UnGovr Transcript
iHow this transcript is madeUnGovr transcribes the official recording with automated speech-to-text, separates speakers by voice, and matches voices to the seated roster. Names and attributions are AI estimates and may contain errors.Verify any quote yourself: click anywhere in the transcript and the official video jumps to that exact moment, so you can check any quote against the recording.0:10 – 0:101 turns
Good
Roll call, called by Clerk of the Board
Show transcript
Agenda Discussionitems moved / continued / pulled, click to expand
Thank you
Item 5 on the agenda is the election of the 2026 MPC chair, first vice-chair and second vice-chair since this is our first meeting of 2026. This is the time set in the bylaws for our election procedures. Are there any nominations for the position of Planning Commission Chair?
I have a nomination I would nominate you, Commissioner Amerikander to be the chair for 2026.
Thank you. Are there other nominations? All right. Are there nominations for first vice-chair?
Mr. Chair, I believe that what we should do is we should if you want to just take nominations first before we vote on all of them or do you want to do them individually? Okay great.
This may lead to a point of discussion but I would like to nominate Mr. Kubiak for chair.
All right we have two nominations for chair So given that, let's vote on are there any other nominations? Let me start there. No. All right. Let's close the nominations and we'll have an election for chair. All those in favor of
Mr. Would it be all right if we had some discussion on the topic first because I
by all means,
I'm sensitive to my taking a non contested issue into a contested issue and so I want to offer up some comments and reflections on the topic one is that Mr. American or Chairman Connor? I think you've done an excellent job and I think you would do a wonderful job for this coming year at least historically The commission has rotated the chair on an annual basis and while I am not opposed to changing procedure in that regard, my nomination of Mr. Kubiak as first chair was the recognition of that historic policy I think it's entirely within the discretion of this commission to change policy, not to be bound by tradition.
But I didn't want that change to go without discussion and that was the impetus behind my nomination of Mr. Kubiak. So I wish to contextualize my nomination to be in no way perceived as anything other than a ringing endorsement of the work you have done, Mr. Americana. Chair Americana?
Thank you very much, Commissioner Miller. Other comments?
I do have a comment because our agenda has really not been so full in the last year. I think by the time somebody becomes chair it behooves the commission that their experience grows as these hearings continue. So I would endorse the idea that Steve should continue on his chair because I just think he's done a great job I just, I think it would serve the commission well.
Thank you. Other comments?
Yes, I appreciate having Commissioner Miller provide some context from the years prior to my service on the Commission in anticipation of seeing this on the agenda. I did pull the bylaws to see if there was a procedure in our bylaws for the Planning Commission And it's silent, so I'm not against deferring to what has typically been done as a history. So I think given Commissioner Kupiak's comments it's probably moot but I did want to say that I checked the bylaws and I felt comfortable in the nomination that I made.
Any other comments before we go to a vote?
I very much agree that there is no required procedure, this is mere tradition. My understanding is that the County Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors does the annual rotation approach. MBAR does not and has had for an extended period of time While I take Mr. Kubiak's comments very much at face value and I think that will lead to a very clear and direct vote coming up, It is very much my desire that we as a body, not this year but continue to rotate the chair and that it would be my preference though it's obviously the choice of the Commission overall. That we rotate the chair among all members rather than potentially in the past there has been some controversial moments in which individuals on the commission have been stepped over in terms of being chair because they were not deemed chair material and in my mind that is a flaw at the appointment level, not at the if we are incapable of having someone serve as chair I think there are serious questions as to whether they should be a commissioner.
I just, I wanted to be clear on my preferences and views on this topic. I'm one of five and so I don't mean to impose myself on this regard. And so with that, I'm happy for there to be the vote going forward but I think that there is a healthiness and freshness that comes with Chair Rotick. Now in this particular case, Chairman O'Connor you have been chair for less than a year and for very few meetings. So I think this all makes sense I think if someone wishes to pass on the role of being chair, that is a different thing than perhaps being passed over. If that makes sense and so with that in mind, I would be interested in group conversations about the subsequent officers that we are going to be electing with the idea that this is intentionally setting up the rotation schedule.
And so I, if
I would concur with you that I think that the root problem sometimes is appointments and I think we've gotten past that. At least I feel very comfortable that we've gotten past that.
No, I very much do too. I firmly believe everybody on this commission currently would do an admirable job of serving as chair.
For the record, Commissioner Miller, I completely concur that the chair role does need to rotate for the reasons that have been cited as our few meetings and the position being held less than a year. I think it's appropriate and I would welcome a discussion about the vice-chair or second vice-chair and how that could lead into having a more formal process even if it's not written so I support that.
Any other comments on the nominations for chair? No. Let's have a vote on that particular motion and then move onto the next issue. So
I believe before we do that, we need
a
motion
and a
second. I call for the vote for election of a new
chair. Alright is there a second for a vote on the two nominations that are on the table? There are
Other nominations after that.
We've had two people nominated for the chair position, the election is not voting for our favorite candidate or would you like to see me withdraw my nomination of Mr. Kubiak?
I think we're getting a little bogged down here. So, I think that the nomination is fine for the purposes of discussion. Staff is looking for a motion to nominate a person so then we can now then move on to first vice chair.
In order to move forward let's if Mr. Kubiak doesn't mind, if Commissioner Miller wishes to withdraw his nomination of Commissioner Kubiak that would then open the way for a motion and a second and a vote is that acceptable?
Yes
I
thought a motion was already made
no actually I'm not sure a motion I think they tried to make one, but we've got two nominations on the floor. So if Commissioner Miller withdraws his nomination would that be acceptable to you? Commissioner Miller?
Upon reflection, I would like to withdraw my nomination of Commissioner Kubiak.
All right. We have one nomination
0:22 – 0:2742 turns
on the floor is there a motion to proceed to a vote on that nomination? So moved. Is there a second?
Seconded.
Any discussion? All those in favor of the nominations vote aye
Aye.
Aye. Opposed? It's unanimous we move on to the issue of the first vice chair is there a nomination for first vice chair
I nominate Commissioner Kubiak for a first chair
all right is there a second
I'll second it
all right any other nominations All those in favor of the motion appointing Commissioner Kubiak as first vice chair, please say aye.
Aye.
All opposed say no. Motion is approved unanimously. Is there a motion for appointment of the second vice chair?
I would nominate Commissioner Miller.
Is there a second? I
would second that.
Any other nominations?
The only thing I would offer as discussion is that for newer commissioners, is I was the chair immediately preceding Chair Mary Conner. And so at the risk, I want to be sensitive to the idea of overly tightening our pitching rotation, so to speak. So I am happy to take this but I'm also equally happy to wait my turn for the two seats that have not filled the role
I will withdraw my motion temporarily while we have a brief
discussion. Let's have a brief discussion on the procedure to be used for appointment of the first and second vice chair. Is that acceptable or is that not on the
agenda?
We're going to have that discussion now. I
take this comment to heart, and I think it's important that we move things around a bit. So OK.
And is the sense of the procedure that we would have the second vice chair move into the position of the first vice chair in the following year? Yes. And that the first vice chair would move into the position of being the chair in the next year? Is that
the preferred
procedure for the commission?
That's at least been tradition, which is not necessarily the same thing as preferred policy. And I believe it is how the county supervisors and the County Planning Commission kind of stack up And I Picking a straw man
for you. Understood, understood. Is that procedure or understanding while not formalized in the bylaws and not a subject of a motion is that acceptable on an informal basis to the entire
commission?
Yes.
All right. And I think the minutes should so reflect that understanding in the Commission. It's not a formal policy it's on the bylaws but it is an understanding among the commissioners With that understanding, is there a motion for appointment of the second vice chair?
I would move that Commissioner Kearns be the second vice
chair. Commissioner Coopey, I think you turned your mic off for that. No, I'm sorry.
I would move that Commissioner Kearnes be the second vice chair.
All right. Is there a second? I would like to second that. All right. Any other nominations? All those in favor of the motion say aye. Aye. All those opposed say no, unanimously approved. Congratulations Commissioner Kern. Thank you. Alright we've successfully navigated that
agenda item
Thank you for indulging me in what was a little bit of officiousness by me.
Well, and thank you for your thoughts and historic reflections about how this has been done in the past. Item six appointment of the 2026 Montecito Planning Commission Secretary and Recording Secretary Mr. Villalobos.
Thank You Mr. Chair, rest of the commissioners well you are certainly welcome to nominate anyone you wish I would have a recommendation Historically those roles have been filled by Mr. Wilson and myself, and if hopefully you feel we've done a good job over the last year and that's who I would recommend for this upcoming year as well
Thank you for your recommendation. And I would just add that don't take his absence today as indication of his lack of interest. All
right
we have a recommendation from a staff for Mr. Wilson, Mr. Villalobos to fill those two positions is there a motion to that effect?
I would make a motion that we approve that recommendation.
All right, is there a second to that motion? Second. All right any discussion all those in favor of the motion say aye. Aye. Those opposed say no. Unanimously approved. Thank you. Item seven the agenda status report.
0:27 – 0:3919 turns
Mr. Chair commissioners we have two items on today's agenda Thank you. Any questions for staff? All right, the projection report. And then looking at the projection report, our next scheduled meeting is currently March 18th. As of now there are no items on that agenda I would hold off on taking any action at this point maybe until the end of the hearing today to see what happens Beyond that, April 15th is your next hearing and there is currently one item on that agenda. Development plan amendment for 1260 BB property LLC on 1260 Channel Drive.
And
that's as far out as we're projecting at this point. All right any questions for staff on the projection report? All right, item nine public comment. Public comment period is set aside to allow public testimony on items not on today's agenda. The time allocated to each speaker will be set at the discretion of the chair. Total time allocated for public comment is 15 minutes.
