Planning Commission

our agenda today, we have one item on consent which is a government code consistency. And then we have four items on our standard agenda. My understanding is applicants and staff are ready to present on all those items.

OK Mr. Wilson I'm going to ask that we make a change And I know there's quite a few people here in the room. Unfortunately, I'm going to ask that we move the second item which is the T-Mobile telecommunications facility to the end. Unfortunately Commissioner Park is not here at the moment but he's in process. He's been delayed and it's important that he's here for this item.

If we could do so then I would like you to move up. I believe it's the wall over LLC? Mr.

Chair and Commissioners, if I may provide a recommendation in concert we're talking to staff the recommendation is we move item number one off the Senate agenda which is T-Mobile to the last item on the agenda And then the order would be as follows. The first item on the standard agenda would be the Malmuth tentative parcel map, followed by the Wallover LLC lot line adjustment and then the third item would be the Landon Equestrian Arena and small scales event and then we'll end the day with the T-Mobile communication facility.

That sounds fantastic thank you. So moving on to the projection report

Thank you Mr. Chair and Commissioners, looking at upcoming hearings we canceled the September 2nd hearing and then the next hearing after that would be on September 9th. We have one item on consent and then we have one item on the standard agenda which is a track map and that is located in the St. Nez area. And just for the Commission, September 9th will be in Santa Maria and then moving further down on our agendas is looking at after September 9th we will meet again on September 30th And that is when we will have the Ministerial Streamlining Amendment Workshop. And just so the Commissioner, I mean you do have the agenda but looking at that, the start time for the September 30th date is going to be at 1 p.m., and that will be here in Santa Barbara.

Because then in the morning the Montecito Planning Commission will be having the same workshop and theirs is gonna start at 9. So September 30 would be here in Santa Barbara at one o'clock. We did add one other item from Long Range Planning, which is the Eastern Goleta Valley Community Plan Circulation Elements. So after the workshop we'll have another item from Long Range Planning and then following that we canceled the October 7th hearing to allow for an alignment of hearings between the Montecito Planning Commission and the County Planning Commission so we will Not meet again until October 21st.

And then October 21st is when we'll have the first hearing on the ministerial streamlining amendments adoption, and then I will also have one other item on that date which is a lot split or a lot line adjustment. That's another from long-range planning which is a ministerial processing of lots splits. And then on October 28th we have Three items, we have a second hearing for the Minnesota Streamlining Amendments in case we need it. And then we also have a couple of items from Long-Range Planning.

No, I'm sorry, Development Review Division which is a hotel expansion in Los Olivos and then another housing development in Isla Vista. Then on November 4th, we are looking at having a hearing where we're bringing the actual completed ordinance amendments, general planning amendments on the Recreation Master Plan to the County Planning Commission. Then following November 4th, because of holidays we do have a TBD on there but I don't think we're going to be able to make that because I think that's actually a holiday.

It's Veterans Day. So we can talk at another hearing if we want to reschedule it. But I think following that, we have Thanksgiving and so I don't know if we want to have a hearing right before Thanksgiving due to staff availability and commissioners availability. So I'll work with Mr. Villalobos and staff to see if we haven't another hearing for November but when we looked at it we didn't hadn't identified another date That would put us no more hearings in November, and then that would bring us back in December for another hearing on the recreation master plan amendments. And then we also have another item from long-range planning which is the moderate income density bonus special needs and housing ordinance amendments.

So there are a number of other items I think that are being looked at and is being placed on the projection report as well. And so at our next hearing, you'll probably see more items on there as well. So at the end of the year, there's a number of items that are going to be showing up on the projection report. So that's the current status of right now. Mr. Chair? CHRIS RODGERS.

Thank you, Mr. Olson, for the update on the projection report. We appreciate it. The public comment

Yes, thank you Mr. Chair. So for those of you here today this is a time that we allow for public comment on items not on today's agenda I have not received any speaker slips but if anyone like to speak just rise or if you're online raise your virtual hand and I'll call on you and so of course this is again for not related to items on today's agenda see no one

right do we have one person out here Do you have an item that's not on the agenda? OK, thank you. Then I believe that means no speakers at this time. OK, thank you Mr. Villalobos. Planning commissioners informal reports. Individual commissioners may present briefly reports on planning issues such as seminars meetings and literature that would be of interest to the public and the Commission as a whole.

