MONTECITO PLANNING COMMISSION Coastal Zone Staff Report for Klein Appeal of the Hughes Addition and Remodel Coastal Development Permit Staff Report Date: September 28, 2017 Case No.: 17APL-000000-00007 & 17CDP-00000-00017 Environmental Document: Notice of Exemption Pursuant to CEQA Sections 15301 and 15303 Deputy Director: Jeff Wilson Division: Development Review Supervising Planner: Alex Tuttle Supervising Planner Phone #: (805) 884-6844 Staff Contact: Tess Harris, Planner Staff Contact Phone #: (805) 568-3319 OWNER/APPLICANT: Milestones LLC, c/o James Hughes 942 Hot Springs Road Montecito, CA 93108 (805) 895-1486 AGENT/ARCHITECT: Dylan Henderson 116 East Yanonali Street, Unit F1 Santa Barbara, CA 93101 (805) 729-4276 APPELLANT: Theodore M. Klein 1970 Jelinda Drive Montecito, CA 93108 (805) 969-5103 This site is identified as Assessor Parcel Number 007-490-024, located at 1930 Jelinda Drive in the Montecito Community Plan Area in the coastal zone, First Supervisorial District. Land Use Permit Approval: June 26, 2017 Appeal Application Filed: June 27, 2017 1.0 REQUEST Hearing on the request of Theodore M. Klein, Appellant, to consider the Appeal of Case No. 17CDP-00000-00017 [appeal filed on June 27, 2017], of the Director s decision to approve a Coastal Development Permit allowing for the addition and a remodel of an existing single family dwelling, including a new swimming pool and other associated improvements, in compliance with Section 35-182 of the Article II Coastal Zoning Ordinance, on property located in the 2-E-1 zone.
Page 2 The application involves Assessor Parcel No. 007-490-024 located at 1930 Jelinda Drive, in the Montecito Community Plan area, First Supervisorial District. 2.0 RECOMMENDATION AND PROCEDURES Follow the procedures outlined below and deny the appeal, and grant de novo conditional approval of Case No. 17CDP-00000-00017 marked "Officially Accepted, County of Santa Barbara October 18, 2017 Montecito Planning Commission Attachments A-H", 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. Deny the appeal, Case No. 17APL-00000-00007; 2. Make the required findings for approval of the project, Case No. 17CDP-00000-00017, as specified in Attachment A of this staff report, including CEQA findings; 3. Determine the project is exempt from CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guideline Sections 15301 and 15303 of CEQA, included as Attachment C. 4. Grant de novo approval of Case No. 17CDP-00000-00017, subject to the conditions included as Attachment B of this staff report, thereby affirming the decision of the Director. Refer back to staff if the Montecito Planning Commission takes other than the recommended action for appropriate findings and conditions. 3.0 JURISDICTION This project is being considered by the Montecito Planning Commission based on Section 35-182.4 (Appeals) of Article II which states that any decision of the Director to approve, conditionally approve, or deny an application for a Coastal Development Permit, except for Coastal Development Permits approved in compliance with Section 35-137 (Temporary Uses), may be appealed to the Planning Commission. 4.0 ISSUE SUMMARY The appellant, Mr. Theodore Klein, is appealing the Director s June 26, 2017 approval of Coastal Development Permit Case No 17CDP-00000-00017. The appellant claims that the delivery of water from water trucks causes negative impacts to both public and private road infrastructure, and also causes negative impacts to the environment. However, the Montecito Water District approved Ordinance 95 on August 23, 2017, which allows for property owners to drain and/or fill swimming pools, spas, and hot tubs once every five years upon application and written authorization from the District. As a result, the project no longer requires the trucking in of water to fill the pool, thus
Page 3 eliminating the basis for the appeal. After Ordinance 95 was passed, and the appellant was informed of this change, the appellant submitted addendums to his appeal, dated September 5, 2017 and September 18, 2017 that state his concerns about trucked-in water and the swimming pool are no longer applicable. The appellant asserts that the use of private roads for new development and remodel, such as the Sheffield Drive connection off of U.S. Highway 101, compromises such infrastructure. In addition, the appellant states that passing road maintenance responsibility to Caltrans and/or Ennisbrook is a dereliction of duty and governmental responsibility. The operation of the Ennisbrook Homeowners Association and the maintenance of private roads within a gated community are outside of the Montecito Planning Commission s jurisdiction. Further detail regarding the appeal and responses can be found in Section 6.1 of this staff report. There is no basis for the appeal. 5.1 Site Information 5.0 PROJECT INFORMATION Comprehensive Plan Designation Zone Site Size Present Use & Development Surrounding Uses/Zone(s) Access Public Services Site Information Coastal, Urban, SRR-0.5 (Single Family Residential) Montecito Community Plan Area 2-E-1 (Residential, 2-acre minimum parcel size) 1.00 acre Residential Existing Single Family Dwelling North: REC / Recreation (Golf Course - Valley Club of Montecito) South: 2-E-1 / Developed Residential East: 2-E-1 / Developed Residential West: 2-E-1 / Developed Residential Private driveway entrance off of Jelinda Drive Water Supply: Montecito Water District Sewage: Montecito Sanitary District Fire: Montecito Fire Protection District Police Services: Santa Barbara County Sheriff 5.2 Setting Surrounding Land Uses. The property is located in Ennisbrook, a gated community off of Sheffield Drive, and is surrounded by residentially zoned lots to the west, east, and south ranging in size from 1.00 acre to 2.49 acres. To the north of the project site is the Valley Club of Montecito, a private golf course that contains two parcels (44.17 acres and 21.19 acres). The project site is approximately 2,900 feet north of the Pacific Ocean.