When testifying before this commission personal attacks and other disruptive behavior are not appropriate. Are there any requests to speak during the public comment period?
Mr. Chair, I have received no slips. I see no one rise and I see no hands raised online.
All right. Thank you. The public comment period will be closed. Planning Commissioners' Informational Reports. Individual commissioners may present brief reports on planning issues such as seminars, meetings or literature that would be of interest to the public and or the commission as a whole. Do any commissioners have anything to offer during this portion of the meeting.
All right, seeing no request to speak we'll move on.
I would offer one remark is that with the extensive rains that we have received in this last week it has been notable that the rise in the freeway elevation and Walnut Sound walls The above ground level construction does not seem to have caused any holding back of water, at least to my observation as I have driven along North James.
I actually do have something just for public interest. Okay. Kind of walk across the street. The American Institute of Architects has... Can you speak into the mic so they can hear? The American Institute of Architects has all of its submissions for Firms in Santa Barbara who wish to be in their awards format. There's an exhibit at the Faulkner Gallery, and you can see the work of at least 20 different architectural firms in Santa Barbara to see the kind of work that professionals here are doing. And I think it would behoove the public to see that work, to see the kind of impacts that architects are having on our city.
Thank you.
Anyone else? All right. Moving on to the minutes of December 17th, they were distributed with the agenda for this meeting are there any corrections or changes to those minutes?
I have one correction, Chair. Yes. In Section 4 it reflects that all commissioners were present which is incorrect. Commissioner Miller was absent which is correctly reflected up above in the presence and absence so it's just a correction to Section 4.
Very good. That correction will be made. Any other changes? Motion would be an order to approve the minutes.
So moved.
Is there a second? All in favor say aye.
Aye.
All opposed? Minutes are unanimously approved. Item number 12, the Director's Report and Board of Supervisors Hearing Summary. The Director of Planning and Development will report. Ms. Plowman nice to see you again
So just before
Ms. Plowman starts, I want to return back to the minutes there so if Commissioner Miller was absent for that last meeting did you?
Oh I abstained when I was supposed to be abstaining because I was absent my apologies thank you I changed my vote
all right the the minutes of this meeting will reflect that change in the vote on the last motion thank you All right, Director Plowman you're up.
Good morning and I think I should say Happy New Year to this body? I don't think we've seen you since or I haven't seen you so there have been a number of things that have transpired at the board level since I last presented to you in December. We had the Streamlining and housing accommodations ordinance package go to the board. That went to the board on the 27th of January.
It had been previously acted upon, or we'd presented it to the board on the 16th of December but they had continued it to the 27 because they had some questions about some of the changes that were being made and in response to those questions The staff did work with the board to make some modifications to that package. I think the most notable modifications relate to the changes we made for the commercial C2 zone and mixed-use so that we could ensure that in some areas of the county There would be a way to preserve the commercial space versus in other areas where we have sufficient commercial space and we need more housing. So, we tried to balance that.
We also made some changes to the requirements for open space and Still balanced the need to increase density. So for the higher densities, we still have a lower requirement for open space but we did increase the requirements for like the single size of one open area that's supposed to serve as common space to 50 by 50 and we added a landscaping minimum landscaping requirement of 15% to address some concerns by the board that maybe there wouldn't be sufficient landscaping if our open space amounts were lower.
So those are kind of the key things that we changed Alex is there anything else you would want to add to that? Except for the one, there was one Montecito Planning Commission made four different recommendations to the board that were different than what the County Planning Commission recommended and the County Planning Commission recommendation did not include recommending what the MPC changes were.
But there was some discussion at the board and what the board ended up deciding to do was maintain most of the changes so that they would be consistency across our codes, with the exception of the accessory structure that was going to be exempt from MBAR and that was a recommendation that this commission made it not be exempt and the board upheld that and preserved that Any questions about that? Okay. We also have the Coastal Commission's conditional certification of the coastal zone rezones as part of our housing element accepted by the Board of Supervisors, so know those properties that are in the coastal zone that were part of our housing element now have those rezones in place So that was the final step in, in the closure of the adoption of our housing elements.
I think we're very happy to see that happen. We are very happy to see that the Coastal Commission supported the county's efforts to identify locations for new housing particularly in the coastal zone. And then we had a general cleanup package of ordinance changes, which I believe this commission saw and that went through on February 3rd. There were no changes made by the board.
For future items going to the board, so we have their Raya Hayduck appeal. That was a decision made by the PC to support the applicants improvements to a damaged wall in the San Ysidro Creek. You denied the appeal it has been now appealed to the board and that's gonna be heard on the 24th of February Our environmental justice element is going to be heard by the board on the 10th of March.
We have a cannabis, the board last year adopted changes to our cannabis ordinance to require increased odor control In the coastal zone and also in the inland area where they have indoor grows or processing facilities. There was also a process built in for some of the growers to seek extensions if they were having challenges either securing that equipment, or they had power supply problems and some do actually have some issues with SCE that they need to get upgrades. So we received some extension requests We are going to the board with those extension requests on March 3rd And then we have our Long Range work program that we are developing for the long-range planning division and that's going to go to the board on April 7th. We like to try and bring that to the board before they have their budget workshops so that they all, they understand what it is the department will be working on in terms of policy and ordinance changes over the next year and that they support those and that's the time for them to change them If they want to.
They can throughout the year but it's better to get it set at the beginning of the year so we know how we're going to allocate the resources budget workshops are the following week. So if your commission is interested you can monitor those either in person or via Zoom And we will also be taking a local preference concept along with Community Services Department bringing forward amendments to the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance. And that is also going to be happening in April, and we're still nailing down that date.
And that's all I have. I'm happy to answer any questions.
0:39 – 0:4521 turns
It's vague in my memory about The wall repair that went on in San Ysidro Creek that we denied the appeal and now the appeal is going to the Board of Supervisors. Who's filing the appeal?
The people that have filed the appeal of the original approval of the CDP, so the neighbors who appealed it to the MPC appealed it to the board. It's not unusual for the appeal to not go on to the board in circumstances like that.
I'm surprised,
thank you.
Any other questions? Thank You Director Plowman.
Thank you.
Nice to have you with us today.
Yeah good to see you all.
All right moving on to item 13 the WAVE public hearing Mr. Secretary,
you made the point that a series of the recommendations of the Montecito Planning Commission were turned down by the Board of Supervisors in order to have code conformity between Montecito and non-Montecito? I don't know how to, what is... Montecito in the everything else that isn't incorporated?
Montecito and coastal zone in Montecido. And surrounding inland land use development codes.
So it would be the unincorporated inland county other than Montecino are the... Yes. Coastal has its own issues of lack of conformity but Should we properly understand that the Board of Supervisors desires conformity between these two? Our raison d'etre is Montecito has its own building you know planning and development code because as a special region and our job here is a little bit to kind of celebrate the differences.
Commissioner Miller through the chair, the other items were more procedurally related and we do like to keep our procedures consistent If it's changes that are unique to the land uses in Montecito, that's one thing. But if it's procedural we like to keep it consistent and the board likes to keep it consistent.
Okay so a process question rather than a design question is that?
I would say that's correct Commissioner Miller.
So we're moving on to the WAVE Public Hearing. Mr. Secretary?
Yes, thank you Mr. Chair. So the WAVE Public Hearing is really a supplemental notice to indicate so these projects are default of normal noticing process for a regular project. So there's a newspaper ad, there's an ad to the paper but these waived hearing projects have an additional noticing requirement that they appear on the agenda of the board that would review it if someone had requested a hearing in this case just because we didn't have a meeting last month the period to request a hearing has already expired and so this is really a It's already kind of happened and as I'm not sure if Mr. Seaworth can confirm, but I don't believe we received any request on this one That is correct So there's no action for the Commission on this one. It's just really disacknowledgement Supplemental notice
very good. Thank you All right
moving on to item 14 the standard agenda item number 1 is 1410 North Jameson Lane
So Mr. Chair for the standard agenda, my staff person Jonathan Martin will read the item into the record. Very good welcome.
Good morning Mr. Chair we will begin with Item number 123 CUP-00034 and 24 CDH-000025 Montecito LLC walls hearing on the request of Montecito LLC to consider the following Case number 25, I'm sorry 23 CUP-00034 and case number 24 CDH-000025. And to determine the project is exempt from CEQA pursuant to state guidelines for implement, I am sorry, for State CEQAs Guidelines Section 15303 as outlined in the Notice of Exemption.
0:45 – 0:4610 turns
All right.
Would this be the appropriate time to make an ex parte disclosure?
Or
is that later?
Yes, sure.
I did speak with the planner Kathleen Fulpe on this. I had a number of questions that we'll see after the presentation if they remain but we did have a conversation and it was very helpful.
Very good. Any other exparte disclosures?
This is exactly ex parte, but I am the next door neighbor to or at least where I live abuts in a particular corner of this property. I do believe I can consider this matter though without conflict of interest.
So do we need to have any kind of an opinion from council on the subject before we move on? I'm
happy to refer this to council. Yeah, when I had reviewed the Brown Act it was as I understood it if this had a possible positive or negative impact on my property value or any ability to sit... I'm sorry. As part of coming into this hearing I did read through what I understood to be the Brown Act guidelines for recusal and I did not identify myself as being We will take a five to ten minute break as short as possible.
0:51 – 1:006 turns
for February 18th after our short recess. Is there any further discussion on the item that we were talking about before the recess?
Upon review with County Council and her sage advice, it's been recommended that I indeed do recuse myself so I am gonna go get myself a cup of coffee and I encourage you all to enjoy this.
