SANTA BARBARA COUNTY ZONING ADMINISTRATOR Coastal Zone Staff Report for Isla Mar Single Family Dwelling Remodel

Transcription

1 SANTA BARBARA COUNTY ZONING ADMINISTRATOR Coastal Zone Staff Report for Isla Mar Single Family Dwelling Remodel Supervisorial District: Second Staff Report Date: June 22, 2007 Staff: Michelle Gibbs Case No.: 06CDH Phone #: (805) Environmental Document: Negative Declaration 07NGD OWNER/APPLICANT: Marsupial Properties, LLC 1819 Ballard Canyon Street Santa Barbara, CA Assessor Parcel Number ( ), located at 1553 Roble Drive, in the Hope Ranch area, Second Supervisorial District. The nearest cross street is Marina Drive. AGENT: Steve Welton Suzanne Elledge Planning & Permitting Services, Inc. 800 Santa Barbara Street Santa Barbara, CA (805) ARCHITECT Appleton & Associates 527 E. Micheltorena Street Santa Barbara, CA (805) Application Filed: January 9, 2006 Application Complete: June 15, 2006 Processing Deadline: 60 days from approval of ND

2 Page REQUEST Hearing on the request of Steve Welton, agent for owners Marsupial Properties, LLC to consider Case No. 06CDH , [application filed on January 9, 2006] for a Coastal Development Permit in compliance with Section of the Article II Coastal Zoning Ordinance, on property zoned 3.5-EX- 1/1.5-EX-1 to allow (1) extensive renovations and construction of additions to an existing, historically significant, 16,290 square foot residence, (2) construction of a new 659 square foot guest house attached to the residence, (3) demolition of an existing detached 3,069 square foot garage/gym and construction of a new two-story garage/gym of approximately 2,298 square feet, (4) demolition of an existing 1,054 square foot pool pavilion and construction of a new pool house comprising a conglomerate of accessory structures under one roof including a pool cabana, great room, loggia, terraces, and storage spaces, (5) reconfiguration of an existing pool and construction of a new pool, (6) construction of a new gazebo with a dock for the existing man-made lake, (7) construction of a new storage structure with a half bath, (8) abandonment and replacement of the existing septic system, and (9) modified landscaping of the grounds; and to approve the 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: aesthetic/visual resources, air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, geologic processes and water resources, hazardous materials/risk of upset, historic resources, noise, public facilities, transportation/circulation, and land use. The ND and all documents may be reviewed at the Planning and Development Department, 123 E. Anapamu St., Santa Barbara. The ND is also available for review at the Central Branch of the City of Santa Barbara Library, 40 E. Anapamu St., Santa Barbara. The application involves AP No , located at 1553 Roble Drive, in the Hope Ranch area, Second Supervisorial District. 2.0 RECOMMENDATION AND PROCEDURES Follow the procedures outlined below and conditionally approve Case No. 06CDH marked "Officially Accepted, County of Santa Barbara June 18, 2007 Zoning Administrator Exhibit 1," based upon the project's consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, including the Coastal Land Use Plan and based on the ability to make the required findings. The Zoning Administrator s action should include the following: 1. Adopt the required findings for the project specified in Attachment A of this staff report, including CEQA findings. 2. Approve the Negative Declaration included in Attachment B of this staff report, and adopt the mitigation monitoring program contained in the conditions of approval. 3. Approve the project subject to the conditions included as Attachment C.