Page 4 Existing Structures. One single family dwelling currently exists on-site and is being remodeled as part of this project. 5.3 Statistics Item Existing Proposed Structures (floor area) 4,339 sq. ft. 4,518 sq. ft. (179 sq. ft. gross addition) Max. Height of Structure(s) 38-6 38-6 Building Coverage (footprint) 3100 sq. ft. 3,279 sq. ft. Parking (covered/uncovered) 1 uncovered and 3 covered parking 4 covered parking spaces Landscaping (Renovated) Total Impervious Surfaces spaces -- -- 8,000 sq. ft. 1,298.33 sq. ft. Number of Dwelling Units One One Project Density 1 SFD 1 SFD Grading -- 114 cubic yards excavation for pool 8 cubic yards fill for SFD 5.4 Description The Hughes Addition and Remodel (Case No. 17CDP-000000-00017) (application filed on March 6, 2017) consists of a Coastal Development Permit to allow the construction of a firstfloor addition to the existing two-story single family residence, which includes an additional 45.5 sq. ft. (gross) to the master bathroom and 133.45 sq. ft. (gross) to the master bedroom. The total square footage of the single-family dwelling, including the proposed project, would be 4,518 sq. ft. (gross) (does not include the attached garage or basement). The proposed project includes a 675 sq. ft. (gross) swimming pool, 64 sq. ft. (gross) hot tub, 900 sq. ft. (gross) concrete patio, wood pergola, new roofing, decomposed granite walkways throughout the front yard, replacement of existing balconies and railing, remodel of the front entry, and a new fruit tree orchard. As part of the project, exterior stairs would be demolished and new stairs are proposed for construction. The project also consists of demolition of the front roof and window. Interior remodel of the single-family dwelling would occur and lighting along the exterior of the singlefamily dwelling is proposed. Eight cypress trees would be removed as a result of the proposed project. The proposed project would consist of 8,000 sq. ft. (gross) of renovated landscaping and 1,298.33 sq. ft. (gross) of impervious surfaces. The proposed project would require approximately eight cubic yards of fill for the addition to the single family dwelling and approximately 114 cubic yards of excavation for the pool. The parcel would continue to be served by the Montecito Water District, Montecito Sanitary District, and the Montecito Fire Protection District. The new water features proposed onsite, including the pool and spa, would be filled by the Montecito Water District as authorized by Ordinance 95 from the Montecito Water District. Access to the site would continue to be via a private driveway off of Jelinda
Page 5 Drive, which is located west of Sheffield Drive. The property is a 1.00-acre parcel zoned 2-E-1 and shown as Assessor s Parcel Number 007-490-024, located at 1930 Jelinda Drive in the Montecito area, First Supervisorial District. 5.5 Background Information The project site, addressed as 1930 Jelinda Drive, was previously addressed as 279 Sheffield Drive, and the address was converted upon the completion of the Las Entradas Tract Map (Tract 13,271) in 1986. The site was constructed with the existing single family dwelling (Permit No. 93769 associated with BAR Case No. 81-BAR-167) prior to 1986 when the Las Entradas Tract was finalized and prior to the establishment of the gated Ennisbrook community and the associated HOA. As a result, the owners of the subject parcel are not members of the Ennisbrook HOA, and the subject parcel does not contain a building envelope more restrictive than setback requirements. However, the private roads throughout Ennisbrook, such as Jelinda Drive, are owned and maintained by the Ennisbrook HOA. 6.1 Appeal Issues 6.0 PROJECT ANALYSIS The appellant, Mr. Theodore Klein, submitted a letter along with his appeal application of P&D s approval of Coastal Development Permit 17CDP-00000-00017 that describes the underlying issues of his appeal (Attachment D). The appellant also submitted two addendum letters to his appeal, dated September 5, 2017 and September 18, 2017 (Attachment D). The following points were given as the reasons for the appeal. A summary of each appeal issue is presented below followed by staff s response: Issue #1: The appellant states that the existing highways and roadways, both public and private, (e.g., Sheffield Drive and the 101 connection to Sheffield Drive) are inadequate to support the use by heavy equipment associated with construction. Public roadways are