1.0 REQUEST. MONTECITO PLANNING COMMISSION Staff Report for Danielson Vesting Tentative Parcel Map No. 14,686. Project Site

Transcription

1 MONTECITO PLANNING COMMISSION Staff Report for Danielson Vesting Tentative Parcel Map No. 14,686 Deputy Director: Dave Ward Staff Report Date: February 29, 2008 Division: Development Review Staff Contact: Allen Bell Environmental Document: Mitigated Negative Supervising Planner: June Pujo Declaration 07NGD Planner s Phone No.: (805) OWNER/APPLICANT: Danielson Group, LLC 583 Dana Street San Luis Obispo, CA (805) AGENT: Steve Welton Suzanne Elledge Planning & Permitting Services, Inc. 800 Santa Barbara Street Santa Barbara, CA (805) ENGINEER: Mike Caccese MAC Design 1933 Cliff Drive Santa Barbara, CA (805) VICINITY MAP Project Site The project site is identified as Assessor Parcel Numbers and , located at the intersection of Danielson and Virginia Roads, Danielson Road, Montecito, First Supervisorial Application Complete: February 16, 2007 Processing Deadline: 60 days from approval of Mitigated Negative Declaration 1.0 REQUEST Hearing on the request of Steve Welton, agent for Danielson Group, LLC, to consider Case Number 07TPM [application filed January 18, 2007] for approval of Vesting Tentative Parcel Map Number 14,686 in compliance with County Code Chapter 21 to merge a 0.67-acre parcel and a 0.37-acre parcel and divide the resulting 1.04-acre parcel into four parcels totaling 11,320, 11,322, 11,383 and 11,433 square feet on property zoned 7-R-1; and to approve Mitigated Negative Declaration 07NGD pursuant to the State Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act. As a result of this project, significant but mitigable effects on the environment are anticipated in the following categories: Aesthetics/Visual Resources, Air Quality, Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Fire Protection, Noise, Transportation/Circulation and Water Resources/Flooding.

2 Page 2 The Mitigated Negative Declaration and all documents may be reviewed at the Planning and Development Department (P&D), 123 East Anapamu Street, Santa Barbara. The application involves Assessor Parcel Numbers and , located at Danielson Road, in the Montecito Area, First Supervisorial District. 2.0 RECOMMENDATION AND PROCEDURES Follow the procedures outlined below and conditionally approve Case Number 07TPM (Tentative Vesting Parcel Map Number 14,686) marked "Officially Accepted, County of Santa Barbara (March 19, 2008) Montecito Planning Commission Exhibit 1," based upon the project's consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, including the Coastal Land Use Plan and Montecito Community Plan, and based on the ability to make the required findings. Your Commission's motion should include the following: 1. Adopt the required findings for the vesting tentative parcel map specified in Attachment A of this staff report, including CEQA findings. 2. Approve Mitigated Negative Declaration 07NGD included as Attachment B of this staff report. 3. Adopt the point allocations of 90 points for proposed Lot 2 and 90 points for proposed Lot 4 under the Montecito Growth Management Ordinance as specified in Attachments E and F, respectively, of this staff report. 4. Approve the vesting tentative parcel map subject to the conditions of approval included as Attachment C of this staff report. Refer back to staff if the Montecito Planning Commission takes other than the recommended action for appropriate findings and conditions. 3.0 JURISDICTION The proposed vesting tentative parcel map is being considered by the Montecito Planning Commission based upon Section 21-6(a)(1) of Chapter 21 of the Santa Barbara County Code (Subdivision Regulations) and Section (a) of Chapter 2 of the Santa Barbara County Code (Powers and Duties). Section 21-6(a)(1) states that the County Planning Commission shall be the decision-maker for tentative parcel maps that are subject to environmental review. Section (a) states that the Montecito Planning Commission shall generally assume the powers and duties given to the County Planning Commission in Chapter 21 of the Santa Barbara County within the Montecito Planning Area. The proposed vesting tentative parcel map is subject to environmental review and the project site is located within the Montecito Planning Area.

