Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

in progress. Good morning everybody. We're going to call to meeting the February 18th, 2026 meeting of the Monosto Planning Commission. Let's please all rise for the pledge of allegiance. and begin. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

And we'll have our TV coverage announcement, Mr. Bill. Lobus. Thank you, Mr. Mr. Chair and good morning to the commission everyone uh here this morning monoc planning commission hearings are televised live on the county of Santa Barbara television CSBTV channel 20 at 9:00 a.m. in the south coast uh LMPoke sunz valley Samria and orchid areas reprocast of monosto planning commission hearings are on Fridays at 5:00 p.m. on CSBTV channel 20. Today's hearing will also be streamed live on the county's website as well as the county's YouTube channel and should be available for download uh in a day or two. Uh shy move on to roll call. Yes, please. Great. Uh Commissioner Kupak, Commissioner Karns here, Commissioner Miller here. Uh Commissioner Rockenbach

here. And Chair America Connor here. Thank you. Item five on the agenda is the election of the 2026 MPC chair, first vice chair, and second vice chair. Since this is our first meeting of 2026, this is the time set in the bylaws for our election procedures. Are there any nominations for the uh position of planning commission chair? I have a nomination. I would uh nominate you, Commissioner America, to be the chair for 2026. Thank you. Are there other nominations?

All right. Uh are there nominations for verse, sorry, first vice chair? Uh Mr. Chair, I believe that uh um what we should do is we should you want to just take nominations first before we vote on all all of them or do you want to do them individually? That's what I was Okay, great. I would like um just make um lead to a a point of discussion, but I would um like to nominate uh Mr. Kubak for um chair.

All right, we have two nominations for chair. So given that, let's uh let's vote on Are there any other nominations? Let me start there. No. All right, let's close the nominations and we'll have an election for chair. Uh all those in favor of Mr. Sorry. Would it be all right if we had some discussion? Yes. on on the topic first because I I by all means

I'm sensitive to my taking a a a non-contested issue into a contested issue and so I I I I I want to offer up some comments and reflections on the topic. One is is that um Mr. Mayor or Chair Marconor, I think you've done an excellent job and I think you would do a wonderful job for this coming year. At least historically, the commission has has rotated the chair on an annual basis. And while I am not opposed to changing procedure in that regard, my nomination of of Mr. Kubak as as first chair was the recognition of of of of that historic policy. And if if I think it's entirely within the discretion of this commission to change policy, not to be bound by tradition, but I didn't want that that change to go without discussion. And that and and that was the impetus behind my nomination of Mr. Kubak. So I I I I wish to contextualize my nomination to be in no way perceived as as as anything other than a ringing endorsement of the work you have done, Mr. American Honor. Chair Maruner and

thank you very much Commissioner Miller. Other comments? I have I do have a comment because because our agenda has really not been so full in the last in the last year. I think by the time somebody becomes chair, it behooves the commission that their experience grows as these hearings continue. So, I I would endorse the idea that Steve should continue on as chair because I just think he's done a great job and I just I think it it would serve the commission well. Thank you. Other comments?

Yes. Uh I appreciate having um Commissioner Miller provide some context from my um from the years prior to my service on the commission. In anticipation of seeing this on the agenda, I did pull the bylaws to see if there was a procedure in our bylaws for the planning commission and it's silent. So, I'm not against uh deferring to what has typically been done as a history. So, um I think given Commissioner Koopiaak's comments, it's probably moot. But I did want to say that I checked the bylaws and I felt comfortable in in the nomination that I made.

Any other comments before we go to a vote?

I I I very much agree that that that there is no required procedure. This is mere tradition. My understanding is is that the county planning commission and that the board of supervisors has does the annual rotation approach. Um Embar does not and has had the same head for an extended period of time. And um I I while I I take Mr. Kubak's comments very much at face value and I I I think that will lead to a a very um clear and direct vote coming up. I um [clears throat] it is very much my desire that we as a body con not this year but continue to rotate the chair and that it would be my preference though it's obviously the choice of the of of the commission overall that we rotate the chair among all me rather than potentially in the past there has been some controversial moments in which individuals on the commission have been stepped over in terms of being chair because they were not deemed chair material. And in my mind, that is a flaw at the appointment level, not at the um if if if if we are incapable of having someone serve as chair, they I think there are serious questions as to whether they should be a a commissioner. And so I um I just I wanted to be clear on my my my preferences and and views on this topic. I'm one of five. And so I I don't mean to impose myself on this regard. And so with that, I'm I'm I'm happy for there to be the vote going going forward. But I I think that there is a a healthiness and freshness that comes with chair rot. Now, in this particular case, chair mayor Connor, you

have been chair for less than a year and for very few meetings. So I I I think this all makes sense. I think if someone wishes to pass on the role of being chair, that is a a different thing than perhaps being being passed over, if that [laughter] if that makes sense. And so w with with with that in in mind I I would be interested in group conversations about the subsequent officers that we are going to be electing with the idea that this is intentionally setting up the rotation schedule. And so I I I if if I would concur with you that I think that the root problem sometimes is appointments. And I think we've gotten past that. At least I feel very comfortable that we've gotten past that.

Oh, wow. Thank you. [laughter] No, I I I very much do, too. I I I I I firmly believe everybody on this commission currently would would do an admirable job of serving as chair. Yeah,

for the record, Commissioner Miller, I completely concur that the chair role does need to rotate um for the reasons that have been cited as our few meetings and the position being held less than a year. I think it's appropriate [gasps] and I would welcome a discussion about the vice chair, second vice chair and how that could lead into having a more formal process even if it's not written. So I support that. Any other comments on the nominations for chair?

No. Let's have a vote on that particular motion and then move on to the next issue. So, I believe before we do that, we we need a motion and a second. I call for the vote for um election of a new chair. All right. Is there a second Is there a second for a vote on the two nominations that are on the table? Is there a second for that? I'll second it. All right. So, I'm sorry to interrupt. I think that we're going off the rails already here. Um, so I'm what staff is looking for is a motion to nominate a specific person for chair. Okay. Thank you. And for all the other uh nominations after that.

So we've had two we've had two people nominated for the chair position. The the the election is not voting for our favorite candidate or I mean or or would you like to see me withdraw my motion my nomination of um Mr. Kubak a comment that's made with no judgment. I hope that is conveyed. [laughter] So I think that I think we're getting a little bogged down here. So I think that the nomination is fine for the purposes of discussion. Staff is looking for a motion to nominate a person. So then we can now then move on to first vice chair.

All right. So in order to move forward, let's um if if Mr. Kubak doesn't mind if Commissioner Miller uh wishes to withdraw his nomination of Commissioner Kubak, that would then open the way for a motion and a second and a vote. Is that acceptable? Yes. I thought a motion was already made. No, actually, I'm not sure motion I think they tried to make one, but we've got two two nominations on the floor. So, if Mr. If Commissioner Miller withdraws his nomination, would that be acceptable to you, Commissioner Miller? Upon reflection, I would like to withdraw my nomination of Commissioner Kubak.

All right, we have one nomination on the floor. Is there a motion to proceed to a vote on that nomination? So moved. Is there a second? Seconded. Any discussion? All those in favor of the nomination vote. I I I opposed. It's unanimous. We move on to the issue of the first vice chair. Is there a nomination for first vice chair? I nominate Commissioner Kubak for first chair. All right. Is there a second? I'll second it. All right. Any other nominations? All those in favor of the motion appointing Commissioner Kubak as first vice chair, please say I. I.

I. All oppose say no. [snorts] Motion is approved unanimously. Is there a motion for the for appointment of the second vice chair? I would nominate Commissioner Miller. Is there a second? I would second that.

Any other nominations? The only thing I would offer as discussion is is that for newer commissioners is I was the chair immediately preceding um uh uh chair mayor Connor and so at the risk I I I I want to be sensitive to the idea of overly tightening our pitching rotation so to speak. Um uh but that um so I I I am I am I am happy to take this but I'm also equally happy to wait my turn to for for the the two seats that have not filled the role. uh if that makes sense. So I I I I I will withdraw my motion temporarily while we have a brief discussion. All right. Is there withdraw the second?

I will withdraw the second. All right. Let's have a brief discussion on the procedure or to be used for appointment of the uh first and second vice chair. Is that acceptable or or is that not on the agenda? But that's fine. All right. We're going to have that discussion now. Briefly, briefly take I take uh this comment to heart and I think it's important that we, you know, move things around a a bit. So,

okay. And is the is the sense of the procedure that we would have the second vice chair move into the position of the first vice chair in the following year and that the first vice chair would move into the position of being the chair in the second in the next year. Is that is that the is that the preferred procedure for the commission?

That's at least been tradition which is not necessarily the same thing as preferred policy. And I believe it is how um the um the the county supervisors and and and the county planning commission kind of you know stack up you know at you know batting and on deck so to um in that regard. So I um and I wish to say that was very much the rationale behind my earlier nomination of Mr. Kubak with in terms of picking a straw man for you. Yeah.

Understood. Understood. Is that uh procedure or understanding while not formalized in the bylaws and not a subject of emotion is that acceptable on an informal basis to the entire commission? Yes. Yes. Yes. All right. Yes. And I think the minutes should so reflect that uh understanding in the commission. It's not a formal policy. It's not in the bylaws, but it uh is an understanding among the commissioners. With that understanding, is there a motion for appointment of the second vice chair? I would move that Commissioner Karns be second vice chair.