Commissioner Mary Connor? No. Thank you. Any comments? Okay. Boy, we're going through this fast. Next would be the minutes from the August 12th meeting.

So at this point, you would just ask if anyone has any amendments to the minutes. And if no, then a motion.

So I have read the minutes from the August 12th meeting. Does anybody have any objections to the minutes as presented? No objections. OK. Anybody want to make a motion to accept the minutes? So moved. Thank you. Commissioner O'Connor? Seconded. Thank you, Commissioner Ford. All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? None. Pass is 4-0. Next is Director's Report and Board of Supervisors Hearing Summary.

Good morning Mr. Chair and members of the Commission. I have a few announcements that I want to repeat. I had made them at our last meeting when you were in Santa Maria, but Farm Day is the 19th of September and if you have never been to it, I really recommend attendance It's really very, very informative just about what's happening in the Santa Maria Valley.

Issues that the agricultural families and companies deal with. Struggles that they may have. And then there's some guest speakers. You go on a tour and it's really amazing how much you learn about things that you had no idea like One of the farming families there developed an entire piece of equipment. It's like a it's a truck basically that comes into the field they put their romaine lettuce on it, it goes through, it packages, it comes out and it's packaged ready stamped with a date and ready to go to a store.

It''s amazing you know in that how quickly berries get into the market that kind of thing so it's just really really an informative day and I've enjoyed it each time I've gone So, they motivated me to do a garden bed and they gave me some kale to start. It's just really cool so I recommend it if you can make it. Commissioner Park talked about this, but there is an Ag Tourism Summit that's going to be held in Paso Robles and that is on the 23rd through the 25th of September.

We are looking at having somebody from the county attend to talk about the Ag Enterprise Ordinance and sort of the lessons that we've learned as we've implemented that program and realizing some of the tweaks we have needed to make. We did come back with one already So, they've asked us to attend and we're going to work to try and make that happen. And then just recent board actions the HAG 4's rezone in San Ynez Valley went from C2 to C3. That was approved by the board on the 18th their first hearing back from the break And then future board actions, I wanted to update the commission on something that the second and third district are bringing on the 1st of September.

And it is tied to retail firearms. And I don't know if you were tracking some of the issues that came out of a retailer going into a space next to a child care facility in the city of Goleta, but there was a lot of community concern about it. So our two board members are bringing an item forward to direct the department to look at creating an ordinance that establishes buffers to sensitive receptors for retail firearm stores.

So that item and then they're also bringing forward a request for a moratorium, a temporary moratorium. So that the county has sufficient time to bring that ordinance back before additional retailers start moving around and shifting spaces. We will also have the board hear the second hearing on the utility scale solar I think I mentioned at the last Planning Commission hearing some of the notable things that the board did include creating a zoning clearance for standalone battery energy storage systems up to 0.25 acres and then also creating a zoning clearance for Agricultural operations that are using solar on site to allow them to have up to 15 acres of solar Provided that all of that power That's generated by that solar is used for that agricultural operation on that particular site and that was a request that had come from the shipper growers Association, and we managed to Review our environmental documents to determine that.

We thought we had it sufficiently covered in the EIR So we're going to move forward with that a recommendation for the board Then on the first, we also have an update and reassessment of our coastal resource mitigation fund fees. During the times that oil and gas operators in the coastal zone are non-operative their fees go down, but once they become operative then the fees can be reassessed. And so we are bringing back a reassessment for the Sable operations at Lewis Flores Canyon and then bringing oil through the pipeline.

So that will increase the available funds that we will have in that in the crimp fund That is then made available to non-profits and governmental agencies that are doing work in the coastal zone, either for coastal restoration or recreation. We see lots of proposals that come in and later this fall we are going to be opening that process back up. And so well, we also have money set aside for acquisitions, coastal acquisitions. So we've been going on a cycle every two years because the fund has been shrinking over the years as oil and gas operations have ceased.

But we seem to have more money now, and so there will be a good opportunity for nonprofits to come forward and ask for funds for their specific projects. We've seen some really great things like Nature Track which is where this nonprofit comes in and they have wheelchairs that are basically like four-wheel drive for handicapped people to be able to get to the beach and explore tide pools and things like that.