3 Page ISSUE SUMMARY The applicant requested a vesting tentative parcel map to merge a 0.67-acre parcel and a 0.37-acre parcel and divide the resulting 1.04-acre parcel into four parcels totaling 11,320, 11,322, 11,383 and 11,433 square feet. The proposed project does not include any grading, structures or demolition. A duplex, two single-family dwellings and several accessory structures exist on the project site. Assuming the vesting tentative parcel map is approved, the applicant intends to demolish these structures and develop a single-family residence and accessory structures on each of the proposed parcels. The applicant submitted a conceptual landscape plan and preliminary grading and drainage plans. Future development would include removing some trees and constructing an on-site and off-site drainage system necessary to serve the proposed subdivision and future residences and accessory structures. Staff analysis was based on the reasonably foreseeable development of the project site with four single-family residences and accessory structures. It also considered the off-site drainage system that would be located on the adjacent parcels east of the project site. The project site is designated Semi-Rural Residential (SRR-4.6), with a maximum density of 4.6 units/acre and minimum parcel size of 7,000 square feet. The proposed parcels would be consistent with these density and parcel size standards. The proposed vesting tentative parcel map would create new interior property lines that bisect two of the existing structures on the project site and, therefore, result in structures that do not meet setbacks and other zoning regulations. To ensure consistency with plan provisions and zoning regulations, the applicant will need to demolish the existing structures prior to final map clearance. This will require a Coastal Development Permit with Hearing (CDH). The existing dwellings on the project site were constructed in late the 1800 s or early 1900 s. The applicant s historic survey concluded that these structures were not eligible as a Santa Barbara County Landmark or otherwise considered historic resources. The proposed tentative parcel map and future development on the proposed parcels would not affect known archaeological resources. Native oak trees and non-native trees exist on the project site. No oak trees would be removed to construct future residences and accessory structures. Some non-native trees would be removed. Staff has recommended that the applicant submit a tree protection and replacement plan to help protect existing trees from future development and construction activities. The off-site storm drainage system would cross several adjacent parcels that include oak woodland that has been designated Environmentally Sensitive Habitat (ESH). Staff has recommended a buffer area and other mitigation measures to help ensure that the drainage system would not adversely affect ESH. The applicant will need to secure an easement for this drainage system that conforms to these mitigation measures. Future development on the proposed parcel will include residences and accessory structures as allowed under the Coastal Zoning Ordinance. This development will require a Coastal Development Permit

4 Page 4 with Hearing (CDH) and will be subject to review and approval by the Montecito Board of Architectural Review. Staff has recommended various conditions of approval that will help ensure that future development is consistent with applicable provisions in the Comprehensive Plan and Coastal Zoning Ordinance. These conditions address a range of topics typical for residential development in an urban setting, such as aesthetics/visual resources, air quality, fire protection, noise and transportation/circulation. 5.1 Site Information 5.0 PROJECT INFORMATION Site Information Comprehensive Plan, Designation Urban Area. Semi-Rural Residential, SRR-4.6; Density (Units/Acre) = 4.6; Minimum Parcel Size = 7,000 Square Feet. Highway 101 Corridor Overlay (HC). Coastal Zone. California Coastal Commission Appeals Jurisdiction. Ordinance, Zone Coastal Zoning Ordinance (Article II). Single-Family Residential, 7-R-1; Minimum Lot Size = 7,000 Square Feet. Site Size Gross Area = 29,159 SF Net Area = 28,453 SF Gross Area = 16,299 SF Net Area = 15,899 SF Total Gross Area = 45,458 SF Net Area = 44,352 SF Present Use and Development APN Two Residences (1393 and 1395 Danielson) Residence #3, 1393 Danielson (two bedrooms, 1,363 SF): $2,450/month Residence #4, 1395 Danielson (two bedrooms, 800 SF): $2,200/month Two Detached Guestrooms (330 SF and 220 SF) Two Attached Garages (840 SF) Surrounding Uses and Zoning Access Public Services APN Duplex (1385 and 1387 Danielson) Residence #1, 1385 Danielson (two bedrooms, 1,265 SF): $3,000/month Residence #2, 1387 Danielson (one bedroom, 912 SF): $1,445/month Guestroom/Garage/Carport (400 SF) North: Residential (7-R-1) South: Residential (7-R-1) East: Residential (7-R-1 and 3-E-1) West: Residential (7-R-1 and 7-R-2) Danielson Road (public, direct access) Water Supply: Montecito Water District Sewage: Montecito Sanitary District Fire: Montecito Fire District 5.2 Setting

5 Page 5 The project site is located within the Urban Area of the Montecito Planning Area. It is approximately 200 feet south of Highway 101 and two blocks east of Olive Mill Road, near the intersection of Danielson Road and Virginia Road. The project site is also within the Coastal Zone and the California Coastal Commission Appeals Jurisdiction. The project site and the surrounding parcels are designated, zoned and developed for residential use. The project site consists of a 0.67-acre parcel (APN ) and 0.37-acre parcel (APN ). APN includes two residences and two detached guestrooms with two attached garages. APN includes a duplex and a guestroom/garage/carport. (See the table in Section 5.1 for additional details.) The surrounding parcels to the north, west and south of the project site range from approximately 0.14 to 0.40 acres in size and include single-family and multi-family residences. The adjoining parcel to the east is approximately 4.59 acres in size and includes a single-family residence and accessory structures. 5.3 Project Description The applicant requests approval of Vesting Tentative Parcel Map No. 14,686 to merge two parcels and subdivide the resulting parcel into four parcels. The proposed project would result in two additional new parcels. The project site is located at Danielson Road, Montecito and consists of APN (0.67 acres/29,159 square feet) and APN (0.37 acres/16,299 square feet), which total 1.04 acres (45,458 square feet). The proposed parcels would be 11,320, 11,322, 11,383 and 11,433 square feet in size. (All acres/square feet are gross area.) No development is currently proposed. Four dwelling units (i.e., duplex and two single-family dwellings) and several accessory structures exist on the project site. A new private driveway with two proposed egress points off of Danielson Road would provide access to the proposed parcels. The driveway would be held in common ownership between the owners of the proposed parcels. The proposed parcels would be served by the Montecito Water District, Montecito Sanitary District and Montecito Fire District. Utilities would be buried within the footprint of the driveway. Native oak trees and non-native trees and shrubs exist on the project site. No oak trees would be removed to construct future residences, accessory structures, driveways and utilities. Some non-native trees and shrubs would be removed. The large fig tree in the central portion of the project site would be preserved. This project description is based on the applicant s permit application and parcel map (Vesting Tentative Parcel Map Number 14,686; Sheet 1 of 4 (MAC Design Associates, April 2, 2007). 5.4 Background Information APN includes two single-family residences [Residence #3 (1393 Danielson) and Residence #4 (1395 Danielson)]. Residence #3 was constructed on-site between 1890 and The County approved an addition to this structure in 1980 (Permit No ). Residence #4 was constructed off-site in the late 1800 s or early 1900 s. It was moved to project site and approved as a single-family residence 1951 (Permit No. 1546).