The record will reflect that you are recused and stepping away from the dais And with that, I think we can move on to the staff report.
Good morning Chair and members of the Commission. My name is Kathleen Volpe and I will be presenting the proposal for the Montecito LLC walls project On the left is a vicinity map of the subject parcel. The property is located at 1410 North Jamison Lane within the coastal zone in the Montecito Community Plan. The 0.72-acre parcel is residentially zoned 20R1 and it's highlighted in red on the vicinity map. Access to the site is offered via Jamison Lane, identified by the turquoise line. Montecito Creek is shown as a blue line and runs through the northern portion of the parcel. State Highway 101 is located just south of Jameson Lane, and has been undergoing a road widening project.
The map on the right shows the flood overlays. The floodway overlay is delineated by the hatched blue area, and the 100-year flood hazard overlay is shown as solid blue.
Mr. Volpe, sorry for the interruption. Would you mind speaking a little closer to the microphone?
The map on the right shows floodways, the flood overlays. The floodway overlay is delineated by the hatched blue area and the 100-year flood hazard overlay is shown as all blue. Public Works Flood Control has reviewed the project for consistency with their requirements and approved the design. This will be discussed a little bit later in the slides The subject parcel is a legally created lot and is developed with a single family dwelling, a guest house and a CMU plaster sound wall with an entrance gate. The property owners entered into a noise abatement agreement with Caltrans and received compensation in connection with the Highway 101 widening project. To reduce noise impacts from Highway 101, a new sound wall was constructed along the Jameson Lane property line replacing an existing six-foot fence.
The sound wall is located within the front setback and exceeds 6 feet in height, and the parcel is located within the Coastal Commission appeals jurisdiction due to its proximity to Montecito Creek. Therefore permits are required. A zoning violation was issued in 2023 to address the unpermitted construction of the sound wall. The required permits include a minor conditional use permit and a coastal development permit with hearing.
The project is a request for a minor conditional use permit and coastal development permit to validate a 235 foot as-built CMU and plaster sound wall that varies in height from 6 feet 7 inches to 7 feet 10 inches and is located within the front setback, and also includes an entrance gate. Grading includes approximately 13 cubic yards of cut and 13 cubic yards fill No trees are proposed for removal and access will continue to be provided from Jameson Lane. The property is shown as assessor parcel number 009251001 located at 1410 North Jameson Lane in the Montecito Community Plan, the first Supervisory District.
The project includes a request to reduce the required 50-foot buffer from Montecito Creek's top of bank to 43 feet, to allow a portion of the wall within the buffer to remain. The site plan depicts the subject parcel, the soundwall shown by the red line, Montecito Creek, the 50 foot top of bank buffer shown by the black dashed line, the ESH boundary illustrated by the green dashed line and the driveway and neighboring access roads as the gray area.
A biological report prepared by Watershed Environmental, Inc. evaluated potential project impact impacts and assess the ESH. The report concluded that the reduced top of bank buffer can be supported and would not result in erosion, soil disturbance or instability at Montecito Creek nor would it adversely affect stormwater runoff patterns. The report further determines that though there is mapped ESH, the area affected by the sound wall has previously been landscaped with non-native ornamental vegetation shown by the top photos And the wall is located adjacent to the driveway in an access road that serves neighboring parcels, shown in the bottom photo. Though there are native and specimen trees including oak trees on the property, the area is significantly disturbed and is not considered ESH.
The installation of the wall and entrance gate did not disturb more than 20% of critical root zones or significantly impact any trees. This slide includes a photograph of the sound wall along Jameson Lane and a detail of the proposed wall design with vents. Plans demonstrating 45 12-inch by 12-inch vents along the bottom of the wall Along with a report analyzing potential water flow through the vents were submitted to the Public Works Flood Control Division. Flood review this middle and determined the venting design reduced impacts of the sound wall in the special flood hazard area. They determined that with the venting it complies with all applicable county floodplain and floodway development standards, and flood control has also required photos of events after installation.
The project has been reviewed by MBAR and received favorable comments. The project is conditioned to return to MBAR for preliminary and final approval on the consent agenda following decision-maker approval. This slide shows sound walls in the same neighborhood as the project Demonstrating that the walls of similar height, design and materials are commonplace and it contributes to the visual consistency within the community.
The project is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan including the Montecito Community Plan. The sound wall is in conformance with the scaling character of the existing community and has been reviewed with favorable comments by MBAR. The biological report was prepared and some significant impacts to riparian woodland ESH were found in a reduction to 43 feet of the 50 foot from top of Montecito Creek buffer can be supported.
The wall was constructed with minimal grading and designed to fit site topography, soils, geology and hydrology. And Public Works Flood Control Division has reviewed the project and with the inclusion of the 45Ns found the wall in compliance with all floodplain and floodway development standards therefore the wall and entrance gate will not impact hillside and waterside protection or water resources and flooding The project is consistent with all applicable Article 2 and R1 zone development standards. It is located on a residentially developed parcel containing a single family dwelling and associated residential accessory structures.
The wall and entrance gate function as an accessory feature to the residential use and promotes a suitable environment. For family life by attenuating noise generated from Highway 101 and improving the comfort and general welfare of the property's residents. A wall of over six feet in the front setback is an allowed structure with a minor conditional use permit.
And with the approval of the 50 foot from top of bank buffer reduction to 43 feet, the project meets all applicable development standards for native plant community habitats and applicable stream habitat policies. No specimen or native trees were removed or significantly disturbed during construction and no sensitive plant species were impacted. The proposed project can be found exempt through CEQA guideline section 15303, which allows a new construction or conversion of small structures.
Given that the project is for a sound wall and entrance gate it can be found exempt from CEQA. And staff recommends your commission make the required findings for approval of the project determine the project is exempt from CEQAs and grant approval of the project subject to the conditions of approval Staff is now available for any questions.
1:00 – 1:0624 turns
Are there questions for staff?
All right,
hearing no questions...
I have a question. I was just thinking through it so there is an area along Jamison Lane that has, that abuts the 101 where there were homeowners told they were not allowed to have a sound wall due to flooding issues and there were a number of meetings held with I would like to have some comments on the record from the planning.
Commissioners, we actually asked Matt Griffin from Flood Control to come because we anticipated a question like this might come up. So I think he's better able to speak on the county's approach to this.
Great! Thank you so much.
Commissioner Kearns through the Chair. Matt Griffin, Engineering Manager for County Flood Control. So going back to the Caltrans sound wall discussions at that time Those sound walls were being analyzed in regards to what's called the current FEMA effective map. And also at that time, there was something called the recovery mapping which came out of the 2018 debris flow. And so those walls were analyzed based on those maps. At that time we told you that FEMA was redoing their maps.
Those maps are essentially done. They will be formally adopted on June 10th. They'll become official on June 10th. So way back in 2018, we actually were regulating to two maps for a while. We're regulating the three maps, which was very difficult. And on June 10, we went back to regulating to one map. At the time, we told you that the preliminary FEMA mapping would not drastically change the floodplain through Montecito. And that, by and large, is true.
At this particular property though, the floodplain is contained within the creek so this proposed wall will be outside of the flood plain. The current effective maps we still need to regulate to that map until June 10th. The sound walls Due to the potential widespread impact of those, we are holding those to a very high standard of analysis requiring no rise.
Considering the circumstances for this property and understanding that the maps are changing as of June 10th, we found it to be a compromise to hold them to a one-foot rise in water surface elevations which they've accomplished by cutting in those vents. So in this case, we found that acceptable. If the maps didn't change, I don't think that we would find that acceptable. We would probably ask them to remove the wall.
So would it be fair to say on a case-by-case basis, once the June 10th maps are approved and accepted other homeowners along the stretch that apply for permits to build sound walls without just building the sound wall and coming back later would be considered on a case by case basis?
Yeah I think that'd be fair to say.
Thank you very much.
By the way, this map that's about to be adopted on June 10th has it been made public in any way?
Yes yeah it's all available online we have a website in regards to it on our flood control web page
and when was that made public?
That's been made public for we had a big public meeting here in this room a year ago those maps have been public for probably I'd have to check but probably for at least six months
Probably for six months. Because at the time of our last meeting when we requested to look at that updated information, it was not available to us as
commissioners. I'll forward you an email with the information.
I would appreciate that. Sure. I've been waiting for a long time.
Other questions or comments for staff?
I have one. Is the venting that's been discussed already present or is that being proposed as a condition of approval? It's on page six of the presentation if that's helpful.
Commissioner Ruckenbach, through the chair. Yeah so that was a it is not has not been installed at this time so what we were originally approving is the solid sound wall what in order to get clearance from Public Works Flood Control they had to add do engineering and develop a venting system that would be installed afterwards and they are required to demonstrate photos to flood of completion.
OK, thank you.
Is the number of vents called for in any? I didn't see any. I see this one detail but it doesn't tell me how many events there are. Are they by a particular distance apart?
I think that was part of the presentation and I think it's 45. Oh,
I'm sorry. 45 feet. OK. Thank you.
1:06 – 1:2624 turns
And one final question I have is about the height, how the wall goes to six foot seven foot ten inches and in its presented as consistent with the neighborhood walls and just as a person that drives through the neighborhood frequently, it's hard to see how tall some of the walls are but certainly this one appears to be taller. And was there a reason that the homeowner was allowed to go up to 7 feet 10 inches? That would help for transparency in their records to have an answer.
Commissioner Kerns through the chair. So within the front setback, you are allowed to have a wall above six feet. Anything six feet or below is basically exempt from permitting. So if you would like to have a wall that's over 6 feet it is allowed. It's just allowed with a minor conditional use permit which is what the applicant is applying for. I cannot say for sure the heights of the neighborhood but I do know that we have a history of permitting heights above six feet in the Montecito area with minor conditional use permits in the past.