We've given money to the aquarium that they have at Cabrillo High School, and then kelp reforestation so there's a lot of really interesting projects that get funded through that. On the 15th of September we have the oil and gas item that's coming back it's phase one changes to the oil and gas provisions in the county. Phase one is prevention of the drilling of any new wells, and then once the board takes action on that phase two which has already been initiated that is the study of amortizing oil and gas as being phased out over a period of time so that they can operators still achieve their investment backed expectations There are other jurisdictions that have moved forward with it. I think County of LA, LA City and then Culver City all have programs.

The airport land use plan consistency amendments and this is just the step the county takes to bring our codes into conformance with SB CAGS new Airport Land Use Plan which is a few years old so we're a little bit behind but that's going to be heard on the 22nd. And I believe that's already been heard by the PC. We have two projects going in November on the 10th to the board.

Constellation project which is in Vandenberg Village and that is a combination of a hotel and residential, and then the Malkin GPA rezone lot line adjustment will be at the board on the 10 of November. And I am happy to answer any questions.

Thank you, Ms. Plowman. OK, next agenda item.

I'm

sorry? Oh, thank you. Next item is the consent agenda items and procedure. Mr. Villalobos?

Thank you, Mr. Chair. The following is a hearing on the request of Kevin Thompson, Laguna County Sanitation District, to consider case number 26-GOV5 for determination that the solids handling phase 3 project conforms with the comprehensive plan of the county of Santa Barbara pursuant to California Government Code section 65402 and I believe both Mr. Orta and Mr. Thompson are online if there are any questions.

OK. Before we go to that, is there any ex parte communication or site visits that anybody would like to report on this item? I only say that because I did do a site visit so that I would have a better understanding of the facility and I did meet with Kevin Thompson.

So Mr. Chair, at this point I believe what you would ask the commissioners if there are any questions or any requests to pull the item off of consent then we need to ask for public comment. If the answer to both is no then we would be looking for a motion.

OK thank you very much Mr. Villalobos. So I'm going to ask the commissioners does anybody have any comment or any other information? Commissioner Mayor Connor?

No.

So there's no questions or comments from the commissioners. So I'd like to open it up for public comment. Is there any public comment on the solids handling phase three project?

For those of us joining us online, raise your virtual hand if you'd like to speak on this item. No hands raised.

No hands raised. OK at this point.

I'll make a motion.

OK, I'm looking for somebody to make a motion. Commissioner Ford?

Thank you so much. I'd like to make a motion to accept the solids handling phase three government code conformity determination.

Second. Second.

Any discussion? All in favor? Aye. None opposed. Motion carries. Thank you. At this point, we move to the standard agenda items. Mr. Villalobos?

Yes, I'm just looking at my cheat sheet for which one comes first. OK, thank you. The following is a hearing on the request of Brett Jones, agent for the owner David Malmuth, to consider case number 24 TPM2 and to adopt the mitigated negative declaration case number 25 NGD4 and adopt the mitigation monitoring program contained in the conditions of approval.

So I would like to ask if there's any ex parte communication or site visits to share

prior to? Yes.

OK, Commissioner Mary Connor?

Thank you. I visited the site of this project with the agent. Brett Jones had an informative tour and he explained the project to me in the tentative parcel map that was last week. Great.

Thank you. Anybody else? Okay, I would like to also share that I visited the site on Monday with Commissioner Park. We also met with Mr. Jones who gave us a comprehensive understanding of the project. So now I would like to ask staff to please report?

Good morning, Chair Guy and Commissioners. My name is Tatiana and I'm the assigned planner for the Malmuth Parcel Map Project. OK, so this proposed project is a request for a tentative parcel map to subdivide a 9.67 acre parcel into four lots ranging from two to 2.75 acres in size The project site is outlined in red on this aerial imagery. The project is at 704 North Refugio Road in San Ines and is zoned 1E1, single-family residential. The residential neighborhood to the north is also zoned 1E2 and is primarily composed of one acre lots.

The neighborhood to the north and east are developed with single family residences. And the areas to the south and west are agriculture-zoned parcels containing rancho estates, vineyards, winery, and agriculture. The project is for subdivision of a 9.67 acre parcel into four lots, a 28 foot wide private driveway easement depicted here in blue follows the path of an existing driveway that currently serves the residential development on this site. This easement would allow for improvements to the existing driveway.