6 Page 6 APN includes a duplex [Residence #1 (1385 Danielson) and Residence #2 (1387 Danielson)] that was constructed off-site in late the 1800 s or early 1900 s. This structure was moved to the project site and approved as a duplex in 1953 (County Permit No. 1753). The project site is essentially flat. It ranges from 60 feet above mean sea level in the southeast corner to 67 feet above mean sea level in the northwest corner, a diagonal distance of approximately 250 feet. The slope across the project site ranges from 2 to 3 percent. The applicant submitted a preliminary soils report. The soils on the project site consist of alternating layers of silty clay, clayey silt and clayey sand which do not pose serious physical constraints to future development. The applicant submitted a tree survey (Westree, 2005) and concept landscape plan (EarthForm Design, February 9, 2007) that describe and map the existing native and non-native trees located on the project site. The project site includes approximately 10 coast live oak trees (Quercus agrifolia). Eight of these oak trees range in size from 10 to 24 inches diameter breast height (DBH). The two remaining oaks trees are three and six inches DBH. The project site also includes moderate to large size non-native trees (12 inches or greater DBH), including a Monterey cypress (14 inches DBH), a ficus (48 inches DBH), three California peppers (13, 18 and 36 inches DBH), two walnuts (12 and 14 inches DBH) and three liquid ambers (12, 12 and 32 inches DBH). Rare, threatened or sensitive plants or wildlife do not exist on the project site. No creeks, wetlands, water bodies or mapped Environmentally Sensitive Habitat (ESH) are located on the project site. Montecito Creek is located approximately 850 feet east of the project site. Several parcels situated between the project site and Montecito Creek include oak woodland that has been delineated ESH. 6.0 PROJECT ANALYSIS 6.1 Environmental Review Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), P&D prepared a Mitigated Negative Declaration (07NGD ) for the proposed project Impacts and Mitigation The proposed project does not include any grading, structures or demolition. However, it would allow future residential development on the proposed parcels. Specifically, the applicant plans to demolish the existing structures on the project site and develop a single-family residence and accessory structures on each proposed parcel. The applicant submitted a conceptual landscape plan and preliminary grading and drainage plans. Future development would include removing some trees and constructing an onsite and off-site drainage system. As a result, the environmental review analyzed potential environmental effects of reasonably foreseeable development of the project site with four singlefamily residences and accessory structures, including the off-site drainage system. The Mitigated Negative Declaration concluded that the proposed project could have potentially significant but mitigable effects on the following issues areas: Aesthetics/Visual Resources, Air Quality, Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Fire Protection, Land Use, Noise, Transportation/Circulation and Water Resources/Flooding. P&D found that these potentially

7 Page 7 significant effects could be mitigated to less than significant levels by the implementation of 26 mitigation measures. These mitigation measures are included in the Proposed Final Mitigated Negative Declaration (Attachment B). They have also been included as conditions of approval for the proposed vesting tentative parcel map (Attachment C) Public Comment P&D circulated the Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration for a 30-day public review period beginning January 9, 2008 and ending February 8, One person submitted a written comment. P&D reviewed and considered this comment according to Section of the Guidelines for the Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act. Comment: Merging lots in order to get more parcels is a dangerous precedent and I would oppose this development (David Thomas, 1383 Danielson Road, Montecito). Staff Response: The Comprehensive Plan designates the project site SRR-4.6, with a maximum density of 4.6 dwelling units per acre and a minimum parcel size of 7,000 square feet. The applicant proposed a vesting tentative parcel map that would create four parcels ranging in size from approximately 11,320 to 11,433 square feet. Future development would result in one single-family dwelling on each proposed parcel and a density of 3.8 dwelling units per acre. These statistics show that the proposed vesting tentative parcel map and future development on the proposed parcels would comply with the minimum parcel size and maximum density standards. (All acres/square feet are gross area.) As a result, this written comment did not prompt staff to change the Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration. 6.2 Comprehensive Plan Consistency The project site is located in the Coastal Zone and the Montecito Planning Area. The proposed development is subject to the policies and other provisions of the Comprehensive Plan (CP), including the Coastal Land Use Plan and the Montecito Community Plan (MCP). Coastal Plan Policy 2-1: In order to obtain approval for a division of land, the applicant shall demonstrate that adequate water is available to serve the newly created parcels... Coastal Plan Policy 2-4: Within designated urban areas, new development other than that for agricultural purposes shall be serviced by the appropriate public sewer and water district or an existing mutual water company, if such service is available. Coastal Plan Policy 2-6: Prior to issuance of a development permit, the County shall make the Consistent: The project site is served by the Montecito Water District and Montecito Sanitary District. The applicant submitted letters from the Montecito Water District (January 23, 2006; verified in personal communication between Allen Bell, Planning and Development Department and Kitty Thomas, Montecito Water District, February 29, 2008) and Montecito Sanitary District (January 24, 2006; verified in personal communication between Allen Bell, Planning and Development Department and Michael McCaleb, Montecito Sanitary District, February 29, 2008) stating that sufficient water and sewer capacity exist to serve the proposed project and future residential