3 Page 3 Please refer to staff if the Zoning Administrator takes other than the recommended action for appropriate findings and conditions. 3.0 JURISDICTION This project is being considered by the Zoning Administrator based upon Section of Article II which states that the Zoning Administrator shall hold at least one noticed public hearing, unless waived, on the requested Coastal Development Permit and either approve, conditionally, approve, or deny the request. 4.0 ISSUE SUMMARY The proposed project would be consistent with the policies of the County s Comprehensive Plan, including the Goleta Community Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan and the provisions of Article II, Coastal Zoning Ordinance. The County does not have a required floor area ratio for the subject property, however, for parcels over five acres, the Building Guidelines of the Hope Ranch Park Homes Association stipulate that the allowable floor area is 2,000 square feet plus 10 percent of the total area of the lot in excess of 5 acres. Therefore, for the subject parcel, the maximum allowable square footage is 58, according to the Hope Ranch Park Homes Association (2,000 square feet + ((17.88 acres 5 acres) x 43,560 square feet/acre x 0.10)). The proposed project would result in a total of 46,883 square feet of development on the subject parcel which is well below the allowable floor area required by the Hope Ranch Park Homes Association. In addition, all structures would meet the County s 25-foot height restriction. Therefore, the proposed structures would be compatible with the established physical scale of the area. Finally, the proposed project would have potentially significant long-term impacts on aesthetics/visual resources (night lighting and visual compatibility of colors and materials), biological resources (coast live oak trees), geologic processes (bluff erosion), and noise (emergency generator), and potentially significant short-term impacts typical of construction projects. In addition, the existing main residence on the property is historically significant due to the fact that it was constructed in 1927 following a Spanish Colonial Revival design by the noted local architect, George Washington Smith, and the project would have potentially significant impacts on this resource. However, with implementation of mitigation measures contained in the Negative Declaration for the project, these impacts would be reduced to less than significant levels. 5.0 PROJECT INFORMATION 5.1 Site Information The project is located at 1553 Roble Drive in Hope Ranch, CA (APN ), Second Supervisorial District. The nearest cross street is Marina Drive.

4 Page 4 Comprehensive Plan Designation Zoning District, Ordinance Site Size Present Use & Development Surrounding Uses/Zoning Site Information Coastal, Urban Area, Goleta Community Plan Area, Residential-0.33, 1 unit per 3 acres maximum density/ Residential-1.0, 1 unit per acre maximum density 3.5-EX-1 /1.5-EX-1, Article II, California Coastal Commission s Appeals Jurisdiction acres (net), acres (gross) (surveyed acreage)/17.88 acres according to the Hope Ranch Park Homes Association Residential North: Residential, 3.5-EX-1 South: Pacific Ocean East: Residential, 3.5-EX-1 West: Hope Ranch Beach, Recreation/Open Space Roble Drive Access Public Services Water Supply: La Cumbre Mutual Water District Sewage: Septic system Fire: Santa Barbara County Fire Department Other: Santa Barbara School District 5.2 Project Description The owners, Marsupial Properties, LLC, request a Coastal Development Permit with Hearing (CDH) for (1) extensive renovations and construction of additions to an existing, historically significant, 16,290 square foot residence, (2) construction of a new 659 square foot guest house attached to the residence, (3) demolition of an existing detached 3,069 square foot garage/gym and construction of a new two-story garage/gym of approximately 2,298 square feet, (4) demolition of an existing 1,054 square foot pool pavilion and construction of a new pool house comprising a conglomerate of accessory structures under one roof including a pool cabana, great room, loggia, terraces, and storage spaces, (5) reconfiguration of an existing pool and construction of a new pool, (6) construction of a new gazebo with a dock, (7) construction of a new storage structure with a half bath, (8) abandonment and replacement of the existing septic system, and (9) modified landscaping of the grounds. Residence and Guest House The 16,290 square foot residence currently comprises a 12,729 square foot main residence with a 3,561 square foot service wing. Renovation of the main residence includes demolition of approximately 2,970 square feet of the first floor, additions of approximately 5,800 square feet on the first floor, and the addition of approximately 2,311 square feet of basement space (includes new mechanical rooms, media gallery, theatre, projection room, and half bath). Renovation of the service wing includes an internal remodel and conversion of 1,254 square feet to a garage.

5 Page 5 After implementation of the proposed changes, the residence would be a total of 23,619 square feet with the main residence at 21,312 square feet and the service wing at 2,307 square feet. In addition, the new 659 square foot guest house would be attached to the service wing. The new average height of the residence would be 20 feet 5 ½ inches. The average height of the guest house would be 13 feet 8 inches. Garage/Gym Construction of the new two story garage/gym structure would create a new three-car garage of approximately 701 square feet on the first floor, with exterior stairs leading to a gym of approximately 888 square feet. Exterior stairs would also lead to a 709 square foot basement which would be used as a music room. The garage/gym would have an average height of approximately 24 feet 2 ½ inches. Pool House Construction of the new two-story pool house with basement would create a conglomerate of attached accessory structures and uses housed under one roof, each with their own exterior access. The first floor would include (1) a cabana of approximately 588 square feet, (2) a separate storage area of approximately 370 square feet, and (3) a separate great room of approximately 2,373 square feet, which opens up to a loggia on the south and a terrace to the east. An exterior stairway leads to the second floor with approximately 192 square feet of habitable space (a half bath). The second floor also contains two terraces totaling approximately 842 square feet. An exterior stairway leads down to a pool storage area and mechanical basement of approximately 3,300 square feet which would service the pools and pond. The pool house would have an average height of approximately 24 feet 3 7/8 inches. Swimming Pools The existing swimming pool of approximately 4,000 square feet would be demolished and replaced with a reflecting pool of approximately 952 square feet. The proposed new swimming pool of approximately 1,875 square feet would be constructed south of the proposed pool house. Other Site Improvements A 477 square foot gazebo with dock would be constructed on the north side of the existing pond. The project would also include construction of a storage shed with half bath of approximately 144 square feet near the pond, a self-enclosed generator of 94 square feet, the removal of four oak trees and removal of one other specimen tree, and new landscaping.

