Planning Commission

Thank you. Next we'll proceed to the TV coverage announcement.

Good morning Planning Commission hearings are televised live on County Santa Barbara Television's CSB TV channel 20 at 9 a.m. in the South Coast, Lompoc, Salinas Valley, Santa Maria and Orchid areas. Rebroadcast of the planning commission hearings are on Fridays at 5 p.m., on CSB TV channel 20. This hearing will also be streamed live on the CSB TV channel TV website.

Can we proceed with roll call?

Yes, please Miss Castro.

and Mr chair we have a quorum

thank you let's go ahead move on to the agenda status report

Mr. Chair and Commissioners, in regards to the status of the agenda we have one item on consent and then we have one item on our standard agenda and staff is ready to, and the applicants are here to present on item number 1 on the standard agenda. Thank you Mr. Wilson I can move to the projection report Mr. Chair if you like? Yes please So today will be as indicated on the agenda status report. And then when we look down towards the end of the month, our next hearing will be on September 30th and that hearing is going to start at 1 p.m.. And that will be in Santa Barbara and that hearing is the long range planning workshop And it's going to be in regards to the ministerial streamlining amendments that the Long Range Planning Division is preparing.

So again, so on September 30th is our next hearing and that will be at 1 o'clock in Santa Barbara. And then as of right now if we look into October we did a little bit of shuffling at the last hearing. So we canceled the October 7th hearing and The October 14th hearing. So when you look at October, we will be meeting again on the 21st and that will be in Santa Barbara and that will be the first day the first time or after the workshop that will be where we take the ministry of streamlining amendments package for adoption for a hearing So the reason for that is, is that gives the Montecito Planning Commission those two hearings early in October to hold hearings on the Ministerial Streamlining Amendments package and then make a recommendation to the County Planning Commission.

So the County Planning Commission will meet on October 21st in Santa Barbara and then again on October 28th in Santa Barbara. On October 28 is we have added that on the agenda For the ministerial streamlining amendments in case that we don't complete it on the 21st. In addition, on October 28th there's a number of other items that have been added. The Grand Hotel expansion in Los Olivos area, as well as the Sabato Tardy Partners LLC housing development project and then long range planning has also added a ministerial lot splits and lot line adjustments. We do note that that does make a lot of items on that day so if we don't finish that day will have to move some of those items to another day.

And then on November 4th, we have placed the Recreation Master Plan Ordinance Amendments for the Planning Commission to hear. And then that will be in Santa Barbara on November 4th. Then because of the Veterans Day holiday and Thanksgiving, we don't have any other hearings in November for the County Planning Commission. And then we will reconvene on December 2nd. We've added the Recreation Master Plan amendments again on December 2nd, and then Development Review Division has also added a number of items. The Santa Barbara Volleyball Club, the Elkwil Scott Multifamily Housing, and then Longreach Pudding has also added the Moderate Income Density Bonus and Special Needs Housing Ordinance Amendments.

December 9th, we continued that That will be here in Santa Maria on December 9th. We continue that T-Mobile telecommunications facility to that date and then we also have the MeatTree Farms personal storage in Orkut area on that date, and then as well we have Keysight One development on December 9th so both of those are rather big projects for the Commission to be hearing in the Orkutt area And then that takes us to the end of the year. So they're all at the end of the year is going to be a little bit of a heavy lift for the commission, there's gonna be a lot of projects coming forward or disbandments and some couple big development projects in the Orchard area so we'll work with you and the staff to make sure that you get the information that you need to prepare for those hearings.

Thank You Mr. Wilson

question do you expect it will be a Countywide Planning Commission hearing on December 16th. It's at the very end of this projection report, based on what you know today. I'm asking only because of vacations.

So Chair and commissioners, December 16th is the Montecito Planning Commission so there won't be a county planning commission on that date. And I believe that will be all of the hearings for the County Planning Commission. So December 2nd and 9th, and then we'll be done for the year and we'll reconvene back in January.

OK, thank you.

Commissioner Park?

