Montecito Planning Commission

I'd like to call this meeting of the Montecito Planning Commission to order. If the secretary could read into the record.

there was some shuffling around.

I'd like to make a motion to nominate

Robert Kubiak as our chair. So, I believe now we have to replace you first

vice-chair

And that's why we put all three on the agenda.

I'd like to make a motion to nominate Karen Kearns as first vice chair. I

would like to second that motion.

All in favor?

Aye. I would like to make a motion to nominate Commissioner Rockenbach as second vice chair

I would second that.

All in

favor?

Aye. Great, that was surprisingly easy. We're a collegial group. Did you guys want to take a moment to switch or just keep going where you are? Seats. Okay. No, we're fine. I just wanted to offer our new member an opportunity if he wanted to introduce himself to the commission. Sure

thanks Dante DeLoreto. I'm a native of Santa Barbara. I've lived away for 40 years and I'm happy to be back Honored to serve this community and this board. Montecito is a very special community, I feel deeply invested in its future and grateful to have this opportunity. Thanks.

Welcome aboard. Okay shall we move on to ex parte?

So Mr. Chair and commissioners the next item would be the agenda status report

I guess I'm getting this

confused.

Just start with the agenda

Here we are. I have the wrong document in front of me, yes. Can we please have the agenda status report?

Mr. Chair commissioners will have the agenda status report and just wanted to welcome the newest commissioner and the change of the chair first and second vice-chair on welcome board and we look forward to working with you so we're looking at the status of the agenda today we have one item on consent and then we have one item on our standard agenda which is a lot line adjustment And staff is ready to present on the item on the standard agenda.

And then I can move to the projection report, Mr. Chair.

Please do so.

Chair and commissioners it's been a little while since we met. So I'm going to walk through the next several hearings that we did shuffle a number of hearing dates around. So just want to go over that again. So it's on everybody's calendars and we understand what the next several months are going to look like as far as the commissions hearings. Our next hearing is going to be on September 30th.

And so that hearing is a special hearing and it's a workshop with the Planning and Development Department in regards to the ministerial streamlining amendments that they're going to be presenting in a workshop on September 30th. And that meeting will begin at 9 a.m., and we'll go till 12 p.m. on that day, and so that is an opportunity for staff to present the amendments ordinance package to the Commission, ask any questions of staff, Following that hearing, the next hearing will be on October 7th.

So that hearing has been designated as the hearing for Montecito Planning Commission to take action on the ordinance package for ministerial streamlining amendments so we've also scheduled a subsequent hearing the week after which is October 14th in the event that we don't finish on October It is a fairly number of amendments and changes to the ordinance, so we want to give the Commission an opportunity to be able to go through all those changes.

If we spill over on the 7th then we'll have a hearing on the 14th. We don't have to, so if we finish on the seventh then we'll just cancel the hearing on the fourteenth. So again, that's September 30th and then October 7th and October 14th. So I know we've had some time away but now we're going to meet consecutively. And then at the end of the projection report Mr. Chair, I would ask for us to have a motion to cancel October 21st Being that we've already met in the first two weeks of October, we're asking to cancel the 21st and then we're going to replace that hearing with a hearing for the County Planning Commission. And then that's when they will pick up the Administrative Streamlining Amendment package. And the reason for this order, just to bring everybody up to speed is that there are portions of that package which is in the coastal zone in the Montecito Community Plan that the Montecito Planning Commission recommends to the county PC.

So we have the NPC go before the county PC so that way they can receive their recommendations from the Monticito Planning Commission in the coastal zone areas. So then moving forward our next hearing then would be on November 18th there are a number of items on November 14. There's another lot line adjustment There is an as-built addition And then there's the moderate income density bonus and special needs housing ordinance amendments on the 18th and then on the after that then we would meet again on December 16th as of right now there's only one item projected on that date which is a development plan for some additions on Park Lane.

Mr. Villalobos and I were conferring this morning typically we'd like to do an annual Planning Commissioners holiday luncheon And so we may reserve that day to have that, so that's a joint lunch with the County Planning Commission. So we're thinking tentatively will be doing that on December 16th I know it seems rather early but things are gonna go really fast for the rest of the year. So that concludes the projection report so Mr. Chair if we get a motion and then action to cancel October 21st

I'll move to cancel the October 21st meeting for reasons stated.

I'll second. All in favor? Aye.

Thank you Mr. Chair and commissioners that concludes. Can

I just ask one question, this is in the future, in that November 18th hearing for this anonymous builder trust. What is an as-built addition

Mr. Chair and commissioners, I just

don't understand that language.

That's planner speak. So typically you have

much of it.

