Colasse, 3/0/1. (Anderson abstained. Arakelian stepped down.) Motion carried.

Single Family Design Board Minutes October 24, 2022 Page 5 of 8 (4:30PM) CONTINUED ITEM: PROJECT DESIGN APPROVAL AND FINAL APPROVAL

3. 229 VISTA DEL MAR DRIVE
Assessor's Parcel Number: 047-061-023
Zone: E-3/SD-3
Application Number: PLN2021-00474
Owner: Vista Del Mar LLC
Architect/Applicant: Kevin Moore
(Proposal to construct a two-story 1,200 square foot detached Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU), including a 200 square foot covered deck, and a 200 square foot second floor deck, associated with an existing one-story 1,920 square foot single-unit residence and an attached 446 square foot garage, located in the Hillside Design District and Non-Appealable Jurisdiction of the Coastal Zone. Staff Hearing Officer approval of a Coastal Development Permit (CDP) was granted on March 23, 2022. The proposed total of 3,566 square foot of development on a 27,230 square foot lot is 75% of the maximum guideline floor-to-lot-area ratio (FAR).)
Project Design Approval and Final Approval is requested. Neighborhood Preservation Findings and Hillside Design District & Sloped Lot Findings are required. The project was last reviewed on September 20, 2022.

Actual time: 4:30 p.m.

Present: Kevin Moore, Architect
Public comment opened at 4:37 p.m.

The following individuals spoke:

1. Jeff Harris (w/pictures)

2. Paul Margolis (w/laptop pics)

3. Cameron Porter

4. Anthony Chaves
Public comment closed at 4:48 p.m.

Written correspondence from Gregory Ofner that was read into the record, and from Debra Eaton that was acknowledged.

Public comment re-opened at 5:10 p.m.

5. Cecelia Fock
Public comment re-closed at 5:12 p.m.
* THE BOARD RECESSED FROM 5:17 TO 5:21 P.M. *
Staff Comments: Ms. Kokinda clarified for the Board the Permit Streamlining Act and the required time limit for a Board decision on the proposed project for either approval, denial, or continuance. And later recommended a continuance so that the Applicant could check with the client and find alternatives.

Single Family Design Board Minutes October 24, 2022 Page 6 of 8 Motion: Continue to the date-certain SFDB Full Board meeting of November 30, 2022 with comments:

1. The proposed size, bulk, and scale is still out of proportion with the existing home.

2. Study lowering the plate heights.

3. The Board appreciates the roof lines matching the existing home; however, study relocating the existing structure further back on the property.

4. The Board appreciates the new structure matching the materials on the existing home for a more matched appearance.

5. Study the size and shape of the tree selection to be larger in the front and more column-like along the property line in order to improve the screening for the adjacent neighbors.

6. Study reducing the second story so that the scaling of the second floor ties in better with the existing home and to blend the aesthetics and enhance the neighborhood.

Action: Miller/Klein, 3/2/0. (Colasse and Arakelian opposed.) Motion carried.

Individual comments: Board Member Arakelian stated that he opposed the motion because he believes that the plate heights should not be lowered. Board Member Colasse stated that she opposed the motion because she believes the proposed changes are out of scale relative to the existing neighborhood at large; and that privacy cannot be ensured for the adjacent property to the south regardless of screening; and that the proposed project is too large for the neighborhood/site. (5:20PM) CONTINUED ITEM: PROJECT DESIGN APPROVAL

4. 2121 LAS TUNAS ROAD
Assessor's Parcel Number: 019-013-001
Zone: RS-1A (A-1)
Application Number: PLN2020-00544
Owner/Applicant: Ian Williamson, Madrone LLC
Architect: Adam Osterhoff, AIA
(Proposal to construct a new 4,413 square foot, two-story, single-unit residence with a detached 713 square foot detached garage, and a covered deck and porch located on a vacant lot in the Hillside Design District. The project includes a new driveway, a lap pool, and associated site and landscape improvements, including removal of Eucalyptus and Coast Live Oak trees, to be replaced with 21 new replacement Oak trees and other trees/landscape. The proposed total of 4,290 square feet on a 46,294 square foot lot is 86% of the maximum guideline floor-to-lot area ratio (FAR).) Project Design Approval is requested. Neighborhood Preservation Findings and Hillside Design District & Sloped Lot Findings are required. Project was last reviewed on July 5, 2022.

Actual time: 5:33 p.m.

Present: Ian Williamson and Bree Wright, Property Owners Public comment opened at 5:43 p.m., and as no one wished to speak, it closed.

The following individuals spoke:

1. Craig Ensley
Written correspondence from Jeff & Bruna Bryne was acknowledged.

Single Family Design Board Minutes October 24, 2022 Page 7 of 8 Public comment closed at 5:47 p.m.

Straw vote: How many Board Members can support lowering the proposed plate height of the lower floor from 13-feet to 10-feet? 2/2 (Anderson abstained) Tied.

Motion: Project Design Approval and continued indefinitely to Consent with the following condition and findings:

1. Reduce the plate height of the first floor from 13-feet to 12-feet in height.

2. 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.
b. The proposed development is compatible with the neighborhood, and its size, bulk, and scale is appropriate to the site and neighborhood, as the applicant is working with the natural topography and the site.
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 as far as materials such as sandstone. d. The City Arborist has review all the trees on the property and appropriate mitigation is being implemented for both existing trees and new trees. The proposed project does not include the removal of or significantly impact any designated Specimen Tree, Historic Tree or Landmark Tree. The proposed project, to the maximum extent feasible, preserves and protects healthy, non-invasive trees with a trunk diameter of four inches (4”) or more measured four feet (4’) above natural grade.

