Montecito Planning Commission

I haven't done this for a while. Good morning, we'll call this meeting of the Montecito Planning Commission to order and begin

recording in progress

Most days. And we can have our TV coverage announcement.

Yes, this is the TV coverage announcement. Montecito Planning Commission hearings are televised live on County Santa Barbara Television CSB TV channel 20 at 9 a.m. in the South Coast Lompoc San Ines Santa Maria and Orca areas rebroadcast of Montecito Planning Commission hearings on Fridays at 5 p.m.. On CSB TV Channel 20 The hearing will also be streamed live on CSBC SB TVs website and digitally archived

Thank you We can have our roll call

and we have two commissioners absent today Dante DiLoretto and Karen Kearns

Thank you Mr. Wilson we can move on to the agenda status report

Chair Kupiak, Members of the Commission. Just to follow up on a side conversation it's recommended that on item number five then we're going to continue that to the next hearing of the full commission which is the election of the new chair so just make that a matter of record for the minutes out that I don't will be continued to the next available hearing where all the commissioners are present moving to the agenda status report very lengthy report there are no items projected however we do anticipate towards the fall of this year that the long-range planning division will be bringing an ordinance package for the Commission to review that will don't have a specific date but that could be September early fall early winter and then mr. Seward is here from the development review division In regards to any anticipated items, but it looks like we may not have any items in June or July as well.

So it could be that we may not reconvene until August or September and we'll let the Commission know on that and at that point We anticipate having the elections of as we indicated earlier I Can move to the status agenda mr..

Thank you I think it's time for public if there's any public comment to be made on any items not on the agenda posted today?

Chair Kupiec we have no letter submitted and we have nobody in our attendees column we have nobody signed up for a public comment

Thank you and we will move on. Are there any planning commissioners informational reports? Not for me.

Collectively, I think our county roads and Caltrans have successfully turned Montecito into a gated community that you cannot either drive in or out of right now because it would seem that all roads are closed at various times has been my experience. With some seriousness, I think that my report is just that transportation in and out of Montecito has been a real problem in the last month

Sad to say I expect it to continue for some time. I think the Cabrillo roundabout is a two-year project, so I drive by it and can only imagine the amount of fill that's going to come in to accomplish their mission. I wish them all the luck in the world. We want to approve the minutes of the last meeting of February 18th. Is there any motion to approve or disapprove, or change?

Motion to approve the minutes.

I'll second. All in favor? Aye. Aye.

Aye.

Great. Just speeding along here, you know. Lisa, I think it's your turn with the Director's Report.

Good morning Mr. Chair, members of the Commission. We haven't met for some time so I have a few things to report on. First thing I wanted to share with the commission is that the county has developed and has online now pre-approved ADU plans So if somebody wants to build an ADU, we have a set of plans that are designed plan-checked already and essentially they can come in use it for free.

And they essentially have to do the site prep work For that ADU, but other than that it's the cost of the permit and The site prep and then they're good to go and can go ahead and build it. So that's exciting Are they available to be

reviewed online?

Yeah Look yeah And then we took the three-year work program for the Long Range Planning Division to the Board of Supervisors on the 7th of April and then we had our budget workshops the week of April 13. And what ended up happening in our budget workshops, budgets aren't approved yet but there was some question about whether or not we would have to keep two positions vacant in long range planning because of the budget shortfall this year and it looks as though we are going to have to keep those two positions vacant. We did ask for restoration of one of them but there are several other departments with some pretty critical services that they provide that are having to be cut so I think the board is gonna put its resources to Department of Social Services and County Health We are hoping to get a grant that would help potentially restore one of those positions at least for a year.

So we're working on that now, but we are going from 15 full-time staff down to 13 full time staff which just essentially delays the work of the long range team. Things go a little more slowly And then we, I don't know if you read in Newshawk or the Independent. We took a local preference program for market rate housing to the Board of Supervisors on the 21st of April and essentially what that is focused on is because of fair housing laws we have to be careful.

It's focused on requiring developers to develop a marketing plan that is geared towards locals And that they do, that they market to locals and the board changed it to at least 12 weeks before they open it up to a broader market. And that involves working with the chambers, working with the different business industries, advertising in local papers, that type of thing so that the hope is that we will be able to get locals into the housing that we're building for the employees.

And that's most of the housing that we're seeing is in North County. The program doesn't apply up there, but in Eastern Goleta Valley is where we're seeing a lot of the housing development that came out of the housing element. So that was approved on the 21st. And then just last week, we took some concepts to the Board of Supervisors for a briefing for them to give the department feedback on the creation of new ministerial permits and that essentially means downshifting permits that are currently noticed and appealable to a truly ministerial permit.

