SANTA BARBARA COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Staff Report for McDonough Appeal of Bauman Single Family Dwelling and Landscaping

SANTA BARBARA COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Staff Report for McDonough Appeal of Bauman Single Family Dwelling and Landscaping Deputy Director: Douglas K. Anthony Staff Report Date: March 18, 2010 Division: Development Review North Case Nos.: 09APL-00000-00026 Supervising Planner: John Karamitsos 09APL-00000-00040 Supervising Planner Phone #: 934-6255 Environmental Document: Notice of Exemption Staff Contact: Tammy Weber CEQA Guideline Section: 15303 Planner s Phone #: 934-6254 APPELLANT: Gerda and R.A. McDonough 137 Larchmont Blvd. #647 Los Angeles, CA 90004 (310) 459-0806 APPLICANT/OWNER: Jon and Mary Bauman 3168 Oakshire Drive Los Angeles, CA 90068 Subject Parcel AGENT/ARCHITECT: Jones & Jones Architecture P.O. Box 241 Santa Ynez, CA 93460 (805) 688-4974 This site is identified as Assessor Parcel Number 135-051-005, located 1 mile east of Highway 154 at 3621 Roblar Ave., in Santa Ynez area, 3 rd Supervisorial District. Board of Architectural Review Preliminary Approval: October 9, 2009 (case number 08BAR-00000-00243) Application Appealed: October 17, 2009 (case number 09APL-00000-00026) Land Use Permit Approval: December 8, 2009 (case number 08LUP-00000-00634) Application Appealed: December 17, 2009 (case number 09APL-00000-00040) 1.0 REQUEST Hearing on the request of the Gerda and R.A. McDonough, to consider the following appeals: 1) 09APL-00000-00026 [appeal filed on October 17, 2009] for the appeal of the Central Board of Architectural Review s decision to preliminarily approve 08BAR-00000-00243; the site design and landscaping for the Bauman s proposed single family dwelling; and

Page 2 2) 09APL-00000-00040 [appeal filed December 17, 2009] for the appeal of the Director s decision to approve 08LUP-00000-00634; to allow land use clearance for the Bauman s proposed single family dwelling with landscaping. Both cases are in compliance with Chapter 35.102 of the Land Use and Development Code on property located in an AG-I-10 Zone. The appeals involve AP No. 135-051-005, located at 3621 Roblar Ave., Santa Ynez Area, Third Supervisorial District. 2.0 RECOMMENDATION AND PROCEDURES Follow the procedures outlined below and deny the appeals (Case Nos. 09APL-00000-00026 and 09APL-00000-0040) and conditionally approve de novo Case Nos. 08BAR-00000-00243 and 08LUP- 00000-00634 marked "Officially Accepted, County of Santa Barbara April 14, 2010 Planning Commission Exhibit 1," based upon the project's consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, the Land Use and Development Code (LUDC), including the Santa Ynez Valley Community Plan (SYVCP), and based on the ability to make the required findings. Your Commission's motion should include the following: 1. Make the required CBAR and Land Use Permit (LUP) findings for the project as specified in Attachment A of this staff report, including CEQA findings, 2. Determine the project is exempt pursuant to section 15303 of CEQA - New Conversions or Construction of Small Structures. 3. Deny the appeal of case number 09APL-00000-00026, thereby upholding the Central Board of Architectural Review s (CBAR) Preliminary Approval of 08BAR-00000-00243, 4. Deny the appeal of case number 09APL-00000-00040, thereby upholding the Director s approval of 08LUP-00000-00634, 5. Grant de novo approval of case no. 08BAR-00000-00243, subject to the conditions specified in the staff report and attachments dated April 14, 2010, 6. Grant de novo approval of case no. 08LUP-00000-00634, subject to the conditions specified in the staff report and attachments dated April 14, 2010, Alternatively, refer back to staff if the Commission takes other than the recommended action for appropriate findings and conditions of approval.