8 Page 8 finding, based on information provided by environmental documents, staff analysis, and the applicant, that adequate public or private services and resources (i.e., water, sewer, roads, etc.) are available to serve the proposed development. Policy CIRC-M-1.5: A determination of project consistency with the standards and policies of this Community Plan Circulation Section shall constitute a determination of consistency with Local Coastal Plan Policy #2-6 and LUDP #4 with regard to roadway and intersection capacity. Coastal Plan Policy 3-8: Applications for... subdivision shall be reviewed for adjacency to, threats from, and impacts on geologic hazards... Coastal Plan Policy 3-11: All development, including construction, excavation, and grading, except for flood control projects and non-structural agricultural uses, shall be prohibited in the floodway unless off-setting improvements in accordance with HUD regulations are provided. Coastal Plan Policy 3-18: Provisions shall be made to conduct surface water to storm drains or suitable watercourses to prevent erosion. Drainage devices shall be designed to accommodate increased runoff resulting from modified soil and surface conditions as result of development. Water runoff shall be retained onsite whenever possible to facilitate development on the proposed parcels. The project site is located within the Montecito Fire District. A representative of the Montecito Fire District stated that The project site is located within the Fire District s safe response time of five minutes. Adequate water pressure exists to serve future residential development on the proposed parcels. Danielson Road can accommodate fire and emergency response vehicles. (Personal communication between Allen Bell, Planning and Development Department and James Langhorne, Montecito Fire District, February 29, 2008.) The proposed project and future development would not increase the number of dwelling units on the project site or otherwise generate additional vehicular movement or increase the need for additional roads, road maintenance or parking. The proposed project and future development would be consistent with MCP Policy CIRC-M-1.5 and, therefore, Coastal Plan Policy 2-6 with regard to roadway and intersection capacity. Consistent: The applicant submitted a soils report (Pacific Materials Laboratory, Inc., 2006). The project site is essentially flat and does not include any known landslides, ground failures or other geologic hazards. Montecito Creek is located approximately 850 feet east of the project site. The project site is not directly linked to Montecito Creek and is not located within the 100-year flood plain. The applicant submitted a hydraulic report (MAC Design Associates, July 17, 2006), on-site drainage plan (Preliminary Grading and Drainage Plan, Sheet 3 of 4, MAC Design Associates, August 14, 2007) and off-site drainage plan (Off-Site Storm Drain Plan, Sheet 4 of 4, MAC Design Associates, January 15, 2007). The off-site drainage system would cross

9 Page 9 groundwater recharge. Coastal Plan Policy 3-19: Degradation of the water quality of groundwater basins, nearby streams, or wetlands shall not result from development of the site. Pollutants, such as chemicals, fuels, lubricants, raw sewage, and other harmful waste, shall not be discharged into or alongside coastal streams or wetlands either during or after construction. MCP Policy BIO-M-1.20: Pollution of streams, sloughs, drainage channels, underground water basins, estuaries, the ocean and areas adjacent to such waters shall be minimized. Coastal Plan Policy 3-13: Plans for development shall minimize cut and fill... Coastal Plan Policy 3-14: All development shall be designed to fit the site topography, soils, geology, hydrology, and any other existing conditions and be oriented so that grading and other site preparation is kept to an absolute minimum... two adjacent parcels to the east (APN and ). The applicant must secure an easement for this portion of the drainage system from the owner(s) of the adjacent parcels. Flood Control District staff reviewed the hydraulic report and drainage plans. (See letter from D. Weber to Allen Bell, Planning and Development Department, September 26, 2007.) Future development would slightly increase surface water runoff. This increase would not be significant and would not increase erosion or degrade water quality provided the on-site and offsite storm drainage system complies with the Flood Control District s Standard Conditions of Approval. Condition #22 of this staff report requires the applicant to submit a drainage plan to P&D and Flood Control District for review and approval prior to final map clearance. Conditions #23 and #24 require the applicant to secure easements for the drainage system prior to final map clearance and construct the drainage improvements prior to final inspection of future residences on the proposed parcels. Grading and soil disturbance associated with future residential development could cause temporary water quality impacts. Conditions #25, #26 and #27 require the applicant to implement standard erosion and sediment control measures and properly manage polluted water and construction materials to minimize possible short-term water quality impacts. Consistent: The slope across the project site ranges from approximately 2 to 3 percent. Demolition of the existing structures on the project site and construction of future residences and accessory structures on the proposed parcels would not require extensive grading.