So for instance, a single family home that somebody wants to build We don't, we can't really find another jurisdiction that has permits for a single family home that are appealable. They're all ministerial in our comparable counties and the cities that are currently in our jurisdiction so perhaps maybe exception of City of Goleta but so we are going to be, we took a package at the board, the board essentially said yes we want you to create A lot more ministerial permits for small things like a house, the pool, accessory structures, some small commercial development. It may be a minor addition or something like that and that's the package that we're going to be bringing back to the Montecito PC in the fall.

And so you'll get to review that package and then it will go to the county PC and then it will go on up to the board.

Are those ministerial approvals bypass MBAR?

Not in all cases and that's a discussion we had. We're going to probably have some standards so that when something is very, the project is very simple it may bypass design review. In other cases if there's a large amount of grading or maybe exceeds a particular FAR or some other standard then it would go through design review. So those are the things that the board gave us direction on and we're gonna be working those things out But some, it appears at this point that some projects would go through design review depending on size, bulk scale etc.

I had a similar question with respect to the ADUs that you mentioned at the outset. Do those follow the same process?

ADUs per state law are ministerial now and they don't go through any design review and

That's been true for a while.

That's been true since the state developed that program,

yeah

number of years. Do you

expect that a single-family home you know 4,000 square foot single family home would not go through MBAR?

I don't know yet depends on the lot size potentially.

I'm sure it

depends

on the tremendous amount of conversation.

Yeah we expect that

How important is synchronization between the larger county policy and Montecito on this topic in your mind?

That's really a policy call. We try to create similarities where we can, but we create distinctions where it's necessary so You know Montecito has its own code so there can be distinctions in that community. There was some expression from the first district about some differences that they may want for the first district and particular areas, Montecito being one of them.

And also along the Gaviota Coast there was some expression of maybe wanting to make it distinct there as well. So we can build that in and the board did give us some ideas about how they would want to see that

happen. Okay, but...

Yes, there can be distinctions between different communities.

My curiosity is that in Montecito people love tennis and they love fighting with their neighbors about houses, and this would potentially bring an end to that? I mean just if it was all ministerial there would my understanding properly that there would be no appeal like either to us or to...

That's correct.

Okay.

That's the idea of a ministerial permit.

Which I don't mean to be stating the obvious but That

would be an interesting change for our community. Worthy of a lengthy

conversation. Any more questions on those items? I just wanted to give you an advanced picture of what's happening at the board, we don't have a lot on the long range calendar right now but we do have an item June 23rd, and that is the first phase of the changes to the oil and gas regulations. And that would be prohibiting any drilling of new wells. You will not see that because there's no provisions in Article 4 which is the Montecito Zoning Ordinance to allow for that but so it is essentially you might see something in the coastal zone if there if there's anything allowed, I don't think it's coming to Montecito PC but it's an oil prohibition of new oil and gas wells.

That's the first phase and then the board has directed planning development in the community services department to develop a long-term phase out of onshore oil and gas and CSD is the lead on that effort. So that, so the first phase is going in June and then in about a year the second phase will go to the board. And that's all I have.

Nothing to do with Montecito but I'm curious would this prohibit like-for-like replacement if a given oil well has a catastrophic failure? Would that prohibit the you know kind of closing off of that one and replacing like for like nearby?

Well it says no new wells So if you had a will failure, you probably would have to close it up. And that would be that.

OK. Thank you.

All right. Thank you. Yes, thank you.

I'm not sure what we do with the waived public hearing. It's waived and there's been no comment.

This is a little bit different than a waived hearing notice. This is a consent item, so I believe if any of the commissioners wanted to bring it up or bring it up for review they could. If not we would just call public comment on it and then approve the consent calendar

Well, I know. I have no comments on this. I've read it.

No comments from me?

Is there any public comment on Marshall?

No, I have no comment. So Mr. Chair, we should read the item into the record, ask if there's any public comment or if commissioners want to hold the item onto standard. If not, then someone makes a motion for approval.

Absolutely so. I'll read the item into the record. Consent item C125 GOV-0004 dedicated an abandonment of land for Biltmore Road realignment government code conformity. Hearing on the request of Cody Bowden, agent for Real Property Division General Services to consider case number 26 GOV dash 0004 application filed on April 15th 2026 for a determination that adjustments to the Hill Road right away conforms with the comprehensive plan of the County of Santa Barbara pursuant to California Government Code 65402, Subsection A.

If there is no public comment on this item I would ask for a motion.

No public comment on this item and no letter submitted.

I'll make a motion to approve the consent item as stated

I second.

All in favor?

Aye. Motion carries 3-0. Okay we'll go

on to item 1. 25 LLA-0002, 25 GPA-00006, 25 RZN-00006

Good morning, everyone. I'm here to report on the Malkin general plan amendment rezone lot line adjustment hearing on the request of Catherine L. Malkins trust to consider the following case number 25 GPA dash 00006 and case number 25 RZN dash 0000 6. And 15301, existing facilities and 15305.