Commissioner Kubak, I think we I think you turned your mic off for that. Sorry. I would move that Commissioner Karns be the second vice chair. All right. Is there a second? I would like to second that. All right. Any other nominations? All those in favor of the motion say I. I I All those opposed say no. Unanimously approved. Congratulations, Commissioner Kern. Thank you. All right, we've successfully navigated [laughter] Is it pretty much that agenda item? Thank you for indulging me in what was a little bit of a officiousness by me.

Well, and and thank you for your thoughts and and historic reflections about how this has been done in the past. Uh item six, appointment of the 2026 Monaceto Planning Commission secretary and recording secretary, Mr. Bologus. Um thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh rest of the commissioners, well, you are certainly welcome to nominate anyone you wish. I would I have a recommendation. Um historically, uh those roles have been filled by uh Mr. Wilson and myself. And if uh hopefully you feel we've done a good job over the the last year and um uh that's who I would recommend for this upcoming year as well.

Thank you for your recommendation. And I would just add that don't take his absence today as a indication of his lack of interest. [laughter] This isn't dodging. He he recommended Alex total. [laughter] He wasn't. All right. We have a recommendation from a staff for Mr. Wilson, Mr. Vil Lobos to fill those two positions. Is there a motion to that effect? I would make a motion that we approve that recommendation. All right. Is there a second to that motion? Second. All right. Any discussion? All those in favor of the motion say I. I. All those opposed say no. Unanimous. Unanimously approved. Thank you.

Thank you. Item seven, the agenda status report. Mr. Chair, commissioners, we have two items on today's agenda. Uh uh an appeal uh sorry uh Monaceto LLC walls and then the long-range planning utility scale solar ordinance amendments project. Uh both items are prepared to proceed today and no changes to the agenda. Thank you. Any questions for staff? All right. the projection report.

And then looking at the projection report, uh our next scheduled meeting is uh currently March 18th. Uh as of now, there are no items on that agenda. Um I would hold off on taking any action at this point, maybe until the end of the hearing today, uh to see what happens. Uh beyond that, April 15th is your next uh hearing and there is currently one item on that uh agenda uh development plan amendment for 1260 BB Property LLC on uh 1260 Channel Drive. And that that's as far out as we're projecting at this point.

All right. Any questions for staff on the projection report? All right. Item uh nine, public comment. Public comment period is set aside to allow public testimony on items not on today's agenda. The time allocated to each speaker will be set at the discretion of the chair. Total time allocated for public comment is 15 minutes. When testifying before this commission, personal attacks and other disruptive behavior are not appropriate. Are there any requests to speak during the public comment period? Uh Mr. Chair, I've received no slips. I've seen no one rise and I see no hands on uh raised online.

All right. Thank you. And the public comment period will be closed. Planning commissionersformational reports in individual commissioners may present brief reports or on planning issues such as seminars, meetings, or literature that would be of interest to the public and or the commission as a whole. Close. Do any commissioners have anything to offer during this portion of the meeting? No. All right. Seeing no request to speak, we'll move on to

I would offer a one remark is that um with the extensive rains that we have received um in this last week um it has been notable that the um that the rise in the freeway elevation and the um walnut sound walls the um the the the the above ground level construction does not seem to have um caused any holding back of water at least to my observation As I have driven along North Jameson, I actually do have something to for just for public interest since Okay. kind of walk across the street. The American Institute of Architects has Can you speak into the mic?

The American Institute of Architects has all of its uh submissions for firms in Santa Barbara who wish to be uh in their awards uh format. There's an exhibit at the Faulner Gallery and you can see the work of at least 20 different architectural firms in Santa Barbara to see the kind of work that professionals here are doing and I think it would be of it would behoove the public to to see that work to see the kind of impacts that architects are having on our city. Thank you.

Very good. Anyone else? All right. Moving on to the minutes of December 17th. They were distributed with the agenda for this meeting. Are there any corrections or changes to those minutes? I have one uh correction. Chair Connor, in section four um it reflects that all commissioners were present um which is incorrect. Uh Commissioner Miller was absent which is correctly reflected up above um in the presence and absence. So it's just a correction to section 4. Very good. That correction will be made. Any other changes? Motion would be in order to approve the minutes. So moved.

Is there a second? Seconded. All in favor say I. I. All opposed. Minutes are unanimous unanimously approved. Item number 12, the director's report and board of supervisors hearing sum summary. The director of planning and development will report. Lisa, Miss Plowman, nice to see you again. Nice to see you. Um, one minute, Mr. So, just before Miss Plowman starts, just I want to return back to the minutes there. So, um, if Commissioner Miller is was absent for those, uh, that last meeting, did you Oh, I abstained when I I was supposed to be abstaining because I was absent. My apologies. Thank you.

I changed my vote. All right. The the minutes of this meeting will reflect that change in the vote on the last motion. Thank you. All right, Director Plowman, you're up. Good morning. And good morning. I think I should say happy new year. Yes. [laughter]

To this body. I don't think we've seen you since uh or I haven't seen you. Um so there have been a number of things that have transpired at the board level since um I last presented to you in December. Um, we had the um streamlining and housing accommodations ordinance package go to the board. Uh, that went to the board on the 27th of January. Um, it had been previously acted upon or or we' we presented to the board on the 16th of December. uh but they had continued it to the 27th because they had some questions about some of the changes that were being made and um in response to those questions uh the staff did work with the board to make some modifications to that package. Uh, I think the most notable modifications um relate to the changes we made for the commercial um C2 zone and mixed use um so that we could ensure that in some areas of the county there would be a way to preserve the commercial uh space uh versus in other areas where we have sufficient commercial space and we need more housing. So we tried to balance that. We also made some changes to the uh the requirements for open space and we um still balanced the need to increase density. So for the higher densities, we still have a lower requirement for open space, but we did increase the requirements for like the single size of one open area that's supposed to serve as common space uh to 50 by 50. Um, and we added a landscaping minimum landscaping requirement of 15% to address some concerns by the board that maybe there wouldn't be sufficient

landscaping if our open space amounts were lower. Um, so those are kind of the key things um that we changed. Alex, is there anything else you would want to add to that except for the one uh there was one Monosito planning commission made four different recommendations to the board that were different than what the uh county planning commission recommended and the county planning commission re recommendation did not include recommending what the MPC changes were. Um but there was some discussion at the board and what the board ended up deciding to do was um maintain most of the changes so that there would be consistency across our codes with the exception of the accessory structure that was uh going to be exempt from uh MBAR and that was a recommendation that this commission made that it not be exempt and the board upheld that and preserved that. Any questions about that? Okay. Um, we also had the Coastal Commission's con um conditional certification of the coastal zone reszones as part of our housing element um accepted by the board of supervisors. So, no, those properties that are in the coastal zone um that were part of our housing element now have those reszones in place. So that was the final step in in the closure of the adoption of our housing element. So I think we're we're very happy to see that happen. We very happy to see that the coastal commission supported um the county's efforts to identify locations for new housing particularly in the coastal zone. Um, and then, um, we had a general cleanup package, uh, of ordinance changes, which

I believe this commission saw, and that went through on February 3rd, and it was there were no changes made by the board. Uh, for future items going to the board, so we have the REAduct appeal. Um that was a decision made by the PC to support the applicant's um improvements to a damaged wall in the Sanosedto Creek. Uh you denied the appeal. It has been now appealed to the board and that's going to be heard on the 24th of February. Um our environmental justice element is going to be heard by the board on the 10th of March. Uh we have a cannabis uh the board last year adopted changes to our cannabis ordinance to require increased odor control uh in the coastal zone and also in the inland area where they have indoor grows or processing facilities. Um there was also a process built in for some of the growers to seek extensions if they were having challenges either uh securing that equipment or they had power supply problems. and some do actually have uh some issues withce that they need to get upgrades. So, we received some extension requests. We are going to the board with those extension requests on March 3rd. Um and then we have our long range work program um that we are developing for the long range planning division and that's going to go to the board on April 7th. We like to try and bring that to the board before they have their um budget workshops so that they all they understand what it is the department will be working on in terms of policy and ordinance changes over the next year and that they support those and and that's the time for them to change them if uh they want to they can throughout the year but it's better to get it set at the beginning of the year uh so we know how we're going to allocate the resources.

um budget workshops are the following week. Uh so if your commission is interested, you can monitor those um either in person or via Zoom. And we will also be taking a local preference concept along with um community services department bringing forward amendments to the inclusionary housing ordinance. And that is also going to be happening in April and we're still nailing down that date. And that's all I have. I'm happy to answer any questions. Your mind is

vague in my memory about the uh the wall repair that went on in Santa Cedro Creek that we denied the appeal and the now the appeal is going to the board of supervisors. Who's filing the appeal? The people that have filed the appeal of the original approval of the CDP. So, the neighbors who appealed it to the MPC appealed it to the board. Okay. And it's not unusual for the appeal to not go on to the board in circumstances like that. I'm surprised. Thank you. Yeah. Any other questions? Thank you, Director Plowman. Thank you.