A 20 foot wide public utility easement along the northern property line which is depicted in orange, is also proposed. There's an as-built guest house and garage which are proposed to remain on parcel one, which has a star here on the screen. And they're proposed—the guest house is proposed to be validated as a single family dwelling with approval of a separate land use permit.

Proposed parcels two and four, which are highlighted here are currently vacant and may be developed with a single-family residence in the future. And proposed parcel 3 will contain the permitted 2,600 square foot single family dwelling, a detached garage, and private septic system. Which is also in the stars there. Next, I want to draw your attention to the southern property line where a required 100-foot agricultural buffer is proposed. The buffer's measured from the shared property line which is adjacent to the agriculture zoned property that is under commercial agricultural production.

Low intensity residential development, such as single family residences are allowed within this agricultural buffer. So the future proposed single family dwellings for parcels two and four could be located in this area. Lastly, there is a proposed 200-foot wide development restriction area on Proposed Parcel 4 which is shown in light blue. Which is proposed voluntarily to protect private views from the existing single family residence.

The project includes development exclusion areas containing slopes greater than 20%, which are depicted in red, whereas areas with slopes less than 20% are depicted in green. The gentle slopes areas in green are suitable for future development provided they comply with other development standards such as setbacks and the agricultural buffer requirements and development restriction area on parcel 4.

The subdivision is consistent with the county's comprehensive plan. First, there are adequate services available to serve all four parcels. They will be served by the Santa Ynez River Water Conservation District, on-site wastewater treatment systems, County Fire Department and County Sheriff. Second, the project is compatible with nearby agriculture A 100-foot agricultural buffer is included along the southern boundary supported by existing terrain that naturally separates the site from the adjacent agriculture.

There are no known cultural resources on the site. Future development will require an archaeological survey and stop work procedures if any resources are discovered, and that is included in the project conditions and mitigation measures. Next, the subdivision meets hillside and watershed protection standards. There is no grading proposed currently and steep slopes are placed in development exclusion areas.

Future grading on slopes would require geotechnical studies and erosion control plans. The conditions of approval on the map also demonstrate consistency with these policies Regarding visual resources, the subdivision will not change existing views or introduce new development at this stage. Future homes will follow design standards including for building materials, colors, screening, height limits and dark sky lighting requirements. And the site is not located within any designated scenic overlay area.

Next, the site does not contain any known sensitive biological resources. Future development is conditioned to follow standard tree protection nesting bird avoidance requirements and is discussed in the mitigated negative declaration and mitigation measures. And finally, the project is consistent with flood and water quality policies. The site is not within any floodway, and there is a setback from a man-made drainage which is on site.

The stormwater best management practices will be required during future construction to protect water quality and avoid increased runoff. Each parcel is fully compliant and developable. The zoning requires minimum one acre lots and 120 feet of lot width. The four proposed parcels range from 2.18 to 2.74 acres in size, and each is approximately 380 feet wide which exceeds the minimum requirements. And the configuration also meets all setbacks.

Parcel 1 does contain unpermitted structures, but the project requires that these structures are validated with permits or removed within 90 days of map recordation. Parcels 2 and 4 are currently vacant, and parcel 3 contains an existing permitted home. All parcels have confirmed water service, and on-site wastewater systems are feasible. A mitigated negative declaration was prepared under CEQA and it found that all potentially significant environmental impacts can be reduced to less than significant with mitigation. For aesthetics, building materials, screening and dark sky lighting will ensure future development blends with the surroundings For air quality and greenhouse gas emissions, dust control is required during construction as well as energy efficient design and waste reduction measures to keep emissions low.

For biological resources tree protection nesting bird surveys will prevent impacts to vegetation and wildlife For fire protection, defensible space, fire safe construction and vegetation management at the time of future development will reduce any wildfire risk. For geologic conditions, the mapped development exclusion areas avoid steep slopes. And future grading would require geotechnical studies and erosion control plans.

And for water resources, stormwater best management practices such as bile swells, vegetated buffers, use of pervious materials, and roof runoff collection protect water quality and reduce runoff. All mitigation measures are included in the project's conditions of approval and together form the Mitigation Monitoring Program. With these measures in place, environmental impacts are reduced to less than significant.

In conclusion, staff recommends your commission take the following actions which are listed on the screen. First make the required findings for approval including CEQA findings. Adopt the negative declaration and mitigation monitoring program And approve the project subject to the conditions included in attachment B. This concludes staff's presentation. Staff and the applicant are available for questions.