Yes we do. We will have a dictionary that we hand out to commissioners. Typically when we say as-built is that it's already been built and so this is an after the fact permit that's coming through to permit what was already built. So I don't have all the specifics but that's usually what an as-built means isn't

an appellate issue?

No that is not, it's just a applicant generated application.

And it's coming before the Planning Commission because?

So chair and commissioners I don't have all the details on the projection report. That was just

architect speaks.

Yeah so that's... So I'll have staff reach out but more than likely there's a request that triggered a permit to be done and they're just bringing things into compliance

Okay, thank you. I believe we are at the point of public comment so this you know and Steve was always good about reading this into the record so I think that's the right way to do it. Public comment period is set aside to allow for public testimony on items not on today's agenda. Speakers will have 15 minutes. Is there anyone in the audience who wishes to speak on an item not on our agenda today?

And if you're online just raise your virtual hand and I'll call on you. I don't see any hands online but I just wanted to point out a letter that should have been in your packet it was a general public comment letter from Mark Bandaraga, I believe regarding essentially FEMA mapping

I'm sorry.

It was regarding like FEMA mapping and a letter he had received and so I'm not sure, I was expecting him to show up today to speak to it but I don't see him. So I guess it's just in the record for now.

Well if you may come to the next

meeting. Yeah I'll make sure to touch base with them. Okay thank you.

I guess we're ready for the Planning Commissioners informational report if one is to be given?

Yes, so Chair and Commissioners that item on the agenda is for any items that any of the commissioners feel that would be of interest to the other commissioners. Some meetings or workshops they may have attended or other information if none that's fine

I have done

I guess I would just chime in that the mysteries that are how the movement of water goes continue to baffle me as I watch where sound walls get built on the 101 and where they do not. So, I will express my wonder at the mysteries of the world.

We are both perplexed so and I think that our confusion will continue for some time I've lost my place.

Mr. Chair, the next item on our agenda is review of the minutes of May 20th.

Does anyone have any comments or changes to the minutes of May 20? If not, I'll entertain a motion to approve them.

Move to approve.

So I'm just looking at the minutes and it looks like Commissioners Kupiec, Rockenbach and Miller were the ones present. And our other two commissioners were absent so I think in that case would probably be more appropriate to abstain. Thank you. So if we could just have one of the three that will make motion? Okay.

I find yeah Commissioner DiLoretto's motion to be well phrased and I would adopt it as my own

And you second. Okay, great. So the chairing committee is just for the vote then those that were absent can just abstain and then those that were present will vote.

Would you like to do a roll call or just a voice vote?

I think voice votes

are

fine. Are we having a director's report? I think we have to

vote. I'm going to inspire that process

I'm sorry, I thought we voted.

Not yet. I think they're just waiting. All in favor? Aye. Perfect thank

you.

Abstain.

So Mr. Chair and Commissioners moving through the agenda the next item would be the directory report there will be no directories report today

okay so we will then move on to the consent agenda

And Mr. Chair, thank you. Consent agenda items are typically I'll read it into the record and we'll ask for public comment and there is none. And if no commissioners have questions then we would just look for a motion on that. All right, so the following is a hearing on the request of the property owner Scott L. Whitman to consider case number 26TEX19 for a six-year time extension from September 15th 2026 to September 15th 2032 for track map case number 20TRM1 and determine that the time extension is not project pursuant to sequence guideline section 15378B5

It's a consent item so I think we can move on to the standard agenda.

So we don't have

to vote on it. Yes, oh we do

yeah I think maybe you're thinking of waived hearings. So we would just ask for public comment and if there's no questions then we would look for motion on that.

I will entertain a motion.

I have a question first

So chairing commissioners for procedures if there is a question on this was particular item then we'll we'd have to remove it from the consent item and then we would just um staff is here if there are questions for that so just I guess the right way is point of order.

I'd like to move this to the standard agenda, please.

So we move it to the standard agenda then you can ask questions and then we'd ask for public comment and then we do the vote so if it's the Commission's desire to remove this from the consent calendar than we can and we'll just make that a standard agenda item. I

would like to make a motion to move it to the standard agenda.

It doesn't need to be a motion but I'm just we're getting direction from the chair and commissioners that removing it off of consent

yes so question can be asked

My question is relatively simple and it is, is a six-year time extension a standard request or are there certain time frames that are allowed for different kinds of extensions?

So Chair and Commissioners staff is coming to the table now and they can respond to that question.

Can you repeat the question?

Can you please repeat the question?

Is a six year extension standard or are there different standards for different extension requests?

Commissioner Kearns, a six-year time extension is allowed per chapter or sorry the State Subdivision Map Act. They are allowed to request a six year time extension so I would imagine they would go for the maximum to allow enough time to complete their required conditions of approval prior to recordation of the map.