Nice to have you with us today. Yeah. Good to see you all. All right, moving on to item 13, the wave public hearing. Mr. Secretary, thank you. I'm sorry. [clears throat] Backing up just slightly. I I apologize. I've been slowing my thinking. Um, director plowman the you made the point that a series of the recommendations of the monoca planning commission um were turned down by the board of supervisors in order to have code conformity between [clears throat] monoc and nonmonito I don't know how to what what is monito and the everything else that isn't incorporated

monito coastal zone in monaceto and surrounding inland land use development codes. [laughter]

So it it would be the the unincorporated inland county other than Monaceto are are the understanding coastal has its own challen is issues of lack of conformity but that should we properly understand that that the board of supervisors desires conformity between these two in that what I'm what I'm struggling with this is is that a little bit Our Raison Detra is is Monaceto has its own building, you know, planning and development code because as a special region and and and our our our our job here is a little bit to kind of celebrate the differences and so you can maybe unpack that for me a little bit.

Yeah. Yeah. Commissioner Miller through the chair. The other items were more procedurally related and we do like to keep our procedures consistent. If it's if it's changes that um are unique to the land uses in Monaceto, that's one thing. But if it's procedural, we like to keep it consistent and the board likes to keep it consistent. Okay. So, a a a process question rather than a design question. Is that I I would say that's correct, Commissioner Miller. Okay. Thank you. Yeah. All right. Okay.

So, we're moving on to the way public hearing, Mr. Secretary.

Uh yes. Thank you, uh Mr. Chair. So uh the way public hearing um is really a supplemental notice um to indicate so uh these projects um are to follow the normal noticing pro uh process for regular projects. So, there's a newspaper ad. There's an ad to the paper. Um, but these waved hearing um projects have an additional noticing requirement that they appear on the agenda of the board that would review it if someone had requested a hearing. Um, in this case, um, just because we didn't have a meeting last uh month, uh, the uh period to request a uh hearing has already expired. And so, this is really a it's already kind of happened. And as I'm not sure if Mr. Seawwords can confirm, but I don't believe we received any request on this one.

That is correct. So there's no action for the commission uh on this one. It's just really just an acknowledgement uh supplemental notice. Very good. Thank you. All right. Moving on to item 14, the standard agenda. Item number one is 1410 North Jameson Lane. Uh so Mr. chair for the standard agenda. My uh my staff person Jonathan Martin will read the item into the record. Very good. Welcome.

Good morning, Mr. Chair. We will begin with item number one, 23 CU-0034 and 24 CDH-00025 Monosto LLC walls. Hearing on the request of Monaceto LLC to consider the following case number 25, I'm sorry, 23 cup- 0034 and case number 24 CDH-000025 and to determine the project is exempt from SQA pursuant to state guidelines for imple I'm sorry for state SQA guidelines section 15303 as outlined in the notice of exemption.

All right. Would this be the appropriate time to make a exparte disclosure? Uh, is that later? Yes, sure. Uh, I did speak with the planner, Kathleen Fulpy, on this. Um, I had a number of questions that we'll see after the presentation if they remain, but we did have a conversation and it was very helpful.

Very good. Any other exparte disclosures? Um uh this is not exactly exparte but um I am the um the next door neighbor to or at least my we where I live a butts in a particular corner of this property. I do believe I can consider this matter though without um conflict of interest. So do we need to have any kind of an opinion from council on the subject before we move on? Is this

I'm happy to refer this to council. Yeah, I I when I had reviewed the Brown Act, it was as I understood it, it was if if this had a possible positive or negative impact on my property value or or or any ability to sit I'm sorry. When I I I I I as part of coming into this hearing, I did read through what I understood to be the Brown Act guidelines for recusal and I did not identify myself as being falling into one of those categories, but I am more than happy to defer to council on the topic. Um, Mr. Chair, it might be a good idea if we could just take a short break, okay,

for council to look into. Let let's take a short recess, allow uh Commissioner Miller to consult with council, provide the necessary information, get advice so that we can then move forward with the hearing. We'll take a 5 to 10 minute break as short as possible. Where?

for February 18th after our short recess. Is there any further comment or discussion on the uh item that we were talking about before the recess? Upon review with county council and her sage advice, it's been recommended that I indeed do recuse myself. So, I am going to go get myself a cup of coffee and I encourage you all to enjoy this.

All right. The record will reflect that you are recused and stepping away from the uh deis. And with that, I think we can move on to the staff report. Okay. Good morning, chair, members of the commission. My name is Kathleen Vulpi and I will be presenting the proposal for the Monosto LLC walls project. On the left is a vicinity map of the subject parcel. The property is located at 1410 North Jameson Lane. It's within the coastal zone in the Monosto community plan. The 0.72 acre parcel is residentially zoned 20 R1 and is highlighted in red on the vicinity map. Access to the site is offered via Jameson Lane identified by the turquoise line. Monaceto Creek is shown as a blue line and runs through the northern portion of the parcel. State Highway 101 is located just south of Jameson Lane and has been undergoing a road widening project. The map on the right shows the flood overlays. The floodway overlay is delinate delineated by the hatch blue area and the 100year flood hazard overlay is shown as solid blue. Miss Vulp, sorry for the interruption. Would you mind speaking a little closer to the microphone?

Is that better? That's much better. Thank you.

Yes. Uh the map on the right shows floodways. The flood overlays. The floodway overlay is delineated by the hatch blue area and the 100year flood hazard overlay is shown as all blue. [gasps] Public works flood control has reviewed the project for consistency with their requirements and approved the design. This will be discussed a little bit later in the slides. The subject parcel is a legally created lot and is developed with a single family dwelling, a guest house, and a CMU and plaster soundwall with an entrance gate. The property owners entered into a noise abatement agreement with CALR and received compensation in connection with the Highway 101 widening project. To reduce noise impacts from Highway 101, a new sound wall was constructed along the Jameson Lane property line, replacing an existing six-foot fence. The sound wall is located within the front se set setback and exceeds 6 ft in height and the parcel is located within the coastal commission appeals jurisdiction due to its proximity to Monacea Creek. Therefore, permits are required. A zoning violation was issued in 2023 to address the unpermitted construction of the sound wall. The required permits include a minor conditional use permit and a coastal de development permit with hearing. The project is a request for a minor conditional use permit and coastal development permit to validate a 235 ft asbuilt CMU and plaster soundwall that varies in height from 6' 7 in to 7' 10 in and is located within the front setback and also includes an entrance gate. Grading includes approximately 13 cubic yards of cut and 13 cubic yards of fill. No tree no trees are proposed for removal and access will continue to be provided from Jameson Lane. The property is shown as a parcel number 009251001. It's located at 1410 North Jameson Lane in the Monos community plan, the first supervisoral district.

The project includes a request to reduce the required 50- foot buffer from Mon Monosto Creek's top of bank to 43 ft to allow a portion of the wall within the buffer to remain. The site plan depicts the subject parcel, the sound wall shown by the red line, Monaceto Creek, the 50-foot top of bank buffer shown by the black dash line, [gasps] the the ESH boundary illustrated by the green dash line, and the driveway and neighboring access roads as the gray area. A biological report prepared by Watershed Environmental, Inc. evaluated potential project impact impacts and assess the ESH. The report concluded that the reduced top of bank buffer can be supported and would not result in erosion, soil disturbance or instability of Monaceto Creek, nor would it adversely affect storm water runoff patterns. The report further determines that though there is map DSH, the area affected by the sound wall has previously been landscaped with non-native ornamental vegetation shown by the top photos and the wall is located adjacent to the driveway in an in an access road that serves neighboring parcels shown in the bottom photo. Though there are native and specimen trees including oak trees on the property, the area is significantly disturbed and is not considered ESH. The installation of the wall and entrance gate did not disturb more than 20% of critical root zones or significantly impact any trees. The site includes uh this slide includes a photograph of the sound wall along Jameson Lane and a detail of the proposed wall design with vents. plans demonst uh plans demonstrating 45 12 inch x 12 in vents along the bottom of the wall along with a report analyzing potential water flow through the vents were submitted to the public works flood control division. Flood reviewed this middle and determined the venting design reduced impacts of the soundwall in the special flood hazard

area. They determined that with the venting it complies with all applicable county flood plane and floodway development standards. uh and flood control has also required photos of the vents after installation. The project has been reviewed by MBAR and received favorable favorable comments. The project is in the project is conditioned to return to MBAR for prelim preliminary and final approval on the consent agenda following dec uh following decision maker approval. Excuse me. Um this slide shows sound walls in the neighborhood uh in the same neighborhood as the project demonstrating that the walls of similar height design and materials are common place and it contributes to the visual consistency within the community. The project is consistent with the comprehensive plan including the monosto community plan. The sound wall is in conformance with the scaling character of the existing community and has been reviewed with favorable comments by Embar. The biological report was prepared and no some significant impacts to riparian woodland esh were found in a reduction to 43 feet of the 50 foot from top of bank monosto creek buffer can be supported. The wall was constructed with minimal grading and designed to fit site topography, soils, geology and hydrarology. And public works has public works flood control division has reviewed the project and with the inclusion of the 45 vents found the wall in compliance with all flood plane and floodway development standards. Therefore, the wall and entrance gate will not impact hillside and wershed protection or water resources and flooding. The project is comp is consistent with all applicable article 2 and R1 zone development standards. It is located on a residentially developed parcel

containing a single family dwelling and associated residential accessory structures. The wall and entrance gate function as an accessory feature to the residential use and promotes a suitable environment for family family life by attenuating noise generated from highway 101 and improving the comfort and general welfare of the property's residents. A wall of over 6 feet in the front setback is an allowed structure with a minor conditional use permit. And with the approval of the 50 foot from top of top of bankank buffer reduction to 43 feet, the project meets all applicable development standards for native plant community habitats and applicable stream habitat policies. No specimen or native trees were removed or significantly disturbed during construction and no sensitive uh plant species were impacted. The the proposed project can be found exempt through SQA guideline section 15303 which allows a new construction or conversion of small structures. Given that the project is for a sound wall and entrance gate, it can be found exempt from SQA and staff recommends that your commission make the required findings for approval of the project. Determine the project is exempt from SQA and grant approval of the project subject to the conditions of approval. Staff is now available for any questions.