10 Page 10 MCP Policy GEO-M-1.2: Grading from future ministerial and discretionary projects in Montecito shall be minimized to the extent feasible in order to prevent unsightly scars in the natural topography due to grading, and to minimize the potential for earth slippage, erosion, and other safety risks. Coastal Plan Policy 4-1: Areas within the coastal zone which are now required to obtain approval from the County Board of Architectural Review... shall continue to be subject to design review... Coastal Plan Policy 4-4: In areas designated as urban on the land use plan maps and in designated rural neighborhoods, new structures shall be in conformance with the scale and character of the existing community. Clustered development, varied circulation patterns, and diverse housing types shall be encouraged. MCP Policy LU-M-2.1: New structures shall be designed, sited, graded, and landscaped in a manner which minimizes their visibility from public roads. MCP Policy LU-M-2.2: Lighting of structures, roads and properties shall be minimized to protect privacy, and to maintain the semi-rural, residential character of the community. Coastal Plan Policy 4-7: Utilities, including television, shall be placed underground in new developments in accordance with the rules and regulations of the California Public Utilities Commission, except where the cost of undergrounding would be so high as to deny service. MCP Policy VIS-M-1.3: Development of property should minimize impacts to open space Consistent: The applicant intends to construct a residence and accessory structures on each of the four proposed parcels. The project site adjoins and is visible from Danielson Road. Existing residences to the north block direct views of the project site as seen from Highway 101. Future residential development on the project site would not impact open space views as seen from public roads. Condition #6 requires the applicant to monitor and, as necessary, collect trash and building material debris during demolition and construction activities to ensure that the project site does not become aesthetically offensive as seen from public viewing places. The applicant s application states that the size of the future residences on the proposed parcels would be based on the floor area guidelines in the Montecito Architectural Guidelines and Development Standards. This amounts to a possible maximum floor area of approximately 2,500 square feet for each residence. Residences of this size would be compatible with the size and character of the existing residences on surrounding parcels. According to Condition #2, future development and landscaping on the project site would be subject to compliance with the Montecito Architectural Guidelines and Development Standards and review and approval by the Montecito Board of Architectural Review (MBAR). This would help ensure that future development results in visually compatible structures that include appropriate architectural design, building materials, colors, exterior lighting

11 Page 11 views as seen from public roads and viewpoints. and landscaping. Conditions #3, #4 and #5, respectively, include specific requirements regarding building materials and colors, landscaping and exterior lighting. The project description and Condition #28 of this staff report require all utilities to be placed underground. The moderate to large size native and non-native trees contribute to the aesthetic and visual character of the project site. The applicant plans to preserve all of the existing coast live oak trees and many of the moderate to large size non-native trees (12 inches and greater DBH) located on the project site. Two walnut trees (12 and 14 inches DBH), three liquid amber trees (12, 12 and 32 inches DBH) and one pepper tree (18 inches) would be removed to accommodate future residential development. Removing these trees would not have a significant effect on aesthetic resources given the number and size of other moderate to large size native and non-native trees that exist and would remain on the project site. In addition, these six trees are less prominent than some of the other trees because they are located adjacent to large specimen trees and/or are situated in the rear portion (east) of the project site. Coastal Plan Policy 2-11: All development, including agriculture, adjacent to areas designated on the land use plan or resource maps as environmentally sensitive habitat area shall be regulated to avoid adverse impacts on habitat resources. Regulatory measures include, but are not limited to, setbacks, buffer Future demolition, grading and construction activities could result in the inadvertent loss of moderate to large size trees that the applicant intends to preserve. Condition #12 includes mitigation measures that restrict future development to the maximum extent feasible within the tree protection zones and protect individual trees during future demolition, grading and construction activities. Consistent: Existing inventories do not identify any unique, rare or threatened plants, plant communities, animals or wildlife habitat on the project site. The applicant s tree survey (Westree, 2005) and concept landscape plan (EarthForm Design, February 9, 2007) inventory the existing trees on and adjoining the project site. The project