CHRIS JERRAMS. Thank you, Ms. Cruz. Open to

public comment? Or do I open it

up

for commissioner

comments? MARY ANN BORGESON. Just for a question. We'll go with some questions

first.

Questions from us.

Are there any questions from the commissioners? OK, Commissioner Martinez. COMMISSIONER MARTINEZ Good morning.

My quick question, if you go to slide number four, the 100-foot ag buffer, is that the dotted line on the bottom, yellow line or is it the entire yellow area?

Commissioner Martinez, the agricultural buffer is the highlighted area in yellow. And that's 100 feet from the shared property line with a property that has agriculture.

OK so the structure that has that large yellow star is just outside of the buffer correct?

Sorry, Commissioner Martinez. So on parcel three that the star closest to the buffer is existing single family residence a portion of it is within the buffer and part of it is outside the buffer and on parcel one that structure is entirely within the buffer.

Okay that's what was bringing my confusion so what's the purpose of the buffer if we already have in a residence within the buffer?

Chair Martinez, the purpose of the buffer really impacts non-habitable structures. So single family residences like the two that are located in the buffer are typically allowed because they're considered low intensity development. In the buffer area it would just require certain Garages, carports, parking areas to be located outside the buffer or just have different requirements than the single family dwellings. And it would also require specific landscaping plans which is included as a condition if future landscaping is proposed.

OK so if I'm that owner and I want to turn that garage into an ADU nothing's going to stop me correct?

That's correct ADUs would also be allowed within that buffer.

Okay so the property that has, so I imagine below that this buffer is a commercial agricultural area am i wrong or right? Just for me looking at the overlay, it looks like.

Yes that's correct I can go back to the site so yes directly south it's the Ag-2 property there's currently pasture land and then about 580 feet from the shared property line which is like a dark green if you can kind of see on this vicinity aerial that's where the crops are grown so there's already also kind of a natural setback even greater than what would be required

And we've given notice to that owner of this hearing, correct?

Yes we have.

Okay because my sense is is that the ag buffer is not really being utilized or being even honored because you already have a structure there and you have a structure there that can be turned into an ADU and therefore the hundred foot buffer really goes into their property

Commissioner Martinez, thank you for your question. It's a good question because there is certain development allowed in the ag buffer so I understand that can be a little bit complicated. So Chapter 21 and Chapter 35 both have regulations for what can be allowed in the ag buffer. So throughout the county there are certain uses that are allowed in the ag buffer.

For instance, like Tatiana mentioned, single-family dwellings, low intensity residential development, ADUs, Residential Accessory Structures may be allowed in the ag buffer area. In contrast to that, industrial or commercial types of development, certain landscaping, certain lighting, certain non-habitable structures are not allowed on the ag buffer. And I also just want to clarify that this consistent with the Chapter 21 and Chapter 35 requirements, P&D coordinated with the Ag Commissioner's Office on this buffer. And they agreed that the buffer was appropriate for the proposed project.

Oh no, I can see why somebody would say it's appropriate but the reality of it is if you have a structure that's being lived in and you want to do an application as a commercial farmer, you can't. do it because it's within a certain feet from the application. That's why I'm trying to say why are we even calling an ag buffer when it's not even acting as an ag buffer?

That's that's my concern, I understand what you're saying by the codes you're saying we can't do this you can't do that but the realities of its interaction with with a commercial farm below it or next to it is that person can't because there is somebody living within that hundred foot If my buffer is 200 feet from a plant for making an application, I can't make it unless they get permission and they can appeal and they can appeal to the Ag Commissioner and all that. That's that's my concern but if they're not here and they're not gonna object to it I just want to make sure that they were noticed and if they're saying hey I'm not here to agree and nod my head with Martinez about Mr. Martinez about this okay but I just want to make sure I'm aware of it and they have the opportunity be doing something about it okay thank you

Commissioner Ford.

Thanks, I just have a couple clarifying questions on that same slide for how is the development or the decision around the 200-foot development restriction made?

Yes, Commissioner Ford. So that 200-foot development restriction area was voluntarily proposed by the applicant. So I think I could let them speak to that some more. That is not required by county code.

OK, thank you. I'll wait for that. And then you referred to the validation process. What's involved in that?