being congested by construction traffic (including water trucks) and private roads are being damaged by traffic associated with construction activities. Further, the appellant states that the left-hand ramp from Sheffield Drive to U.S. Highway 101 (south-bound) is hazardous, and construction trucks associated with this project may cause additional traffic-related incidents. Staff Response: The project site is currently served by adequate roadways and intersections. Construction vehicles traveling to the site would exit U.S. Highway 101at the North Jameson / Sheffield Drive exit and then travel north on Sheffield Drive to the private gated community of Ennisbrook. Once the vehicles exit the Sheffield Drive public road right-of-way and enter onto the private Jelinda Road, the vehicles would travel approximately 1,200 feet before reaching the driveway entrance to the subject parcel. The roads have been adequately designed to carry vehicular traffic to service the residential development throughout the area.
Page 6 The temporary addition of construction traffic on the roadway does not increase overall traffic to the roadway over the life of the road. Further, the applicant does not need a permit from the County to use private roads for construction. The Coastal Development Permit (Case No. 17CDP-00000-00017) would limit construction to only occur Monday through Friday from 7:00am to 4:30pm and shall not occur on weekends or State holidays (Attachment B, Condition 8). Further, all construction-related vehicles and equipment are required to park on-site and outside of the road right-of-way on Jelinda Drive and Sheffield Drive (Attachment B, Condition 9). Within the Montecito Community Plan, the level of service for the North Jameson / Sheffield intersection is classified as A, representing free-flow conditions with no congestion. Additionally, the projected 2030 build-out (without any improvements) also indicates that both the AM and PM Peak Hours would still remain at a LOS classification of A. Temporary project construction associated with the addition and remodel to an existing single family dwelling will not change the level of service of this intersection. The temporary increase in construction traffic for the proposed project is not anticipated to cause excessive congestion or damage to the existing public roadway infrastructure and would represent a minimal number of vehicles relative to the total number of Average Daily Trips (ADTs) in the project vicinity. Any unexpected damage to the private roadway of Jelinda Drive would be the responsibility of the property owner to remedy in coordination with the Ennisbrook Homeowners Association (HOA). Therefore, this appeal issue has no merit. Issue #2: The appellant asserts that the movement of groundwater from Los Angeles County to Santa Barbara County to fill the pool results in additional traffic and use of Highway 101 and Sheffield Drive, which are already congested. The appellant argues that groundwater shipments from Los Angeles County to Santa Barbara County would compromise the local Montecito aquifer that supports Ennisbrook since all groundwater systems are interconnected. The appellant challenges whether Santa Barbara County can legitimately require that applicants obtain water from other counties to fill and maintain new development (e.g., new pool). Staff Response: The project site is served by Montecito Water District. Prior to August 23, 2017, the Montecito Water District temporarily restricted property owners from using District water to fill new water features (e.g., filling of pools) pursuant to Ordinance 92. As a result, the County of Santa Barbara required applicants that were proposing new pools and other water features to submit a water availability certification that indicated the entity outside of the County of Santa Barbara that would provide water as well as the number of truck trips required. Since the appeal was filed, the Montecito Water District passed Ordinance 95, which allows property owners to drain and/or fill swimming pools, spas, and hot tubs once every five years upon application and written authorization from the District. This includes new pools as well. The applicant has indicated that they would obtain written authorization from the District to fill their pool and spa with water from the Montecito Water District and will be conditioned to provide written authorization prior to issuance of the Coastal Development Permit (Montecito