12 Page 12 zones, grading controls, noise restrictions, maintenance of natural vegetation, and control of runoff. Coastal Plan Policy 9-1: Prior to issuance of a development permit, all projects on parcel shown on the land use plan and/or resource maps with a Habitat Area overlay designation or within 250 feet of such designation or projects affecting an environmentally sensitive habitat area shall be found to be in conformity with the applicable habitat protection policies or the land use plan... Coastal Plan Policy 9-35: Oak trees, because they are particularly sensitive to environmental conditions, shall be protected. All land use activities, including cultivated agriculture and grazing, should be carried out in such a manner as to avoid damage to native oak trees. Regeneration of oak trees on grazing lands should be encouraged. MCP Policy BIO-M-1.3: Environmentally Sensitive Habitat (ESH) areas within the Montecito Planning Area shall be protected, and where appropriate, enhanced. MCP Policy BIO-M-1.15: To the maximum extent feasible, specimen trees shall be preserved. Specimen trees are defined for the purposes of this policy as mature trees that are healthy and structurally sound and have grown into the natural stature particular to the species. Native or non-native trees that have unusual scenic or aesthetic quality, have important historic value, or are unique due to species type or location shall be preserved to the maximum extent feasible. MCP Policy BIO-M-1.16: All existing native trees regardless of size that have biological value shall be preserved to the maximum extent site includes approximately 10 coast live oak trees (Quercus agrifolia). The adjoining parcels to the east also include coast live oak trees; approximately seven oak trees are located within approximately 10 feet of the exterior property lines of the project site. The project site also includes moderate to large size non-native trees. (See Section 5.4 for further details.) Besides individual oak trees, the two adjacent parcels to the east (APN and APN ) include native oak woodland delineated Environmentally Sensitive Habitat (ESH) on a site plan titled 99-LA-008, Lot Line Adjustment Between A.P.N.s (Penfield & Smith, September 2001). The applicant submitted an off-site drainage plan (Off-Site Storm Drain Plan, Sheet 4 of 4, MAC Design Associates, January 15, 2007). Future development includes an off-site storm drainage system pipe that would cross the two adjacent parcels to the east. This pipe would be located near the oak woodland ESH. A recent lot line adjustment that affected these two parcels included a condition that prohibits grading and structures within 25-feet of the oak woodland ESH (buffer area). Condition #11 of this staff report applies this same condition to the off-site storm drainage system pipe. The applicant plans to preserve all of the native oak trees and many of the moderate to large nonnative trees on the project site. (See Section 5.4 for further details.) The loss of non-native trees would not be significant given the number and size of other existing native and non-native trees that would be preserved. As noted in the previous row, Condition #12 requires the applicant to implement mitigation measures to protect existing native and non-native trees on and adjacent to the project site in order to comply with applicable aesthetic and visual

13 Page 13 feasible. MCP Policy BIO-M-1.17: Oak trees, because they are particularly sensitive to environmental conditions, shall be protected to the maximum extent feasible. All land use activities, including agriculture shall be carried out in such a manner as to avoid damage to native oak trees. Regeneration of oak trees shall be encouraged. MP Policy F-M-2.1: The County shall cooperate with the Montecito Fire Protection District while reviewing Fire District requirements applied to ministerial and discretionary development projects regarding access, vegetation clearance, and improvements with the intent of protecting development from fire hazards while maintaining community character and quality of life and preventing adverse environmental impacts. MCP Policy AQ-M-1.3: Air pollution emissions from new development and associated construction activities shall be minimized to the maximum extent feasible... MCP Development Standard AQ-M-1.3.1: Future project construction in Montecito shall follow all requirements of the SBAPCD... MCP Development Standard AQ-M-1.3.2: The applicant shall minimize the generation of fugitive dust during construction activities by observing the following: a. Minimize the amount of disturbed area; resources policies. These same mitigation measures would help protect the trees consistent with applicable biological resources policies. Consistent: Representatives of the Montecito Fire District reviewed the project. The project site is not located within a high fire hazard area. A fire hydrant is located 50 feet from the project site. Future development on the project site would include a private driveway off of Danielson Road. The applicant submitted a preliminary grading and drainage plan that demonstrates the driveway could be constructed according to the Montecito Fire District s fire-vehicle access requirements and driveway standards (Preliminary Grading & Drainage Plan, Sheet 3 of 4, MAC Design Associates, August 14, 2007). Conditions #14, #15 and #16 require the applicant to dedicate an easement for the driveway prior to final map clearance and construct the driveway prior to final inspection of future residences and accessory structures on the proposed parcels. Consistent: Future residential development on the project site would involve demolition, grading and construction activities that could generate short-term construction-related dust. It would also include demolishing structures that could contain regulated asbestos-containing material (RACM). In a memorandum dated January 25, 2007, the Santa Barbara County Air Pollution Control District (APCD) recommended standard dust mitigation measures for all future development. APCD also stated that demolition activities must comply with applicable asbestos demolition

14 Page 14 b. Utilize water and or dust palliatives; and c. Revegetate/stabilize disturbed area as soon as possible. MCP Policy AQ-M-1.4: The County shall, in its land use decisions, protect and enhance the air quality in Montecito consistent with California Ambient Air Quality Standards and National Ambient Air Quality Standards. MCP Policy CR-M-2.1: Significant cultural, archaeological, and historic resources in the Montecito area shall be protected and preserved to the extent feasible. MCP Development Standard CR-M-2.1.1: Prior to the issuance of a Land Use or Coastal Development Permit, RMD shall determine whether the project site is located either in a known archaeological site or in an area with potential archaeological resources... CP Noise Element Recommendation 1: In the planning of land use, 65 db Day-Night Average Sound Level should be regarded as the maximum exterior noise exposure compatible with noise-sensitive uses unless noise mitigation features are included in project designs. notification requirements. Conditions #7, #8 and #9 require the applicant to implement measures to minimize and control short-term constructionrelated dust. Condition #10 requires the applicant to comply with asbestos demolition work practice and notification requirements. Combined, these conditions implement APCD s recommendations and ensure consistency with applicable air quality provisions in the MCP. Consistent: Archaeological resources exist near the project site. The applicant submitted a Phase 1 archaeological resources report for the project site (Stone Archaeological Consulting, December 2004). No archaeological sites or human remains were found on the project site. Past surveys on the adjacent parcels to the east did not identify any archaeological resources near the proposed offsite storm drainage system pipe (Compass Rose Archaeological Consultants, September 1999). To help protect unknown archaeological resources, Condition #13 includes provisions that the applicant must follow if archaeological resources are inadvertently discovered during demolition, grading or construction activities. Future development includes demolishing the existing dwellings on the project site. These structures are more than 50 years old. The applicant submitted a Phase I/II historic resources report for the project site (Post/Hazeltine Associates, June 7, 2005). The report concluded that the existing structures are not historic resources; they do not qualify as a Santa Barbara County Landmark and are not eligible for the California Register of Historic Resources or National Register of Historic Places. Consistent: The applicant submitted a noise study (45dB.com, February 7, 2006). Highway 101 and the Union Pacific Railroad are the principal sources of noise affecting the project site. The noise study concluded,... noise mitigation for habitable spaces and outdoor activity areas on the north side of the proposed dwelling units