Page 3 3.0 JURISDICTION This project is being considered by the County Planning Commission based on 35.102.040.A (Appeals Procedures) of County LUDC which states: The following decisions of the CBAR may be appealed to the Commission: Any decision of the BAR to grant or deny preliminary approval; and Those decisions of the Director of P&D to conditionally approve an application for a LUP may be appealed to the Planning Commission. 4.0 ISSUE SUMMARY The proposed project would result in construction of a new single-family residence on a knoll in full view of the appellants residence, which is located across a canyon at approximately the same elevation 500 feet northeast of the proposed development site. Both parcels are 10-acres in size. An existing single-family dwelling located on the subject parcel would be converted to a guesthouse upon completion of the proposed new residence. The appellants have raised the following objections, which are detailed in Section 6.2: The Central Board of Architectural Review s (CBAR) approval relies on inadequate landscaping for a ridgeline residence, fails to minimize grading, ignores alternative sites that avoid ridgeline development, and does not achieve harmony with adjacent development. The Director s approval of the project is inconsistent with the Hillsides and Watershed Protection Policies and the Visual Policies of the Land Use Element, because it is incapable of being compatible and subordinate to the surrounding natural environment, and it intrudes into the skyline. In order to achieve the balancing of competing policy goals contained in the Land Use Element, the CBAR and P&D staff have determined that the proposed project appropriately encroaches into an approximately thirty (30) square feet area of 20% - 30% slopes. The specific LUE policies, Visual Resource Policy 2 and Hillside and Watershed Policies 1 and 2, are discussed in detail in Section 6.3 below.

Page 4 5.0 PROJECT INFORMATION 5.1 Site Information Comprehensive Plan Designation Ordinance, Zone Site Size Present Use & Development Surrounding Uses/Zone(s) Access Public Services Site Information A-I-10, Inner Rural Agricultural Land Use Development Code (LUDC), AG-I-10, Agriculture 10 acre minimum parcel size 10.00 acres gross/net Single Family Residence North: Inner Rural Agricultural, AG-I-10, 10 acre minimum parcel size South: Inner Rural Agricultural, AG-I-10, 10 acre minimum parcel size East: Inner Rural Agricultural, AG-I-10, 10 acre minimum parcel size West: Inner Rural Agricultural, AG-I-5, 5 acre minimum parcel size Roblar Rd. via a 900 foot long existing driveway (driveway is shared with APN: 135-051-017), to be improved to fire department standards, with widths between 12-16 feet Water Supply: Shared private well Sewage: Existing drywell Fire: Santa Barbara County Fire, Station 32 5.2 Setting The site is located in the foothills of the Santa Ynez Valley. Elevations surrounding the project area range between 900 feet and 1,009 feet above mean sea level. The inner rural property is zoned Agriculture (AG-I-10) and is bordered to the north, south, east, and west by comparably sized and developed agriculturally zoned parcels. Vegetation on site includes oak trees, grasses, and shrubs indicative of the Santa Ynez Valley. County mapping resources indicate that there are no endangered species on or near the parcel, and the surrounding area does not support any critical habitats. There are no USGS drainage courses or creeks in the immediate vicinity that are designated as significant (blue line). No known archaeological sites have been mapped on the project site. 5.3 Statistics Statistics Item Proposed Ordinance Standard Structures (floor area) Proposed: Proposed single family residence: 2,581 square feet Attached verandas: 1,590 square feet Proposed garage: 576 square feet Proposed pool trellis: 200 square Land use permit required LUDC 35.30.020