Page 7 Water District Authorization Letter, Attachment F). In addition, staff contacted the Montecito Water District on September 6, 2017 and received confirmation that the applicant would be able to obtain written authorization from the District to fill the proposed pool and spa. Since the owner would use District water, the appeal issue regarding movement of groundwater from Los Angeles County to Santa Barbara County is no longer applicable. Therefore, this appeal issue has no merit. Issue #3: The appellant states that the County should take responsibility for private roads and the congestion from Carpinteria to Montecito. He also states that these items should not solely be the responsibility of CalTrans or the Ennisbrook Homeowner s Association, but should also be the responsibility of local government. Staff Response: As indicated in the staff response to appeal issue #1 above, the proposed project does not result in any long-term traffic impacts. The short-term addition of construction traffic is associated with typical land use activities and reasonable development in the community and would not result in any long-term trip generation increase since construction traffic is temporary. The proposed project would not result in a significant increase of traffic from Carpinteria to Montecito on U.S. Highway 101 since usage on the Highway fluctuates by hundreds of vehicles daily (Personal Communication with Will Robertson, County of Santa Barbara Public Works Department, Transportation Division, September 19, 2017). As indicated in the staff response to appeal issue #1 above, maintenance associated with private roadways in Ennisbrook is a civil matter between the property owner and the Ennisbrook HOA, and the County does not regulate the maintenance of private roads. Further, maintenance of private roadways is outside of the scope of the Montecito Planning Commission s jurisdiction. Therefore, this appeal issue has no merit. Issue #4: The appellant states that the property is located in Ennisbrook but pays no Ennisbrook Homeowner s Association monthly fees, most of which are for private road maintenance. Since the owners are not part of the Ennisbrook HOA, the appellant argues that the HOA lacks the ability to require special assessment for the Hughes use of private roads, such as a negotiated, informal, or voluntary fee, and the process of local government is the most appropriate mechanism for the resolution of this matter. Staff Response: The County of Santa Barbara maintains public roadways. The roadways in Ennisbrook, such as Jelinda Drive, are privately owned and maintained by the Ennisbrook HOA. The Ennisbrook HOA has discretion for requiring property owners that are HOA members to pay a fee for using Ennisbrook roadways. Further, use and maintenance of the Ennisbrook roadways associated with construction traffic as a result of the project is a civil matter between the property owner and the Ennisbrook HOA, and is outside the regulatory authority of the County. Therefore, this appeal issue has no merit. Issue #5: The appellant states that new development should not be allowed until adequate public services become available (e.g., availability of water to fill pool). Further, the appellant states that the consumption of fossil fuels, the vehicle miles traveled, and the
Page 8 emissions by heavy equipment, such as large trucks, should outweigh the owner s personal benefit of a new pool. Staff Response: As indicated in Section 5.1 of this staff report, adequate services exist for the single family dwelling and associated construction. The property would continue to be served by the Montecito Water District, Montecito Sanitation District, Montecito Fire Protection District, and the Santa Barbara County Sheriff. The Montecito Water District would also allow the property owner to use District water to fill the proposed pool and spa once every five years, as specified in Montecito Water District s Ordinance 95. The vehicle miles traveled and associated construction emissions for the proposed project are considered temporary impacts that would not result in an overall change to the adequacy and level of service of the roadways adjacent to the project. Further, the construction of a pool is allowable development in the 2-E-1 zone district pursuant to Article II. Therefore, this appeal issue has no merit. Issue #6: The appellant states that it is arbitrary for the Ennisbrook HOA to restrict access to Club facilities to non-ennisbrook Association members, yet allow non-members to unconditionally use private roads in Ennisbrook. Staff Response: As indicated above, the use of Ennisbrook roadways is a civil matter between the property owner and the Ennisbrook HOA. The Ennisbrook HOA s decision to allow property owners that are not a part of the Ennisbrook HOA to use private roads but also restrict Club facilities to members of the Ennisbrook HOA is outside of the regulatory authority of the County. Therefore, this appeal issue has no merit. 6.2 Environmental Review The project, Case No. 17CDP-00000-0017, can be found exempt from environmental review based upon Sections 15301 and 15303 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) guidelines. Section 15301 (a, e, and l) allows exemption from CEQA for minor alterations, additions, and demolition. Section 15303(e) allows exemption from CEQA for the construction of new small accessory structures. See Attachment C to this staff report for a detailed discussion of these exemptions. 6.3 Comprehensive Plan Consistency REQUIREMENT Coastal Land Use Plan Policy 2-6: Prior to the 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 DISCUSSION ADEQUATE SERVICES Consistent: The proposed project includes a 45.5 sq. ft. addition to the master bathroom, 133.40 sq. ft. addition to the master bedroom, 675 sq. ft. swimming pool, 64 sq. ft. spa, 900 sq. ft. patio, and wood pergola and does not include structural development that would increase the number of people or use onsite.