Thank you very much, that's helpful. Other questions or comments?
One additional question if you could go back to page five Can you show me where the reduction in the buffer for Montecito Creek is from 50 feet down to 43 feet? Is it the whole length of the wall or just one section of the wall that encroaches on that, what would otherwise be the buffer?
Commissioner Rocomba through Chair. So that dashed line If we look at the map on the left, there is a small red line right below it. And basically that's 13 linear feet of wall area that is within the buffer. So the buffer reduction will be to incorporate that small piece of wall, that 13 linear feet.
Okay and that's on the other side of the driveway entrance?
Correct
yes.
Commissioners, just for the record too we want to make sure some of you are new. For the buffer reduction the code does allow it with evidence from a biologist or something that there is no bio resource in the area.
Other questions? Comments? Anything more from staff? Thank you. All right, I think we're ready to move to a motion and decision. Oh, oh I'm sorry, you're right. Wait, I know what you're about to say. There's public comment! Well before that... I get it,
I get it. Mr. Chair before that I believe the applicant has a presentation as well.
Very good let's hear from the applicant and then we'll have public comment
Good morning, commissioners. My name is Sarah Marshall. I am from Sepps Land Use Consulting. I am one of the two agents along with my colleague Steve Welton from our office representing the property owner Joe Gunner who is also in attendance in the audience. Our planner Miss Volpe did an excellent job presenting our project overview and requests. And I'm here just to provide additional background information and context. It's a very brief presentation.
This photo shows the existing white plaster wall. As mentioned, we're requesting an as-built conditional use permit and coastal development permit for the existing sound wall. The wall was built using funding provided to the property owner from Caltrans to abate noise from the Highway 101 as part of the widening project. The owner was not aware that a permit was necessary to build the wall because of its height exceedance of six feet And an enforcement case was opened due to a violation against the property for the wall.
Some additional context regarding the height of the wall going up to 7 feet 10 inches is that the 101 highway sits above the property, which is why the property owner chose to build a slightly higher wall. The project has been thoroughly reviewed by the Planning Department as well as Flood Control, as mentioned. Considering the proximity to Montecito Creek and its location within the FEMA floodway and the 100-year flood hazard overlay, Flood Control signed off on the project since the owner agreed to create penetrations in the wall at certain locations in order to allow water to pass through in the event of future flooding.
I would also like to add that the board did adopt flood controls interim maps that were discussed previously. The project was also reviewed by Public Works and a design exception was approved for the site stopping triangle distance triangle, and the project received preliminary and conceptual approval at Montecito BAR and will return to Montecito BAR for final approval following CEP approval.
The top photo on the left shows the previous wooden fence at the corner of the property and the bottom photo is taken showing the same location of the current wall. This photo is slightly outdated and there is landscaping currently, and additional landscaping is proposed as part of the project approval. Touching on neighborhood compatibility. If you look at the left side of this image, you see our subject parcel with the existing wall and then slightly eastbound on Jamison Lane driving towards Summerlin there is a neighbor with a similar white plaster wall. I'm not aware of the height of that wall but based on the imagery I could see in driving by it seemed compatible in height And driving the opposite direction west on North Jamison Lane, the top photo shows a neighboring parcel just two properties west of our property showing an existing wall and then about four properties west on the corner of Santa Clara Way and Jamison Lane there is another existing white plaster sound wall similar in height and design.
That concludes my presentation. Myself, as well as property owner and Steve Walton are available to answer any additional questions you may have. Thank you.
Thank you. Any questions for our speaker? No thank you. Any other speakers for the applicant? Nope all right now we can have a public hearing so the public hearing is open anyone who wishes to address the Commission on this project is welcome to approach the lectern and offer your comments. Are there any requests to speak?
Staff received no speaker slips on this item, and I do not believe we have any hands raised. Mr. Martin can you confirm that?
All right last call for speakers from the audience.
If anybody's in our online chat please raise your hand if you would like to speak on this item Mr. Chair, seeing none.
All right see no requests to speak either in the room or online and so we will close the public hearing anything further from staff before we move to a motion and a vote? No all right So there's a recommendation let me put it up on the screen I would appreciate it This is slide 11 in the staff recommendation. Thank you. There are the three recommendations from staff, is there a motion from the commission?
I would move to accept the staff's recommendations.
Motion has been made to accept the staff recommendation. Is there a second?
Seconded.
All right any discussion? Hearing no discussion, all those in favor of the motion say aye. Aye. All opposed say no. Motion is unanimously approved. Thank you to the applicant thank you to staff we appreciate your help on this item.
Mr. Chair can we take a short break just to have staff set up and so we can locate Commissioner Miller?
Sure. We'll take a short break don't go anywhere folks Are we going to call the meeting back to order? Go to item number two on the agenda.
1:26 – 1:363 turns
Yes, item number 2, 24 ORD-00029 and 24 ORD-000030 Utility Scale Solar Amendments Project. Hearing on the request of the County Senate Barbara Planning and Development Department P&D Very good. And do we have a report from staff?
Good morning Mr. Chair, members of the Commission so I just wanted to introduce my team and then hand it off to them for a staff presentation so with us today is Whitney Wilkinson supervising planner Zoe Carlson project manager and Matt Hernandez project planner and with that I will hand it off to them very good welcome
good morning chair commissioners my name is Zoe Carlson And I'm a senior planner and the project manager for the Utility Scale Solar Project. And Matt Hernandez on our team will also be presenting for you today. We'll start by giving background and overview of the utility scale solar project, we'll then discuss the proposed changes to the ordinances and the comprehensive plan.
We'l discuss the public and environmental review process And we'll discuss the project's consistency with the comprehensive plan and the community plan policies, and then discuss the next steps and recommendations for your commission. In 2014, the Board of Supervisors adopted amendments to the Land Use and Development Code or LUDC and the Comprehensive Plan land use element to allow for the development of a utility-scale solar project in the Cuyama Valley by establishing a 600 acre overlay for utility scale solar.
And since that project and a subsequent project have been developed, there is very little remaining capacity within that overlay for utility-scale solar. And in 2019, the Board of Supervisors adopted the Strategic Energy Plan which included strategies to expand renewable energy generation. And one of those strategies was amending the county code to allow for utility-scale solar throughout the county and incorporated areas.
So in 2021 the board did direct long-range planning to develop amendments to allow for utility scale solar throughout the county as well as amending the uniform rules, proposing amendments to uniform rules to designate utility scale solar as a compatible use on Williamson Act contracted lands. Specifically, the amendments to the Montecito Land Use and Development Code or MLEDC and the Coastal Zoning Ordinance or CZO include clarifying definitions and related information regarding solar.
And it also establishes a permitting tiered system with associated development standards for those tiers. We're using the terminology of systems to describe the smaller Tier 1 and 2 solar projects, and facilities as in solar energy facilities for those larger Tier 3 and 4 projects. We are not proposing any changes to the allowance of standalone battery energy storage systems or battery ESS, but we are clarifying that these systems are currently allowed as public utility facilities or private services uses within the code.
We are also proposing these battery ESS to be allowed as a component of solar energy systems and facilities, as long as they are commensurate in size with the solar project. This table includes the proposed permitting framework for both the MLUDC and the CZO, for those smaller Tier 1 and 2 projects that we're designating as solar energy systems. These Tier 1 solar systems are exempt from planning permits in the inland area, and the ground-mounted projects in the coastal zone require a Coastal Development Permit which is similar to the current requirements.
And these smaller Tier 1 systems are generally intended to support energy generation for on-site uses. The Tier 2 solar energy systems include ground-mounted systems that are greater than half an acre and up to, and including five acres in size on developed or improved areas. For example a solar canopy over a parking lot. And these would be allowed with a zoning clearance and they may be used for onsite or offsite as similar to a microgrid system And in the coastal zone, there would be a non-locally appealable coastal development permit required as well.
Also the solar projects on agricultural resource management, recreation and mountainous zone sites must produce power primarily for onsite use. And this is due to the sensitivity and purpose of these zones. Really solar should be for supporting that primary use and not for off-site production This is the proposed permitting framework for the larger Tier 3 and 4 solar energy facilities.
Generally, solar energy facilities have the primary purpose of commercial energy generation for off-site use. And due to the size and commercial nature these are not proposed to be allowed in all zones only the specific zones shown on this slide. In the Montecito planning area, there is only one Ag-1 property and public utilities but we are including all allowed zones for consistency across the ordinances.
For the Tier 3, which are the community scale solar energy facilities. Those are up to 30 acres in size and they would be permitted with a minor conditional use permit as well as a coastal development permit if they're in the coastal zone. The utility scale are the largest tier 4 projects that are over 30 acres in size and those would be permitted with a major conditional use permit as well as that coastal development permit in the coastal zone.
Tier 3 and 4 projects in the public utilities zone would be allowed with a development plan in lieu of that conditional use permit but they would still require that coastal development permit in the coastal zone The amendments include standards for solar development that are more rigorous for the larger projects. And these development standards came from the existing utility-scale solar development standards in the Land Use and Development Code, as well as the program environmental impact report for the project. Some were also developed from best practices to ensure consistency.