Are there questions for staff? All right. Hearing no questions. I do have

I have a question. I was just thinking through it. So, there is an area along Jameson Lane that has uh that ab butts the 101 where there were homeowners told they were not allowed to have a sound wall due to flooding issues. And there were a number of meetings held with um uh the uh CALR officials and and probably the the county flood control and in the issue of transparency on why this particular soundwall is allowed. Um I just would like to have some comments on the record from the planning Commissioners, we actually asked Matt Griffith from flood control to come because we anticipated a question like this might come up. So, I think he's better able to speak on the county's approach to this.

Great. Thank you so much.

Commissioner Karns to the chair, Matt Griffin, engineering manager for county flood control. Uh so going back to uh the CALR soundwall discussions at [clears throat] that time um those sound walls were being analyzed in regards to what's called the current FEMA effective map. Uh and also at that time there was uh something called the recovery mapping which came out of the 2018 debris flow. Um and so the standards were based those walls were analyzed based on those maps. At that time we told you that FEMA was redoing their maps. Um those maps are essentially done. Um [clears throat] they will be formally uh adopted on June 10th. They'll become official on June 10th. Um so way back in 2018 we actually were regulating to to two maps. Uh for a while we were regulating to three maps which was very difficult. Um and on June 10th we will be back to regulating to to one map. [cough and clears throat] At the time we told you that the uh plinary FEMA mapping would not drastically change the flood plane um through Monaceto and that by and large is true. At this particular property though the flood plane is contained within the creek. So this proposed wall will be outside of the flood plane. Um the current effective maps we still need to regulate to that map until June 10th. um the sound walls um due to the potential widespread impact of those, we were holding those to a very high standard of analysis requiring no rise. Uh considering the circumstances for this property um and understanding that the maps are changing as of June 10th, we found it to be a compromise to hold them to a one-t rise in water surface elevations, which they've accomplished

by cutting in those those vents. Um, so in this case, we found that acceptable. If the maps didn't change, I don't think that we would find that acceptable. We would probably ask them to remove the wall. So would it be fair to say on a case-byase basis once the June 10th maps are or June yeah June 10th maps are approved and accepted other homeowners along the stretch that apply for permits to build sound walls without just building the sound wall and coming back later um would be considered on a case-by case basis. Yeah, I think that'd be fair to say.

Thank you very much. By the way, this map that's about to be adopted on June 10th, has it been made public in any way? Yes. Yeah, it's all available online. Um, we have a website in regards to it um on our flood control web page. And when was that made public? It's been made public for uh we had a a big public meeting here in this room a year ago. Um, those maps had been public for probably I'd have to check, but probably for at least six months, probably for six months because at the time of our last meeting when we requested to look at those flood that updated information, it was not available to us as commissioners. All I will I'll first forward you an email with the information. I would appreciate that.

Sure. It's been I've been waiting for a long time. Other questions or comments for staff? I have one. Um, is the venting that's been discussed already present or is that being proposed as a condition of approval?

It's on page six of the presentation if that's helpful. Um, Commissioner Rombbach through the chair. Um, yeah. So that was a they it is not has not been installed at this time. So what we were originally approving is the uh solid sound wall. What in order to get clearance from public works flood control they had to add do engineering and develop a venting system that would be installed afterwards and um they are required to demonstrate photos to flood of completion.

Okay. Thank you. is the the number of of vents called for in any I didn't see any I see this one detail but it doesn't tell me how many vents there are they by a particular distance apart I think that was part of the presentation I think it was 45 vents

45 oh I'm sorry 45 okay thank you and one final question I have is about the height how u the wall goes to six foot seven foot 10 inches and it it's presented as uh consistent with the neighborhood walls. And just as a person that drives through the neighborhood frequently, it's hard to see how tall some of the walls are, but certainly this one appears to be taller. And was there a reason that the homeowner was allowed to go up to 7' 10 in? that would um help for transparency in the records to have an answer.

Commissioner Chair Karns through the chair. So within the front setback, you are allowed to have a wall above six feet. Anything six feet or below is basically it's exempt from permitting. So if you would like to have a wall that's over six six feet, it is allowed. It's just allowed with a minor conditional use permit, which is what the applicant is applying for. Um, I cannot say for sure the heights of the neighborhood, but I do know that we have a history of permitting heights above six feet um in the Monosto area with minor conditional use permits in the past. Thank you very much. That's helpful. Other questions or comments for staff?

One additional question. Mhm. Um if you could go back to page five, can you show me where um the reduction in the buffer from Monaceto Creek is from 50 ft down to 43 feet? Is it the whole length of the wall or just one section of the wall that encroaches on that what would otherwise be the the buffer?

Commissioner Rombba or the chair. So that dash line, if we look at the map on the left, there is a small um red line right below it. And basically that's 13 linear feet of wall area that is within the buffer. So the the buffer reduction will be to incorporate that small piece of wall that 13 linear feet. Okay. And that's on the other side of the driveway entrance. It looks correct. Yes.

Okay. And commissioners, just for the record too, we want to make sure um some of you are new for the buffer reduction. The code does allow it with evidence from a biologist or something that there is no bio resource in in the area. Other questions, comments, anything more from staff? Thank you. All right, I think we're ready to move to uh a motion and a decision. Oh.

Oh, I'm sorry. You're right. Wait, I know what you're about to say. There's public comment. Well, before that really long, long long motion. I get it. I get it. Uh, Mr. Chair, before that, I believe the applicant has a presentation as well. Very good. Let's hear from the applicant and then we'll have public comment.

Good morning, commissioners. My name is Sarah Marshall. I am from Seps Land Use Consulting. I am one of the two agents along with my colleague Steve um Steve Welton from our office representing the property owner Joe Gunner who is also in attendance in the audience. Our planner, Miss Vulpi, did an excellent job presenting our project overview and requests, and I am here just to provide additional background information and context. It's a very brief presentation. This photo shows the existing white plaster wall. Um, as mentioned, we're requesting an asbuilt conditional use permit and coastal development permit for the existing soundwall. The wall was built using funding provided to the property owner from CALR to um abate noise from the highway 101 as part of the widening project. The owner was not aware that a permit was necessary to build the wall because of its height exceedence of 6 feet and an enforcement case was opened due to a violation against the property for the wall. Some additional context regarding the height of the wall going up to 7 feet 10 in is that the 101 highway sits above the property which is why the property owner chose to build a slightly higher wall. The project has been thoroughly reviewed by the planning department as well as flood control as mentioned um considering the proximity to Monaceto Creek and its location within the FEMA floodway and the 100-year flood hazard overlay. Flood control signed off on the project since the owner agreed to create penetrations in the wall at certain locations in order to allow water to pass through in the event of future flooding. I would also like to add that the board did adopt um flood controls interim maps um that were discussed previously. The project was also reviewed by public works and a design exception was

approved for the site stopping triangle distance triangle and the project received preliminary and conceptional approval at Monaceto B and will return to Monaceto B for final approval following CU approval. The top photo on the left shows the previous wooden fence at the corner of the property and the bottom photo is taken showing the same location of the current wall. Um, this photo is slightly outdated and there is landscaping currently and additional landscaping is proposed as part of the project approval. Touching on neighborhood compatibility, if you look at the left side of this image, you see our subject parcel um with the existing wall. And then slightly eastbound on Jameson Lane driving towards Summerland, there is a neighbor with a similar white plaster wall. I'm not aware of the height of that wall, but based on the imagery I could see and driving by, it seemed compatible in height. and driving the opposite direction west on North Jameson Lane. Um the top photo shows a neighboring parcel just two properties west of our property um showing an existing wall. And then about four properties west on the corner of Santa Clara Way and Jameson Lane, there is another existing white plaster soundwall similar in height and design. That concludes my presentation. Myself as well as property owner and Steve Welton are available to answer any additional questions you may have. Thank you.

Thank you. Any questions for our speaker? No. Thank you. Any other speakers for the applicant? No. All right. Now we can have a public hearing. So the public hearing is open. Anyone who wishes to address the commission on this project is welcome to approach the lectern and uh offer your comments. Are there any requests to speak? Uh staff has received no speaker uh slips on this item and uh I do not believe we have any uh hands raised. Uh Mr. Martin, can you confirm that?

All right, last call for speakers from the audience. If anybody's in our online chat, please raise your hand if you would like to speak on this item. Mr. Chair, seeing none.