15 Page 15 MCP Policy N-M-1.1: Noise-sensitive uses (i.e., residential and lodging facilities, educational facilities, public meeting places and others specified in the Noise Element) shall be protected from significant noise impacts. MCP Development Standard N-M-1.1.1: All site preparation and associated exterior construction activities related to new residential units including remodeling, demolition, and reconstruction, shall take place between 7:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., weekdays only. MCP Policy PRT-M-1.6: New development shall not adversely impact existing recreational facilities and uses. MCP Development Standard PRT-M-1.6.1: In approving new development, the County shall make the finding that the development will not adversely impact recreational facilities and uses. Conservation Element Groundwater Resources Section Policy 3.8: Water conserving plumbing, as well as waterconserving landscaping, shall be incorporated into all new development projects... MCP Development Standard WAT-M-1.2.1: Landscape plans, where required for development, shall include drip irrigation systems and/or other water saving irrigation systems. [proposed Lots 1 and 4] is presently required to meet building code and Noise Element requirements. The noise study recommended noise mitigation measures for future residential development on proposed Lots 1 and 4 that would reduce the exterior sound levels to less than 65 db(a) and the interior sound levels to less than 45dB(A). These mitigation measures are included as Conditions #18 and #19. Existing exterior sound levels on proposed Lots 2 and 3 do not exceed the maximum exterior noise exposure threshold of 65dB(A). Noise mitigation measures are not required for proposed Lots 2 and 3. Future construction activities could expose surrounding residents to short-term noise levels that exceed the noise exposure threshold of 65dB(A). To ensure consistency with MCP Policy N-M-1.1 and MCP Development Standard N-M-1.1.1, Conditions #20 and #21 restrict noise generating construction activities and equipment. Consistent: The proposed project and future residential development would not adversely impact established recreational facilities or uses. No biking, equestrian or hiking trails or other recreation facilities are located or planned on or adjacent to the project site. Consistent: The applicant s application materials included a conceptual landscape plan (EarthForm Design, February 9, 2007). Condition #4 requires final landscape plans for future residences on the proposed parcels to use drought-tolerant, low water demand landscaping and drip irrigation or other water-conserving irrigation systems.

16 Page 16 Coastal Plan Policy 5-1: Affordable low and moderate income housing shall be defined as housing which is capable of being purchased or rented or is occupied by low and moderate income households (see Appendix A for definition of low and moderate income)... Coastal Plan Policy 5-3: Demolition of existing low and moderate income housing of four or more units shall not be permitted unless: a. demolition is necessary for health and safety reasons; or b. the units are beyond reasonable repair (i.e., the costs of rehabilitation exceed 50 percent of the value of the unit in its present deteriorated condition); or c. demolition of such units will provide new housing opportunities because the land use plan designation and zoning would permit an increase in the number of housing units on the same parcel. Consistent: The existing dwellings on the project site are used as rental units. The table in Section 5.1 lists the current monthly rents for these dwellings. The applicant plans to demolish and replace the existing dwellings with single-family dwellings on separate parcels that are less likely to be used for rental units. Policy 5-1 and Appendix A of the Coastal Land Use Plan provide a framework for determining whether a dwelling unit is considered low or moderate income housing. The current rents for the existing dwelling units on the project site are too high in order for them to qualify as affordable units (personal communication between Allen Bell, Development Review Division of the Planning and Development Department and Susan Curtis, Comprehensive Planning Division of the Planning and Development Department, August 28, 2007.) As a result, the proposed project and future development would not result in the demolition of low or moderate housing. Where such demolition is permitted under a or b, all affordable units shall be replaced on a onefor-two basis. Where permitted under c, replacement shall be on a one-for-one basis. Replacement of affordable units shall be within the same planning area... Coastal Plan Policy 2-12: The densities specified in the land use plan are maximums and shall be reduced if it is determined that such reduction is warranted by conditions specifically applicable to a site, such as topography, geologic or flood hazards, habitat areas, or steep slopes. Coastal Plan, Appendix B, Land Use Definitions: The subject parcels are designed SRR-4.6 with a maximum density of 4.6 Consistent: The proposed vesting tentative parcel map and future residential development on the proposed parcels would comply with the minimum parcel size and maximum density standards in the Coastal Land Use Plan. The proposed subdivision would create four parcels ranging in size from 11,320 to 11,433 square feet. Future development would result in one single-family dwelling on each proposed parcel. This equals a density of 3.8 dwelling units per acre. (All acres/square feet are gross area.)