There are height and setback requirements for all solar energy systems and facilities, as well as additional standards for Tier 3 and 4 solar energy facilities and Tier 2 as applicable. including a number of visual screening and landscaping standards, a number of noise traffic and safety control standards. Standards for protection of agricultural biological and cultural resources, a number of hazard prevention standards as well as decommissioning and site restoration standards where appropriate Our proposed project does include amendments to the comprehensive plan land use element, which include removing that utility scale solar photovoltaic facility overlay in the Cuyama Valley that I previously mentioned.
and specifically deleting the associated policy 15 related to that overlay for consistency. And similar consistency-related updates are proposed for the coastal land use plan to clarify that solar facilities are a conditionally permitted use. As I mentioned previously, the board did direct us to propose amendments to the uniform rules to allow for utility scale solar on Williamson Act contracted land.
And these proposed amendments are discussed in detail in the staff report, however there are not any Williamson Act contracted land within the Montecito Planning Area and there is no action for your commission to take regarding those amendments. And I'll now turn it over to Matt for the rest of the presentation
1:37 – 1:422 turns
Thank you, Zoe. I'll now pick it up from here to go over our outreach efforts, environmental review, policy consistency, and next steps. This slide summarizes our key outreach efforts described in the staff report. For CEQA, the notice of preparation was issued November 7th, 2024. The scoping hearing was held November 21st, 2024. And the scoping comment period closed December 9th, 2024.
Staff also held a developer and stakeholder meeting on May 23rd, 2024 to review the tier framework allowable zones and permitting approach. Comments from that meeting were incorporated where appropriate. On the agriculture side because we are proposing solar on ag land staff met with the Agricultural Advisory Committee on August 8th, 2024 and November 13th 2025 AAC feedback emphasized supporting on-site agricultural solar with minimal discretionary permitting were feasible and staff refined parts of the tier approach in response.
Environmental review for the comprehensive plan and ordinance amendments was completed through a program EIR prepared under CEQA guidelines section 15168. The draft program EIR was circulated for public review from August 19th, 2025 through October 3rd, 2025. The program EIR impact analysis at a programmatic level determined that most of the impacts were related to larger scale tier three and tier four solar energy facilities with minimal impacts associated with the smaller tier one and tier two solar energy systems.
At a program level, the EIR identifies significant and unavoidable impacts in three areas. Aesthetics and visual resources, agricultural resources, and cultural, tribal-cultural, and paleontological resources. It also identifies significant but medicable impacts in the other topic areas listed here. Air quality, biological resources, greenhouse gases, hazards, noise, transportation, utilities and wildfire.
The program EIR also includes a mitigation and monitoring report and reporting program to ensure mitigation measures are implemented as future projects tear off from this program level analysis. As a reminder, the EIR is at a program level and future Tier 3 and 4 solar projects will still be subject to additional project-specific environmental review as appropriate.
As required by CEQA, the program EIR also evaluated a range of reasonable alternatives to the proposed project. First alternative one, a no-project alternative would retain the existing framework including the 600 acre utility scale solar overlay in the Cuyama Valley. There would be no streamlining or expanded permitting areas under this alternative. Next, Alternative 2, reduced Williamson Act allowance would prohibit or further limit Tier 3 and Tier 4 solar facilities on Williamson Act contracted agricultural lands and add additional footprint caps.
Finally, Alternative 3 would prohibit Tier 4 solar facilities in the coastal zone. Alternative 3 was identified by the program EIR as the environmentally superior alternative. However, staff is recommending the proposed project as it best meets project objectives while still providing programmatic mitigation and project level review. Within this staff report you will also find a detailed policy consistency analysis that evaluates key resource areas.
Staff's conclusion is that the project is consistent with the county comprehensive plan, including the coastal land use plan and Montecito community plan. This analysis was completed at the program level and future non-exempt projects that require a permit will still be subject to a project level specific consistency analysis. And to close staff recommends the commission adopt resolutions to recommend approval of the project package as follows.
First, a resolution recommending that the County Planning Commission recommend that the Board of Supervisors adopt the Coastal Zone Ordinance Amendments and make the required findings. Next, a resolution recommending the board adopts the MLUDC amendments and make the required findings. And finally to recommend that the board certify the program EIR and make the required CEQA findings for the project.
After this hearing, the Montecito Planning Commission's recommendation would be forwarded to the County Planning Commission and then to the Board of Supervisors. The board will consider certifying the program EIR in adopting the ordinance amendments. For the coastal zone following board action, the amendments would then proceed to the California Coastal Commission for certification.
That concludes our presentation and we're now happy to take any questions that the commission may have.
Thank you all for your presentation. Are there questions for the staff?
1:42 – 1:4819 turns
Really a question related to how this might impact Montecito. I'm just looking at your tier one projects which are ground mounted, which could be up to half an acre of ground-mounted solar. Are policy consistency issues that are identified later in this presentation applicable to that exemption? Is it reviewed on any level or is it just completely exempt?
Commissioner Kupiak, through the chair. It would be exempt from a planning permit but anything that's exempt still has to comply with some of our standard requirements like setbacks can't be an ESH, can involve removal of trees for example things of that nature basic stuff. Specifically is it the policy
consistencies that are outlined on that page? Are they applicable to this project?
There would not be a full blown consistency analysis for something that is exempt. I will say that currently, ground-mounted solar is exempt countywide in the inland area. So this really is not really a change to current regulations with regard to ground-mounted solar. What it does do is clarify a size limit for what would be falling within that exempt category.
So within Montecito where there are residential districts predominantly, a half acre solar field would be allowed exempt?
It would be for personal use, yes. Okay
that's what I wanted to clarify
thank you. I have one follow-up question for the tier three and four projects you mentioned that within the Montecito planning area there is only an AG1 and a public utilities do you know where those parcels are located within the Montecito planning area? And how many there are?
Commissioner Rockenbach through the chair. So the ag parcel is actually pretty close to that property that you were reviewing with your first item it's along Jameson I want to say in between San Ysidro and Sheffield And the public utility properties are primarily, they're pretty scattered. There's a handful throughout the Montecito planning area most of them are fairly small like maybe up to half acre-acre so there's no large large public utility properties within the Montecito that would really be suitable for a tier 3 or tier 4 project We did consider not for that reason, not even carrying and applying Tier 3 and Tier 4 in the Montecito Community Plan but for consistency purposes as staff indicated we did keep it in there.
Things could change in the future so we wanted to just maintain that consistency.
Thank you.
A follow-up to that just so I'm clear there's one property in Montecito that falls within Tier 3 or 4? Did I understand that correctly?
Commissioner Kearns for the chair. Well, there's a handful of properties that have the zoning that would allow for tier three or four but all the public utilities zone property they're all pretty small in scale and so wouldn't really be suitable for what would typically be considered a community scale or utility scale solar you couldn't put it there's no 30 acre public utility property in Montecito for example or even five acre for that matter.
The one ag zoned property I think is about five acres it is covered in an orchards at the moment it is and it's in the coastal zone so there's higher permit requirements for that
thank you
all right
Just to clarify, we're referring to Ag 1 as being on Jameson. Maybe I'm not properly visualizing the boundaries of the Montecito Planning Commission but what would be referred to as Rancho San Carlos in that area is that Ag 2? That strikes me as significantly larger than or you know.
Commissioner Miller
along East Valley Road. I don't mean to be overly specific here.
Sure, I'm vaguely familiar with that property. I don't believe that's agriculturally zoned
Okay Where I'd like to take this conversation is Very focused, well I think a lot of the discussion on this topic has been around the solar panels themselves. The issue that I am the most animated about is the associated battery installation that goes with this and the EIR connected to this My understanding here is that a programmatic EIR would work in such a way that there would be no challenge or review in the future on environmental grounds connected to any installation of this, correct? That the nature of a programmatic EIR Proclude future environmental related challenges to a permitting process. Is that my, in layman's terms correctly characterizing what a programmatic EIR would do here?
1:48 – 1:563 turns
Commissioner Miller through the chair. So projects coming in, in the door after the PIEIR is certified could utilize that program EIR could essentially tear off of it as long as our analysis of the project shows that the project's impacts can be mitigated by the The mitigation measures that are in the EIR, then no further analysis would be needed. But we would evaluate each project to determine if subsequent environmental impact review would be needed.
So the program EIR kind of provides a baseline. There's mitigation measures that can support projects that come through but we always determine if subsequent environmental review is needed.
So, this is what I really want to push on this topic. In that, I know enough on this topic to be dangerous and I'm looking for clarification guidance from you here is that the chemical makeup and structure of batteries seems to be in evolving technology and If we agree to a programmatic EIR that allows for potentially larger scale battery installation, would How would we understand future environmental review connected to this? So let me walk through a little bit where I'm focused examples-wise. One is that, I'm really not that focused on solar panels at all. Great idea, let's go ahead and do it. But some of the heavy metals that are sometimes used in batteries and they may not be used in batteries today but if in 10 years it turns out Greater mercury content in batteries isn't a wonderful idea for whatever reason.
My concern here is that it is a concentration of high energy and potentially volatile materials that would not necessarily be reviewable in the nature of a programmatic EIR. That's kind of one prong of my question. The other prong is really related to understanding and frankly being concerned about not having a more robust review for fire danger. When I check in for an airplane flight, they ask me if my I have a laptop in my check-in bags because I presume the battery in my laptop is dangerous enough that it would create a problem or flame accelerant in a plane.
We're talking about and Tier 3 and Tier 4 or even Tier 2, what are potentially very significant battery installation volumes that as Montecito has proven is an area that is a high fire risk area in many places. The interplay between large-scale battery installation and fire danger in our community I'm worried that because we have kind of tacked battery on to solar, that the battery question as it relates to community compatibility here and different areas of fire danger is not really adequately addressed by page number.
The fire prevention and emergency management is that it establishes response procedures for equipment malfunction or failure, includes procedures that provide for safety of surrounding residents, neighboring property, emergency responders and environment. These procedures will be established in consultation with local emergency management agencies. It seems like There is some sort of document plan in case of emergency, but there doesn't seem to ever be a review of the technical design of the battery or comparative fire safety of the batteries. So could you guys just do a big grand tour through battery safety technology and the environmental review of it under programmatic EIR?