Page 5 Statistics Item Proposed Ordinance Standard feet Proposed storage area that would be attached to the guesthouse: 100 square feet Existing: Existing single family dwelling to be converted to a Guesthouse: 800 square feet Existing carport: 300 square feet Max. Height of Structure(s) 19 ft. Allowable under LUDC 35.62.040 &35.30.090 Building Coverage (footprint) Total Existing and Proposed Allowable under LUDC 35.21.050 Structures: 6,447 square feet on a 10 acre lot (435,600 square feet) 6,447 435,600 = 1.5% building coverage Roads Walkways Existing driveway: approx. 14,400 square feet Proposed additional driveway: approx. 2,400 square feet Approx. 5,000 square feet Allowable under LUDC 35.21.050 Open Space landscaping Undeveloped Proposed landscaping: approximately ½ acre = 21,780 square feet Existing landscaping: approximately ½ acre = 21,780 square feet Undeveloped area: approximately 8.7 acres = 392,040 square feet Number of Dwelling Units One main house and one guesthouse Allowable under LUDC 35.21.050 Project Density 16% lot coverage Allowable under LUDC 35.21.050 Grading 1,037 cubic yards of cut; 781 cubic yard of fill; 350 cubic yards of overex and recompaction N/A 5.4 Description The approved Land Use Permit would allow for the construction and use of: 1) a new single family dwelling of approximately 2,581 square feet; 2) attached verandas of approximately 1,590 square feet; 3) a roof deck on the west elevation of the dwelling of approximately 130 square feet; 4) a detached garage of approximately 576 square feet; and 5) a pool with 200-square feet of trellis. Earthwork will require approximately 1,037 cubic yards of cut, and approximately 781 cubic yards of fill, with 350 cubic yards of over-ex and re-compaction. The finished grade and floor elevation will be 967 feet; this requires a 6 foot maximum excavation cut from the existing grade. Approximately thirty (30) square feet (20%) of the proposed 576 square foot garage will encroach into an area of hillside with a slope no greater than 30%. The average roof height of the proposed dwelling is 16 feet. There is an approximate 500 square foot area of the roof with a 19 foot height (6:12 pitch). Access will be provided by a 900 foot long existing driveway (driveway is shared with APN: 135-051-017), to be

Page 6 improved to fire department standards, with widths between 12-16 feet. An additional new unpaved 12 foot wide, 200 foot long extension, from the end of the existing drive to the proposed residence will be required. There is an existing 900 square foot residence, with a 300 square foot carport which will require conversion to an allowable use upon completion of the new single family dwelling. Water will continue to be provided by an approved Environmental Health Services well system, waste disposal will be provided by a septic system utilizing the drywell method, and first emergency response will be provided by Santa Barbara County Fire, Station #32. The project shall adhere to the October 26, 2009, Central Board of Architectural Review (CBAR) preliminary approval of plans which include: site, floor, elevation, and landscaping plans. Prior to Land Use Permit issuance, final approval from the Central Board of Architectural Review is required; minor changes shall be considered pursuant to LUDC Appendix E. 5.5 Background Information The parcel was created by parcel map no. 11,652 in 1972. The applicants existing single family dwelling onsite was constructed in 1976 under building permit no. 65641. The current application for the proposed single family dwelling and grading was accepted by Planning and Development (P&D) on October 17, 2008; has been reviewed five (5) times by CBAR; and was approved by staff on December 8, 2009. Prior to the commencement of the initial CBAR meeting, the surrounding neighbors (including the appellants) were noticed. The appellants have been active since the onset of this project, attending all CBAR meetings to date. The project has been conceptually reviewed by CBAR four times and received preliminary approval on October 29, 2009. 6.0 PROJECT ANALYSIS 6.1 Environmental Review The project can be found exempt from environmental review based upon Section 15303 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) guidelines. Section 15303 exempts the construction of small structures such as single family dwellings. 6.2 Appeal Issue Discussion 6.2.1 CBAR Appeal The appellants appeal forms (Attachment E) assert that CBAR s preliminary approval: 1) relies on inadequate landscaping for the proposed ridgeline residence; 2) fails to minimize grading; 3) ignores alternative sites that avoid ridgeline development; and 4) does not achieve harmony with adjacent development. The appellants cite CBAR s decision as being inconsistent with the following LUDC Sections:

Page 7 LUDC 35.62.040.C Guidelines - Application and interpretation. The Board of Architectural Review shall have the discretion to interpret and apply the following guidelines: (5) Landscaping should be used to integrate the structure into the hillside, and shall be compatible with the adjacent vegetation. (6) Grading shall be minimized, in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. (7) Development on ridgelines shall be discouraged if suitable alternative locations are available on the lot. LUDC 35.82.070.F Findings required for all Design Review applications. A Design Review application shall be approved or conditionally approved only if the Board of Architectural Review first makes all of the following findings: e. There will be a harmonious relationship with existing and proposed adjoining developments, avoiding excessive variety and monotonous repetition, but allowing similarity of style, if warranted. f. Site layout, orientation, and location of structures and signs will be in an appropriate and well designed relationship to one another, and to the environmental qualities, open spaces, and topography of the site. g. Adequate landscaping will be provided in proportion to the project and the site with due regard to preservation of specimen and landmark trees, existing vegetation, selection of plantings that are appropriate to the project, and that adequate provisions have been made for maintenance of all landscaping. 6.2.1.1 Appellants Issues with CBAR Approval & Staff Responses Appellants Issues: The appellants feel that the proposed project lacks adequate screening, protrudes into the skyline, and due to its ridgeline location will require substantial grading and landform alteration. They also believe that the development is not sufficiently screened or integrated into the hillside with appropriate landscaping, and have suggested specific alternative site locations. P&D response: Site design is challenging on the subject parcel due to the limited level areas atop its ridgelines and within its canyons. To date, the proposed project has been reviewed by CBAR on five (5) separate occasions (11/08, 6/09, 8/09, 9/09, & 10/09). CBAR is comprised of experienced members who are knowledgeable and actively work in the land use development field (two are landscape architects). Except in rare circumstances regarding critical policy trade-off considerations (i.e. excessive grading volumes and development encroachment near environmentally sensitive areas), staff defers to (and appreciates) the CBAR. The appellants voiced their concerns for privacy to the CBAR members during the meetings. In consideration of their concerns, CBAR requested that the applicant submit a line-of-site study from the appellants house to the proposed project site. CBAR reviewed those studies, and recommended changes to the house s orientation and surrounding landscape, which the applicants have incorporated.

Page 8 The original grading volumes for the applicants proposed house required 344 cubic yards of cut and 182 cubic yards of fill. In order for the project to adhere to CBAR s guidelines they recommended that the applicant: 1) lower the finished floor elevations; 2) move the proposed house further back into the up-sloped hillside; and 3) utilize landscaping to soften the architectural lines of the house. Items 1 & 2 resulted in increases to the original estimated grading calculations. Staff determined these changes and the associated increases in grading were appropriate for the following reasons: 1) Elevation and site plans show that the proposed house blends better into the existing hillside than the initial proposal, thus supporting a harmonious relationship with natural terrain. 2) It diminishes the prominence of the proposed residence atop the knoll and aids in buffering the appellants view of the house. 3) The proposed grading calculations are typical quantities expected with the construction of a new home on a hillside/ridgeline. Numerous previously approved residential projects in this area have required similar grading. The following building permits on file demonstrate grading calculations for a few of these nearby residences: 3555 Roblar Ave.: 2,800 cubic yards of cut and 2,800 cubic yards fill; 3623 Roblar Ave.: 1,850 cubic yards of cut and 1,850 cubic yards fill; 3625 Roblar Ave.: 2,800 cubic yards of cut, 210 cubic yards of fill; 2570 Calzada Ave.: 1,530 cubic yards of cut and 1,530 cubic yards fill. Attachment E, describes the appellants suggested suitable site locations for the applicants proposed residence: 1) Demolish and rebuild the existing single family dwelling in the same location. 2) A site down slope and approximately 100 feet west of the current proposed house site. 3) A canyon site that has a somewhat flat area at the west end of the parcel near the existing tennis court, approximately 300 feet northwest of the current proposed house site. In response to options 1 & 2: While less visible from the appellants residence, both of these alternative sites would still be subject to the County s Hillside/Ridgeline jurisdiction, therefore the issues that have been brought forth with this appeal would still be issues with either of these proposed alternative sites. In response to option 3: Staff requested that the applicant do a brief analysis on the suggested canyon site near the existing tennis court. This was completed by the agent (Attachment F). In summation, the analysis shows: a) the potential need for extensive grading when compared to the current proposal; and