Page 9 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 indicated in the land use plan. Montecito Community Plan Policy VIS-M- 1.3: Development of property should minimize impacts to open space views as seen from public roads and viewpoints. Montecito Community Plan 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 Land Use Plan Policy 2-11: All development, including agriculture, adjacent to areas designated on the land use plan or resource maps as environmentally sensitive habitat areas, shall be regulated to avoid adverse impacts on habitat resources. Regulatory measures include, but are not limited to, setbacks, buffer zones, grading controls, noise AESTHETICS BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES The Montecito Fire Protection District would continue to serve the project site. Access would continue to be provided off of Jelinda Drive via a private driveway on the subject property. Water service would continue to be provided by the Montecito Water District for the single family dwelling, including the addition and new landscape, as indicated in the Montecito Water District Certificate of Water Service Availability dated April 7, 2017 (Attachment F). The Montecito Water District has also authorized the filling of the new pool and drainage and/or filling of the pool and spa after the initial fill once every five years, pursuant to Ordinance 95 (Attachment F). The Montecito Sanitary District would continue to provide sewer service to the subject property, as indicated in the Sanitary Sewer Availability letter from the Montecito Sanitary District, dated April 19, 2017. Therefore, adequate services remain available, consistent with this policy. Consistent: The project site is not visible from a public roadway or public viewpoints since it is located within Ennisbrook, a private gated community. In addition, a condition of approval has been placed on the project to require that any exterior night-lighting on the project site is of low intensity, low glare design, minimum height, and shall be directed downwards (Attachment B, Condition 4). Therefore, the project would maintain the semi-rural residential character of the community, and the project is consistent with these policies. Consistent: The proposed project is located in a residential area within the private community of Ennisbrook. Native trees exist on the west and east sides of the property. The first floor addition would occur adjacent to the drip line of one existing oak tree. While the addition would not be located within the drip line of the
Page 10 restrictions, maintenance of natural vegetation, and control of runoff. Montecito Community Plan 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. tree, a condition has been placed on the project to require that fencing be installed six feet beyond the drip line of the tree in order to avoid damage to the native oak tree from construction equipment (Attachment B, Condition No. 6). Therefore, the project is consistent with these policies. HILLSIDE AND WATERSHED PROTECTION Coastal Land Use 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. Montecito Community Plan Policy AQ-M- 1.3: Air pollution emissions from new development and associated construction activities shall be minimized to the maximum extent feasible. These activities shall be consistent with the Air Quality Attainment Plan and Air Pollution Control District guidelines. AIR QUALITY Consistent: The proposed development minimizes site disturbance by situating the addition, patio, pool, spa and pergola on the existing building pad and in an area that requires minimal grading. Eight cubic yards of fill would be required for the addition. Construction of the pool would require 114 cubic yards of excavation. In addition, the new addition would be screened with mature vegetation along the west and east sides of the subject parcel, and visual impacts associated with the project would be avoided. Eight non-native cypress trees would be removed to accommodate the proposed project. As stated in this staff report above, the proposed project is conditioned to require fencing of all native trees on the subject property at least six feet beyond the drip line of the tree to avoid damage during grading and construction activities. Therefore, the proposed project is consistent with this policy. Consistent: No dust would be generated from the proposed development. Dust during construction activities would be minimized with the implementation of a condition of approval that requires that water trucks or sprinkler systems be used to prevent dust from leaving the site (Attachment B, Condition 5). This condition of approval would also require that the applicant wet down the construction