Yes, I have a suggestion and question My suggestion is on November 4, we don't schedule anything else other than that rec master plan workshop so that we're not pushed by some project item or something. And I think that this ordinance has been a long time of mourning and I've been promising people that the board will have it beginning in next year So I'm hoping that if we have anything we need to work out, we can really spend the time on November 4th doing it. And I think it's great that you've got December 2 scheduled as well and I would hope that if we have any thing remaining that needs to be cleaned up after December 2, we can take a few moments on the 9th and be done with it.

So is there enough time on the ninth to address it again if we have to? I think by then it won't take a lot of time

Mr. Chair and Commissioner Park, the 9th does have a couple big projects on it. Keysight 1 and the personal storage facilities in general plan amendment are rather large projects so the ninth would be already impacted but we do have all day on the 4th to hear it and then we did add it on the 2nd as well I know that staff has also added other items on December 2nd We're trying to manage the agendas and multiple priorities So if we don't get it done on the 2nd, and we could I mean it's up to the discretion of the commission. We could move it to the 9th but that was going already be a heavy day on the night.

Well, I would imagine that by the time Martha knowing what condition everything's in which is really great shape by the way that We'll probably be done by the second. But if we have any last lingering thing to be amended, we can do it on the ninth and it wouldn't take half an hour. I mean, I just don't think it'd take very long. And I would imagine that the items that are the projects that are set for the 9th are not the kinds of things where we'll have 100 people in the audience, demonstrators outside, and that kind of stuff that really soaks up a long days.

So chair commissioners on the 4th we can reserve that we can close the agenda. However, there is one item and that's going to be a consent item that we've already given approval to put on that it's a it's a road vacation in orchid area so that's on the consent counter other than that we can close the 4 3 serve it for the recreation master plan

and it's great plan okay tanks

thank

you Mister Wilson Moving on to the public comment, would you like me to read that? I don't mind. So public comment period is set aside to allow public testimony on items not on today's agenda. The time allotted to each speaker will be set at the discretion of the Chair. Total time allotted for public comment is 15 minutes when testifying before the Planning Commission personal attacks and other disruptive behavior are not appropriate. Do we have any public comment forms?

We have none, thank you. Next we'll move on to the Planning Commissioner's Information Reports. Individual commissioners may present brief reports on planning issues such as seminars meetings and literature that would be of interest to the public and or the Commission as a whole. Does anybody have anything to report on? No. Okay then we move on to the minutes from the August 26th meeting The minutes were part of the package that was prepared for us in advance.

I've had an opportunity to review the minutes and I did not see any issues with them, the rest of you? Would anybody care to make a motion to accept the minutes?

So moved. Second.

All in favor? Aye. None opposed. Motion carries 4-0 Next item is the Director's Report and Board of Supervisors Hearing Summary.

Mr. Chair, Commissioners, Director Plowman will present via Zoom. Great thank you.

Thank you Director Plowman.

Good morning. Good morning Mr. Chair and members of the commission I have a brief report this morning. I wanted to report on the board's hearing of last week we had Three items that we were present for. One was the utility scale solar, which the board adopted last week with some changes to it. There had been some discussion about the total cap on solar facilities on agricultural land and ultimately they, I think it was a 4-1 vote Maybe it was three, two. Supported the 16,000 acre cap with no split between the north and the south.

They also increased or they created a tier one permit for use of solar on agricultural land up to 15 acres. And then it will If you're on slopes that exceed 20%, a land use permit will be required for that. And then there was an addition of a setback from residential sensitive receptors and residentially zoned land, and that was 50 feet. So that summarizes mostly What they did, as I mentioned last week, they did include in tier one the battery energy storage facilities that are standalone up to 0.25 acres.

So that summarizes what happened with utility scale solar program. We also had the crimp mid cycle reassessment so that we could start collecting funds and additional funds from Sable Now that they're operating the pipeline running through the coastal zone. And then, the second district and third district brought forward the urgency ordinance regarding retail gun sales.