All right. See no requests to speak either in the room or online. And so we will close the public hearing. Anything uh further from staff before we move to a motion and a vote? Nope. All right. So there's a recommendation And let me uh if we could put it up on the screen, I would appreciate it. This is slide 11 in the staff recommendation. Thank you. There are the three recommendations from staff. Is there a motion from the commission? I would move to accept the staff's recommendations.

Motion's been made to accept the staff recommendation. Is there a second? Seconded. All right. Any discussion? All right. Hearing no discussion. All those in favor of the motion say I. I. I. All oppose say no. Motion is unanimously approved. Thank you to the applicant. Thank you to staff. We appreciate your help on this item. Mr. Chair, can we take a short break just to have uh staff set up and so we can locate Mr. Commissioner Miller? Sure. Thank you. We'll take a a short break. Don't go anywhere, folks. Go to the ladies room.

Are we going to call the meeting back to order? Go to item number two on the agenda. Yes. Item number two, 24 OD-000029 and 24 OD-000030 utility scale solar amendments project. Hearing on the request of the county of Santa Barbara Planning and Development Department, PND that the Monacea Planning Commission consider the following. Case number 24 OD-0029, an ordinance amendment article 2, the Coastal Zone Ordinance, and case number 24D-000030, an ordinance amending the Monosto Land Use and Development Code, MLUDC.

Very good. And do we have a report from staff? Good morning, Mr. Chair, members of the commission. Uh, so I just wanted to introduce uh my team and then hand it off to them for a staff presentation. So with us today is Whitney Wilkinson, supervising planner, Zoe Carlson, project manager, and uh Matt Hernandez, uh, project planner. And, uh, with that, I will hand it off to them. Very good. Welcome.

Good morning, chair, commissioners. My name is Zoe Carlson and I'm a senior planner and the project manager for the utility scale solar project. And Matt Hernandez on our team will also be presenting for you today. We'll start by giving a background and overview of the utility scale solar project. We'll then discuss the proposed changes to the ordinances and the comprehensive plan. We'll discuss the public and environmental review process and we'll discuss the project's consistency with the comprehensive plan and the community plan policies and then discuss the next steps and recommendations for your commission. In 2014, the board of supervisors adopted amendments to the land use and development code or LUDC and the comprehensive plan land use element to allow for the development of a utility scale solar project in the Quiamama Valley by establishing a 600 acre overlay for utility scale solar. And since that project and a subsequent project have been developed, there is very little remaining capacity within that overlay for utility scale solar. And in 2019, the board of supervisors adopted the strategic energy plan uh which included strategies to expand renewable energy generation. And one of those strategies was amending the county code to allow for utility scale solar throughout the county unincorporated areas. So in 2021, the board did direct long range planning to develop amendments to allow for utility scale solar throughout the county as well as amending the

uniform rules proposing amendments to uniform rules to uh designate utility scale solar as a compatible use on Williamson at contracted lands. Specifically, the amendments to the Monaceto Land Use and Development Code or MLUDC and the Coastal Zoning Ordinance or CZO include clarifying definitions um and related information uh regarding solar and it also establishes a permitting tiered system with associated development standards for those tiers. We're using the terminology of systems to describe the smaller tier 1 and two solar projects and facilities as in solar energy facilities for those larger tier three and four projects. We are not proposing any changes to the allowance of standalone battery energy storage systems or battery ESS ESF. Um but we are clarifying that these systems are currently allowed as public utility facilities or private services uses within the code. We are also proposing these battery ESS uh to be allowed as a component of solar energy systems and facilities as long as they are commensurate in size uh with the solar project. This table includes the proposed permitting framework for both the MLUDC and the CZO for those smaller tier 1 and two projects that we're designating as solar energy systems. These tier one solar systems are exempt

from planning permits in the inland area. And uh the groundmounted um projects in the coastal zone require a coastal development permit which is similar to the current requirements. And these smaller tier one systems are generally intended to support energy generation for on-site uses. The tier 2 solar energy systems include groundmounted systems that are greater than half an acre and up to and including 5 acres in size on developed or improved areas. For example, a solar canopy over a parking lot. And these would be allowed with a zoning clearance. And they may be used for on-site or offsite as uh similar to a micro grid system. And in the coastal zone um there would be a non-locally appealable coastal development permit uh required as well. Also the solar projects on agricultural resource management, recreation and mountainous zone sites must produce power primarily for on-site use. And this is due to the sensitivity and purpose of these zones. Um really solar should be for supporting that primary use and not for off-site production. This is the proposed permitting framework for the larger tier three and four solar energy facilities. Generally, solar energy facilities have the primary p purpose of commercial energy generation for off-site use. And due to the size and commercial nature, these are not proposed to be allowed in all zones, only the specific zones um

shown on this slide. In the Monaceto planning area, there is only one A1 property and public utilities, but uh we are including all allowed zones for consistency across the ordinances. for the tier three uh which are the community scale solar energy facilities. Those are up to 30 acres in size and they would be permitted with a minor conditional use permit uh as well as a coastal development permit if they're in the coastal zone. the utility scale are the largest tier four projects that are over 30 acres in size and those would be permitted with a major conditional use permit as well as that coastal development permit in the coastal zone. Uh tier three and four projects in the public utilities zone would be allowed with a development plan in lie of that conditional use permit but they would still require that coastal development permit in the coastal zone. The amendments include standards for solar development that are more rigorous for the larger projects. And these development standards came from the existing solar utility scale solar development standards in the land use and development code as well as the program environmental impact report for the project. and some were also developed from best practices to ensure consistency. There are height and setback requirements uh for all solar energy systems and facilities as well as additional standards for tier three and four solar energy facilities and tier 2 as applicable.

uh including a number of visual screening and landscaping standards, a number of noise, traffic and safety control standards, standards for protection of agricultural, biological and cultural resources, a number of hazard prevention standards as well as decommissioning and site restoration standards where appropriate. Our proposed project does include amendments to the comprehensive plan land use element uh which include removing that utility scale solar photovoltaic facility overlay in the Quayama Valley that I previously mentioned and specifically deleting the associated policy 15 um related to that overlay for consistency and similar consistency related updates are proposed for the coastal land use plan to clarify that solar facilities are a conditionally permitted use. As I mentioned previously, the board did direct us to propose amendments to the uniform rules to allow for utility skill solar on Williamson at contracted land. Um, and these proposed amendments are discussed in detail in the staff report. However, there are not any Williamson at contracted land within the Monaceto planning area. And there is no action for your commission to take regarding those amendments. And I'll now turn it over to Matt for the rest of the presentation. Thank you, Zoe. I'll now pick it up from here to go over our outreach efforts, environmental review, policy consistency, and next steps. This slide summarizes our key outreach efforts described in the staff report for SQA. The notice of preparation was issued

November 7th, 2024. The scoping hearing was held November 21st, 2024, and the scoping comment period closed December 9th, 2024. Staff also held a developer and stakeholder meeting on May 23rd, 2024 to review the tier framework, allowable zones, and permitting approach. Comments from that meeting were incorporated where appropriate. On the agriculture side, because we are proposing solar on a land, staff met with the agricultural advisory committee on August 8th, 2024 and November 13, 2025. AAC feedback emphasized supporting on-site agricultural solar with minimal discretionary permitting where feasible and staff refined parts of the tier approach. In response, environmental review for the comprehensive plan and ordinance amendments was completed through a program EIR prepared under SQA guidelines section 15168. The draft program EIR was circulated for public review from August 19th, 2025 through October 3rd, 2025. The program EIR impact analysis at a programmatic level determined that most of the impacts were related to larger scale tier three and tier 4 solar energy facilities with minimal impacts associated with the smaller tier 1 and tier 2 solar energy systems. At a program level, the EIR identifies significant and unavoidable impacts in three areas. aesthetics and visual resources, agricultural resources, and cultural, tribal cultural and paleontological resources. It also identifies significant but miticable impacts in the other topic areas listed here, air quality, biological resources, greenhouse gases, hazards, noise, transportation, utilities, and wildfire. The program EIR also includes a

mitigation and monitoring report and reporting program to ensure mitigation measures are implemented as future projects tear off from this program level analysis. As a reminder, the EIR is at a program level and future tier three and four solar projects will still be subject to additional project specific environmental review as appropriate as required by SQA. The program EIR also evaluated a range of reasonable alternatives to the proposed project. First, alternative one, a no project alternative, would retain the existing framework, including the 600 acre utility scale solar overlay in the Coyama Valley. There would be no streamlining or expanded permitting areas under this alternative. Next, alternative two, reduced Williamson Act allowance would prohibit or further limit tier three and tier 4 solar facilities on Williamson Act contracted agricultural lands and add additional footprint caps. Finally, alternative 3 would prohibit tier 4 solar facilities in the coastal zone. Alternative 3 was identified by the program EIR as the environmentally superior alternative. However, staff is recommending the proposed project as it best meets project objectives while still providing programmatic mitigation and project level review. Within the staff report, you will also find a detailed policy consistency analysis that evaluates key resource areas. Staff's conclusion is that the project is consistent with the county comprehensive plan, including the coastal land use plan and Monaceto community plan. This analysis was completed at the program level and future non-exempt projects that require a permit will still be subject to a project level specific consistency analysis. And to close, staff recommends the commission adopt resolutions to

recommend approval of the project package as follows. First, a resolution recommending that the county planning commission recommend that the board of supervisors adopt the coastal zone ordinance amendments and make the required findings. Next, a resolution recommending the board adopt the MLUDC amendments and make the required findings. And finally, to recommend that the board certify the program EIR and make the required SQL findings for the project. After this hearing, the Monaceto Planning Commission's recommendation would be forwarded to the county planning commission and then to the board of supervisors. The board will consider certifying the program EIR in adopting the ordinance amendments for the coastal zone. Following board action, the amendments would then proceed to the California Coastal Commission for certification. That concludes our presentation and we're now happy to take any questions that the commission may have. Thank you all for your presentation. Are there questions for the staff?

