MONTECITO PLANNING COMMISSION
Staff Report for Novick Appeal of Gibbons Terrace
Hearing Date: June 20 2007
Staff Report Date: June 1, 2007
Case No.: 07APL-00000-00006, 05LUP-00000-01344
07APL-00000-00020, 05BAR-00000-00313
Environmental Document: CEQA Exempt §15268
OWNER/APPLICANT:
Deputy Director: Dave Ward
Division: Development Review
Staff Contact: Nicole Mashore
Supervising Planner: June Pujo
Planner’s Phone #: (805) 884-8068
VICINITY MAP
Ed and Deborah Gibbons
1136 Glenview Road
Santa Barbara CA, 93108
(805) 695-0990
AGENT/ARCHITECT:
Peter Kavoian
1940 Tollis Ave.
Santa Barbara CA, 93108
(805) 565-4167
(Call for gate code)
APPELLANT:
Peter and Carolyn Novick
302 Woodley Road
Santa Barbara CA, 93108
(805) 969-7810
This site is identified as Assessor Parcel Number 009020-046, 1136 Glenview Rd., located 50 feet east of
the intersection of Glenview Rd. and Woodley Rd,
First Supervisorial District.
Application Filed:
Application Approved:
Appeal Filed:
December 14, 2005
May 17, 2007
May 25, 2007
Novick Appeal of Gibbons Terrace
Case No. 07APL-00000-00006
Hearing Date: June 20, 2007
Page 2
1.0 REQUEST
Hearing on the request of Peter and Carolyn Novick, appellants, to consider the Appeals, Case
Nos. 07APL-00000-00006 [appeal filed on March 7, 2007] and 07APL-00000-00020 [appeal
filed on May 25, 2007] of the Montecito Board of Architectural Review and Planning and
Development Department’s decision to approve a Land Use Permit, Case Nos. 05LUP-0000001344 and 05BAR-00000-00313, in compliance with Section 35.492 of the Montecito Land Use
and Development Code in the 2-E-1 Zone to allow demolition of an existing terrace,
construction of a new terrace, alterations to retaining walls, relocation of pool equipment and
new landscaping; and to accept the Exemption pursuant to Section 15268 of the State Guidelines
for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act. The applications involve AP
No. 009-020-046, located at 1136 Glenview Road in the Montecito Area, First Supervisorial
District.
2.0 RECOMMENDATION AND PROCEDURES
Follow the procedures outlined below and deny the Appeal, Case No. 07APL-00000-00006 and
approve the project, Case Nos. 05BAR-00000-00313 and 05LUP-00000-01344 marked
“Officially Accepted, County of Santa Barbara (June 20, 2007) Montecito Planning Commission
Attachment E,” based upon the project's consistency with the Comprehensive Plan and based on
the ability to make the required findings.
Your Commission's motion should include the following:
1. Adopt the required findings for approval of Case Nos. 05BAR-00000-00313 and 05LUP00000-01344 , included as Attachment A of this staff report,
2. Deny the appeal, Case No. 07APL-00000-00006, thereby upholding Montecito Board of
Architectural Review preliminary approval and granting de novo approval of Case No.
05BAR-00000-00313; and
3. Deny the appeal, Case No. 07APL-00000-00020, thereby upholding Planning and
Development project approval and granting de novo approval of Land Use Permit Case
No. 05LUP-00000-01344, with revised conditions, included as Attachment B of this staff
report.
Alternatively, refer back to staff if the Montecito Planning Commission takes other than the
recommended action for appropriate findings and conditions.
3.0 JURISDICTION
Novick Appeal of Gibbons Terrace
Case No. 07APL-00000-00006
Hearing Date: June 20, 2007
Page 3
This appeal is being considered by the Montecito Planning Commission based on Section
35.492.040 of the Montecito Land Use and Development Code (LUDC), Section 35-2, which
states:
Any decision of the Montecito Board of Architectural Review to grant or deny
preliminary approval [may be appealed to the Montecito Commission]; and
Any decision of the director to approve or deny an application for a Land Use Permit
[may be appealed to the Montecito Commission].
4.0 ISSUE SUMMARY
View Impacts
Visual Resource protection policies of the Comprehensive Plan, including the Montecito
Community Plan, protect open space views as seen from public viewing points but do not provide
protection for private views. The proposed terrace and hedge would have no impact on public
views and proposed landscaping would shield proposed structural additions from public views on
Glenview Road.
