COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA

Transcription

1 COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA MONTECITO PLANNING COMMISSION UNAPPROVED MINUTES 9:00 a.m. The regular hearing of the Montecito Planning Commission was called to order by Michael Phillips, at 9:01 a.m., in the Santa Barbara County Engineering Building, Room 17, 123 East Anapamu Street, Santa Barbara, California. COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: MICHAEL PHILLIPS JACK OVERALL JOSEPH COLE J AMY BROWN SUSAN KELLER CHAIR 1 ST VICE-CHAIR 2 ND VICE-CHAIR COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: None STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Glenn Russell, Director, Planning and Development Dianne M. Black, Secretary to the Montecito Planning Commission/Assistant Director David Villalobos, Recording Secretary to the Montecito Planning Commission Rachel Van Mullem, Chief Assistant County Counsel Johannah Hartley, Deputy County Counsel Jeff Wilson, Deputy Director, Development Review Alex Tuttle, Supervising Planner, Development Review South J. Ritterbeck, Planner, Development Review South Sean Herron, Planner, Development Review South Errin Briggs, Energy Specialist, Energy and Minerals Kathryn Lehr, Planner, Energy and Minerals Claire Gottsdanker, Montecito Board of Architectural Review NUMBER OF INTERESTED PERSONS: Approximately 13 ADMINISTRATIVE AGENDA: I. HEARING CALLED TO ORDER: by Chair, Michael Phillips. II. III. IV. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TV COVERAGE ANNOUNCEMENT: by David Villalobos. ROLL CALL: All Commissioners were present. V. AGENDA STATUS REPORT: by Dianne M. Black. VI. PROJECTION REPORT: by Dianne M. Black.

2 Page 2 VII. VIII. IX. PUBLIC COMMENT: None. PLANNING COMMISSIONER S INFORMATIONAL REPORTS: Commissioner Brown attended the July 12 Montecito Association meeting where the Olsten project on Channel Drive was a topic of discussion. She also reported that she received an that, on July 22, Assemblyman Das Williams will be providing a tour of the Oxnard recycling plant. Commissioner Overall attended a recent Montecito Association Land Use Committee meeting, with the main topic of discussion being FAR calculations and enforcement through the MBAR process. Commissioner Keller shared an article from the Los Angeles Times regarding the City of Los Angeles s effort to tighten size limitations on homes, specifically loopholes associated with accessory structures. Commissioner Cole had lunch recently with the new Montecito Association president and discussed how to improve communication with the association and the Commission. INTENT TO WAIVE A PUBLIC HEARING: The County of Santa Barbara has waived the required public hearing for the proposed Coastal Development Permit. 15CDH Lufkin Addition 135 Pomar Lane Alex Tuttle, Supervising Planner (805) Sean Herron, Planner (805) The project is for a Coastal Development Permit to allow interior and exterior remodeling of an existing 2,209 n.s.f. single family residence, constructing a 280 n.s.f. addition, removing 6 n.s.f. from the western entry, converting a 470 n.s.f. attached garage to habitable space, constructing a new 800 n.s.f. detached 2-car garage and storage structure, constructing a new pool and spa, remodeling outdoor patios and walkways, and new landscaping. There is no proposed grading. Pool excavation would include 116 cubic yards that would be transported offsite. The property is a 0.46 acre parcel zoned 1-E-1 and shown as AP No , located at 135 Pomar Lane, in the Montecito Area, First Supervisorial District. Acknowledged waived public hearing. No action was taken X. MINUTES: The Minutes of May 18, 2016 were considered as follows: Commissioner Overall moved, seconded by Commissioner Cole and carried by a vote of 5 to 0 to approve the Minutes of May 18, 2016 (through Item #1), as revised. Commissioner Overall moved, seconded by Commissioner Keller and carried by a vote of 4 to 0 to 1 (Brown abstained) to approve the Minutes of May 18, 2016 (Items #2 through #4), as revised. XI. XII. DIRECTOR'S REPORT AND BOARD OF SUPERVISORS HEARING SUMMARY: by Glenn Russell, Director. STANDARD AGENDA: 1. 16APL Olive Mill Trust Private Water Well Appeal 1169 Hill Road Exempt, CEQA Guidelines Section Alex Tuttle, Supervising Planner (805) J. Ritterbeck, Planner (805) Hearing on the request of Susan Petrovich, attorney for the applicant, Michael Hair, to consider Case No. 16APL [application filed on December 28, 2015] for an appeal of the Planning and Development Director s denial of a Coastal Development Permit, Case No.