6 Page 6 The project would require approximately 5,554 cubic yards of cut, and 3,332 cubic yards of fill. Access to the site would continue to be taken from a private driveway off Roble Road. The project site would be served by the La Cumbre Mutual Water District and a private well, and a new private septic system. Fire protection would be maintained by the County Fire Department. 6.0 PROJECT ANALYSIS 6.1 Environmental Review The project would have potentially significant long-term impacts on aesthetics/visual resources, biological resources, geologic processes, historic resources, and noise, as described below. In addition, construction activities associated with the proposed project would have potentially significant short-term impacts on the environment as described below. Potential Significant Long-term Impacts Aesthetics/Visual Resources. The proposed project would have potentially significant long-term impacts on aesthetics/visual resources due to the introduction of night lighting to the area and the potential introduction of colors and materials on the structures that are visually incompatible with nearby blufftop development. However, Mitigation Measures AES-1 and AES-2 in the Negative Declaration (included as Attachment B to this staff report), require that the South Board of Architectural Review (SBAR) give final review and approval of the colors and materials of the proposed new renovations and require that all new lighting for the structures be hooded and of low intensity. Therefore, incorporation of these mitigation measures into conditions of approval for the project would ensure that these impacts are reduced to less than significant levels. Biological Resources. Of the 28 coast live oak trees potentially affected by the project, four would be required to be removed (although one is in serious decay) and four additional coast live oak trees would be encroached upon on over 30 percent of their critical root zones (CRZs). Implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-1 requires that the critical root zones of all oak trees potentially encroached upon by the project be fenced and protected from disturbance; that roots of those trees determined to be encroached upon be hand cut; and that replacement planting occur for all trees removed or encroached upon. Therefore, incorporation of this mitigation measure into conditions of approval for the project would ensure that these impacts are reduced to less than significant levels. A total of inch boxed coast live oak trees (or larger) are proposed to be planted under the proposed project as indicated on the project s landscape plans, which would ensure that the eight trees anticipated to be affected would be adequately replaced.

7 Page 7 Geologic Processes. Although all structural development associated with the proposed project would be outside of the required bluff setback, this setback is designed for a building lifespan of 75 years. Therefore, introduction of additional structures on the bluff could increase the need for protection devices on the bluff face or toe of the bluff (e.g., seawalls or other hard shoreline protection devices) after 75 years or if actual bluff retreat rates exceed predicted bluff retreat rates. Hard protection devices have the potential to cause differential bluff retreat and accelerate bluff erosion in adjacent areas and/or affect sand supply on the beach. These impacts on geologic processes would be significant. Therefore, Mitigation Measure GEO-1 and GEO-7 would, (1) ensure that all structural development be maintained outside of the bluff setback, (2) require that the owner sign and record a deed restriction agreeing that no protective devices would be constructed to protect the proposed development or associated infrastructure under this permit, (3) require that if the bluff recedes up to 10 feet from the structures or infrastructure, the owner notify the County and take action to remedy the situation which may include removal of the structure(s), and (4) in the event that any structures or infrastructure fall to the beach before they are removed, the debris shall be removed immediately. Finally, irrigation water or increased storm water runoff due to increased impervious surfaces, if directed toward the bluff face, could increase bluff erosion. Mitigation Measures GEO-2, -3, and -4, would ensure that water is not directed over the bluff face. Incorporation of the mitigation measures described above into conditions of approval for the project would ensure that potential impacts on geologic processes are reduced to less than significant levels. Historic Resources. The existing main residence on the property is historically significant due to the fact that it was constructed in 1927 following a Spanish Colonial Revival design by the noted local architect, George Washington Smith. As originally constructed, the L-shaped one- and two-story house, named Florestal, was arranged around three interior courtyards, with a garage and service wing extending as the foot of the L from the main building. Until the property was sold in 1981 following the death of the original owner, very few exterior alterations had been made to the house. After sale of the house in 1981, a number of major changes were made to the house and grounds, including the addition of 9,289 square feet to the house. Based on several historic reports prepared by Post/Hazeltine Associates and Alex Cole, the main residence is eligible for listing as a County of Santa Barbara Landmark and for listing on both the California Register of Historic Resources (CRHR) and National Register of Historic Places. The proposed project would involve both changes to later additions and relatively minor alterations to the original structure of the main house. According to the April 2006 Cole Phase 2 report, the alterations to the original structure that remain a part of the project primarily include alterations to existing windows and doors, either by removing them, relocating, them, or replacing them with other windows and doors. According to Alex Cole s 2006 report, these alterations are relatively minor compared to earlier alterations, are in keeping with the architectural style of G.W. Smith, sensitive to the historical context of the house, and appropriate to the overall architecture. Nevertheless, because these changes alter the original structure of the main residence, the April 2006 study concluded that they create potentially significant impacts under the Secretary of Interior s Standards for Treatment of Historic Properties and the CEQA Guidelines. Other changes to later additions and the other proposed structures on the property