Although County policies do not protect private views, the appellants are concerned that a hedge,
planted prior to the approval of 05LUP-00000-01344, blocks their view of the ocean. The
Montecito Architectural Guidelines and Development Standards list consideration of views by
project applicants as a “Good Neighbor Policy.” In their approval of the project, the Montecito
Board of Architectural Review (MBAR) considered views through a recommended condition
requiring maintenance of the hedge at a height of no greater than 15 feet, a reduction from the
height of the current hedge. This condition was incorporated into the approved Land Use Permit.
Privacy Impacts
The proposed terrace would not look directly onto private areas of adjacent properties. The
proposed terrace is oriented to the south toward an existing pool and landscaped area on the
subject property and is not oriented toward the appellant on the West or neighbors on the East or
North. The terrace would be screened by existing and proposed olive trees and a ficus hedge.
Noise
The proposed relocated pool equipment would be located 26 feet from the property line and
outside of the required setback. The pool equipment would be screened by a wall and vegetation.
The wall would serve to mitigate both visual and noise impacts. The Building and Safety
Division requires noise generated by pool equipment be less than 65 Db to the property line (the
level above which noise levels would be considered significant). The proposed pool equipment
Novick Appeal of Gibbons Terrace
Case No. 07APL-00000-00006
Hearing Date: June 20, 2007
Page 4
(without the screening wall) would create noise up to approximately 50 Db at the property line,
under the Building and Safety Division requirement of 65 Db.
5.1
Site Information
Comprehensive Plan Designation
Ordinance, Zone
Site Size
Present Use & Development
Surrounding Uses/Zone(s)
Access
Public Services
5.2
Site Information
SRR-0.5
Montecito Land Use & Development Code, 2-E-1
1.01 Acres
Single-Family Residential
North: Single-Family Residential, 2-E-1
South: Single-Family Residential, 2-E-1
East: Single-Family Residential, 2-E-1
West: Single-Family Residential, 2-E-1
Glenview Road
Water Supply: Montecito Water District
Sewage: Montecito Sanitary District
Fire: Montecito Fire Protection District
Setting
The subject parcel is located approximately 50 feet from the intersection of Glenview Road and
Woodley Road in the Montecito Area. On-site slopes reach up to approximately 28% within 100
feet of the proposed addition. Parcels on all sides of the proposed development are zoned
residential.
5.3
Description
The proposed project is for demolition of an existing 413 square foot terrace, construction of a
new approximately 812 square foot terrace on the immediate south side of the residence,
alterations to retaining walls adjacent to the existing pool (of a maximum height of 10 feet)
previously approved under Land Use Permit Case No. 05LUP-00000-01025, relocation of pool
equipment and screening walls, new landscaping and grading of approximately 0 cubic yards of
cut and 474 cubic yards of fill.
5.5
Background Information
Parcel Validity
Novick Appeal of Gibbons Terrace
Case No. 07APL-00000-00006
Hearing Date: June 20, 2007
Page 5
The subject parcel is shown as lot 39 of Tract 10,147, Record Map Book 58 Page 51, dated
February 1962.
Permit Processing Overview
The original project plans were submitted December 14, 2005. The original project included a
proposed pool cabana, accessory structure and wine cellar in addition to the currently proposed
terrace. The Montecito Board of Architectural Review (MBAR) conceptually reviewed the
project, including the pool cabana and accessory structure, on January 8, 2006, November 27,
2006 and January 9, 2007. The currently proposed project received preliminary MBAR approval
on February 26, 2007. MBAR preliminary approval was appealed March 7, 2007. The project
was approved by Planning and Development on May 17, 2007 and appealed May 25, 2007.
Violations
A Zoning Violation, Case No. 06ZEV-00000-00271, was opened November 14, 2006 for a wall
exceeding the required height in the side yard setback. The Gibbons Wall Zoning Violation was
abated and closed in January 2007. A Building Violation, Case No. 06BDV-00000-00045, was
opened March 15, 2006 for unpermitted additions and retaining walls. A Land Use Permit for the
additions and retaining walls was approved and issued in January 2007.
6.0 PROJECT ANALYSIS
6.1
Environmental Review
Section 15268 of the “Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality
Act” statutorily exempts projects over which public agencies exercise only ministerial authority
from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
6.2
Appeal Issues and Discussion
6.2.1 Design Review
Appellant Statement: The appeal letter states, “The MBAR’s action to grant
preliminary approval of the proposed project represents and error of discretion as the
required findings for Design Review approval included in the Montecito Land Use and
Development Code Section 35.372.060.F.1,7 and 10 cannot be made for the project as
approved.”