As you probably are aware there was quite a bit of concern raised when a retail gun shop was given a permit Next to a child care facility in the Gleda community. So our board has taken the steps to create an urgency ordinance in the interim while Planning and Development and County Council take a look at the creation of an ordinance that requires a conditional use permit for retail gun sales, and requires 1000 foot setback from sensitive receptors so Urgency ordinance was passed last week. On the 22nd that urgency ordinance will be extended another 10 months and 15 days while we develop a program to address the concerns raised by the board.

We will also hear the oil and gas item it's Phase 1 of A two-phase project that the board directed the department and community services department to work on together. This is the first phase which includes the prohibition of the drilling of new wells in the coastal zone and in the inland area. We also have on, and that's on the 15th actually. On the 22nd we also have the airport land use plan consistency amendments they'll be heard by the board We have the Constellation Hotel and Residential Project on the 10th of November, and the Malkin General Plan Rezone and Lot Line Adjustment also on the 10th of November.

And I'm happy to answer any questions.

Thank you, Director Plowman. Are there any questions? No. Thank you.

All right. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Moving on to the consent agenda items.

Okay, so the following is the request of Kevin Thompson Laguna County Sanitation District to consider case number 26 GLV-00006 for a determination that the Laguna County Sanitation District Influent Reservoir Expansion Project confirms with the comprehensive plan of the county of Santa Barbara pursuant to California Government Code section 65402. Thank you Miss Castro

I do want to declare that I did do a site visit. I reported it at the last meeting, but I want to report again. I did do the site visit at the Laguna Sanitation Reservoir expansion so that I would have a comprehensive understanding of the project. Any other comments before we move on to the standard agenda? Okay let's move on to the standard agenda Miss Castro. Mr. Chair I think we need to vote on that Item

we do.

Okay?

Yeah, so I move that we adopt the consent agenda seconded

all in favor.

So just before you vote. I just wanted to make clear for the record. Yes. We also did not have any public comment on that.

Okay. Thank you. Mr Villalobos no public comment. Okay all in favor aye none opposed motion carries 4-0 thank you very much

Okay, the following is a request of Sabani 2005 Trust to consider the following. Case number 22TRM followed by 901. Case number 23CUP00029 and adoption for the proposed final mitigated negative declaration MND case number 25NGD0010.

Thank you. Shall we move on to any ex parte communication or site visits to report?

Commissioner Park. Yes, I've actually had three site visits out there over the years and I probably I'm not compelled by law to disclose the first two, but I think it's relevant anyway to our to my thoughts, so I do want to describe them. First time I met with Mr. Morris Sabani who's in our audience. I'm glad to see him and his kids and perhaps others. And we I think we met in our third district office and talked about the property in general. We talked about potential things they might do with it. And then we talked about rec master plan and the AEO and those kinds of things, sort of a general discussion.

But I do remember it. And then sometime in the intervening years, I took a four wheel drive ride all over the property on the different roads. Can't even remember who I went with. But that was very useful to get a feel for the topography, because as you know here we're looking at 150 acres and it's split between the kind of the hinterlands uphill part. And then some very flat row crop agriculture, so it's two different kinds of properties. And then just a few days ago I had a site visit with Commissioner Guy and David Swank and Perry and Stephen Sobani.

It wasn't quite as adventurous as my prior drive but we still covered And then I've had a couple of conversations by telephone with David Swink before and since then. So there you go.

Thank you, Commissioner Park I would also like to declare that I did a site visit yesterday. I did meet with Stephen Ampari Serrani, along with Mr. Swank. I also had multiple phone calls and text messages with Mr. Swank trying to understand the project ahead of time I will say that going out and doing the site visit was hugely beneficial in understanding the total scope of the project. I also want to say that the staff report that I reviewed was great, and that as I was looking at the property, I could see all of the comments that were shown in the report. So thank you ahead of time for what you have done.

And that's all I care to report at this moment. So at this point, if there's are there any other comments or questions? Any further discussion then I guess we would move on to the staff report.

Okay, good morning Mr. Chair and members of the Commission my name is Kathleen Volpe and I will be presenting the Sabani Trust Vesting Track Map and Multiple Parcel Water System Project The project is a request for a track map under case number 22 TRM 0001 it's to subdivide 153 acre parcel into nine lots in a conditional use permit to authorize a multiple parcel water system to serve the lots CEQA review was performed for the project and a mitigated negative declaration was prepared. The mitigation monitoring program presented in the MND is included as conditions of approval with the project.