Commissioner Miller through the chair, let me start and then staff can add to it anything I missed. So the IR does evaluate fire hazards and general wildfire risks, fire hazards, environmental hazards associated with the project including a discussion and analysis of battery storage systems. As you indicated the technology is ever-changing I know there's a lot of concern in the reaction to what happened in Moss Landing, for example. That got a lot of attention.
You know that's an old technology. Current technology is more where you have these isolated compartments that are fairly self-contained within A system that significantly addresses many of the hazard issues or potential for widespread flare-up. To your main point in terms of future review, the program EIR is limited because we don't know where exactly future projects are going to go. What their design will be. Every project whether it's an exempt tier one project or a tier four project across the board will require building permits and as part of that building permit review will require review and sign off by the fire department They have experience working with battery systems. There are standards, fire code standards that these projects have to be designed to depending on what is being proposed they have the ability under our code to request additional fire hazard analysis and risk analysis There are setback requirements and depending on the battery size for adjacent structures, adjacent lots.
So it's not a by any means should you believe that because there was a PEIR done program EIR done that they all of a sudden every future project is given a blank check. They still go through a rigorous level of review For those higher projects, tiers 3 and 4 where you may more likely encounter a large battery component. Those are still conditional use permits so there's a lot of discretion that can be applied to conditional use permits including the sizing, the siting location etc as well as rigorous review by the fire department. So nothing is changing in that regard Hopefully that addresses some of your questions and concerns. And again, I'll pass it off to staff if I missed anything.
1:56 – 2:014 turns
So yeah, I guess there is kind of two prongs to my concerns here one is that one is the fire danger element the other is I will call it environmental safety concerns separate from fire in terms of the materials used in battery construction. So what am I trying to say is if I want to, if I have a large lot up in the hills of Montecito and I want to do a large solar and battery installation but there is some concern that in the case of a mudslide or more dramatic event that That the materials in this battery could enter the watershed or not under the normal course of things, but when our community chooses to flood again which seems like an inevitability just no one knows when.
A fire department review might address like very specific site related fire concerns but given the evolution and battery technology how would we How would we be sure that the programmatic EIR would not exempt a hazard review of the batteries from an environmental perspective? I'm not a particularly technical person, but if the future battery technology involves a more hazardous chemical use, I would not be able to install 50 pounds of mercury in my backyard necessarily.
Mercury qua mercury, but my concern is that if 50 pounds of mercury is present in the batteries because that's the right way to build batteries going forward I want to be certain that the programmatic EIR here does not preclude me as a neighbor from challenging the installation of those batteries based on what's being installed there. Is there some sort of state-level certification of batteries or that asserts safety? How do we understand this topic better, I guess?
Commissioner Miller through the chair and Alex, you can fill in for what I don't provide as a good answer here. But what I would say is that if we have future projects coming in with different battery technologies, we would have the opportunity to evaluate the safety of those especially through updates to the state fire code that is constantly being updated and anticipating new technologies.
And there are other state regulations too that are looking at the safety of these facilities, for instance in the public utilities code. I will also say that for those discretionary projects, the Tier 3 and 4 projects we have the ability to ask for a hazards assessment study that looks at the particular safety of battery storage system in site specific conditions.
Kind of a more detailed review so those are tools we have at our disposal.
When you say we, is that a staff review? What I'm focused more on is if I as an irate neighbor am doing an appeal. Am I precluded from...I want to be clear that I'm not precluded from pushing for that type of review because of the programmatic PEIR that's being presented here.
Commissioner Miller to the chair. So just to clarify when looking at the four tiers, tier one two three and four, tiers three and four would be go through the normal conditional use permit process like you had on your first item today those are appealable actions there's no potential for appeal of it tier one project that's exempt or a tier two that would require just as zoning clearance Just to tack on to what Ms. Wilkinson indicated, all these battery products are just like you go buy a light switch from Home Depot there's a rigorous testing that has to go in to these products whether it's UL or whatever similar testing service that gets conducted to make sure that the batteries comply are designed and I have a question.
2:02 – 2:0710 turns
I'm tracking what you're saying, but a UL certification is not a process by which we have large batteries that end up in Montecito Creek because of rain mudslide kind of things. The interaction of like review of a battery would not have an environmental component to it in the UL certification, I don't believe. Does that make sense? My concern is there's a question of scale here.
Commissioner Miller, so for one you can't do a battery system or a solar system for that matter within floodway so not that that means there couldn't be some future natural disaster or mudslide that might impact the system but there are I guess I don't The testing and development of these systems are designed with public health and safety in mind. That doesn't mean that there can't be an accident, but these systems are designed to be self-contained.
The testing that does occur is not gonna sign off on a product that if it ends up in a creek releasing mercury into the watershed. I can't imagine that would pass the testing that does happen to certify and sign off on these products. Those larger systems, again, would require a robust review including hazards analysis no different than what would occur currently. The program EIR, I guess fundamentally if you're worried that the program EIR again gives a future project a blank check it does not.
It lays out mitigation measures that need to be adhered to and then whether there's any unique site-specific scenarios that would require additional study or additional analysis that would be happening as part of that future project application. It would not be covered under the program EIR.
Fellow commissioners, I'm cognizant that I have been taking quite a bit of time so I could keep going with this but I want to make sure I give other people a chance at the talking stick.
Anyone else want to weigh in
here? Just to clarify, I am not 100% sure because I have not built an acre Solar field with batteries. But I believe that California Building Code now covers the installation of charging stations, battery operations, solar fields. So if these projects will be reviewed by the building department then there's going to be code language that will specify the safety issues involved with the installation of these facilities.
And will these facilities be reviewed and permitted by the building department?
Yes, chair they will be. All tiers all projects will require a building permit. The exemptions
are really only for a planning permit, correct? Okay
I have one clarifying question as well is the programmatic EIR limited to a particular time period in that it will have a natural expiration date and opportunity for re-review
Commissioner Rockenbach through the chair. No, there's no expiration date for program EIR but what the program EIR does set out is mitigation measures that a future project if a future product is trying to rely on that EIR to provide for some level of environmental review it sets forth mitigation measures that that future project would have to adhere to. For example One of the mitigation measures is a biological resource assessment that would then trigger additional mitigation measures if there's resources present, or phase one slash phase two cultural resource investigation or a traffic study.
So there's future studies that a project would have to do under the scope of that environmental review. That would allow for the freshness of the situation to kind of stay valid over a period of time.
2:07 – 2:1211 turns
I have just a general question and that's regarding, pardon me, the correspondence that the commissioners received from the Clean Coalition, a non-profit. And I'm just curious as to their statement that they participated in and worked with staff throughout the process of this development but they still had a number of suggestions and I just wanted to know from staff If some of those February 13th suggestions have been considered.
Commissioner Kearns, through the chair. We did indeed meet with a Clean Coalition and considered their comments and their comments on the environmental document we've reviewed their comment letter and I think a number of their comments get at sort of Wanting solar development at a kind of lower permit tier. They're kind of requesting some developments fall within say a tier one designation and are permitting tiers which is typically an exemption or CDP, Our position is that the Tier 2 facilities up to five acres with a zoning clearance in the inland area, with minimal standards for setbacks, siting and height requirements is an appropriate level of permit review for facilities at that size.
Thank you very much.
I would just also add that they had a number of recommendations or requests regarding standalone battery energy storage. And as much as there's been this temptation to really wrap our hands, arms around standalone battery energy storage projects, that was really not the scope of this work effort. The focus of this project has been on solar. We did add in battery storage as a component of solar projects because that's what you see typically these days is battery storage as part of the solar. But we didn't, we tried to resist the temptation to fully address standalone battery energy storage because as we referred today that's a whole another set of issues that we weren't really scoped for with this project so.
Thank you I support that position
Other comments or questions for
staff? As a procedural question, I appreciate Commissioner Kubiak's comments that California Building Code has addressed and will presumably continue to address battery technology and battery safety. But the building permit element of it is not an appealable or neighbor reviewable If I had to boil my concern down to one question, if someone
is installing a tier 2 project with battery storage connected to it.
If my next door neighbor is doing that on a hillside that I think is potentially risky in a flood or rain situation, I don't have a basis for challenge or review in that scenario. Is that correct?
Commissioner Miller, that's correct. I will say just to make sure it's clear A Tier 2 facility can only be proposed on existing developed or improved land. So you would not see a hillside that's currently undeveloped or vegetated turn into a Tier 2 facility, that would kick it into a Tier 3 facility so really Tier 2 is sort of a carve-out for what we more commonly see as say solar canopy over a parking lot or a playground what are some other like a storage yard or something like that where you already have an existing developed space and you're adding solar on top of that space as opposed to moving into undeveloped land. The moment you kick into undeveloped land, you're either limited to that tier one up to half acre or you're kicked into a tier three category which would be fully public review and permitted through a CUP
And I appreciate that what you're saying, but the installation solar panels by virtue of their size and structure kind of for an already developed place is a limiting function. But batteries while potentially significant in the amount of Thank you.
2:12 – 2:2526 turns
Yeah, Commissioner Miller through the Chair. The intention is that the battery project would support the solar system so the project area would be defined as the solar array plus any supporting system including the battery energy storage system
And that battery, if you're talking Tier 2 the battery storage system would similarly have to be proposed on developed or improved land. It could not be remotely sited from the rest of the Tier 2 facility.
