May 7, 2014 California Coastal Commission South Central Coast Area 89 South California Street, Suite 200 Ventura, CA 93001 Re: Item W21a: Substantial Issue Determination on Appeal of Commissioners Jana Zimmer and Dayna Bochco Applicant Lee Carr, 4353 Marina Drive, Santa Barbara (APN 063-220-023) Dear Commissioners: I am writing to you on behalf of the Planning Commission for the County of Santa Barbara, which is the appointed body responsible for the decision to sustain the appeal of property owner Lee Carr of a zoning administrator s denial of the project and thereby approve the proposed project as consistent with the County s Local Coastal Program as well as the County s Coastal Zoning Ordinance. We understand that two of your members have appealed the County s approval of this project and your staff is recommending that a substantial issue exists with respect to the stated grounds for appeal, which is that the development does not conform to the standards set forth in the certified Local Coastal Program. The appellants contend that inconsistencies exist with regard to geologic hazards and bluff development standards, landform alteration, need for future shoreline protective devices, visual resources, and non-conforming structures, including Land Use Plan (LUP) Policies 1-2. 1-3, 2-6, 3-4, 3-7, 3-14, 4-5, GEO-GV-1, GEO-V-3, Coastal Act sections 30251 and 30253, and Coastal Zoning Ordinance sections 35-67 35-160, and 35-161. Without making a line by line comparison, it appears to us that this litany of inconsistencies ignores the deliberative process of the Planning Commission, its actual findings of fact, and the consistency of its findings with applicable law and policy. While your appealing Commissioners and staff may disagree with the conclusions we reached, that does not mean our conclusions were reached without regard for our approved Local Coastal Program and related ordinances. On the contrary, if you review our findings of fact contained in the attached letter dated March 10, 2014 outlining the Planning Commission s action on the project, it will be abundantly clear that all issues of policy consistency were addressed fully in reaching our decision. We have reviewed the staff report for the substantial issue hearing scheduled for May 14, 2014. Many of the issues raised in the staff report were resolved through earlier actions by County decision-makers and staff. Declaring any of these a substantial issue only reopens issues that have been exhaustively considered and resolved by the Planning Commission. The
heart of the matter is whether the approval itself the action of the Planning Commission is consistent with the LCP and, based upon the findings of fact made by the Planning Commission, it is. Accordingly, we request that your Commission determine there is no substantial issue here and the appeal therefore should not be considered. The Planning Commission considered very carefully the manner in which these caissons were installed and found, based on substantial evidence in the record, that the as-built deck support system functions in a manner which avoids areas of geologic hazards, minimizes erosion, and promotes bluff stability. Each of the geologic reports associated with the Carrs site investigation acknowledges the stabilizing influence of the cabana as well as the support system on the bluff, and that absent the cabana, the deck, and the concrete pathways, water would fall directly on the bluff face and significantly exacerbate erosion. Meanwhile, the Board of Supervisors formally designated the Irene and Frances Rich Beach Cabana as Historic Landmark No. 49 on March 6, 2012. The Resolution adopted by the Board specifically includes as part of the landmark the cabana, the walkway to the beach from the cabana, and the deck. The HLAC recommended, and the Board found, that the cabana met several criteria for designation as a landmark and that the cabana merited designation because of its unique location on the coast within view of the ocean and the fact that it is one of only a handful of mid-century beach cabanas surviving in the County. The current application represents nothing more than an effort by the owners to do what is expected of any owner of an historic landmark take actions necessary to preserve its historic structure and character. In considering the Carrs request, the Planning Commission was aware of both the factual and procedural history. Planning staff had raised concerns similar to those your staff raises now, focused in particular on whether there is a potential conflict between coastal bluff resource protection and the preservation of an historic landmark. The Planning Commission resolved that potential conflict by recognizing that the as-built repairs are consistent with County policies for bluff development, when balanced with the preservation of a historic resource. We appreciate your consideration of the Planning Commission s position and will follow your proceedings with interest. Very truly yours, Daniel Blough,Chair Planning Commission, County of Santa Barbara