Page 11 Montecito Community Plan 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. area after work is completed for the day if winds are anticipated to exceed 15 mph. Further, the condition includes dust control requirements if the site is graded and left undeveloped for over four weeks, consistent with the Air Quality Attainment Plan and Air Pollution Control District guidelines. Comprehensive Plan Noise Element Policy 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. Montecito Community Plan 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. Montecito Community Plan 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. 6.4 Zoning: Article II NOISE 6.4.1 Compliance with Article II, Coastal Zoning Ordinance Air pollution emissions from construction of the proposed project would not exceed California Ambient Air Quality Standards or National Ambient Air Quality Standards. Therefore, the proposed project would be consistent with these policies. Consistent: Construction activities associated with the proposed project are temporary, and the project has been conditioned to require construction activity to be limited to the hours between 7:00am and 4:30pm Monday through Friday (Attachment B, Condition 8). The project does not result in long-term increased noise exposure levels for noise-sensitive uses. In addition, the project (once constructed) would not result in excess noise greater than 65dB Day-Night Average Sound Level. Therefore, the proposed project is consistent with this policy. Per Section 35-71.1 of the Coastal Zoning Ordinance, the purpose and intent of the 2-E-1 zone district is to reserve appropriately located areas for family living at a reasonable
Page 12 range of population densities consistent with sound standards of public health, welfare, and safety. It is the intent of this district to protect the residential characteristics of an area and to promote a suitable environment for family life. The proposed project consists of an addition and remodel to an existing single family dwelling, as well as the construction of a pool, spa, patio and pergola. The project is consistent with the residential characteristics of the Ennisbrook area and complies with public health, welfare, and safety standards. Therefore, the proposed project is consistent with the purpose and intent of the 2-E-1 zone district. Further, as proposed and conditioned, the project is consistent with the applicable setback standards, as the single family dwelling is located a minimum of 30 feet from the side property lines, 150 feet from the front property line, and approximately 38 feet from the rear property line. The minimum setbacks for the 2-E-1 zone district are a front setback that is 50 feet from the centerline and 20 feet from the right-of-way line of any street, side setbacks that are 10% of the width of the lot, and a rear setback of 25 feet. Therefore, this project complies with the setbacks for the 2-E-1 zone district. The single family dwelling has a legal nonconforming height of 38 feet and six inches. However, the proposed project, including the addition, meets the current height limit of 25 feet and does not exacerbate the single family dwelling s legal non-conforming status. The project site also contains four existing parking spaces, all of which will be covered in a four-car garage as a result of this project. Therefore, the project continues to meet the minimum requirement of two parking spaces for a single-family dwelling. Per Section 35-71.3 of the Coastal Zoning Ordinance, a single family dwelling is a permitted use in the 2-E-1 zone district. The proposed project includes an addition and remodel to the existing single family dwelling. The swimming pool, spa, patio, and pergola are structures and uses accessory and customarily incidental to the single family dwelling and are considered permitted uses in the 2-E-1 zone district. 6.5 Design Review The proposed project was conceptually reviewed at the Montecito Board of Architectural Review (MBAR) on December 5, 2016 and March 9, 2017. The proposed project received preliminary and final approval as submitted on May 25, 2017. Mr. Klein attended the MBAR meeting on May 25, 2017 and provided public comment. Attachment E of this staff report contains minutes of the MBAR meetings. 7.0 APPEALS PROCEDURE The action of the Montecito Planning Commission may be appealed to the Board of Supervisors within ten (10) calendar days of said action. The appeal fee to the Board of Supervisors is $610.06. The action of the Board of Supervisors is not appealable to the Coastal Commission.
Page 13 ATTACHMENTS A. Findings B. Coastal Development Permit and Conditions of Approval for Case No. 17CDP-00000-00017 C. CEQA Exemption D. Appeal Application and Addendums to the Appeal E. MBAR Minutes F. Montecito Water District Authorization and Availability Letters G. Site and Elevation Plans H. Location and Aerial Map