This is a vicinity map of the proposed project site. It's situated directly off from Highway 246 next to the City of Sullivan and west of the City of Buelton. The 153-acre parcel is located at 1135 East Highway 246. It is in the rural area of Santa Barbara County and the Santa Ynez Community Plan. The parcel is actually split zoned AG 110 and AG 140. Here are some photos of the site looking north from Highway 246 and an aerial image on the right.

As you can see, the portion of the land closest to the road is in active ag production. The area backs up to a Mesa shelf that leads to a vacant lot or excuse me, a vacant land with no active ag. It kind of elevates up Mesa shelf to a vacant area. The proposed track map is a request to subdivide the existing 153 acre lot, currently split zoned Ag 110 and Ag 140. The Ag 140 zone is encompassed in that Lot 9 below and then the Ag 110 zoning is the Lots 1 through 8 So Lots 1 through 8 will each be approximately 10 acres and they will, each one will be zoned Ag 110.

And again they're located in the upper portion of the site. Lot 9 will encompass approximately 72 acres and is located in the lower portion of the project site and it will be zoned AG 140. The map identifies development exclusion areas shown in green where development would be prohibited to prevent environmentally sensitive habitat. Proposed improvements include two detention basins, they're located on lot nine and they're shown in blue and the widening of an existing ag road to meet current fire standards and they are shown and it's highlighted in pink The project also includes a request for a minor conditional use permit and this would allow for a multiple parcel water system or a MPWS which serves 15 or more connections across the proposed lots.

The system will draw water from a domestic well on a neighboring parcel owned by the applicant. Necessary easements for utilities and services to serve the proposed lots would be reserved or recorded with the map So the project site consists of one lot that was created through a voluntary lot merger. Active ag operations consisting of irrigated crops are located in the Ag 140 lower portion of the property.

The portion of the property that is zoned Ag 110 is currently vacant and does not currently support active ag production. Existing development includes ag structures constructed primarily between 1938 and 1969. A historic resources report was prepared for the project and determined that the structures do not possess any historical significance. Environmentally Sensitive Habitat or ESH does exist on the project site. These resources are primarily located within proposed lots 1 through 8 and they are within the development, the designated development exclusion areas.

Each proposed lot provides sufficient open land for development outside of these exclusion areas. The existing ag roads have been present onsite and they were developed with past ag production. You can't see it, but there's a little picture of the structures. There we go. And this slide shows the areas of the environmentally sensitive habitat on the parcel.

There's California sage scrub that's shown in green, Coast Live Oak Woodland is shown in purple and Intermittent Creek on Proposed Law 8, it's shown as blue line The seasonal creek shown as an orange line that crosses proposed lots three and four while ephemeral swales are shown as yellow lines. On the map on the right, the development exclusion areas identify portions of the parcel where development will not be allowed.

These areas protect onsite ESH from proposed improvements and any future development that would result from approval of this map. As described in the staff report, the project is consistent with all applicable comprehensive plan land policies including the Santa Ynez Community Plan and with approval of the water system there are adequate services to serve the proposed lots. Aesthetics and visual resources as seen from Highway 246 would be protected within incorporation of a height limit on future development and design review by BAR. Existing ag on proposed lot 9 will remain largely undisturbed beyond installation of stormwater basins and the improvements of the ag roads.

As discussed in previous slides, biological resources on this site will be protected within the development exclusion areas In addition to protecting ESH within these boundaries, the MND includes additional mitigation measures to further reduce any potential impacts to the maximum extent feasible. And finally hillside and watershed protection measures have been considered and included with a proposed plan. These include the two large detention basins below the mesa shelf to support stormwater management and limiting of grading to the maximum extent possible by improving the existing ag roads over creating a new system. These improvements include bringing the roads up to fire standards. The existing road system is established along the Mesa Shelf Improvements do involve some grading on steep slopes.