3 Page 3 15CDP to allow construction of a new private water well, in compliance with Section of the Article II Coastal Zoning Ordinance, on property zoned 1-E-1; and to determine the project is exempt from CEQA pursuant to Section of the State Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act. The application involves AP No , located at 1169 Hill Road, in the Montecito Community Plan area, First Supervisorial District. (Continued from 5/18/16) Commissioner Overall moved, seconded by Commissioner Cole and carried by a vote of 3 to 2 (Keller and Brown no) to: 1. Approve the appeal, Case No. 16APL , thereby overturning the Director s denial of the project; 2. Make the required findings for approval of the project, including CEQA findings, included in Attachment 1 of the staff memorandum dated June 30, 2016; 3. Determine that the project is exempt from CEQA pursuant to Section of the State Guidelines for the implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act, as specified in Attachment 3 of the staff memorandum dated June 30, 2016; and 4. Approve the project de novo, case number 15CDP , subject to the Conditions of Approval included in Attachment 2 of the staff memorandum dated June 30, 2016, and as revised at the Montecito Planning Commission hearing of July 20, The following revisions to the Conditions of Approval, included in Attachment 2 to the staff memo, dated June 30, 2016, were made at the Montecito Planning Commission hearing of July 20, 2016: 1) Condition #1 (Project Description) was modified as follows: Proj Des-01 Project Description: This Coastal Development Permit is based upon and limited to compliance with the project description, the hearing exhibits, and all conditions of approval set forth below, including mitigation measures and specified plans and agreements included by reference, as well as all applicable County rules and regulations. The project description is as follows: The proposed project is for a Coastal Development Permit to allow construction of a new private water well to be used for on-site irrigation of existing landscaping (common-ownership APNs , , and ) and shall not be used for any other purpose (i.e., residential connection(s), export, or sale). The new water well will not include any lighting fixtures and shall be limited to an extraction rate of no more than five gallons per minute and shall operate no more than 12 hours per day. The existing dwelling on the parcel with the new well will continue to be served by the Montecito Water District, the Montecito Fire Protection District, the Santa Barbara County Sheriff's Department, and the Montecito Sanitary District. Access to the well site will continue to be provided off of Hill Road. The subject parcel is a 0.88-acre legal lot, zoned 1-E-1, shown as Assessor's Parcel Number , and is located at 1169 Hill Road in the Coastal Zone of the Montecito Community Plan area, First Supervisorial District. Any deviations from the project description, exhibits or conditions must be reviewed and approved by the County for conformity with this approval. Deviations may