Commissioner Ford, so the applicant has submitted for a land use permit to validate the unpermitted structures. Following recordation of this map once it gets approved, Parcel 1 will be a legal law and that would allow them to move forward with their application. So that would, the process would be the land use permit and their building permit.

So they just fill, submit a form to say now that this has passed let's make this building valid? A real building? A house? A residence?

Yes, Commissioner Ford says I mentioned they did apply for the Lanny's permit. So if we were to, for example, if that was not an existing structure, that would still be the permit path. And since it's unpermitted, we would consider it as a new structure. So they're going through the process which is the Lanny's permit application. They've submitted the required plans and will need to also meet building code requirements.

Thank you.

OK, I have a follow-on question to something Commissioner Ford asked. Relative to the 200 feet development restriction, I understand that the applicant is requesting it. Great. The parcel will eventually be sold. The new buyer buys the parcel. How is the new buyer informed where they can and cannot put development on that parcel?

Commissioner Guy, so the development restriction area is being recorded with the map. So this information will be available to potential buyers because it's shown and described and it will be a recorded document that will be available.

Commissioner Guy if I can add to that? And then when a future person comes in to develop that house they'll have to get a permit. the approved permits, look at the conditions on the map and see that there's a development restriction zone on there.

OK, thank you. I'm familiar with exclusion zones but I haven't seen the development restrictions so thank you for the answers. I appreciate it. Any other questions from commissioners? At this point do I open it up to public comment?

Mr. Chair, I believe at this point you should ask the applicant if they have a presentation.

Oh thank you. I would like to ask the applicant if they have a presentation and I see Mr. Jones moving forward.

My name is Brett Jones. I'm a private land use consultant in St. Ann's Valley with my associate Angela Janes and I haven't met a few of you. I appreciate the site visits, I was able to have with three of you and I'm really just here to answer any questions. I don't have a presentation per se there have been some questions I'd like to address so far through the chair Commissioner Ford the 200 foot setback was voluntarily proposed by the applicants David Malmuth and Jill Sorenson They are currently living in the residence on parcel 3. There's extraordinary views to the east and they've stated they may not even sell the parcel but if they did, they wanted to put that in there to protect their views in the future of looking to the Figueroa and Santa Ynez Mountains.

Perfect. That's very helpful. Thanks.

Regarding the validation of the guest house, we are aware of those conditions as all of the conditions in the project and agree to those. I did have I would love like a little bit of clarification on the 200 foot excuse me the 100 foot ag buffer it's my understanding that doesn't affect the property owner to the south Is that correct? That they could do development.

It really just affects our parcels, so this is to through the chair do Commissioner Martinez. Does that make sense?

I know it doesn't restrict their development. It's about the ability to utilize the agricultural purposes of the southern portion of the person below them on the south. And as my example indicated, it's the process is I'm aware from very well aware of it. Is that if I make a crop application and I have 100 foot buffer, it starts from my boundary line and it goes over to the other person's the north part of it.

And then if there's in there, if anyone's living in there than I have to send them a notice. And if that notice that gives them the ability that person that's living there to appeal or object to it Then it goes to the Ag Commissioner who then has a hearing regarding whether or not the application is permissible or not. But typically when I see an ag buffer, there's no development whatsoever within that so there is no appeal process to even worry about and no notice process to go about in regards to these things.

That's the center of my question. So whether they develop it into houses or whatever, that has nothing to do with the ag buffer as far as I know and as far as I'm concerned but thank you. Thank you.

I have nothing further on here to answer any further questions you might have.

Okay it doesn't look like there's any other questions so thank You Mr. Jones Now we get to open to public comment. Thank you very much, please forgive me all of you out there this is only my second meeting I'm learning as we go so any public comment on this project?

And see no hands raised online

okay if there's no request then we will close public comment At this point, are there any other questions from the commissioners? Any other comments? OK. We will move into deliberation.

I'll start.

Thank you Commissioner Martinez.

I would make it known that I've made my concerns aware and my concerns are being addressed by the fact that I understand notice is being given to the person who's to the south of this. And if that person isn't going to come and be active in something, and that's the purpose of giving notices. And I really wanted to make sure my comments were on the record or at least noted within the record because if there is ever something in the future about this property it's gonna be while that was brought up, there was an opportunity to be addressed and you didn't come address it. If that person would have showed up and made something of it, I would have really paid attention to it but From what I have in front of me and from the development itself, I would be supportive of this project.