Novick Appeal of Gibbons Terrace
Case No. 07APL-00000-00006
Hearing Date: June 20, 2007
Page 6
Montecito LUDC Section 35.472 Design Review Findings 1 and 7:
1. Overall structure shapes, as well as parts of any structure (buildings, fences, screens,
signs, towers, or walls) are in proportion to and in scale with other existing or permitted
structures on the same site and in the area surrounding the property.
7. 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 the maintenance of all landscaping.
10. The proposed development will be consistent with any additional design standards
expressly adopted by the Board for a specific local community, area or district in
compliance with Subsection G. (Additional design standards) below.
P&D Response:
The overall shape of the proposed structures is in proportion and to scale with existing
structures on site and in the surrounding area. Specifically, the proposed terrace would
replace an existing terrace and is of similar architectural style and proportion as the
existing residence. The proposed retaining wall alteration is in scale with the previously
permitted pool and retaining walls. The surrounding neighborhood is composed of highly
developed residential estates of a formal style similar to that proposed on the subject
parcel.
Adequate landscaping will be provided in proportion to the project and site. The project
does not include removal of native or specimen trees. Selection of landscaping and
planting is appropriate to the project and is typical of landscaping in the surrounding
area. The Montecito Board of Architectural Review (MBAR) took neighbor privacy and
landscape maintenance into consideration in their preliminary approval and through
recommended maintenance of the proposed screening hedge. A condition requiring
maintenance of the hedge to 15 feet in height was incorporated into the approved Land
Use Permit.
Additional design standards contained within the Montecito Architectural Guidelines and
Development Standards were applied in the MBAR’s review and preliminary approval of
the project.
6.2.2 Hedge
Novick Appeal of Gibbons Terrace
Case No. 07APL-00000-00006
Hearing Date: June 20, 2007
Page 7
Appellant Statement: The appeal letter states, “The hedge as planted is in the form of a
wall or fence. The 20 foot height of this fence does not comply with the MLUDC
requirement that walls or fences located in the side yard setback not exceed a height of 6
feet.”
Montecito LUDC Section 35.430 Fences and Walls:
Each fence shall comply with the height limits and permit requirements in Table 3-1. In
no case shall the height of the fence exceed the height limit established for the applicable
zone district. Fences more than 6 ft high and gateposts more than 8 ft high located within
the side yard setback require a minor conditional use permit.
P&D Response: Landscaping in the form of a hedge is not considered a fence or a wall
under the MLUDC and is therefore exempt from permit requirements for fences and
walls located within the side yard setback. The MBAR reviewed the hedge in the context
of their approval of the overall project and recommended maintenance of the hedge at 15
feet in height.
6.2.3 Views and Privacy
Appellant Statement: The appeal letter states, “The view and privacy protection
guidelines of the Montecito Architectural Guidelines and Development Standards require
that ‘Structures should be located and designed to avoid placement of windows, decks
and balconies which look directly onto private areas of adjacent properties . . . During
the course of ongoing construction on the Gibbon’s property, existing landscape trees were
removed from the area of the Gibbons’ and our common property line and replaced with a
ficus tree hedge over 20 feet in height. The hedge-wall blocks our view down the coast
toward the Rincon.”
Montecito Community Plan Policy VIS-M-1.3, Comprehensive Plan Visual Resource
Policy 3, Montecito Architectural Guidelines Section III.C.3.g and Section I.D.4:
MCP Policy VIS-M-1.3: Development of property should minimize impacts to open space
views as seen from public roads and viewpoints.
Visual Resources Policy 3: 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.
Montecito Architectural Guidelines Section III.C.3.g: Structures should be located and
designed to avoid placement of windows, decks and balconies which look directly onto
private areas of adjacent properties.
Novick Appeal of Gibbons Terrace
Case No. 07APL-00000-00006
Hearing Date: June 20, 2007
Page 8
Montecito Architectural Guidelines Section I.D.4, “Good Neighbor Policies”: Consider
your neighbors’ views and privacy in the placement and architectural appearance of
your house or addition.
P&D Response: Visual Resource protection policies of the Comprehensive Plan, including
the Montecito Community Plan, protect open space views as seen from public viewing
points but do not provide protection for private views. The proposed terrace and hedge
would have no impact on public views and proposed landscaping would shield proposed
structural additions from public views on Glenview Road.
The overall shape of the proposed structures is in proportion and to scale with existing
structures on site and in the surrounding area. Specifically, the proposed terrace would
replace an existing terrace and is of similar architectural style and proportion as the
existing residence. The proposed retaining wall alteration is in scale with the previously
permitted pool and retaining walls. The surrounding neighborhood is composed of
intensively developed residential estates of a formal style similar to that proposed on the
subject parcel.