Mitigation measures included with the project and the MND would minimize the grading and protect the hillside watershed areas to the maximum extent feasible. Additionally, something happened got it Additionally the project is consistent with all zoning and development standards in Chapter 21 subdivision regulations. The proposed lots meet all minimum gross lot requirements, proposed development where the map is limited to grading for improvements related to access and stormwater management and the NPWS isn't allowed use within the AG-1 zone. Again no rezoning will result from the subdivision of the parcel And the lots meet all applicable Chapter 21 subdivision regulations including those pertaining to lot area width, depth and lot lines.

An MND was prepared for the project and circulated for public comment from April 9th to the 10th. The MND found potentially significant but mitigable impacts to issue areas listed on the screen. All these areas have been mitigated to below significant levels The main impacts associated with the project are related to biological resources. BM&D identified an additional 15 mitigation measures that would minimize impacts to loss of important plant communities, habitat native specimen and specimen trees and diversity of animals on-site. All these mitigation measures have been included in the conditions of approval for the map In summary, the project is a request to subdivide an existing lot into nine lots and authorize a private water system served by a domestic well to serve the new lots.

The project will not change existing zoning or impact active agriculture The project is consistent with a comprehensive plan including the Santa Ynez Community Plan, Land Use and Development Code and Chapter 21 subdivision requirements. With implementation of the development exclusion areas mitigation measures established through the MND and as conditioned the project will not result in any significant impacts Staff recommends your commission take the following actions. Make the required findings for approval of the project, adopt the proposed final M&D and approve the projects subject to the conditions of approval.

That concludes my presentation and we are available for comment and questions.

Okay, we're going to open it up to Commissioners' questions and comments and I'd like to start with Commissioner Park

And thank you for such a complete staff report. I think it made a very good distinction between the ag property, they'll stay in ag down below and what we're looking at up in the hills. So that's important to get that. I want to ask a little bit about the conditions of approval. Is that something you can pull up?

For the track map?

Yeah, yeah. The track map not the water system and I think that the one to pull up first would be number one that's got the project description in it.

Okay. Let me see if I can make it bigger. Is that sufficient?

I can read it. That's even better.

All right,

and then the part I'm going to ask about on page two. Okay. And so my question is going to concern the development exclusion areas and my questions here actually go it has potential impact beyond this project. It could impact actually all of our rec master plan projects and that is The development exclusion area, as I understand it from the presentation you just made is all ESH. Right?

Or is it portions that are chosen by the applicant?

Commissioner Park through the Chair, ESH is located within the development exclusion areas. I cannot say for certain that Everything in there is ESH, but the idea of the exclusion areas is to protect areas of sensitive habitat. But the boundaries might extend beyond the actual designated ESH itself.

Okay that makes sense to me that you know the applicant may decide okay this is what I think should be excluded and it may include ESH probably But it may go beyond that. Okay, so the reason I ask whether it's ESH or not, the second sentence of the top paragraph on development exclusion areas says no development including grading access fences walls etc is allowed within the development exclusion areas My concern is twofold.

One, the reason that I was wandering around on the property a few years ago was to look at as a potential recreation master plan site for a spur trail off the San Andres River Trail. That's the biggest project that's proposed under the rec master plan and it would go up into the hills there And it would, of course be something that would be voluntary. But if the Sabanis wanted to allow that then they would get some really important benefits from additional development that they could do that they couldn't do otherwise in their zone. That's the whole point of the recreation master plan.

And the logical location for those trails would be up any of those three ravines that are on the property, the part that's going to be split up. So when we did that site trip a couple of days ago everybody else is looking at potential house sites you know since I spent all my days wandering around on horseback poking around trails I'm looking down the ravines and looking at the cow trails that are already there and they are and thinking they would be very suitable for potential recreation master plan. But even if the Sabanese did not want to participate in that, you know with 8-10 acre parcels a lot of those potential buyers are going to want to have horses and they're going to want to be able to maybe have a joint trail system in the property And it would be lovely and they would want to go up and down those ravines.