I I I would want to let someone else go first because I I I have a a truck I want to drive here. All right. All right. Okay. You have a truck you want to drive? No, I don't have a truck. Okay. Question. All right.

Really? A question related to how this might impact Monaceto. I'm just looking at your tier one projects which are ground mounted which could be up to half an acre of ground mounted solar. Are policy consistency issues that are identified later in this presentation applicable to that exemption? Is it reviewed on any level or is it just completely exempt? uh chair or uh Commissioner Kupak through the chair. Um it would be exempt from a planning permit, but that uh anything that's exempt still has to comply with um you know some of our standard requirements like uh setbacks uh campaign ESH can involve uh you know removal of trees for example, things of that nature. Basic

specifically the policy consistencies that are outlined in that on that page are they applicable to this project? uh there would not be a full-blown consistency analysis for something that is exempt. I will say that currently groundmounted solar is exempt countywide in the inland area. So this really is um not really a change to uh current regulations with regard to ground mountain solar. What it does do is uh clarify a size limit for what would be falling within that exempt category. So within within Monaceto where there are residential districts predominantly a halfacre solar field would be allowed exempt.

It would be for personal use. Yes. Okay. That's what I wanted to clarify. Thank you. I have one follow-up question. Um for the tier three and four projects you mentioned that uh within the Monaceto planning area there is um only an A1 and a public utilities. Do you know where those parcels are located within the Monosto planning area and how many there are?

Uh Commissioner Rockenbuck through the chair. So, the A uh parcel is uh actually pretty close to that property that you were reviewing with your first item. It's along Jameson. Um I want to say in between Santa Cedro and uh Sheffield. Um and the public utility uh properties are primaril they're pretty scattered throughout. There's a handful throughout the Monaceto planning area. Most of them are fairly small like maybe up to half acre acre. Um so there's no large um large public utility properties within the monosto that would really be suitable for a tier three or tier 4 project. Uh we did consider uh not for that reason not even carrying and applying tier 3 and tier 4 in the Monacea community plan but for consistency purposes as staff indicated uh we did keep it in there. uh things could change in the future. So, we we wanted to uh just maintain that consistency.

Thank you. A followup to that, just so I'm clear, there's one property in Monaceto that falls within tier three or four. Did I understand that correctly? Uh, Commissioner Karns for the chair. Well, there there's a handful of properties that have the zoning that would allow for tier three or four. Um, but all the public utility zone okay

zone property. Um, they're all pretty small in scale and so um wouldn't really be suitable for a what would typically be considered a community scale or a utility scale solar. You couldn't put a there's no 30 acre public utility property in Monosto for example or even five acre for that matter. Um the the one zowned property I think is about 5 acres. It is covered in in orchards at the moment. It is um and it's in the coastal zone so there's higher permit requirements for that. Thank you.

All right. Just to clarify, we're referring to a one as being on Jameson. Am I maybe I'm not properly visualizing the boundaries of the Monacea Planning Commission, but what would be referred to as Rancho San Carlos in that area would not is that is that egg 2 that strikes me as significantly larger than or you know um Commissioner Miller along East Valley Road. I I don't mean to be overly specific here. Sure. I'm I'm vaguely familiar with that property. I I don't believe that's agriculturally zoned.

Okay. That is okay. Um where I'd like to take this conversation is I I am very focused while I think a lot of the discussion on this topic has been around um the solar panels themselves. the the the issue that I am the most animated about is the associated um battery installation [clears throat] um that goes with this and um the EIR connected to this. My understanding here is is that um a programmatic EIR would work in such a way that there would be no challenge or review in the future on um environmental grounds connected to any the installation of of of this. Correct. that that that the nature of a programmatic EI is to um proclude future environmental related challenges to a permitting process. Is that am I in layman's terms correctly characterizing what a programmatic EI would do here?

Commissioner Miller through the chair. So, um, projects coming in in the door after the PI EIR is certified could utilize the program EIR could essentially tear off of it as long as uh, our analysis of the project um, shows that the project's impacts can be mitigated by the uh, the mitigation measures that are in the EIR, then no further analysis would be needed. But um we would we would evaluate each project to determine if subsequent environmental um impact review would be needed. So so the the program EI kind of provides a baseline. There's um mitigation measures that can support projects um that come through, but we always determine if subsequent environmental review is needed. So this is what I really want to push on this topic in that I I know enough on this topic to be dangerous and I'm looking for clarification and guidance from you here is is that the the chemical makeup and structure of batteries seems to be an evolving technology and that if we agree to a programmatic EI that allows to for a potentially large larger scale battery installation would how would we understand future environmental review connected to this. So let let me walk through a little bit where I'm focused examples-wise. One is is that I'm really not that focused on solar panels at all. Great idea. Let's go ahead and do it. But that um that some of the heavy metals that are sometimes used in batteries um and they may not be used in batteries today, but if in 10 years it turns out

that greater mercury content in batteries isn't a wonderful idea for whatever reason. I I I I'm my my concern here is is that that it is a concentration of high energy and potentially volatile materials that would not necessarily be reviewable in the nature of a programmatic EIR. That's question that's kind of one prong of my question. The other problem of my question is really related to um understanding and and frankly being concerned about not having a more robust review for fire danger. And when I check in for an airplane flight, they ask me if my I have a laptop in my check-in bags because I presume the battery in my laptop is dangerous enough that it would create a problem or flame accelerant in a plane. We're talking about in tier three and tier four or even tier two what are potentially very significant battery inst installation volumes that in as monosceto has proven is an area that is a high fire risk area in many places the interplay between large-scale battery installation and fire danger in our community I I'm I'm I'm worried that because we have kind of tacked battery on to solar that the battery question as it relates to um community compatibility here and different different areas of of fire danger is not really adequately addressed by I'm sorry page number I'm on [clears throat] um am I uh the fire prevention and emergency management is is that it requ establish response procedures for equipment

malfunction or failure. Includes procedures that provide for safety of surrounding residents, neighboring property, emergency responders and environment. These procedures will be established in consultation with local emergency management agencies that it it it seems like that there is some sort of document plan in case of emergency, but there doesn't seem to ever be a review of the technical design of the battery or the comparative fire safety of the battery. So, so could you guys just do a big grand tour through battery safety technology and the environmental review of it? um under a programmatic EIR.

Uh Commissioner Miller through the chair. Let me start and then uh staff can can add to it. Uh anything I missed. So uh the IR does evaluate uh fire hazards and and general uh wildfire risks, fire hazards, environmental hazards associated with uh the project in including in an a discussion and an analysis of battery storage systems. uh as you indicated the technology is ever changing. Um I know there's a lot of uh concern uh in the reaction to what happened in Moss Landing for example that that got a lot of attention. Um you know that's an old um technology. Current technology is more where you have these uh isolated compartments that are fairly self-contained within u um a a system uh that significantly uh addresses many of the hazard issues or potential for widespread flare up. Uh that said uh to um to your main point in terms of uh future review the program EIR is limited because we don't know where exactly future projects are going to go go what their design will be. Every project, whether it's an exempt tier one project or a [snorts] tier 4 project across the board, will require uh building permits and as part of that building permit review will require uh review and sign off by the fire department. Um they have experience working with battery systems. There are standards uh fire code standards that these projects have to be designed to. Um depending on what is being proposed, they have the ability uh under our code to request additional fire hazard analysis and risk analysis. Um there are setback requirements and um

of depending on the battery size uh for adjacent structures, adjacent uh lots. So um it's not a by any means uh should you believe that because there was a PIR done program EIR done that they all of a sudden every future project is given a blank check. They still go through a rigorous level of review. For those higher projects tiers three and four where you may more likely encounter a large battery component those are still conditional use permits. So, uh there's a lot of discretion that can be applied to conditional use permits including the sizing, the sighting, uh location, etc. Uh as as well as rigorous review by the fire department. So, nothing is changing in that regard. Um and um hopefully that addresses some of your questions and concerns. And again, I'll pass it off to staff if I missed anything. So I I I guess there is there's kind of two prongs to my concerns here. One is is that one is the fire danger element. The other is I I will call it in environmental safety concerns separate from fire in terms of the the the materials used in battery construction. So what am I trying to say is if I want to if I have a large lot up in the hills of Monaceto and I want to do a large solar and battery installation, but there is some concern that in the case of a mudslide or more dramatic event that that that the materials in this battery could enter the watershed or not under the normal course of things, but it when our community chooses to flood

again, which seems like an inevitability, just no one knows when a fire department review might address like very specific sight related fire concerns, but given the evolution in battery technology, how would we how would we be sure that the programmatic EI would not exempt a a a hazard review of the batteries from a um from an environmental perspective? active. So if if I'm not a particularly sc uh technical person, but if if if the future of battery technology involves a more hazardous chemical use, I would not be able to install 50 pounds of mercury in my backyard necessarily mercury qua mercury. But my concern is is that if 50 pounds of mercury is present in the batteries because that's the right way to build batteries going forward. I I want to be certain that the programmatic EI here does not preclude me as a neighbor from challenging the installation of those batteries based on on what's being in installed there. I is is is there some sort of state level certification of batteries or that that asserts safety or h how do we how do we understand this topic better? I guess

Commissioner Miller through the chair and Alex, you can fill in for what I um don't provide as a good answer here. Um what I would say is that if we have future projects coming in with different different uh battery technologies, we would have the opportunity to evaluate the safety of those especially through updates to the state fire code that is constantly being updated and uh and anticipating new technologies. Um and there are other state regulations too that are looking at um looking at the safety of these uh facilities. for instance in the public utilities code. Um [clears throat] I will also say that for those discretionary projects the tier three and four projects um we have the ability to ask for a hazards assessment a study that looks at the particular safety of that of a battery storage uh system um in the sight specific conditions um kind of a more more detailed review. So those are tools we have at our disposal.