The Montecito Board of Architectural Review took privacy concerns and views into
consideration throughout their review and preliminary approval of the project. The
terrace would not look directly onto private areas of adjacent properties, including the
appellant’s property. The proposed terrace is oriented to the south toward an existing
pool and landscaped area on the subject property and is not oriented toward neighbors on
the East, West or North. Additionally, the terrace would be screened by existing and
proposed olive trees and ficus hedge.
6.2.4 Land Use Permit Condition
Appellant Statement: The appeal letter states, “The approved LUP requires
maintenance of the hedge at 12-15 feet in height and relies on Permit Compliance to
ensure this requirement is met . . . We ask that this condition be revised to require the
hedge to be removed and replaced with plant material that would not exceed a height of
10 feet. As written, the current condition fails to specify how hedge height would be
measured (hedge trees are in tree wells built up 2-5 feet above existing grade) or a
means of ensuring compliance.”
P&D Response: The approved Land Use Permit is conditioned to require both specific
maintenance of the ficus hedge at a height of 15 feet or less and general permit
compliance for the entire project. Compliance would be enforced through regular
inspections of the property by P&D permit compliance staff. Hedge height would be
measured from the base of the ficus trunk to the terminating tip of each ficus plant. The
Land Use Permit (included as Attachment-B) has been revised to specify the method of
measuring hedge height.
Novick Appeal of Gibbons Terrace
Case No. 07APL-00000-00006
Hearing Date: June 20, 2007
Page 9
6.2.5 Noise
Appellant Statement: The appeal letter states, “The approved Land Use Permit includes
relocation of pool equipment from a fully enclosed structure to a partially walled and
uncovered area . . . Due to the steep topography of the Gibbons’ and Novicks’ properties,
sound from the constant running of the pump to lift water from the trough back to the
pool will result in around-the-clock nuisance noise. We request that the pool equipment
be located in a fully enclosed and sound insulated structure.”
Montecito Community Plan Policy N-M-1.1:
Noise sensitive uses shall be protected from noise sensitive impacts.
P&D Response: The proposed relocated pool equipment would be located 26 feet from
the property line and outside of the required setback. The pool equipment would be
screened by a wall and vegetation. The wall would serve to mitigate both visual and noise
impacts. The Building and Safety Division requires noise generated by pool equipment
be less than 65 Db to the property line (the level above which noise levels would be
considered significant). The proposed pool equipment (without the screening wall) would
create noise up to approximately 50 Db at the property line, under the Building and
Safety Division requirement of 65 Db.
6.3 Comprehensive Plan and Montecito Land Use and Development Code
Consistency
The project is consistent with all applicable Comprehensive Plan requirements including
Montecito Community policies and Montecito Architectural Guideline and Development
Standards as discussed above in the appeal issues analysis. Additionally, the project conforms to
all applicable Land Use and Development Code requirements.
7.0 APPEALS PROCEDURE
The action of the Montecito 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 $443.
ATTACHMENTS
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
Findings
Land Use Permit and Conditions of Approval
Appellant’s Appeal Letters, dated March 7, 2007 and May 25, 2007
MBAR Minutes
Site Plan, Elevations and Floor Plan
Novick Appeal of Gibbons Terrace
Case No. 07APL-00000-00006
Hearing Date: June 20, 2007
Page A-1
ATTACHMENT A: FINDINGS
Section 1.0 Montecito Board of Architectural Review
A Design Review application shall be approved or conditionally approved only if the Montecito
Board of Architectural Review first makes all of the following findings:
1. Overall structure shapes, as well as parts of any structure (buildings, fences, screens,
signs, towers, or walls) are in proportion to and in scale with other existing or permitted
structures on the same site and in the area surrounding the property.
The overall shape of the proposed structures is in proportion and to scale with existing structures
on site and in the surrounding area. Specifically, the proposed terrace would replace an existing
terrace and is of similar architectural style and proportion as the existing residence. The
proposed retaining wall alteration is in scale with the previously permitted pool and retaining
walls. The surrounding neighborhood is composed of intensively developed residential estates of
a formal style similar to that proposed on the subject parcel. Therefore, this finding can be made.
2. Electrical and mechanical equipment will be well integrated into the total design
concept.
Electrical and mechanical equipment will be well integrated into the total design concept. The
relocated pool equipment will be screened using dense vegetation and low screening walls.
Therefore, this finding can be made.
