Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council upholds planning commission, denies appeal of Edgewater Way coastal permit
Summary
After a de novo hearing, the council voted 4–2 to deny an appeal and uphold the planning commission’s approval of a Coastal Development Permit for redevelopment at 2339 Edgewater Way, following testimony about bluff stability, a 38-foot site-specific development buffer, and neighborhood-scale concerns.
The Santa Barbara City Council on July 28 denied an appeal of the Planning Commission’s March approval of a Coastal Development Permit for 2339 Edgewater Way, upholding findings that the project met local coastal safety and design requirements.
Staff explained the project’s three components: abatement of previous unpermitted fill and railroad ties, formalization of an emergency erosion-control permit after a 2023 slope failure, and demolition and construction of a new two-story residence with a detached garage and a two‑story accessory dwelling unit. Staff said the project’s site-specific coastal bluff edge resulted in a 38‑foot development buffer — a distance determined by the project geologist and confirmed by the city’s third‑party geotechnical peer reviewer.
Appellants and neighbors urged the council to reverse the commission, arguing the redevelopment was too intense for the diminished bluff‑top site and raised concerns about a reported 98% guideline FAR, an ADU two stories high and a proposed pool close to the bluff edge. "The intensity of the project for the site that's remaining after the remediation of the slope is beyond what should be at this site," one appellant told the council. The applicant's representative, Jarrett Goran of Vanguard Planning, said geotechnical experts and the design review process had addressed those concerns, and that the revised project moves structures landward and fits the pattern of nearby development.
Council members asked detailed technical questions about buffer establishment, historic erosion rates, and fire access. Staff confirmed minor landscape elements and some paving would be within the 38‑foot buffer but that primary structures, pool and cabana were landward; building permit and final design approvals (SFDB) would still be required. Following deliberation the council voted to deny the appeal and adopt the Planning Commission’s resolution and findings (motion by Councilmember Harmon; seconded by Councilmember Friedman; final tally 4–2).