8 Page 8 (e.g., new pool, pool recreation room) were not considered to have a potentially significant effect because they would not alter the original structure of the main residence. A previous Phase 2 Cultural Resources Study conducted for an earlier project that was permitted but never built, required that the main house and interior courtyard be photodocumented before any changes took place pursuant to the Secretary of Interior s Standards for Treatment of Historic Properties. This photodocumentation was completed in 2002 and the photographs are in the Gledhill Library of the Santa Barbara Historical Society. Therefore, most impacts on historical resources have been mitigated already. Nevertheless, the loss of original materials from the original house during replacement of the doors and windows would continue to be a potentially significant impact on historic resources without mitigation. Mitigation Measure HIST-1 would ensure that the original wood door to be removed from the central courtyard and the wrought iron grilles to be removed from the north elevation doors of the dining room, would either be reused elsewhere on the project if feasible or stored in a secure dry place on site for later reinstallation should a new owner desire to do so. Therefore, incorporation of this mitigation measure into the conditions of approval for the project would ensure that this impact would be reduced to a less than significant level. Noise. The proposed project includes installation of a permanent emergency generator on the property. Although sound levels from the generator would be less than the 65 decibel (db) threshold at the nearest sensitive receptor (a residence located approximately 200 feet away), if the generator were used during non-emergency situations over long periods of time, this would be considered a nuisance and a significant long-term noise impact on the nearest residents. Therefore, Mitigation Measure NOISE-1 would ensure that the generator only be continuously operated during an event of interruption of standard electrical service, and non-emergency operation of the generator shall be for routine maintenance only for a period of 30 minutes and restricted to the hours between 7:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m., Monday Friday excluding State holidays (e.g., Thanksgiving, Labor Day, etc.). Incorporation of this mitigation measure into the conditions of approval for the project would ensure that this impact is reduced to a less than significant level. Potential Significant Short-term Impacts Associated with Construction Construction activities associated with the proposed project have the potential to generate trash and construction debris, generate noise in excess of the 65 decibel (db) threshold, and generate dust and increase erosion off of the site. Truck traffic associated with construction could also threaten the safety of bicyclists or pedestrians along Roble Drive. Finally, construction activities have the potential to disturb unknown archaeological resources on the site and disturb native nesting birds on the project site that are protected from disturbance by the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the California Fish and Game Code. However, implementation of standard best management practices for construction contained in Mitigation Measures AES-3, AIR-1 & -2, BIO-2, CUL-1, GEO-5 & -6, HAZMAT-1 & -2, NOISE-2, FAC-1, and WAT-1 & -2, would ensure that these impacts are reduced to less than significant levels.