3. There will be a harmony of color, composition, and material on all sides of a structure.
There will be a harmony of color, composition, and material on all sides of a structure. The
proposed terrace will match the composition and color of the existing residence. The Land Use
Permit has been conditioned to require that understories and retaining walls be in tones
compatible with surrounding terrain (earthtones and non-reflective paints). Therefore, this
finding can be made.
4. There will be a limited number of materials on the exterior face of the structure.
There will be a limited number of materials on the exterior face of the structure. The proposed
terrace will match the composition and color of the existing residence. Therefore, this finding
can be made.
5. 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.
Novick Appeal of Gibbons Terrace
Case No. 07APL-00000-00006
Hearing Date: June 20, 2007
Page A-2
There will be a harmonious relationship with existing and proposed adjoining developments. The
surrounding neighborhood is composed of intensively developed residential estates of a formal
style similar to that proposed on the subject parcel. Therefore, this finding can be made.
6. 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 with consideration for public views of the hillsides and the ocean
and the semi-rural character of the community as viewed from scenic view corridors as
shown on Figure 37, Visual Resources Map in the Montecito Community Plan EIR (92EIR-03).
Site layout and orientation would be appropriate and well designed. The terrace is appropriately
located extending off of the existing residence over an existing patio area in a symmetrical
fashion. Proposed structures and landscaping will not impact public hillside or ocean views.
Therefore, this finding can be made.
7. 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 the maintenance of all landscaping.
No removal of specimen or landmark trees is proposed. The Land Use Permit has been
conditioned to require maintenance of the ficus hedge along the western property line at a height
of no greater than 15 feet from base of trunk. The proposed landscaping includes primarily
drought resistant Mediterranean species, appropriate to the Mediterranean style of the residence
and requiring low maintenance. Therefore, this finding can be made.
8. Grading and development is designed to avoid visible scarring and will be in an
appropriate and well designed relationship to the natural topography with regard to
maintaining the natural appearance of the ridgelines and hillsides.
Grading and development associated with the project would avoid scarring and will be in an
appropriate and well designed relationship to the natural topography. Proposed grading used to
screen the face of retaining walls adjacent to the existing pool will help to maintain the
appearance of the hillside. Therefore, this finding can be made.
9. Signs including their lighting are well designed and will be appropriate in size and
location.
No signs are proposed as a part of the project.
Novick Appeal of Gibbons Terrace
Case No. 07APL-00000-00006
Hearing Date: June 20, 2007
Page A-3
10. The proposed development will be consistent with any additional design standards
expressly adopted by the Board for a specific local community, area or district in
compliance with Subsection G. (Additional design standards) below.
Additional design standards contained within the Montecito Architectural Guidelines and
Development Standards were applied in the MBAR’s review and preliminary approval of the
project. Therefore, this finding can be made.
Section 2.0 Montecito Land Use and Development Code
A Land Use Permit application shall be approved or conditionally approved only if the Director
first makes all of the following findings:
1. The proposed development will conform to the applicable provisions of the
Comprehensive Plan including the Montecito Community Plan and Montecito Land Use
and Development Code.
As discussed in sections 6.2 and 6.3 of the staff report, the proposed project will conform to the
applicable provisions of the Comprehensive Plan including the Montecito Community Plan and
Montecito Land Use and Development Code. The proposed terrace, wall reconfiguration and
pool equipment relocation would be located outside of the required setbacks. Therefore, this
finding can be made.
2. The proposed development is located on a legally created lot.
The subject parcel is shown as lot 39 of tract 10,147, Record Map Book 58 Page 51, dated
February 1962. Therefore, this finding can be made.
3. The subject property is in compliance with all laws, regulations, and rules pertaining to
uses, subdivisions, setbacks, and any other applicable provisions of this Development Code,
and any applicable zoning violation enforcement and processing fees have been paid.
The subject property is in compliance with all laws, regulations, and rules pertaining to uses,
subdivisions, setbacks, and any other applicable provisions of the Montecito Land Use and
Development Code. All fees have been paid and the violation abated for the Gibbons Wall
Zoning Violation, Case No. 06ZEV-00000-00271. A Land Use Permit, Case No. 06LUP-0000000772, has been approved and issued for unpermitted additions and retaining walls associated
with Building Violation Case No. 06BDV-00000-00045. The project has been conditioned to
require Building and Safety Final Inspection of the additions and retaining walls under 06LUP00000-00772 prior to issuance of Land Use and Building Permits for the currently proposed
project. Therefore, this finding can be made.
Case Name, #:
Page B-1