Page 9 b) the site looks upon the neighboring Bridlewood Winery fruit spoil area. At the August 14, 2009 meeting, CBAR unanimously agreed that the tennis court alternative site would not be suitable for a single family dwelling. Furthermore, if an alternative site were chosen, the presumption that the house size, site layout, orientation, and grading calculations, would be less or similar to the proposed project is speculative. Currently the proposed residence with grading is a reasonable request for a Santa Ynez Valley home on an AG-I-10 parcel. The Santa Ynez Valley, particularly in this area, contains many ranchette style homes on ridgelines. The project adheres to the LUDC Agricultural Zoning 35.21 requirements (e.g. height, size, setbacks and use) and has also shown that it can blend into the existing natural landforms by: 1) lowering the finished floor elevations; 2) moving the proposed house further back into the upsloped hillside; and 3) utilizing landscaping to soften the architectural lines of the house. Since the proposed site is situated below a higher ridgeline to the northeast, no skyline intrusion is expected; nor is incongruity with the surrounding environment expected. Therefore, staff concludes that the project has demonstrated consistency with the required CBAR guidelines and findings. 6.2.2 LUP Appeal The appellants have appealed the approved Land Use Permit for the applicants proposed location of the residence (Attachment E) stating that the location of the proposed house on the ridgeline is in direct conflict with The County s Land Use Element policies, specifically: HILLSIDE AND WATERSHED PROTECTION POLICIES 1. 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. 2. All developments 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 to development because of known soil, geologic, flood, erosion or other hazards shall remain in open space. VISUAL RESOURCE POLICIES 2. In areas designated as rural on the land use plan maps, the height, scale, and design of structures shall be compatible with the character of the surrounding natural environment, except where technical requirements dictate otherwise. Structures shall be subordinate in appearance to natural landforms; shall be designed to follow the natural contours of the landscape; and shall be sited so as not to intrude into the skyline as seen from public viewing places.

Page 10 6.2.2.1 Appellants Issues with LUP Approval & Staff Responses Appellants issue: The proposed project should not be approved due to conflicts with the above Land Use Element Policies aimed at preventing ridgeline development, unnecessary grading, and impacts to visual resources and neighborhood incompatibility. P&D response: As explained above in section 6.2.1 the applicant has demonstrated that: 1) The Land Use Element is not aimed at preventing ridgeline development. These policies are in place to ensure that the visual and environmental effects from ridgeline development are addressed, analyzed, and to the maximum extent minimized, by staff. Staff has addressed proposed project s effects on such issues and has demonstrated consistency with County policy, as referenced in the approved Land Use Permit and this staff report. 2) That the proposed house can blend into the existing hillside by lowering the finished floor elevations and moving the structure further back into the up-sloped hillside. 3) The proposed site is situated below a higher ridgeline to the northeast, no skyline intrusion is expected. 4) With incorporation of CBAR recommendations, the proposed house and landscaping would be subordinate in appearance to, and support a harmonious relationship with, the natural terrain. 5) The proposed earthwork calculations for the new single family residence are not excessive. 6) The Santa Ynez Valley, particularly in this area, contains many ranchette style homes on ridgelines. 7) While neighborhood compatibility is required, there are no current County policies protecting private viewsheds or neighbors privacy. The proposed location cannot be seen from any apparent public viewshed (e.g. Roblar Ave.). Neighbors would be able to visually see the proposed residence; however, there are already several similar-type residences in this area that can be viewed by each other. Zoning in this neighborhood is inner rural agricultural and most property owners purchase small agricultural parcels with the expectations for more space. The 500 ft. distance between the sites when both own larger parcels, could be conceived as not enough distance between the sites; however, there is nothing in the LUDC zoning ordinances prohibiting approval. 6.3 Comprehensive Plan/Santa Ynez Valley Community Plan Consistency REQUIREMENT LUDP Policy 4: (Land Use Element, p.82) Adequate public and private services. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN - LAND USE ELEMENT DISCUSSION Consistent: An existing single family residence onsite would be converted to a guesthouse after completion of the proposed new residence. An existing domestic water