And if there is a presentation to be made.

Good morning commissioners. My name is Soren Kringle and I'll be presenting as Jonathan just said the Malkin General Plan Amendment, Zoning Map Amendment and Lot Line Adjustment Project. The project site consists of three contiguous parcels located at the corner of Sycamore Canyon Road, Alston Road and Hot Springs Road in the Montecito Community Plan area. Two of the parcels, Parcels A and B are currently under construction for new single-family dwellings and residential accessory structures and Parcel C is currently vacant.

The entire project site is located on a moderately sloping hillside and does not contain any sensitive habitat. Parcel A, the top parcel is located in a different zone district and has a different land use designation than parcels B and C. And really the only difference between those zone districts is the minimum lot size requirements. Parcel A it's five acre minimum lot size requirement while parcels B and C is two acres.

The lot line adjustment component of the proposed project is going to transfer 0.27 acres of land from parcel A to parcels B and C. All parcels will continue to meet the minimum lot size requirements of their respective zones and land use designations, and the purpose of the lot line adjustment is to more closely align the lot lines with the existing landscaping and the driveway on the site.

The existing lot lines are shown here approximately In red and the proposed lot lines are being shown here in yellow. And as you can see, it's closely hugging that driveway and then there's some landscaping improvements on the left there that they want to encapsulate If all three parcels were located in the same zone district, all that would be needed is a lot line adjustment. However because this is a lot line adjustment between parcels and different zones and land use designations we need the GPA and the rezone to ensure that zone district and land use designation boundaries will continue to line up with the parcel lines In other words, the general plan amendment and zoning map amendment will ensure that none of these lots will become split zoned as a result of the lot line adjustment.

And staff is recommending the project for approval today because we have found that it complies with all of our code requirements does not conflict with any comprehensive plan Montecito community plan policy and the lot line adjustment does not conflict with chapter 21 policies which governs land division and lot line adjustments All structures on the parcels will continue to comply with development standards such as setbacks even after lot line adjustment is approved.

And we found that this project was exempt from CEQA pursuant to two categorical exemptions, existing facilities because the project is aligning a lot lines with existing infrastructure and landscaping on the site and minor alterations to land use limitations which is typically used for projects like lot line adjustments. And as previously mentioned, the site does not contain any environmentally sensitive habitat and no development is proposed as part of this project.

And one last note before I jump into the recommendations. I provided a staff memo yesterday identifying a minor change to the signature line on attachments E and F. Those are the resolutions that have to go to the board. It's just reflecting Commissioner Kupiec as the signer rather than Commissioner Mary Connor. And if you concur with our findings for the project, we recommend that you recommend to the Board of Supervisors that they make the required findings for approval as specified in Attachment A.

Recommend that the Board of Supervisors determine the project is exempt from CEQA. Adopt the resolution and revised attachment E of the staff report, and adopt the resolution revised attachment F of this staff report, and recommend that the Board of Supervisors approve case number 25 LLA-00002 subject to the conditions included as attachment B. And this concludes staff's presentations we are available for any questions thank you

Thank you, the presentation in the package is quite thorough I mean it's a minor adjustment. I really have no questions.

I appreciate why this needs to come to this body but I have no questions about this I think this isn't straightforward.

Same, no questions for me

and we have no letters sorry we would open up public comment for this item now. We have nobody signed up for public comment Oh, I'm so sorry.

So Chair and Mr. Fort do you want to just get on the record and say yeah or Ms. Marshall just state your name and you're here for questions?

My name is Sarah Marshall I'm with SEP's Land Use Consulting joined today by my colleague Steve Fort we're available to answer any questions you may have thank you.

Having no questions I

think I'll make a motion to approve the findings.

I'll second.

Mr. Chair, if I could just make a general call for public comment just to make sure we cover that. There are nobody in our attendees column. We have nobody signed up in person and we have no letters submitted.

Vice-Chair Kupiak before moving to deliberations or a motion can we just do ex parte as well please?

No ex parte by me.

I failed

to provide direction during the projection report. I was excited to continue on with the hearing

I just want to make sure we can get to 930. It would be inappropriate to end this meeting so early. One item of business is, as indicated in the projection report, we don't have anything projected for June or July. So I'd recommend that the commission cancel those hearings and then we'll reconvene back in August. We just need a motion and a second vote to cancel those two hearing dates.

I'll make a motion to adjourn the June and July meetings and reconvene in August.

I second.

All in

favor?

Aye. Motion carries

3-0.

Thank you Mr. Chair commissioners, I think that concludes our business for today.

We will adjourn this meeting of the Montecito Planning Commission thank you all.