When you say we, is that a staff review? But [clears throat] what I'm I'm focused more on is if if if I as a I rate neighbor am doing an appeal, am I procluded from I I I want to be clear that I'm not procluded from pushing for that type of review because of the programmatic PEIR that's that's being presented here.

Uh Commissioner Miller to the chair. So, uh, just to clarify when looking at the four tiers, tier 1, 2, 3, and four, uh, tiers three and four would be, uh, go through the normal conditional use permit process like you had on your first item today. Uh, those are appealable actions. Uh, there's no potential for appeal of a tier one project that's exempt or a tier 2 that would require just a zoning clearance. Um, just to tack on to what Miss Wilkinson indicated, uh, all these battery products um are, uh, just like you go buy a light switch from Home Depot, there's a rigorous testing that has to go in to these products, whether it's UL or or whatever similar uh, testing uh, service that uh, gets conducted to make sure that the batteries comply are are designed and engineered to comply with code requirements and are safe and don't present to public health hazard. And uh the fire department and and our building department uh and issuing and processing building permits and uh uh electrical permits looks at all of that. And if a new product uh is being proposed uh by an applicant that uh our department or officials are unfamiliar with, then they can do a a request for additional information. But all all of the battery products do go through that that rigoring testing. So someone can't just come up with some random uh that they battery that they bought off from Teimu and uh slap it on their property. So I'm I'm I'm I'm I'm tracking what you're saying, but like a a a a a a UL certification is not a process by which if we have large batteries that end up in Monaceto Creek because of [snorts] rain, mudslide kind of things that

there's there's been no the the interaction of like re review of of of of a battery would would would would not have an environmental component to it in a UL certification. I don't believe does that make sense as a I I my concern is there's a question of scale here.

Commissioner Miller. So um for for one uh you can't do a battery system or a solar system for that matter within a flood floodway. Um so um not that that means there couldn't be some future natural disaster or mudslide that that might impact a system but um there are uh I guess I I don't the testing and development of these systems are designed uh with public health and safety in mind. Um that doesn't mean that there can't be an accident. Uh but these systems are designed to be uh self-contained. Uh the the testing that that does occur is not going to sign off on um a product that um if it uh ends up in a creek is just going to be uh releasing mercury into the watershed. Um I I can't imagine that that would that would pass the um the testing that does happen to certify and sign off on these products. Um uh those larger systems again will would require a robust review including a hazards analysis. Um no different than than what would occur currently. the program EIR. I guess fundamentally if you're worried that the program EIR again gives a future project a blank check, it does not. It lays out mitigation measures that need to be adhered to and then uh whether there's any unique uh sight specific uh scenarios that would require additional study or additional analysis that would be happening as part of that that future project application. would not be covered under the program e.

Fellow commissioners, I'm cognizant that I have been taking quite a bit of time. So, I could keep going with this, but I want to make sure I give other people a chance at the talking stick.

Anyone else want to weigh in here? Just to clarify, I'm not 100% sure, but so I have not built a acre solar field with batteries, but I believe that California building code now covers the installation of charging stations, battery operations, solar fields. So, if these projects will be reviewed by the building department, then there's going to be code uh language that will specify the safety issues involved with the installation of these facilities. And will these facilities be reviewed and permitted by the building department?

Yes, uh chair, they will be all tiers, all projects will require a building permit. The exemptions are really only for a planning permit, not for a building permit. Okay, I have one um clarifying question as well. Is the programmatic EI limited to a particular time period in that it will have a natural expiration date and opportunity for re-review?

Uh uh Commissioner uh Rockenbach through the chair. Uh no, there there's no expiration date for program e. Um but what the program EI does uh set out is mitigation measures that a future project if a future project is trying to rely on that EIR to provide for some level of environmental review. Um it sets forth mitigation measures that that future project would have to adhere to. For example, um one of the mitigation measures is uh a biological resource assessment that would then trigger additional mitigation measures if there's resources present or a phase one/phase 2 uh cultural resource investigation or a traffic study or you know so there's future studies that a project would have to uh do under the scope of that environmental review um that would allow for the um the freshness of of the situation to kind of stay valid o over a period of time.

Thank you. I have just a general question and that's regarding [clears throat] pardon me the correspondence that the commissioners received from the clean coalition um a nonprofit and I'm just curious as to their statement that they participated in and worked with staff throughout the process of this development but they still had a number of suggestions and I just wanted to know from staff um if some of those February 13th suggestions have been considered.

Commissioner Karns uh Currents through the chair. Um we we did indeed meet with a clean coalition and um considered their comments and their comments on the environmental document. Um, we've reviewed their comment letter and um, I think a number of their comments get at um, sort of um, wanting solar development at a kind of low lower permit tier. they they're kind of requesting some developments fall within say a tier tier one um designation and are permitting tiers which is typically an exemption or um CDP and um our our position is that the um tier 2 facilities up to 5 acres with a zoning clearance in the inland area um with with minimal standards for a setback ax sighting and height requirements um is an appropriate level of permit review for for facilities of that size.

Thank you very much.

Uh Commissioner Kern with the TR. I would just also add that they had a number of recommendations or requests regarding uh standalone battery energy storage. Um and um as as much as uh there's been this temptation to really wrap our hands arms around standalone battery energy storage projects that was really not the scope of this work effort. Uh the focus of this project has been on solar. Um, we did add in battery storage as a component of solar projects because that's what you see typically these days is uh battery storage as part of a solar. But we didn't we tried to resist the temptation to to fully address standalone battery energy storage because as we've heard today that's a whole another set of issues that we weren't really scoped for with this project. So

thank you. I I support that position. other comments on or questions for staff just as a proc as a procedural process or as a as a procedural question. I appreciate um Commissioner Kubak's comments that California Building Code is has addressed and will presumably continue to address battery technology and battery safety, but a the building permit element of it is not an appealable or neighborhood re or neighbor reviewable point of access to this process. Is that correct,

Commissioner? The chair, that's correct. So that if I had to boil my concern down to one one question is is that if someone is installing a tier 2 project with solar storage connected to it or with battery storage connected to it I if if my next door neighbor is doing that on a hillside that I think is potentially risky in a in a in a flood or or or or rain situation. I don't have a a basis for challenger review in that scenario. Is that correct,

Commissioner Miller? That's correct. Uh I will say uh just to make sure it's clear that um a tier 2 facility can only be proposed on devel existing developed or improved land. So you would not see a a hillside that's currently undeveloped or vegetated turn into a tier 2 facility. That would kick it into a tier three facility. So really tier 2 is sort of a carveout for what we more commonly see as say a solar canopy over over a parking lot or a play playground or um uh what are some other like a storage yard or something like that where where you already have an existing developed space and you're adding solar on top of on top [snorts] of that space as opposed to moving into undeveloped land. moment you kick in to undeveloped land, you're either limited to that tier one up to halfacre um or you're kicked into a tier three category which would be fully public review and and permitted through a cup.

And I appreciate that what what you're saying, but that the installation solar panels by virtue of their size and structure kind of for an already developed place is a limiting function. But batteries while potentially significant in their amount of chemical content are not spacious in the way that that that solar panels would be. Do the batteries definitionally need to be installed at the location of the solar panels in this process or is it on the parcel or you know on on the project site? Uh yeah, Commissioner Miller through the chair. The the intention is that the battery project would support the solar system. So the the project area would be defined um as the the solar array plus uh any supporting system including the battery energy storage system. and and that battery, if you're talking tier two, the battery storage system would similarly have to be proposed on developed or improved land. Uh it could not be remotely cited uh from the rest of the tier 2 facility.

Let me let me uh take a shot at asking Commissioner Miller's question another way. Could an applicant propose a battery storage facility under this new regulatory system on land that is designated for and allowed for an energy system? Just battery storage without any solar to be built at the at that site. Is that permissible use under this ordinance? Uh, chair, no. The the additional allowed battery energy storage systems must demonstrate that they're commensurate in size to support the solar installation.

In other words, the batteries to be installed have to be used to store energy generated by solar facilities built on the same site. Yes, that's correct. All right. Does that is that the question you were asking?