Page 11 REQUIREMENT Hillside and Watershed Policies (Land Use Element, p.76): (1) 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. (2) All developments 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 to development because of known soil, geologic, flood, erosion or other hazards shall remain in open space. Visual Resources Policy 2: (Land Use Element, p. 79) The height, scale, and design of structures shall be compatible with the character of the surrounding natural environment. Agricultural: Policy LUA-SYV-2: Land designated for agriculture within the Santa Ynez Valley shall be preserved and DISCUSSION COMPREHENSIVE PLAN - LAND USE ELEMENT system and a septic system are in place. The proposed new residence can utilize these existing systems. Environmental Health Services has approved the domestic water system and a drywell performance test was conducted on the existing septic system which indicates it would be able to support the additional proposed use. Emergency response would be provided by Santa Barbara County Fire, Station #32. Access will be provided by a 900 foot long existing driveway (driveway is shared with APN: 135-051-017), with widths between 12-16 feet. An additional new unpaved 12 foot wide, 200 foot long extension, from the end of the existing drive to the proposed residence will be required. At the time of B&S approval the access shall conform to the current fire department standards. Consistent: The proposed house site location is oriented on a ridgeline. The entire parcel has topographical constraints and any suitable alternative sites would be located on a ridgeline also. The proposed location is not the highest point on the parcel; CBAR review indicates that the proposed house can be designed to fit the topography without protruding into the skyline. Proposed grading would require 1,037 cubic yards of cut, and 1,037 cu.yds. of fill. Estimated earthwork for the initial proposal consisted of 344 cu.yds. of cut and 182cu. yds. of fill. The proposed earthwork is appropriate for the balancing of policy considerations required to develop the project in the proposed location. Consistent: The scale of the proposed project is reasonable as the total build out of the existing and proposed structures would cover 1.5% of the parcel. The average roof height of the proposed dwelling is 16 feet. There is an approximate 500 square foot area of the roof with a 19 foot height (6:12 pitch). These heights meet hillside/ridgeline guidelines and are allowable under LUDC Secs. 35.62.40 and 35.30.90. The applicant has incorporated CBAR s recommendations by: 1) lowering the finished floor elevations; and 2) pushing the proposed house further west and back into the up-sloped hillside; therefore allowing it to blend in better to the existing hillside and support a harmonious relationship with natural terrain. SANTA YNEZ VALLEY COMMUNITY PLAN Consistent: The proposed house site is located on a ridgeline. The entire parcel has topographical constraints, and agricultural use on site would not be

Page 12 REQUIREMENT DISCUSSION COMPREHENSIVE PLAN - LAND USE ELEMENT protected for agricultural use. expected, however, if a property owner wanted to undertake an agricultural endeavor the total build out of the proposed project would cover only 1.5% of the 10 acre parcel, which would leave room to do so. Land Use: Consistent: Bridlewood Winery is situated just Policy LUA-SYV-3: New development shall be compatible with adjacent agricultural lands. southwest of the proposed house site at a lower elevation. This creates a topographical buffer between DevStd LUA-SYV-3.1: New non-agricultural the two, ensuring avoidance of any potential nuisance development adjacent to agriculturally zoned property that could occur (e.g. views of the wine spoils area). shall include appropriate buffers, such as trees, shrubs, walls, and fences, to protect adjacent agricultural operations from potential conflicts and claims of nuisance. The size and character of the buffers shall be determined through parcel-specific review on a case-bycase basis. Geology: Policy GEO-SYV-2: Grading and development on slopes of 20 percent or greater should be avoided, unless such avoidance would preclude development. Where development on slopes of 20 percent or greater cannot be avoided, the portions of the site that exhibit the least amount of slope shall be utilized. DevStd GEO-SYV-2.1: Landscape plans shall be required for all new development on slopes greater than 20 percent to ensure revegetation of graded slopes to minimize erosion. Landscape plans and associated financial assurances shall be subject to review and approval by Planning and Development. Consistent: In order to achieve the balancing of competing policy goals contained in the Land Use Element with respect to skyline intrusion and minimization of grading (Visual Resource Policy 2 versus Hillside and Watershed Policies 1 and 2) approximately thirty (30) square feet of the proposed 576 square foot garage would encroach into an area of 20% - 30% slopes. Limited level areas atop ridgelines and within canyons introduce site design challenges on the subject parcel; however, the main portion of the proposed residence would be located on a relatively level knoll comprised of less 20% slopes. CBAR deliberations resulted in a recommendation to: 1) lower the finished floor elevations; and 2) move the proposed house further back into the up-sloped hillside, resulting in the 30 sq. ft. encroachment into a 20%-30% slope. Proposed grading would require 1,037 cubic yards of cut, and 1,037 cu.yds. of fill. Estimated earthwork for the initial proposal consisted of 344 cu.yds. of cut and 182cu. yds. of fill. The proposed earthwork is appropriate for the balancing of policy considerations required to develop the project in the proposed location. While Land Use Element Hillside and Watershed Protection Policies and SYVCP GEO-SYV-2 discourage development on steep slopes, the CBAR and P&D staff has concluded that the 30 sq. ft. encroachment is appropriate, given the resultant minimization of skyline intrusion. An approved Landscape Plan, including financial assurances for installation and maintenance, would be required as part of the proposed project.