9 Page Comprehensive Plan Consistency With implementation of the conditions of approval contained in Attachment C of this staff report, the proposed project would be consistent with the policies of the County s Comprehensive Plan, including the Coastal Land Use Plan and Goleta Community Plan, as summarized in the table below. Policy Visual Resources Goleta Community Plan Policy VIS-GV-6: Outdoor lighting in Goleta shall be designed and placed so as to minimize impacts on neighboring properties and the community in general. Coastal Act Policy 30251: The scenic and visual qualities of coastal areas shall be considered and protected as a resource of public importance. Permitted development shall be sited and designed to protect views to and along the ocean and scenic coastal areas, and, where feasible, to restore and enhance visual quality in visually degraded areas. New development in highly scenic areas such as those designated in the California Coastline Preservation and Recreation Plan prepared by the Department of Parks and Recreation and by local government shall be subordinate to the character of its setting. 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. Coastal Plan Policy 4-5: In addition to that required for safety (see Policy 3-4), further bluff setbacks may be required for oceanfront structures to minimize or avoid impacts on public views from the beach. Blufftop structure shall be set back from the bluff edge sufficiently far to insure that the structure does not infringe on views from the beach except in areas where existing structures on both sides of the proposed structure already impact public views from the beach. In such cases, the new structure shall be located no closer to the bluff's edge than the adjacent structures. Discussion There are no public views of the ocean near the property, therefore, the proposed project would not block public views of the ocean. Due to the steep topography of the bluff face immediately adjacent to the beach, there are no views of the mountains from the beach. The new development on the bluff top would only be visible from points offshore on the Pacific Ocean and possibly small sections could be visible from the beach, however existing and proposed landscaping would screen the structures from these vantage points. Therefore, the proposed project would not block public views of the ocean and mountains and would not be considered an aesthetically offensive site open to a public view. The project is subject to review and approval by the SBAR which is tasked with ensuring the compatibility of new structures with existing area development and with ensuring that additions are compatible with the existing structures. The design of the proposed renovations to the residence and the design of the new accessory structures have received favorable comments by the County s SBAR. Outdoor night lighting associated with the new renovations could create glare off-site and/or light spillage resulting in potential impacts to neighboring residential properties and could be visible from the beach below. In addition, selection of inappropriate colors and/or materials for the new structures could result in visually incompatible structures as compared with other blufftop development. However, Mitigation Measures AES-1 and -2, would ensure that the SBAR would give final review and approval of the colors and materials of the proposed new renovations and

10 Page 10 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. Hillside and Watershed Protection Coastal Plan Policy 3-13: Plans for development shall minimize cut and fill operations. Plans requiring excessive cutting and filling may be denied if it is determined that the development could be carried out with less alteration of the natural terrain. 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. Natural features, landforms, and native vegetation, such as trees, shall be preserved to the maximum extent feasible. Areas of the site which are not suited for development because of known soils, geologic, flood, erosion, or other hazards shall remain in open space. Environmentally Sensitive Habitat and Trees Goleta Community Plan DevStd BIO-GV-2.2: New development within 100 feet of an Environmentally Sensitive Habitat (ESH), shall be required to include setbacks or undeveloped buffer zones from these habitats consistent with those detailed in specific habitat protection policies as part of the proposed development except where setbacks or buffer zones would preclude reasonable use of the parcel. In determining the location, width and extent of setbacks and buffer zones, the Goleta Biological Resources Map and other available data shall be used (e.g., maps, studies, or observations). If the project would result in potential disturbance to the habitat, a restoration plan shall be required. When restoration is not feasible onsite, offsite restoration may be considered. Goleta Community Plan Policy BIO-GV-5: Native woodlands designated as environmentally sensitive habitats shall be preserved and protected. Goleta Community Plan DevStd BIO-GV-5.1: require that all new lighting for the structures be hooded and of low intensity. Therefore, the proposed project as conditioned, is consistent with these policies. Project condition of approval no. 28 requires that all utilities be installed underground. Therefore, the proposed project as conditioned, is consistent with this policy. The project would require extensive grading of 5,554 cubic yards of cut, however, the majority of this cut would be required to excavate new basements for the residence, garage/gym, and for the pool house. Given that the site is relatively flat, the proposed renovations would not significantly alter the topography. In addition, approximately 3,332 cubic yards of fill would be required for the project resulting in a net export of only 2,222 cubic yards of soil. In summary, the amount of grading required for the project would not be considered excessive for this project site as the topography would not be significantly altered and the project would not result in an excessive generation of spoils. Therefore, the proposed project is consistent with these policies. Oak woodland Environmentally Sensitive Habitat (ESH) is mapped on the north end of the subject parcel and overlaps with the areas of potential disturbance associated with the proposed project (e.g., new landscaping etc.). However, after a site visit on May 23, 2006, County biologist Melissa Mooney confirmed that due to the landscaped nature of the yard near the house, the true boundary of ESH is north of the northerly access road that runs east/west in the northern part of the parcel, outside the majority of the project area. Per development standard BIO-GV-2.2 of the Goleta Community Plan, the new development being proposed is within 100 feet of the redefined edge of the ESH, therefore, setbacks from the ESH are required. Goleta Community Plan Policy BIO-GV- 5 and development standard BIO-GV-5.1 require a minimum 25 foot buffer from the edge of native woodlands in urban areas. In this case, Melissa Mooney suggests a 50 foot buffer to ensure that as