Thank you. So Chair and Commissioners, I think the question is that what is allowed by law as far as extensions for the MAP Act.

Commissioner Kearns, six years is allowed.

Thank you.

Okay I'd like to make a motion to approve the time extension so

For the record, we did not receive any requests to speak on this item. Oh

excuse me sorry about that I didn't mean to

jump the line

So a motion has been made Any seconds? I'll second the motion All in favor?

Aye Thank you

And I guess we can move on to the standard agenda

Thank you, Mr. Chair. While staff is getting ready I'll read it into the record. The following is a hearing on the request of Tilson Family Trust property owner and applicant to consider case number 25 LLA3 and to determine the project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to state CEQA guidelines section 15183. Are

there any ex parte disclosures related to this item by any of the commissioners?

I think I go hiking through there sometimes if I understand the map correctly. So, I've very much enjoyed my time on the property.

Well assuming there are no other comments then we can move on to the presentation.

Good morning Mr. Chair and commissioners. My name is Kevin De Los Santos and I'm presenting the proposed Tilson lot line adjustment project The project site is comprised of two parcels located at 928 and 960 Park Lane West. Both parcels are zoned Resource Management Zone and are within the inland portion of the Montecito Community Plan area. Both parcels are owned by the same property owner.

The project is a request for a lot line adjustment of 0.61 acres between Parcel 1 and Parcel 2. The existing parcel configurations can be seen on the screen. Existing Parcel 1, shown in red, is currently 53.89 acres in size. Existing Parcel 2, shown in blue, is currently 4.41 acres in size. The only development on existing Parcel 1 is gardens and landscaping, fire access roads, and a chicken coop. There are no residential buildings.

Existing parcel 2 contains a single family dwelling, attached garage and a swimming pool. The owner of these parcels is requesting the proposed lot line adjustment to transfer the existing gardens and landscaping on parcel 1 to parcel 2. A zoomed-in visual of the lot line adjustment area can be seen on the screen. Existing parcel 1 is still in red, existing parcel 2 is still in blue and the new proposed lot line can be seen in green.

After the lot line adjustment, proposed parcel 1 will decrease and become 53.28 acres in size. It will transfer the gardens and landscaping area and it will maintain no residential buildings. Proposed Parcel 2 will increase and become 5.02 acres in size, it will receive the gardens and landscaping area, and it will maintain the existing single-family dwelling and accessory development.

Again, the purpose of this slot line adjustment is to simply transfer the gardens and landscaped areas from Parcel 1 to Parcel 2. No development is proposed. As discussed in the staff report, the project is consistent with all applicable policies of the Comprehensive Plan including policies regarding services, visual resources, watershed protection and biological resources.

The project complies with all applicable development standards of County Code Chapter 21 for lot line adjustments and it complies with the Montecito Land Use and Development Code specifically with standards for the resource management zone. And the project is exempt from environment review under CEQA because it's consistent with requirements of section 15183. Projects consistent with a comprehensive plan or zoning.

This exemption applies to the project because proposed lot line adjustment it's consistent with the zone density and what the Montecito Community Plan, the project will not result in new project specific significant impacts. Staff recommends your commission take the following actions. Make the required findings for approval, including CEQA findings. Determine the project is exempt from CEQA and approve the project subject to the conditions included as attachment B. This concludes my presentation. I'm available for questions. Thanks.

I have a question. Do you have a question? I do. Go

ahead.

You go first.

Could we go back to the map? When I looked at this map, I'm not the best at reading maps so please indulge me in this. I understand the area circumscribed within the red, some of that is being moved by the green line. But I'm a little confused as to where the green line goes outside of the red boundary but then moves and I'll call it ordinal direction south though I'm not positive. It goes south from the blue line.

And so I'm a little unclear as to there seems to be a sliver that is a no man's land or help me understand that sliver. Mr.

Chair, we both have the same questions.

Good question, Mr. Chair and Commissioner so everything north above that green line becomes parcel one so what appears to be this no man's land you're speaking of will be parcel one so that blue line on the left above the green would become parcel ones exterior lot line so that would become red above the green.

So red is getting a little peninsula if you will?

Somewhat, yes. Where that exists there's an easement of Park Lane West it's obtaining that area that part that sliver of land.

Okay. An easement to parcel one?

There was an easement

to parcel one.

To both parcel 1 and parcel 2 there's an easement that a 40-foot wide easement that goes up Park Lane West for access for both of these parcels.

Okay My next question is is that we have although the amount of acreage is It is changing from being under five acres to over five acres and in my time on the Planning Commission I have come to understand that kind of round numbers in acreage in Montecito seems sometimes are imbued with special significance meaning what is possible on a five-acre lot but it's not possible on a small.

