City planning staff presented the California Coastal Commission’s written comments on the draft City of Carpinteria General Plan and sought committee direction on specific wording and how to reflect the changes in the environmental review.

Staff said the Coastal Commission recommended many glossary edits (including replacing the draft’s inconsistent uses of “public view” and “public view shed” with a single term) and suggested definitions for visual resources and light pollution. Staff described the revision to the public‑view language as a negotiated middle ground with Coastal Commission staff and said they plan to apply the new term throughout the draft.

On land use, staff said the Coastal Commission asked that a takings policy be included early in the land use element. Staff said the city already has an extensive takings policy in its creek preservation program and they will work with the city attorney to produce a version suitable for the land use element. Staff said the Coastal Commission cited sea level rise, slope instability and seismic hazards among reasons jurisdictions consider takings policies for constrained properties.

Committee members and staff discussed the bluffs and community design language. Coastal staff recommended using action words for bluff design and tightening lighting policies; it also removed one commercial‑lighting provision that had called for lighting to “complement the building.” Staff said most lighting guidance remains through a broader low‑intensity standard and that design review (ARB) guidelines would continue to apply for aesthetics.

On circulation, staff reported Coastal Commission guidance that would expand trip‑reduction or VMT‑reduction requirements for some discretionary nonresidential projects. Staff said the commission suggested stronger language to protect parking for public coastal access but acknowledged potential tension with AB 2,097, state law that affects parking requirements near transit. Planning staff and consultant Megan explained the commission issued a guidance memo after AB 2,097 and suggested mitigation approaches (transit, bike parking, trip‑reduction plans) rather than an automatic parking mandate.

In open space and conservation, staff said Coastal Commission staff recommended restoring policies protecting Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas (ESHA) and asked the city to consider objective ESHA buffers. Staff presented the City of Santa Barbara’s example buffers (100 feet for butterfly aggregation sites, 50 feet for native grassland, 25 feet for upland scrub) as a potential starting point for analysis and told the committee the buffers could be included as a mitigation measure or a reduced alternative for the EIR.

Several public commenters urged strong protective language for the bluffs and opposed development there. Ted Rhodes, speaking for Citizens for the Carpinteria Bluffs, said the community supports restoring ESHA protections and suggested the open‑space recreation (OSR) land‑use designation for the bluffs. Susan Allen urged precise, enforceable language and questioned whether PUD designations would weaken protections for views, access and ESHA.

Staff also summarized Coastal Commission suggestions for visual resources (requiring site‑specific visual evaluations for projects that could affect scenic resources or public views), public facilities and healthy‑community language, and safety items including a recommended setback from active faults and clarifying a bluff‑edge setback. Staff said the commission asked that references to sea level rise be more specific in places (for example, citing five feet as an analysis benchmark consistent with Ocean Protection Council guidance) and provided a definition of “major redevelopment” (the commission’s practice notes a roughly 51 percent change threshold, which staff proposed moving to the glossary).

On coastal resiliency and deeds, staff explained the commission’s suggestion that new development in hazard‑prone areas carry notices or deed restrictions that disclose known coastal hazards and risks. Committee members asked legal questions about the enforceability and limits of such deed restrictions; staff said they will work with the city attorney to craft appropriate language and acknowledged judicial interpretation limits.

Staff described several implementation‑level suggestions from the commission, including park‑impact fee updates and discussion of a funding approach for completing and maintaining the coastal bluffs trail (options cited included formation of an assessment district or revising the parks maintenance fund). Staff noted the Coastal Commission recommended establishing a minimum parkland target as a funding/implementation metric (the commission recommended a minimum of three acres per 1,000 people as an implementation action; staff noted other guidance such as the National Recreation and Park Association’s recommendation for higher targets).

Throughout the presentation staff asked the committee whether to accept the commission’s wording, to retain some city wording (for example, the term unobstructed in view definitions), or to propose middle‑ground language for further review. Staff repeatedly said they would continue working with Coastal Commission staff, city attorneys, and consultants and that the comments have delayed the schedule for launching the plan’s EIR; staff said the EIR launch might slip from December into January depending on consultant work and holidays.

The committee did not take a final vote on any policy at the meeting. Instead, members generally expressed support for restoring stronger ESHA language and for working with staff and the city attorney to refine takings and deed‑restriction language, buffers, bluff setbacks and the sea‑level‑rise analysis. Staff closed the presentation and opened the floor to public comment; no formal actions or votes were recorded.

Public commenters asked for more direct community involvement on future planning for the Chevron (Bluff 0) parcel and emphasized a preference for OSR/open‑space outcomes for the bluffs. Staff reiterated that land‑use designations and any zoning changes would be decided later in the process and that the EIR will analyze a proposed project and reduced alternatives (including an open‑space alternative) to inform later land‑use decisions.

The committee continued discussion of timing, enforceability and grant‑funding prospects; staff said the city has received Coastal Commission grants in the past for sea‑level‑rise work and will investigate funding options for coastal access or parking improvements. The meeting concluded with staff saying they will incorporate the committee’s feedback and continue edits for circulation to the Coastal Commission and for the city attorney to review.