11 Page 11 Urban and inner rural areas, and existing developed rural neighborhoods, impacts to native woodlands shall be minimized by providing a minimum 25 foot buffer around the woodland. Within areas zoned Mountainous-Gol, the buffer around Native Woodlands shall be 50 feet. Development or vegetation clearing should be avoided within the woodland and buffer to the extent feasible. To the extent feasible, new roads or other development shall be located outside such woodlands and the buffer, rather than in or through the middle of the habitat area, except where such an action would preclude reasonable use of a parcel. Goleta Community Plan Policy BIO-GV-16: To the maximum extent feasible, protected trees shall be preserved. Protected trees are defined for the purposes of this policy as mature native trees that are healthy and structurally sound and have grown into the natural stature particular to the species. Goleta Community Plan Policy BIO-GV-17: Oak trees shall be protected to the maximum extent feasible. All land use development applications shall be processed in such a manner as to avoid damage to native oak trees. Regeneration of oak trees shall be encouraged. 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 zones, grading controls, noise restrictions, maintenance of natural vegetation, and control of runoff. 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. Coastal Plan Policy 9-36: When sites are graded or developed, areas with significant amounts of native vegetation shall be preserved. All development shall be sited, designed, and constructed to minimize impacts of grading, paving, construction of roads or structures, runoff, and erosion on native vegetation. In particular, grading and paving shall not adversely many coast live oak trees are protected to the maximum extent feasible. The proposed storm drain is the only part of the project that would encroach into the ESH and ESH buffer, however, it would be routed along an existing concrete path and then an existing dirt path over the majority of its route. The storm drain would daylight in a small existing stand of native blackberry bushes. Because the storm drain would follow an existing disturbed route, trenching to install the drain is not expected to affect any native habitat or damage the roots of any oak trees. Other than the storm drain, no other aspect of the project would affect native habitat. Twenty-eight individual oak trees, however, are located in the project area. The proposed new structures and renovations, and new landscaping have been designed to avoid disturbance of the coast live oak trees onsite. Of the 28 individual coast live oak trees potentially affected by the project, four would be required to be removed (although one is in serious decay) and four additional coast live oak trees would be encroached upon on over 30 percent of their critical root zones (CRZs). Implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-1 requires that the critical root zones of all oak trees potentially encroached upon by the project be fenced and protected from disturbance; that roots of those trees determined to be encroached upon be hand cut; and that replacement planting occur for all trees removed or encroached upon. Therefore, the project as conditioned, is consistent with these policies.

12 Page 12 affect root zone aeration and stability of native trees. Geologic Hazards Coastal Plan Policy 3-4: In areas of new development, above-ground structures shall be set back a sufficient distance from the bluff edge to be safe from the threat of bluff erosion for a minimum of 75 years, unless such standard will make a lot unbuildable, in which case a standard of 50 years shall be used. The County shall determine the required setback. A geologic report shall be required by the County in order to make this determination. At a minimum, such geologic report shall be prepared in conformance with the Coastal Commission's adopted Statewide Interpretive Guidelines regarding "Geologic Stability of Blufftop Development." Coastal Plan Policy 3-5: Within the required blufftop setback, drought-tolerant vegetation shall be maintained. Grading, as may be required to establish proper drainage or to install landscaping, and minor improvements, i.e., patios and fences that do not impact bluff stability, may be permitted. Surface water shall be directed away from the top of the bluff or be handled in a manner satisfactory to prevent damage to the bluff by surface and percolating water. Coastal Plan Policy 3-6: Development and activity of any kind beyond the required blufftop setback shall be constructed to insure that all surface and subsurface drainage shall not contribute to the erosion of the bluff face or the stability of the bluff itself. Coastal Plan Policy 3-7: No development shall be permitted on the bluff face, except for engineered staircases or accessways to provide beach access, and pipelines for scientific research or coastal dependent industry. Drainpipes shall be allowed only where no other less environmentally damaging drain system is feasible and the drainpipes are designed and placed to minimize impacts to the bluff face, toe, and beach. Drainage devices extending over the bluff face shall not be permitted if the property can be drained away from the bluff face. No structural development is proposed on the bluff face or within 50 feet of the top of bluff, which is well outside of the predicted 75-year bluff setback of 28 feet from the top of bluff. All drainage is proposed to be routed away from the bluff and Mitigation Measures GEO-2, -3, and -4, would ensure that irrigation water and site drainage is not directed towards the bluff. Therefore, the project, as conditioned, is consistent with these policies.