COMMISSIONER MARY CONNOR And I concur with Commissioner Martinez. I'm supportive of this project. COMMISSIONER FORD

Yes, I'm really pleased with the concerns that Commissioner Martinez brought up And see no other reason for concern at this time. I can support this action.

OK, and I also appreciate the work that was done by staff because this is very valuable and it makes things very clear for us to understand so thank you for that. So I'm looking for a motion? I'll move the staff recommendation. And a second? I'll second. OK any discussion? All in favor? Aye. None opposed. Motion carries. At this point,

I'm sorry. Just give staff a moment to come up. But I'm sorry. Could you clarify who made the motion for the last time? Mayor Connor, okay. Thank you.

Okay Mr. Villalobos,

Thank you Mr. Chair. Next item follows a hearing on request of Ross Dorman, Wallover LLC to consider case number 24-LLH7 and to determine the project is exempt from environmental review pursuant to section 15183 of the state guidelines for implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act

OK, at this point we'd like to ask staff to share their presentation. Oh sorry, any ex parte comments? Any visits? I'm trying to see which project. OK, I don't have any either. Yes, so now we move on to staff presentation.

Good morning Mr. Chair and Commissioners, my name is Veronica King and I will be presenting the Wallover LLC Lot Line Adjustment Project a request for a lot line adjustment between two existing parcels The project site is located in a rural agricultural area in the Gleda Valley north of Highway 101 and involves two legal parcels. Parcel one, in red, is addressed as 901 Vareta Leyenda and is 602.42 acres.

Parcel two, in blue, is 34.34 acres and does not yet have an address. Both parcels are currently in agricultural production with lemon and avocado orchards. The lot line adjustment will transfer approximately 78 acres from parcel 1 to parcel 2. This increases parcel 2 to 112 acres, bringing it into conformance with the minimum parcel size for the zone district.

No development is proposed and existing access and utilities will remain unchanged. Here you can see the existing parcel configuration on the left and the proposed configuration on the right. Parcel two shown in blue expands primarily to the south while parcel one shown in red is reduced accordingly. For some background on the existing site conditions, Parcel 2 is currently undeveloped while Parcel 1 contains all existing development including residential development, agricultural support facilities, water infrastructure and onsite wastewater treatment.

As discussed the project adjusts the parcel boundaries but does not change any existing access easements or utilities The lot line adjustment would bring Parcel 2 into conformance with the minimum lot size requirement while also adding areas with gentler slopes to the parcel. This would provide more suitable land for continued agricultural use and more appropriate areas for any future development.

Importantly, the adjustment would not create any additional parcels or increase the allowable density. The project is consistent with all applicable Comprehensive Plan and Galeta Community Plan policies, Chapter 21 land division requirements and the County Land Use and Development Code. Existing development would continue to be adequately served by private water and wastewater systems and the adjusted parcel configuration would provide adequate area to avoid steep slopes and sensitive biological resources such as creeks and environmentally sensitive habitat.

Additionally, the adjustment would not create any zoning non-conformities or violations. Existing development would continue to meet applicable setbacks and Parcel 2's existing non-conforming lot size would be resolved by increasing the parcel to more than 100 acres consistent with the Ag 2 minimum parcel size requirement. For environmental review, the project qualifies for a CEQA guidelines section 15183 exemption because the potential environmental impacts were previously analyzed as part of the Goleta Community Plan EIR.

The project would be compliant with the Goleta Community Plan policies and the project would not result in impacts beyond those previously evaluated in the EIR Staff recommends that your commission make the required findings for approval, determine the project is exempt from CEQA and approve the project subject to the conditions of approval. That concludes my presentation and I'm available for questions.

Thank you are there any questions? Okay there are no questions The applicant, is the applicant present and prepared to speak? Thank you.

Chair, Commissioners, Alan McLeod agent for the owners I'm here just to answer any questions that you may have

Just out of curiosity, why? Why

the lot line adjustment? The families own the property for 50 years. They've been ranching the avocados and the lemons. There's no plan to sell the property at this point but any given time in the future they want the option to maybe retain a piece of it if they choose to put it on the market so they've been connected to the property for a long time so that's the main reason why they're wanting to do this lot line adjustment