Could you, in a holistic way kind of talk about does the move from under five to over five change the nature of possible development or planning in the future?

Mr. Chair and Commissioners, good question in this case no it doesn't the minimum parcel size requirement is 40 acres and so the increase to 5 acres doesn't have an effect on future density requirements that five acre parcel can still not be subdivided into a new parcel so it has the same density allowance as it previously did at its four point

And to add to that there's, so we have two legal lots here. The one that is already non-conforming as to size it's already too small is getting slightly larger the oversized parcels getting slightly smaller and that's allowed under our code. There's no way for them to make both of these parcels 40 acres which is the minimum but it is it's at least moving in the right direction which is why it's allowed under our code

And both lots are under the same ownership.

Commissioner Miller, I think also you can see that Parcel 2 is developed right now at the large single family home. This action does not create any new development potential whatsoever so whatever they can do now they can do with this action. I think that's what you're

asking? What I don't know on the topic is always kind of, but every so often we kind of have these acreage hurdles of like you can't have a pool below blank or number of chicken coops. I don' t have that list in my head but I was just curious if this was a desire to have more chickens or something baked into this? No pun intended.

Really you can see in the green area a lot of little trails it's It looks like they probably just extended their landscaping, and so now they own both the properties. And so they just want to include whatever they've landscaped with their house property. I've got

a follow-up question if you don't mind. Getting back to this that let's call it the northwest section of them of the map, I understand to follow the landscaping but obviously we're not doing it there. We're actually taking a part of that landscaping into parcel one and that's because of the right away issues on the lane or is there another issue?

Do you have a, it might be easier if someone can

point. Oh it's the portion we were talking about. It's go to the left there you go yeah it's that peninsula portion there so obviously that's all continuous landscaping and that's the reason we're extending the green line which makes really good sense I'm just unsure why we're excluding that section there.

So this is, there's an easement here. This is what you're talking about right? So this parcel has to continue to have access for any future development. So the way that this was drawn was to make sure that the red parcel continues to have the easement to get so this is kind of where any future house would go right up here. So that's why it's drawn. And then there's also a trail easement here, so this line is kind of weirdly drawn to accommodate for those two issues.

Repeat that again?

If access from Park Lane now becomes illegal access into Parcel 1 because that little sliver, you're saying that little sliver that's now in blue but above the green line? That's going to become part of Parcel 1.

And

if it becomes part of parcel one, it has a legal egress. Correct. Not an easement but a legal ingress. It's part of they own the land

to Parkland.

There is an easement there now because it traverses parcel two. But it will no longer traverse parcel two. It

will have its own legal

entrance.

Yeah I think their The way they've designed it is how they want to facilitate access. I understand your point about because they own that land, they wouldn't need a recorded easement. Yeah and mortgage

companies hate easements so you know I could understand why one would want to clean that aspect up

and have a

legal entrance off of Park Lane.

Yep and so when we did the analysis of adequate services and adequate access that's what we looked at.

Understood just for clarity Okay. Would the applicant like to make any presentation?

Good morning, Chair and Commissioners. My name is Heidi Jones with Meraki Land Use Consulting. Happy to be here today. What you don't really see in these exhibits is the amazing gardens and landscaping. When I went to visit this property, I was blown away by the orchards and the plantings in the gardens. It's truly decades of labor and love And it just makes sense to pull it into the parcel with a single family resident. So they belong together.

So that's really the simplicity of it. I do have, David, the grading plan exhibit that I think might be helpful for the access conversation. We needed to demonstrate that Parcel 1 could maintain access. And I think this exhibit, I think this is the topo. Oh no, this is it. So you can see here, you know, this is kind of a faux grading plan if you will to show how a road could be accommodated, how access could be maintained up to Parcel 1 so that similarly follows the line that Mr. Sewards was showing you if that's helpful for context.

But essentially it's a very straightforward lot line adjustment. I did not prepare a presentation because it's very simple, but we're here for questions and we think the findings can be made for approval.

Thank you. I have no further questions.

I don't either. Is there any public comment to be made on this application?

Mr. Chair, we don't have any requests online and seeing no one rise from the audience we have a request for this item. We

will close public comment and move on to our own questions and deliberations if we have any further questions of the applicant or the staff otherwise I'll entertain a motion.

I move to approve these staff findings as written up by the staff.

Seconded

Roll

motion passes 5-0

I think

we're done. I think we're done until September 30th, 9 a.m.. Thank you.

Well, I want to thank everybody for being here today. Thank you all. Thank you staff for your

presentations and

welcome to our new member. I look forward to an even more busy coming year.