13 Page 13 Coastal Act Policy 30253: New development shall: 1. Minimize risks to life and property in areas of high geologic, flood, and fire hazard. 2. Assure stability and structural integrity, and neither create nor contribute significantly to erosion, geologic instability, or destruction of the site or surrounding area or in any way require the construction of protective devices that would substantially alter natural landforms along bluffs and cliffs. Goleta Community Plan Policy GEO-GV-1: All new development on ocean bluff-top property shall be sited to avoid areas subject to erosion and designed to avoid reliance on future shoreline and/or bluff protection devices. Adequate Services Coastal Plan Policy 2-6: Prior to issuance of a development permit, the County shall make the 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. The applicant shall assume full responsibility for costs incurred in service extensions or improvements that are required as a result of the proposed project. Lack of available public or private services or resources shall be grounds for denial of the project or reduction in the density otherwise indicated in the land use plan. Where an affordable housing project is proposed pursuant to the Affordable Housing Overlay regulations, special needs housing or other affordable housing projects which include at least 50% of the total number of units for affordable housing or 30% of the total number of units affordable at the very low income level are to be served by entities that require can-and-will-serve letters, such projects shall be presumed to be consistent with the water and sewer service requirements of this policy if the project has, or is conditioned to obtain all necessary can-and-willserve letters at the time of final map recordation, or if no map, prior to issuance of land use permits. No structural development is proposed on the bluff face or within 50 feet of the top of bluff, which is well outside of the predicted 75-year bluff setback of 28 feet from the top of bluff. In addition, Mitigation Measure GEO-1 and -7, ensure that the all structures will be maintained beyond this setback and that no protective structures will be installed on the bluff to protect the structures from bluff retreat. Therefore, the project, as conditioned, is consistent with this policy. The proposed new and renovated structures can be served by a new on-site septic system and by the La Cumbre Mutual Water District. Improvements would be necessary to the private driveway, however, no new public access roads would be required for the proposed project. Therefore, the proposed project is consistent with this policy.

14 Page Article II Zoning Ordinance Compliance The proposed project would be in compliance with all requirements of Article II, Coastal Zoning Ordinance of Chapter 35 of the County Code. 6.4 Design Review The project is subject to review and approval by the SBAR which is tasked with ensuring the compatibility of new structures with existing area development and with ensuring that additions are compatible with the existing structures. The design of the proposed renovations to the residence and the design of the new accessory structures have received favorable comments by the County s SBAR. 7.0 APPEALS PROCEDURE The action of the Zoning Administrator may be appealed to the Board of Supervisors within ten (10) calendar days following the date of the Zoning Administrator s decision by the applicant, an aggrieved person, or any two members of the Coastal Commission. The decision of the Board of Supervisors may be appealed to the Coastal Commission within ten (10) working days of the decision of the Board of Supervisors by the applicant, an aggrieved person, or any two members of the Coastal Commission. Section provides, For developments which are appealable to the Coastal Commission under Section , no appeal fee will be charged. ATTACHMENTS A. Findings B. Proposed Final ND C. Conditions of Approval with attached Departmental letters D. Site Plans

15 Case Name, #: Isla Mar Single Family Dwelling Remodel, 06CDH Page A-1 ATTACHMENT A: FINDINGS 1.0 CEQA FINDINGS 1. The Zoning Administrator has considered the Negative Declaration together with the comments received and considered during the public review process. The negative declaration reflects the independent judgment of the Zoning Administrator and has been completed in compliance with CEQA, and is adequate for this proposal. 2. The Zoning Administrator finds that through feasible conditions placed upon the project, the significant impacts on the environment have been eliminated or substantially mitigated. 3. The documents and other materials which constitute the record of proceedings upon which this decision is based are in the custody of Planning and Development, located at 123 E. Anapamu St., Santa Barbara, CA Public Resources Code Section requires the County to adopt a reporting or monitoring program for the changes to the project which it has adopted or made a condition of approval in order to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment. The approved project description and conditions of approval, with their corresponding permit monitoring requirements, are hereby adopted as the monitoring program for this project. The monitoring program is designed to ensure compliance during project implementation. 2.0 ADMINISTRATIVE FINDINGS FOR THE COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT Pursuant to Section , prior to the approval or conditional approval of an application for a Coastal Development Permit (with Hearing), the Zoning Administrator shall first make the following findings: Section Findings required for approval of a Coastal Development Permit. 1. A Coastal Development Permit, not subject to Section , above, shall be issued only if all of the following findings are made: a. That the proposed development conforms to 1) the applicable policies of the Comprehensive Plan, including the Coastal Land Use Plan, and 2) with the applicable provisions of this Article and/or the project falls within the limited exception allowed under Section