Let me take a shot at asking Commissioner Miller's question another way. Could an applicant propose a battery storage facility under this new regulatory system on land that is designated for and allowed for an energy system, just battery storage without any solar to be built at that site. Is that permissible use under this ordinance?
Chair, no the additional allowed battery energy storage systems must demonstrate that they're commensurate in size to support the solar installation.
In other words, the batteries to be installed have to be used to store energy generated by solar facilities built on the same site.
Yes that's correct.
All right does that is that the question you were asking?
It is my if I had to dial into my concern is is that the scope of a the A tier two solar installation is potential in terms of what that would imply for a potential battery volume size and where that can be installed. So if If you allow me the invention of a unit of measurement of my laptop battery, if the average homes solar panels and I don't know whatever the Tesla thingy is that you install in your house is 100 laptops.
Is a tier 2 site the equivalent of 1,000? laptops and if that is, if we can install once again I'm kind of being a little flip with this but if we are installing a thousand battery laptop installations without a permit the chance at permit review I'm, that is kind of the nature of my concern as to what happens if it is installed on a hillside property or you know not necessarily in a flood zone per se but I think we've all had the lived experience that a fair amount of Montecito is potentially floodable.
that kind of interaction between the battery installation and what I think are some of Montecito's uniquely challenging land conditions. That those are not the questions that get answered in a, is this battery safe in a lab in Ohio from a consumer? And that's where I want to make sure that we continue to, sorry, we're getting to discussion stage but continue to allow for a neighborhood site specific review Specifically as it relates to the batteries, I'm very comfortable with all of the solar stuff. But the nature of my questions is tier two level larger volume batteries in the unique environment that is Montecito.
How will we be able how will people be able to engage in that topic going forward?
Can I ask a related question? What are the current hearing and permitting requirements for Tier 2 projects that would be changed if this were to move forward?
Sure, that's a great question. So it's not quite an apples-to-apples but essentially the current regulatory framework is there's kind of like two categories. There's what would be considered a utility scale, which isn't size-based it's more where is that energy going? So anything that is producing energy that has not been used on site is currently under the existing regulations considered utility scale even if it's only half acre in size.
That's only allowed right now within that 600 acre area of Cuyama Everything else is considered as an exempt use in our current ordinance, if it's for personal on-site use. So whether it's 200 square feet or I mean theoretically you could have a 10 acre solar facility if you're saying if you're producing it only for your onsite use I would like to start by saying that if we are going to be able How the energy is being used is less critical than to how big a facility is or how big of a system is. And so that's in part why we created this tiered approach, to provide some guardrails or some framework for how to distinguish the different scales of systems.
So just going back to Commissioner Miller's neighbor tier two example, currently I would need if I'm the neighbor I would need a building permit approval but there would be no hearing process for the tier 2 project.
No permit currently.
Oh okay
yeah well sorry no planning permit yes a building permit across the board for all these projects But currently, no planning permit for if it's on-site solar or on-site battery for personal use.
But when we're defining personal use here, if we were to take Westmont College as an example like if they decided for very admirable purposes they want to be off the grid and are installing significant solar panel installation and the necessary batteries to make that work at night. Would that be a Tier 2 project?
Well I'm not sure that's the best example because they operate under a CUP so they're a little different Because anything they do has to be consistent and conformed to that conditional use permit.
Which involves those neighbors in public hearings?
Yeah, well it would be some level of an amendment to their CUP if they wanted to put in several acres of solar or something like that. Right. Okay. Same with the other institutional uses Music Academy What about the Montecito Sanitary District or Montecito Water District? I believe those exist on public utility zoned properties. I could be mistaken, but I believe they do where any development requires a development plan so but it would be no different than the current structure and they may even operate under CEPs as well. I'm actually not
sure. There are public agencies subject to CEQA as well so if they propose a development on their property, independent of whatever county review there is. They're going to have to go through a CEQA process.
Well but and I do understand what you're saying but a programmatic EIR exempts the environmental review part of CEQAs. Only
from only from county review. Programmatic EIR applies to County permitting Has it necessarily applied to a decision of the Montecito Water District or the Sanitary District to pursue a project on their property? They still have to go through their own environmental review. I'm sorry, I'm sort of jumping ahead of staff and legal in terms of that opinion but I believe what I've said is accurate and I guess I would look to the staff to tell me if I've got it wrong
No that's correct, any public agency or district like that is subject to their own secret requirements and they can't just wholesale rely on a secret document that was certified by another agency. But again with a program EIR that does not give you a blank check for the future. What a project does is when they come in, in the future, say a tiered project is they go through an analysis to determine do they meet all of the criteria for being able to rely in whole or in part on that program EIR.
There might be some instances where a project because it's pretty, very few constraints or no real issues they might be able to rely in whole on that program EIR. So long as they comply with all the mitigation measures. But there will be plenty of instances where because of something unique to the project site, they will be able to rely in part on the program EIR but they'll have to do subsequent environmental review to kind of fill in the gaps and plug any holes that the program EIR didn't
cover. So if the commission will allow I would suggest that we open up the public hearing on this particular matter And then come back to some of the issues that we want to discuss after the other matters that are being raised by the public have been dealt with. Is that all right? All right, anything that we should do before we open the public hearing? No? Alright, do we have requests to speak either in the room or online?
Commissioner Kupiec I believe I saw someone put a speaker slip in that box on the end of the dais would you mind checking that for me? And then we have at least one hand raised online. All right, good. Would you prefer to do our in-person? Yeah let's take care
of the volunteer in the room first
please. Juan Larez will be our first speaker and then to be followed online unless there's anyone else Isabelle Stice online.
2:25 – 2:325 turns
Awesome, good morning thank you so much for your time great presentation very in-depth. Good morning chair and commissioners my name is Juan Lattis I'm project director of the Central Coast Climate Justice Network but speaking as a Californian and County resident I'm here in support of the proposed ordinance updates to expand opportunities for responsibly cited solar. Again, I hear the concerns that you're stating. I think those questions are so important to ask, so I really want to acknowledge that that's important at the core. Environmentalists always think of those things downstream and we've solved one problem what's the one we might be creating? So great task those things.
Battery energy storage, speaking to that component in particular is essential for reliability and resilience. The fact that we can capture the energy, fantastic. But we need to store this energy and bring it out to the local level is something that helps us deploy that during peak demand. Extreme heat during the PSPS events or the public safety power shutoffs and emergencies without storage remain more dependent on fossil fuel peaker plants which fire up throughout the state and these long distance transmission lines that we know have caused so many issues in our state.
So acknowledging that as a fire risk, looking at those lines and the fact that they will be de-energized during high wind solar paired with storage can reduce the strain on transmission and improve continuity of service for our community. I'm regarding safety of utility scale battery systems or these larger scale systems. Of course, talking laptops to storage systems technologies are evolving and improving but very important to address a larger scale so these are always evolving with fire and building codes including California Fire Code requirements you know all these things are up to Fire code, these will not be plugged into utility CPUCs setting standards at their level.
CEC they're always reviewing. I do trust that they're pushing these forward. So with that in conjunction with setbacks monitoring systems and inspection before and after approval, I think we have an opportunity to really expand reliability and create this micro grid looking at micro grids or independence. Many of these modern systems use the lithium iron phosphate chemistry And that does offer enhanced thermal stability. Again, fire to runoff, a little different conversation. And just because I must acknowledge this large scales batteries do not contain mercury. It's traditionally those little button batteries now so luckily we've moved away from that.
And of course, I trust that these facilities will be located in appropriate zones fenced monitored and engineered to meet fire requirements but also acknowledging the landscape That may put it at risk for slides. So I believe that supporting solar and storage strengthens reliability, offers an opportunity to improve our air quality, reduces reliance on fossil fuels, and increases resilience in the face of wildfire risks and extreme weather that we've all seen in these storm events.
And I respectfully urge you to support the proposed updates. And thank you so much for your time. Thank you. Thank you.
All right. We will go to our online speaker. Isabella Stice.
Hi, can you hear me?
Yes.
Okay perfect. Good morning Chair and Commissioners my name is Isabelle Stice and I'm a Policy and Communications Associate at the Clean Coalition which was mentioned before just to kind of give everyone an overview we're a technical non-profit organization whose mission is to accelerate the transition to renewable energy in a modern grid through technical policy and project development expertise And I just wanted to recognize and appreciate Commissioner Curran's recognition of our comments. We have been very involved throughout the comment process, and we want to emphasize first our support for the overall goal of the Utility Scale Solar Remainance Project, and we appreciate the effort to clarify the tiering system but we do still have a few concerns kind of moving past tier classifications and going into The ordinance as a whole.
So our primary concern here is that the ordinance must not create additional restrictions or discretionary requirements for project types that currently do not require planning permits, it was discussed a little bit before but particularly we're talking about behind the meter projects deployed on the built environment and those are kind of those projects that are solar generated for onsite use only And these were not subject to excessive planning permits as they would be under the tiered approach for those larger sizes.
And we want to emphasize that the board's direction was to streamline and enable renewable energy development throughout the county, and streamlining should reduce friction and provide clarity, not expand this scope of discretionary review for projects that have not required it required as such previously. Projects that are already subject to building and electrical permits, fire department review Zoning compliance and inspection should not be pulled into these new discretionary planning processes unless there's a clear land use justification.
I also want to briefly emphasize the importance of clarity throughout the tiering system and how it's structured. The ordinance should provide all actionable tier information in one central location so applicants can clearly determine how their project will be classified and what permits are required. Specifically, it should clearly state acreage as a calculation-based footprint of renewable energy project structures, not the total project size. And that for paired plus solar projects, the combined footprints determines the applicable tier.