Those ravines are the development exclusion areas, their ESH in the way it's written now I'm concerned that maybe they couldn't construct or maintain trails even the trails that the cows have already made And my concern that goes beyond this property is if you look at across the valley, we're looking at a mile and a half of trail. That's almost all through Oak Woodland which is what makes up this ESH in that area. And if we couldn't grade or maintain a trail in that because it's ESH, that would kind of kill the practical effect of having the rec master plan incentives.

So anyway, does the definition of ESH preclude development maintenance of trails? I'm not talking about class one paved trails, bike trails that are 12 feet wide and paved and all that. I'm just talking about enough for a horse or a human.

Commissioner Park and the Commission, I think it's a very good question so I think we're going to have to think about it for a minute because, you know, our job with what this application was was to come in and propose a subdivision. And in order to do CEQA, you know, with all these rural subdivisions, we tried to make sure that they are not going to impact resources, hillsides, biological resources. And so we always put these development exclusion zones or envelopes on these properties. So you guys know this is the only place where future development's going to go.

We did not contemplate, because it was not part of the project, them wanting to maybe come in and do a trail later. CEQA does require an analysis of impacts to bioresources so this is how we mitigated that issue. We're going to have to think about whether a trail can go in there or not. This isn't something we thought about during this process.

The, this is something we've been looking at in the rec master plan. Yeah. And anything that deals with trails and when we get a programmatic EIR it's going to talk about traffic and all those good things but we've always seen that in any individual project there are going to be some environmental impacts that will get analyzed. And I would assume that may happen in the development of these houses and their other improvements or it may not,

I

don't know. But I'm just concerned that if I vote yes right now on this is exactly as written that I'm precluding the Sabanis from having trails in the most obvious location for trails either just for their own residents, you know as a trail system or for participating in the Recreation Master Plan which could be incredibly valuable to them.

Sure I think it's hard yeah and I think without knowing what the Rec Master Plan EIR is going to provide is a bit of a conundrum right now. I think certainly people can amend their maps Like that is a given. That's part of like, that is allowed by the code. So if the rec master plan somehow allowed for trails to go in sensitive areas, they could have the ability to amend their map to make that happen. It's just it's hard. I'm just not aware of what the programmatic EIR for the rec master plans going to do. Um, I don't think de facto excludes it It just these are the areas that are protecting bioresources with the proposal and application at this time. I don't think that means it can ever be changed.

So my suggestion is going to be, at least when I woke up this morning, We allow Mr. Slank and the Sabanis to allow a minor adjustment to their project description, to allow trails in that development exclusion zones and And then we also have a corresponding condition number 30. So we just changed those things, very minor change and then the consequences may be later that there has to be environmental review on a trail or maybe it won't be but at least we won't have barred it now at this stage which makes me uncomfortable.

Okay

So Chair and Commissioners, Commissioner Park my recommendation is that we table this question and we take a break. And we allow staff to confer because I think they need to look at the conditions, confer with the applicants and then come back and provide some information to the commission on how the best way to address this. I think it could be possible but I think we just need to take a break to do that. Yeah so chair we could continue with questions to staff Or we can move to the applicant presentation and then take a break.

I just leave it to the commission on how they want to do that, but we do need to take some time offline to discuss this question and come back with an answer.

We don't have to finish this particular point right now. I think we should give the other Commissioners a chance to ask their questions and proceed.

Okay, so let's go ahead and proceed and find out if there's any additional questions. If we could, let's just write down this one question and continue through the project. I do want to make a comment that I definitely agree with Commissioner Park. After seeing the property it lends itself to these trails and the trails already exist as he said it. And it's something that we I had to see with my own eyes to understand it because usually when it's environmentally sensitive areas, I stay out but when you look and see how the property has been used by I thought they're deer trails that could be cattle trails, but their trails nonetheless so will go ahead and continue Commissioner Park did you have any other questions or comments?