16 Case Name, #: Isla Mar Single Family Dwelling Remodel, 06CDH Page A-2 The proposed project is in consistent with the policies of the County s Comprehensive Plan, including the Goleta Community Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan, and with the provisions of Article II, Coastal Zoning Ordinance, as discussed in Sections 6.2 and 6.3 of the staff report for the project dated May 25, 2007, incorporated herein by reference. Therefore, this finding can be made. b. That the proposed development is located on a legally created lot. The subject parcel is a legally created lot recorded in Book 147, Page 90 in the County Record of Surveys. Therefore, this finding can be made. c. That the subject property is in compliance with all laws, rules and regulations pertaining to zoning uses, subdivisions, setbacks and any other applicable provisions of this Article, and such zoning violation enforcement fees as established from time to time by the Board of Supervisors have been paid. This subsection shall not be interpreted to impose new requirements on legal nonconforming uses and structures under Section et seq. The subject property is in compliance with all provisions of Article II, Coastal Zoning Ordinance as discussed in Section 6.3 of the staff report dated May 25, 2007, incorporated herein by reference, and there are no outstanding zoning violations on the property. Therefore, this finding can be made. 2. A Coastal Development Permit, subject to Section , above, shall only be issued if all of the following findings are made: a. Those findings specified in Section All of the findings specified in Section , as discussed above, can be made. Therefore, this finding can be made. b. That the development does not significantly obstruct public views from any public road or from a public recreation area to, and along the coast. There are no public views of the ocean near the property, therefore, the proposed project would not block public views of the ocean. Due to the steep topography of the bluff face immediately adjacent to the beach, there are no views of the mountains from the beach. The new development on the bluff top would only be visible from points offshore on the Pacific Ocean and possibly small sections could be visible from the beach, however existing and proposed landscaping would screen the structures from these vantage points. Therefore, the proposed project would not block public views of the ocean and mountains and would not be considered an aesthetically offensive site open to a public view. Therefore, this finding can be made.

17 Case Name, #: Isla Mar Single Family Dwelling Remodel, 06CDH Page A-3 c. That the development is compatible with the established physical scale of the area. The County does not have a required floor area ratio for the subject property, however for parcels over five acres, the Building Guidelines of the Hope Ranch Park Homes Association stipulate that the allowable floor area is 2,000 square feet plus 10 percent of the total area of the lot in excess of 5 acres. Therefore, for the subject parcel, the maximum allowable square footage is 58, according to the Hope Ranch Park Homes Association (2,000 square feet + ((17.88 acres 5 acres) x 43,560 square feet/acre x 0.10)). The proposed project would result in a total of 46,883 square feet of development on the subject parcel which is well below the allowable floor area required by the Hope Ranch Park Homes Association. In addition, all structures would meet the County s 25-foot height restriction. Therefore, the proposed structures would be compatible with the established physical scale of the area and this finding can be made. d. That the development is in conformance with the public access and recreation policies of this Article and the Coastal Land Use Plan. The proposed project would not affect public access to the beach or public recreation along the coast. Therefore, this finding can be made.

18 Case Name, #: Isla Mar Single Family Dwelling Remodel, 06CDH Page B-1 ATTACHMENT B: PROPOSED FINAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION

19 Case Name, #: Isla Mar Single Family Dwelling Remodel, 06CDH Page C-1 ATTACHMENT C: CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL (Coastal Development Permit)

20 Case Name, #: Isla Mar Single Family Dwelling Remodel, 06CDH Page D-1 ATTACHMENT D: SITE PLANS G:\GROUP\PERMITTING\CASE FILES\CDH\06-CASES\06CDH ISLA MAR\STAFF REPORT ZA ARTICLE II (COASTAL ONLY).DOC