This may seem kind of like technical details but without clear language, uncertainty increases and uncertainty just slows this deployment that we're kind of searching for. I know there's been a lot of talk about kind of battery and standalone storage. And I just want to briefly touch on this, that solar storage should not be disincentivized For Santa Barbara and Montecito as a whole, we're a very transmission vulnerable area that has been mentioned before with Montecito mudslides and fires.
Regional resilience provided by energy storage should be supported and is vital to our community's health and wellness. But this proposed ordinance could add additional regulatory hurdles for energy storage installations. Adopting an ordinance that is overly restrictive will severely curb opportunities for renewables-driven resilience and energy independence. Thank you.
2:32 – 2:4630 turns
I believe Ms. Stice was our last speaker unless there's anyone else in the room that would like to speak?
I see no request to speak in the room, there are no other requests online. Then the public comment period will be closed and we'll return the matter back to the Commission for additional questions and potential action. Additional questions or comments from the Commission?
As a matter of educating me, for Tier 2 if I've read this correctly can have up to five acres of solar panels on a given site. In a bigger than a bread box or I don't know bigger than a Volkswagen bug how big is a battery installation that is commensurate to you know kind of sized to appropriately match up to five acres of solar panels? I have no sense of scale on this, and I would be interested to better understand
that. Commissioner Miller to the Chair. It's hard to give an exact because battery systems, it depends on how much they're trying to store. for like a 12-hour period of storage or 24, so there's no direct kind of math that you can do. But generally we've heard that like a five acre facility could have potentially up to say 1,000 square foot cabinet area for battery storage
So if I was to contextualize this, this would be kind of like a small condo?
Like an ADU.
Well played sir, well played. This is a structure at this point Well,
well they're usually it's typically like you've probably seen them maybe pay no attention to them but they're like kind of cabinets metal sort of utility cabinets. Probably the best example when you go up to Costco you see them over there if you get off the freeway on the left hand side as you're going on
But a thousand square feet of cabinets is a lot of cabinetry. Like it's all like cabinet, cabinet, cabinet for the size of an AD. I don't mean this to be kind of provocative. I'm wanting to phrase these questions as they educate me kind of.
Commissioner Miller, through the chair by no means am I an engineer or designer of a utility scale battery storage system so I can't give you anything of precision of an answer. And I respect that. So they are cabinets there typically depending on how big they are you might have multiple cabinets within in a row or in an area where it might be one large cabinet with batteries on the inside
Council is offering us on her laptop a picture of what a cabinet looks like, which is helpful. I'm not sure our public can see it but we can see it.
Thank you council. That to me looks like maybe 80 square feet that cabinet so but Imagining a 80-foot square foot cabinet and 5 acres of solar panels would result in 30, I'm sorry. I'm demonstrating a lack of quick mental math. And so does the ordinance speak to a timeframe of on-site battery storage? I mean, so let's say I'm permitting up to five acres of solar panels and let's pretend that I bring a mindset of Armageddon survivalist and I want two months of power on site. I'm not saying this is logical but there's nothing that would prevent In a scenario like this, me to install 5,000 square feet of batteries because I'm just that kind of person?
Do we understand that from a permitting point of view?
Commissioner Miller through the chair. No, the ordinance does not get into that level of detail because as I mentioned there is no standard Thank you very much. sort of the trajectory that technology is headed.
If just to tackle a piece of that question, tier two is limited to half an acre, 0.5 acres right?
Tier one is
limited to half an acre. Tier two could go up to five. My apologies and the battery storage on site must be used to store energy that is generated from solar panels on site. So the batteries can't be any larger than necessary for that storage purpose, right? So given the changes in technology I'm not sure we can get a meaningful answer to the question of if you had four acres of solar how much Land would be used for the battery storage needed to store the energy generated from four acres of storage. There's probably a technical answer to that question, but I'm not sure that it's within the four corners of this particular set of Rules for land use decision
making. batteries that last me all night long, or I want batteries that last me for 72 hours. But there's no constraining principle to I have solar panels and I want batteries that would represent six months of power use meaningfully more batteries, but this that I appreciate that there's a technology element to size. But the limiting principle of tying the solar panels to on-site use, there's no constraint to the time frame of use and thus the scale.
I think there is an economic constraint. That the ratio between your the size of your solar field and the size of your storage capacity is about And I think if you wanted to have zillions of batteries that were lined up for a solar field that was just sitting there doing nothing other than to try to store batteries up for a longer period of time, it would be economically infeasible.
I don't want to make you feel worse or better, but I have to tell you in the event when we have one of these horrible catastrophes that occur like a mud flow where things start flowing into our creeks and rivers. I would be more worried about the number of cell phones, Teslas, computers, the thousand laptops that are going to wind up in the ocean. These are all lithium batteries.
We have so many lithium batteries and different things that, you know.
Oh no, I'm not disagreeing with you. I'm just saying that the volume of batteries connected to five acres of solar is a whole lot of cell phone equivalents.
Well, I mean how many lithium batteries are in your house? I would
say 30, but they're all kind of size of my fist or smaller. Five acres of solar panels is a huge amount of power.
Yeah. I mean, I agree. At least from my vantage point, I'm pretty confident that the kind of building department regulations that are going to fall underneath the California Building Code are going to begin to address some of your concerns, especially about installation, safety of installation, how solar batteries are being installed and protected from different things. We go through UL ratings on things that have never been really used before in a particular way.
That is an amazingly rigorous process that comes out with all kinds of recommendations about how a product is to be used. If these are going through building department review to get a building permit, there's going to be some surety that these things are going to be made to comply with a host of safety concerns and safety regulations.
I tend to agree with that. I think there are other review mechanisms Interesting and legitimate concerns that you're raising. I'm not sure that this is the vehicle for that kind of oversight, that this particular ordinance and the environmental review that went along with it is necessarily going to be the best way to tackle and to ensure public safety.
I do hear what you're saying, but I would. I guess where I respectfully dissent is that allow me the analogy of a gasoline or diesel storage tank that it needs to meet rigorous standards of being double lined doesn't leak design elements to it. But when it comes to the design of the storage tank is the certification of, is this an acceptable storage tank or not has not necessarily been done of what happens if it kind of gets pushed down the hill on Park Lane.
CLARE DUDA That should be one of the factors that the reviewing body, the fire department, or the building department considers in deciding whether or not there is a significant public health or public safety issue with respect to any kind of facility that's put on a piece of land, whether it's a water tank or a gas line or whatever else it might be. That is that any other kind of utility that is put out there in the community?
And I worry I have pushed this point a little too far so I'm about I will stop shortly but my concern is that we are matching that to a programmatic EIR. That that's in my mind where like the EIR process for making sure the gas tank doesn't roll down the hill is, that is what these site-specific EIR process does and I'm worried the programmatic exemption here in Montecito is a challenge. With that, I will
be done. And but that's where I disagree with you. I don't think the EIR process is necessarily the best place to undertake the kind of public safety diligence that we expect of our public agencies that are putting up water tanks, gas lines, battery storage and other things that are going to be in our communities. That there is a building permit process. There's a fire department that is involved deeply involved in the building permit process environmental review is there, but I don't see that as our first line of defense when it comes to ensuring public safety from public utilities.
And that's my point is that I think your concerns are well founded, but I think you may be shooting at a target that's not particularly well adapted providing the kind of security and safety to the public that we all want to have.
And I agree with you as it relates to public utilities, that this isn't well EIR process here but these are projects that are not connected to public utilities. These are being done privately.
It's going to be reviewed by agencies that are charged with ensuring public safety particularly the building department and the fire department. That's the point I'm coming from
And did I hear staff say earlier that there are certain restrictions connected to the flood map zones?
2:46 – 2:5022 turns
Yes, Commissioner Rockenbach through the chair. Just like any development there's prohibitions on development within flood hazard areas or any development that is proposed within those areas is reviewed by Flood Control for compliance with their standards The same would be said for any solar or battery component that would be proposed in one of those areas as well.
Thank you.
So other questions or comments before we move, before we move forward? I don't want to cut this off but I think we are coming up on the noon hour so I just want to be sure that everybody has a chance to offer what they want to offer
I have no further questions, and I'm prepared to go to a vote.
OK. Commissioner Kubiak? You're ready to move to a vote? I am ready to move. All right. Commissioners? Yes? Yes. All right. So we have recommended actions on the screen in front of us. Don't need to reread them. You've seen them. Is there a motion?
I would move to approve the recommended actions from staff for the three items shown on the screen.
I'm suspecting that I am in a voice of one but I would for the third finding, I would remove the two-tier battery, the tier 2 batteries from that we're certifying is the programmatic EIR and the CEQA findings for that specifically.
Is that an amendment to the motion?
That'd be an amendment to the motion.
Is there a second to the amendment? All right, the amendment fails for lack of a second. Motions on the floor? There being no further discussion all in favor of the motion say aye.
Aye.
All opposed say no. Motion is unanimously adopted I think that concludes our action on this item is that correct?
Yes,
that
is correct. So let me put on my secretary hat here as I mentioned at the beginning looking at the projection report our next March hearing currently has no
items. Actually before you go there let me just express my appreciation to staff for what it was obviously a massively complicated project Thank you for that and the fine presentation.
project looking to get on for your March agenda. And so since the motion was taken on both items today and there was no continuance of either of those I think you are free to cancel that meeting if you'd like.
Does that require action by us? It does. Is there a motion to cancel the March meeting for lack of interest, sorry lack of any action items for that meeting is there a motion?
Yes, I would make that motion.
Thank you. Is there a second? Second. Any further discussion? Hearing none all in favor of the motion say aye.
Aye.
All opposed say no. Unanimously approved thank you. Anything further before we adjourn? No alright our meeting is adjourned thank you everybody for being here today