Okay, Commissioner Mary Connor Thank

you. Commissioner Park has, as usual, inspired other issues in my mind and raised a good question looking at the condition of approval that you focused on. It talks about how there should be no development within the exclusion areas but the project description itself talks about improving the existing ag roads to create 24 foot access roads And I'm wondering if there is an inadvertent inconsistency between the project description and a fairly brief and simple condition that says there shall be no improvements or development within the exclusion zones, including access. That's what the condition says. I'm wondering if the condition needs to be fine tuned or adjusted to ensure that the condition doesn't inadvertently prevent some aspects of the project that are part of the project description?

Sure. Commissioner Mary Connor, there's not an inconsistency. It's talking about future development. The map includes the ability to change the roads that are outside of the exclusion zones.

The map includes that? Yeah.

So the map approves the road structure and then it also proves the development exclusion zones which are contained outside of the roads.

And the condition as written doesn't prevent that from happening? Correct. OK, because the language of the condition at least the way I read it would appear to prevent those road improvements

That is not what we're doing with this project. So

I get the intent, I'm just questioning the language of the condition and whether or not it needs to be fine-tuned that's my only issue.

Any other questions from the commissioners? Okay, I do have one if we could go back to The height limitation, which is on slide 8 of the presentation. There's a height limit or objective design standards. I'm just curious. I read in the report there's a height limitation of 24 feet versus the 35 feet that's normally allowed. I was just wondering if I could understand better why?

Yes.

Thank you, thank

you Ms. Olby. Chair Guy so you are correct currently it does say a maximum height of 24 feet above existing grade or demonstrate compliance with all applicable objective design standards we could change that language to say and it's essentially saying the same thing because the 24 foot height limit established by this condition is an objective standard that would be imposed on future development on these lots So when we had originally, we had been concerned about future development and so we had messed with the language a little bit but we were considering it and may be a better word choice instead of or.

Okay out of curiosity why is there 24 feet at all rather than just sticking with the normal county ordinance?

Mr. Chair, essentially it was to take into consideration the visibility from Highway 246 and take into account aesthetic and visual resources so the height limitation is to protect those visual resources from this highway area.

Okay so the moment that Somebody wants to permit a house on the property. Would it go to Architectural Review Board? Or is this the way to avoid going to the Architectural Review Board?

Mr. Chair, it would have a restricted height limit of 24 feet from existing grade and it would also be subject to design review.

Okay. I'm concerned because we're talking about 10-acre parcels that have lots of property around them and we're restricting what a future homeowner can build on their property. I understand the Architectural Review Board and why they review, but I don't understand why we would limit the height construction at this point in the process.

Commissioner guy, let me try another way to approach it. So again, this project required a sequel review which looks at AG resources. It looks at traffic. It looks at all these different things and one of them is aesthetics and visual resources 246 is a scenic corridor. We have to disclose potential impacts from a project. Putting nine new homes up there is a potential visual impact, and so this is just one way to mitigate it.

The applicant agreed to this as a way to mitigate that visual impact. And so that's how it got into this project.

Okay, what's hard for me to understand is I've had a project too and the applicant sometimes feels that they have to accept these conditions in order for their project to be approved. So the applicant may be accepting this condition understanding that might be the only way in order for us to approve it. I don't think we should limit the building height at this point, I think it should be allowed to go to architectural review or at the time that a building is being built. I think putting these limits on the property ahead of time is going to limit how the property can be used and I do understand, I agree with you It needs to be visually appealing or visually hidden from the 246. I completely get that, but I also looked at the property and I think there's plenty of opportunities for somebody that wants to build a house higher than 24 feet.

Twenty-four feet is just not very high. I mean, that's barely a two story house and if you're building on grade it's very limiting. I think we've done a disservice to the applicant by doing this That's my comment. I'll leave it to the applicant to decide what they would like to do past this point, I just wanted to understand why we were making the limitation and Miss Volpe you've explained that to me so thank you.

Okay. Any other?

I'm sorry, what was the question? Yes. Yeah. I mean, I was just speaking with the applicant chair guy again. I think part of this was proposal is they're thinking about their neighbors and their neighbor's view shed in the scenic corridor. There's a lot of discretion on this if you as a group feel like you do not want to put that 24 foot limit, you can have that discretion. Again, this was part of a mitigation for the CEQA process so that's where it came from.