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. f. The project generally complies with the Good Neighbor Guidelines regarding privacy, landscaping, noise, and lighting is very minimal and follows the dark sky Ordinance.
g. The development, including proposed structures and grading, preserves significant public scenic views of and from the hillside.

3. 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 natural topography of the site, as a great portion of the architecture has been sunk into the hillside.
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.

Action: Klein/Miller, 4/0/1. (Anderson abstained.) Motion carried.

The ten-day appeal period was announced.

Single Family Design Board Minutes October 24, 2022 Page 8 of 8 (5:55 PM) CONTINUED ITEM: PROJECT DESIGN APPROVAL AND FINAL APPROVAL

5. 2731 EL PRADO ROAD
Assessor's Parcel Number: 051-281-007
Zone: RS-7.5/USS (E-3/SD-2)
Application Number: PLN2022-00167
Owner: Nicholas Bachman
Architect: Dennis Thompson
(Proposal for additions to an existing 1,560 square foot single-unit residence and a 448 square foot garage, comprised of a 113 square foot first floor addition, a 903 square foot second story addition, and a 186 square foot second story deck. Project includes new windows, exterior paint, and standing seem slate grey metal roof. The proposed total of 3,024 square feet on a 10,679 square foot lot is 79% of the maximum required floor-to-lot area ratio (FAR).)
Project Design Approval and Final Approval is requested. Neighborhood Preservation Findings are required. Project was last reviewed on September 26, 2022.

Postponed to the date-certain SFDB Full Board meeting of November 7, 2022. * MEETING ADJOURNED AT 6:15 P.M. *
1 Resolution No.

A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA

BARBARA DENYING THE APPEAL OF ALEXANDRA HACK AND

UPHOLDING THE DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO

APPROVE A COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT FOR THE
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT AT 2339 EDGEWATER WAY
WHEREAS, Jarrett Gorin, agent for Curt Custard, property owner (hereinafter “Owner”), applied for a Coastal Development Permit (PLN2020-00014) for abatement of an enforcement case, permitting of work completed under an Emergency Coastal Development Permit, and redevelopment of the site located at 2339 Edgewater Way (APN 041-350-003) to include a new 4,343-square-foot single-unit residence with a 494-square-foot garage, a 452-square-foot Accessory Dwelling Unit, and pool with a cabaña, on a 31,462-square-foot lot;
WHEREAS, on March 17, 2026, the Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed site visit to the property;
WHEREAS, on March 19, 2026, the Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing, considered written and oral public comment, and approved the application on a 4/1 vote making the required findings and subject to Conditions of Approval (Planning Commission Resolution No. 004-26);
WHEREAS, on March 30, 2026, the Planning Commission approval was appealed to the City Council by Alexandra Hack asserting the following claims;

1. The Maximum Net Floor Area (Floor to Lot Area Ratio) was calculated using incorrect net lot area, by not accounting for the lot area lost by the Lot Line Adjustment in 2024.

2. The Maximum Net Floor Area (Floor to Lot Area Ratio) was calculated using an incorrect average slope of 25%, rather than 31% average slope.

4. A Setback Modification should have been required for encroachments in the eastern interior setback.

5. SFDB Concept Review comments remain unresolved regarding FAR, an easterly second-floor deck, and plate heights.
2 6. The utility pole relocation was omitted from the CDP Conditions of Approval.

7. Fire Department access comments remain unresolved.

8. The proposed building height is stated differently in three locations.

WHEREAS, on July 27, 2026, the City Council conducted a duly noticed site visit to 2339 Edgewater Way; and
WHEREAS, on July 28, 2026, the City Council conducted a duly noticed public hearing, considered written and oral public comment, and after deliberation by the Council Members, voted to deny the appeal upholding the findings and conditions as set forth in the Planning Commission Resolution No. 004-26.

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

1. The foregoing recitals are true and correct and are incorporated into these findings.

2. All written, graphic, and oral materials and information submitted to the Planning Commission and the City Council by City staff, the public, and the parties are hereby accepted as part of the record of proceedings. The facts and findings in the July 28, 2026, Council Agenda Report are incorporated into this Resolution and determined to be true.

3. The Council carefully reviewed the evidence obtained during the site visit and public hearing and determined that the proposed development is consistent with the California Coastal Act and Local Coastal Program, and adopted the findings and conditions set forth in Planning Commission Resolution No. 004-26, attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated by reference.

4. The City Council denies the appeal and upholds the Planning Commission’s approval of the Coastal Development Permit for the proposed project presented to the City Council on July 28, 2026.

CITY OF SANTA BARBARA PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO. 004-26
2339 EDGEWATER WAY

Emergency Permit: The project includes a scope of work completed under an Emergency Permit (PLN2023- 00383) associated with a 2023 slope failure along a portion of the site’s westerly bluff. The scope of work includes clearing and grubbing of the slope face to remove large vegetation, loose soils, and rock; installation of Tecco System high-tensile steel wire mesh and soil nails, a minimum of 10 feet in length, and were drilled and grouted into the bedrock slope; and subsequent hydroseeding of the area; as well as demolition of an unpermitted patio cover and outdoor BBQ/ fireplace, immediately adjacent to the slope failure, as they contributed substantial weight to the failure area.

The discretionary applications under the jurisdiction of the Planning Commission at this hearing are:

A. A Coastal Development Permit to allow the proposed development in the Appeal Jurisdiction of the City’s Coastal Zone (SBMC §28.44.060); and
B. A CEQA Determination that the project is exempt from further environmental review under Section 15301 [Existing Facilities], 15303 [New Construction of Conversion of Small Structures] and Section 15304 [Minor Alterations to Land] of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines.

Project Design Approval and Final Design Approval by the Single Family Design Board (SFDB) will also be required for the project (SBMC Chapter 30.220).

EXHIBIT A