Page 13 REQUIREMENT Visual and Aesthetic: Policy VIS-SYV-1: Development of property should minimize impacts to open space views as seen from public roads and viewpoints and avoid destruction of significant visual resources. DevStd VIS-SYV-1.2: Development, including houses, roads and driveways, shall be sited and designed to be compatible with and subordinate to significant natural features including prominent slopes, hilltops and ridgelines, mature trees and woodlands, and natural drainage courses. DevStd VIS-SYV-1.3: Development shall not occur on ridgelines if suitable alternative locations are available on the property. When there is no other suitable location, structures shall not intrude into the skyline or be conspicuously visible from public viewing places. Additional measures such as an appropriate landscape plan and limits to building height may be required in these cases. Policy VIS-SYV-3: The night sky of the Santa Ynez Valley shall be protected from excessive and unnecessary light associated with new development and redevelopment. Dev Std VIS-SYV-3.1: All new development and redevelopment in the planning area shall be subject to the requirements of the Santa Ynez Valley Outdoor Lighting Ordinance. Water: Policy WAT-SYV-1: Development in the Santa Ynez Valley Planning Area shall incorporate appropriate water efficient design, technology and landscaping. Wastewater: Policy WW-SYV-1: Development and infrastructure shall achieve a high level of wastewater treatment, in order to best serve the public health and welfare. DevStd WW-SYV-1.2: To the maximum extent feasible, development requiring private sewage disposal shall utilize gravity flow of wastewater to the septic tank and disposal field to minimize mechanical failure, which may cause surfacing of effluent. For lots of record where gravity flow of effluent is unavailable, pumping may be allowed. For new subdivisions where gravity flow to the public sewer is unavailable, the lift station shall be owned and/or maintained by a public agency such as a community services district. Private operation and maintenance of a shared or community lift station shall be prohibited. DISCUSSION COMPREHENSIVE PLAN - LAND USE ELEMENT Consistent: The proposed house site location is oriented on a ridgeline. The entire parcel has topographical constraints and any suitable alternative sites would be located on a ridgeline also. This location is not the highest point on the parcel and through CBAR review the applicant was able to demonstrate that the proposed house can be designed to fit the topography and not protrude into the skyline. A landscape plan has been submitted and reviewed, and required to have financial assurances for landscape installation and maintenance. Lighting for the project would be reviewed at the time of Final BAR. Both BAR and the planner will ensure that the lighting proposed is not excessive and that it is hooded and shielded downward for prevention of light spillover into the night sky of Santa Ynez Valley. Consistent: Currently the well system is above the proposed house site and will be able to utilize gravity flow techniques, the landscaping proposed is drought tolerant and the final CBAR review will require an irrigation plan to ensure efficient design is utilized to minimize water usage. Consistent: The existing septic system on site would be utilized by the proposed new residence. Currently this drywell is situated at a lower elevation than the proposed finished floor of the new house, therefore gravity flow would occur.

Page 14 6.4 Zoning: Land Use and Development Code Compliance The proposed project adheres to the requirements of the LUDC for Agricultural Zoning 35.21 (e.g. height, size, setbacks and use). 6.5 Development Impact Mitigation Fees A series of ordinances and resolutions adopted by the County Board of Supervisors require the payment various development impact mitigation fees. This project has paid all the required Development Impact Mitigation Fees at the time of Map Clearance for parcel map no. 11,652. 7.0 APPEALS PROCEDURE The action of the Planning Commission may be appealed to the Board of Supervisors within 10 calendar days of said action. The appeal fee to the Board of Supervisors is $643. 8.0 ATTACHMENTS A. Findings B. CEQA Notice of Exemption dated February 23, 2010 C. Land Use Permit with Conditions of Approval D. BAR Minutes and Findings Checklist E. Appeal Forms and Appellants Letters F. Alternative Site Analysis G. Site, Floor and Elevation Plans H. APN Sheet