17 Page 17 dwelling units per acre (gross area) and a minimum parcel size of 7,000 square feet. The proposed subdivision would create new interior property lines that bisect two existing structures and result in some structures that do not meet setbacks and other plan and zoning ordinance provisions. The applicant plans to demolish the existing structures on the project site. To ensure consistency with plan and zoning ordinance provisions, Condition #17 requires the applicant to demolish the existing structures prior to final map clearance. 6.3 Zoning: Coastal Zone Ordinance Compliance The project site is located in the Coastal Zone. New development and uses on the proposed parcels must comply with the zoning regulations in the Coastal Zoning Ordinance (Article II). The proposed vesting tentative parcel map conforms to all applicable regulations in Article II. The project site is zoned Single-Family Residential (7-R-1). Section of Article II states that parcels zoned 7-R-1 shall have a minimum lot size of 7,000 square feet and a minimum net lot width of 65 feet. The proposed parcels would conform to these standards. They would be approximately 11,320 to 11,433 square feet in size and approximately 100 to 112 feet in width. Section of Article II includes two standards for proposed subdivisions. First, the subdivider must demonstrate that adequate water is available to serve the newly created lots (Section ). The proposed vesting tentative parcel map meets this standard. The applicant submitted a letter from the Montecito Water District (January 23, 2006) stating that sufficient water capacity exists to serve the proposed project and future residential development on the four proposed parcels. Second, the decision-maker must find that the proposed subdivision would not diminish the long-term agricultural productivity of lands designated AG-I or AG-II (Section ). This standard does not apply to the proposed vesting tentative parcel map. The project site and the surrounding parcels are designated for residential use. They are not designated AG-I or AG-II. Section of Article II requires the decision-maker to make several additional findings before approving development located within the Montecito Area. The decision-maker must make a finding that the proposed development meets all the applicable development standards included in the Montecito Community Plan (Section ). The proposed vesting tentative parcel map would comply with these standards. As discussed in Section 6.2 of this staff report, staff has recommended conditions of approval to ensure that the proposed tentative parcel map and future development on the proposed parcels meet the applicable development standards in the Comprehensive Plan, including the Coastal Land Use Plan and Montecito Community Plan. The decision-maker must also find that the proposed development would not adversely impact recreational facilities and uses (Section ). The proposed tentative parcel map complies with

18 Page 18 this standard. As discussed in Section 6.2 above, there are no biking, equestrian or hiking trails or other recreation facilities or uses located or planned on or adjacent to the project site. 6.4 Subdivision/Development Review Committee The Subdivision/Development Review Committee (SDRC) reviewed the proposed project on December 8, Staff requested additional comments from SDRC members on January 23, The comments and recommendations received from SDRC members were incorporated into the proposed project and/or included as conditions of approval in Attachment C of this staff report. 6.5 Design Review The proposed project is a Vesting Tentative Parcel Map. It did not include any development and, therefore, was not subject to design review. The applicant plans to develop a single-family residence on each of the proposed parcels. Pursuant to Section of the Coastal Zoning Ordinance (Article II), Condition #2 states that architectural drawings and grading, drainage, landscape and lighting plans must be submitted to the Montecito Board of Architectural Review (MBAR) for review and approval prior to approval of Coastal Development Permits for future residences and accessory structures on the proposed parcels. 6.6 Montecito Growth Management Ordinance The Montecito Growth Management Ordinance (MGMO) applies to all new development that would result in an additional residential unit within the Montecito Planning Area unless specifically exempted by the ordinance. A property owner or developer must obtain a growth management allocation before requesting design review or applying for a Land Use Permit or Coastal Development Permit for an additional residential unit. The MGMO limits the number of additional residential units in the Montecito Planning Area to 19 per year based on a competitive point assignment system. The decision-maker for a tentative parcel map or other discretionary project may adopt a point assignment as part of the findings of approval for the project. The project site for the proposed vesting tentative parcel map includes two separate legal parcels (APN and APN ) that are zoned 7-R-1 under the Coastal Zoning Ordinance (Article II). Article II allows one single-family residence on each legal parcel (Section 71.3). It does not allow duplexes or other multi-family residences. APN includes two single-family residences and APN includes a duplex. The additional residence on APN and the duplex on APN are nonconforming uses. For purposes of applying the MGMO, APN and APN each include one primary residential unit. The proposed vesting tentative parcel map would merge and divide the two existing parcels into four separate parcels, proposed Lots 1 through 4. It would result in two additional parcels and two additional residential units. APN includes the original residence constructed on the project site. This residence would be located on proposed Lot 1. As a result, Lot 1 would include a primary residential unit and would be exempt from the MGMO. The proposed property line dividing proposed Lots 2 and 3 would bisect the duplex located on APN Most of the