4 Page 4 require approved changes to the permit and/or further environmental review. Deviations without the above described approval will constitute a violation of permit approval. 2) Condition #3 was deleted. Aest-10 Lighting: The Owner / Applicant shall ensure any exterior night lighting installed on the project site is of low intensity, low glare design, minimum height, and shall be hooded to direct light downward onto the subject lot and prevent spill-over onto adjacent lots. The Owner/Applicant shall install timers or otherwise ensure lights are dimmed after 10 p.m. PLAN REQUIREMENTS: The Owner/Applicant shall incorporate these requirements and show locations and height of all exterior lighting fixtures on all building plans. TIMING: Lighting shall be installed in compliance with this measure prior to Final Building Inspection Clearance. MONITORING: P&D shall review the proposed lighting for compliance with this measure prior to issuance of the Coastal Development Permit. P&D staff shall inspect structures upon completion to ensure that exterior lighting fixtures have been installed consistent with these requirements LLA Schwartz-Cook Lot Line Adjustment 680 Olive Road Exempt, CEQA Guidelines Sections 15305(a) Alex Tuttle, Supervising Planner (805) Sean Herron, Planner (805) Hearing on the request of Gary Salmen, agent for the owners Richard Schwartz and Greg Cook, to consider Case No. 15LLA [application filed on October 28, 2015] for approval of a Lot Line Adjustment in compliance with Section of County Code Chapter 21 and Section of the Montecito LUDC to adjust the boundaries between two legal parcels of 1.99 gross acres (Lot 1; APN ) and 1.77 gross acres (Lot 2; APN ) with no net change in the gross acreage of either parcel on properties zoned 2-E-1; and to determine the project is exempt from CEQA pursuant to Section 15305(a) of the State Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act. The application involves Assessor s Parcel Nos , located at 680 Olive Road, and , located at 675 Lilac Drive, in the Montecito Community Plan area, First Supervisorial District. Commissioner Overall moved, seconded by Commissioner Brown and carried by a vote of 5 to 0 to: 1. Make the required findings for approval of the project specified in Attachment A of the staff report, dated June 30, 2016, including CEQA findings; 2. Determine the project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15305(a), as specified in Attachment C of the staff report, dated June 30, 2016; and 3. Approve the project, Case No. 15LLA , subject to the conditions of approval included as Attachment B of the staff report, dated June 30, 2016.

5 Page 5 16APL Webb New Single Family Dwelling 3. 16APL and Accessory Structures Appeal 860 San Ysidro Road Exempt, CEQA Guidelines Sections (a)(e) Errin Briggs, Energy Specialist (805) Kathryn Lehr, Planner (805) Hearing on the request of Derek Westen, agent for William and Susan McKinley, to consider Case Nos. 16APL and 16APL [applications filed on April 14, 2016] to appeal the Montecito Board for Architectural Review s approval of Case No. 15BAR and the Director s approval of Case No. 16LUP , in compliance with Chapter of the Montecito Land Use and Development Code, on property located in the 2-E-1 zone district; and to determine the project is exempt from CEQA pursuant to Sections 15303(a)(e) of the State Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act. The site is identified as Assessor Parcel Number (APN) , located at 860 San Ysidro Road in the Montecito area, First Supervisorial District. Commissioner Phillips moved, seconded by Commissioner Cole and carried by a vote of 4 to 1 (Brown no) to: 1. Deny the appeals, Case Nos.16APL and 16APL ; 2. Make the required findings for approval of Design Review Case No. 15BAR and Land Use Permit Case No. 16LUP , included as Attachment A of the staff report dated June 29, 2016, including CEQA findings; 3. Determine that the project is exempt from the provisions of CEQA pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15303(a) and (e), as specified in Attachment C of the staff report dated June 29, 2016; and 4. Grant de novo approval of Design Review Case No. 15BAR and Land Use Permit Case No. 16LUP , subject to the conditions included as Attachment B of the staff report dated June 29, Montecito Planning Commission Retreat Dianne Black, Assistant Director (805) a) Difference between a Substantial Conformity Determination, Amendment, Revision b) Procedures for conducting hearings c) Clarification of difference between appeal, permit d) CEQA To be addressed by County Counsel e) Appeals To be addressed by County Counsel When can the Commissioners provide the Supervisors input about the Commissioner s position? When can the Commissioners attend the Board? f) Roles and authority of MPC v. MBAR related to design review g) Compensation for serving on MPC and MBAR History of why the Commissioners are not being paid The Commission participated in a retreat with staff from Planning and Development, County Counsel. No action was taken.

6 Page 6 There being no further business to come before the Commission the hearing was adjourned until 9:00 a.m. on September 21, 2016, in the Santa Barbara County Engineering Building, Room 17, 123 East Anapamu Street, Santa Barbara, California Meeting adjourned at 3:41 p.m. Dianne M. Black Secretary to the Montecito Planning Commission G:\GROUP\PC_STAFF\WP\MONTECITO\PLANNING COMMISSION\Minutes\2016\ min.doc