It is. My my if I had to dial into my concern is is that the scope of a the the a tier 2 solar installation is potential in terms of what that would imply for a potential battery volume size and and and where that can be installed. So, um, if I I if if you allow me the invention of a unit of measurement of my laptop battery, if if if if the average home's solar panels and I don't know, whatever the Tesla thingy is that you install in your house is, I don't know, a 100 laptops, is a tier 2 site, the equivalent of a thousand laptops. And um and if that is if we can install once again I'm kind of being a little flip with this but I'm I if we are installing a thousand battery laptop installations without a a permit the chance at permit review. I I'm I'm I I that is that is kind of the nature of my concern as to what happens if if it is installed on a hillside property uh or or you know not necessarily in a flood zone per se but I I think we've all had the lived experience that that a fair amount of Monaceto is potentially floodable. What does it mean to put for a thousand battery laptops to end up in a stream because of of of mudslide or that kind of situation? My concern is is that if the programmatic EIR exempts that kind of interaction between the battery installation and what I think are some of Monaceto's uniquely

challenging land conditions that that those are not the questions that get answered in a is this battery safe in a lab in Ohio. I from a consumer and that and that's where I want to make sure that we continue to sorry we're getting to I'm getting to discussion stage but to continue to allow for a neighborhood sightsp specific review um specifically as it relates to the batteries I I I'm I'm very comfortable with all of the solar stuff but the nature of my questions is tier 2 level larger volume batteries in the unique environment that is Monaceto. How will we be able how how will people be able to engage in that topic going forward?

Can I ask a a related question? What are the current hearing and permitting requirements for tier 2 projects that would be changed if this were to move forward?

Sure, that's a great question. Um so it's not quite an apples to apples but essentially the the current regulatory framework is uh there's kind of like two categories. There's what would be considered uh utility scale um which isn't size based. It's more where is that energy going. So anything that is producing energy that is not being used on site is currently under the existing regulations considered utility scale even if it's only halfacre in size. That's only allowed right now within that 600 acre area of Quyama. Uh everything else is considered um as an exempt use in our current uh ordinance uh if it's for personal onsite use. So whether it's 200 uh square feet or I mean theoretically you could have a 10 acre solar facility if you're saying if you're producing it only for your on-site uh use uh then there really is no size limit uh currently and and that would be uh exempt. Part of why we've established the tiers is to create some structure um and to provide some clarity in terms of from a size standpoint which is uh a little more easily quantifiable and identifiable is um uh how how the energy is being used is less critical than to how big a facility is or how big of a system is. And so that's in part why we created this tiered approach to provide some some um some guard rails or some framework for uh how to distinguish the the different scales of systems.

So just going back to Commissioner Miller's um neighbor tier 2 example, currently I would need if I'm the neighbor I would need a building permit approval. There would be no hearing process for the tier 2 project. No permit currently. Oh, okay. Yeah. Uh well, sorry, no planning permit. Yes, planning permit. A building permit uh across the board for all of these projects. U but currently uh no planning permit for uh if it's on-site solar on-site battery for personal use.

Okay. But when we're defining personal use here for if we were to take Westmont College as an example, like if they decided for very admirable purposes, they want to be off the grid um and and and are installing significant solar panel installation and the necessary batteries to make that work at night. Would that be a tier 2 project? Well, I I'm not sure that's the best example because they operate under a CUP. So, uh, they're a little different cuz any anything they do has to be consistent and conform to that conditional use permit, which involves nose for the neighbors and public hearings.

Yeah. Well, it would be some level of an amendment to their cup if they wanted to put in several acres of solar or something like that, right? Okay. Uh, same with uh the other institutional uses, uh, music academy. Uh, Botanic Garden. That's Mission Canyon, but uh you get the uh what's that one in Lotus Land? Yes.

What about the Monosto Sanitary District or Monosto Water District where they have potentially significant power needs? Uh I believe those uh exist on uh public utility uh zoned properties. Uh I could be mistaken but I believe they do where any development requires a development plan. Um so um but it would be no different than the current structure. Um and they may even operate under CPS as well. I'm actually not. Uh

well, and they're public agencies subject to SQA as well. So if they propose a development on their property independent of whatever county review there is, they're going to have to go through a SQA process. Well, but and I do understand what you're saying, but a programmatic EIR exempts the environmental review part of sequence only from only from county review. A programmatic EIR applies to county permitting. doesn't necessarily apply to a decision of the Monosa Water District or the Sanitary District to pursue a project on their property. They still have to go through their own environmental review.

I'm sorry, I'm sort of jumping ahead of staff and legal in terms of of that opinion, but I believe what I've said is accurate, and I guess I would look to the staff to tell me if I've got it wrong.

Uh, no, that's correct. any public agency or district like that is is subject to their own secret requirements and um they can't just wholesale rely on on a secret document that um that was certified by another agency. Um but again with with a program e that does not give you a blank check for the future. Um what a project does is when they come in in the future say a tier uh a tiered project is uh they go through an analysis to determine if do they uh do they meet all the criteria for being able to rely in whole or in part on that program EIR. Um and uh there might be some instances where a project because it's pretty um very few constraints or no real issues they might be able to rely in whole on that pro program e but so long as they meet comply with all the mitigation measures but there will be plenty of instances where because of something unique to the to the project site uh they will be able to rely in part on the program e but they'll have to do subsequent environmental review to kind of fill in the gaps and u pl pl pl pl pl pl pl pl pl pl pl pl pl pl pl pl pl pl pl pl pl pl pl pl pl pl pl pl pl pl pl pl pl pl pl pl pl pl pl pl plug any holes that the program E didn't cover.

So if if the commission will allow I I would suggest that we open up the public hearing on this particular matter and then come back to some of the issues that we want to discuss after the other matters that are being raised by the public have been dealt with. Is that all right? All right. Uh, anything that we should do before we open the public hearing? No. All right. Do we have requests to speak either in the room or online?

Uh, Commissioner Kupak, I believe I saw someone put uh a speaker slip in that box on the end of the DAS. Would you mind checking that for me? And then we have at least one hand raised online. All right. Good. Here's uh Uh would you prefer to uh do our inperson? Yeah, let's take care of the uh volunteer in the room first, please.

Uh Juan Larees will be our first speaker and then to be followed um online unless there's anyone else. Uh Isabelle uh Stice online. Awesome. Good morning. Thank you so much for your time. Um, great presentation. Uh, very in-depth. Um, good morning, chair and commissioners. Uh, my name is Juan Lettis. I'm project director of the Central Coast Climate Justice Network. Um, but speaking as a Californian and county resident. Could you speak a little closer?

A little closer, Mike. Sorry.

Thank you. Um, I'm here to uh in support of the proposed ordinance updates um to expand opportunities for responsibly sighted solar. Again, I hear the concerns that you're stating. I think those questions are so important to ask. So, I really want to uh acknowledge that that's important at the core. I'm environmentalist, so I always think of those things downstream. You know, we've solved one problem. What's the one we might be creating? So, great to ask those things. Um, yeah, but battery energy storage uh speaking to that component in particular is essential essential for reliability and resilience. um the fact that we can you know capture the energy fantastic but we need to store this energy and bringing that to the local level something that um helps us deploy that during peak demand extreme heat um during the PSPS events or the public safety power shut offs and emergencies um without storage remain more dependent on fossil fuel peaker plants which fire up uh throughout the state and these long-distance transmission lines that we know have caused so many issues in our state. Um so trans you know acknowledging that as a fire risk. Um looking at those lines and the fact that they will be deenergized during high wind uh solar uh paired with storage can reduce the strain on transmission and promote uh improve continuity of service for our community. Um regarding safety of utility scale battery systems or these larger scale systems of course talking laptops to storage systems technologies are evolving and improving um but very important to address uh larger scale. Um so these are always evolving with fire and building codes including um California fire code requirements. Uh you know all these things are up to fire code. Uh these will not be plugged into utility CPU setting standards at their level. Um CC they're always reviewing. Um I I do trust that they're pushing these forward. Um so with that in uh in conjunction with setbacks, monitoring systems and inspection before and after approval, I think we have an opportunity to um really expand reliability and create this micro g you know looking at

micro grids or independence. Uh many of these modern systems use the lithium iron phosphate chemistry and um that does offer enhanced thermal stability. Again fire to runoff a little different conversation. Um, and just because I must acknowledge this, large scales uh batteries do not contain mercury. It's traditionally those little button batteries now. So, luckily we've moved away from that. Um, and of course, I trust that uh these facilities will be uh uh located in appropriate zones, fenced, monitored, and engineered uh to meet fire requirements, but also, you know, acknowledging uh the landscape uh that may put it at risk for slides. Um, so I believe that supporting solar and storage strengthen strengthens reliability, uh, offers an opportunity to improve our air quality, reduces reliance on fossil fuels, and increases resilience in the face of wildfire risks and extreme weather that we've all seen um, in these storm events. And I respectfully urge you to support the proposed uh, updates. And thank you so much for your time.

Thank you. Thank you. All right. Okay. We will go to our online speaker, Isabella Sty. Hi, can you hear me? Yes.

Okay, perfect. Um, good morning chair and commissioners. My name is Isabelle Stice and I'm a policy and communications associate at the Clean Coalition. Um, which was mentioned before. Just to kind of give everyone an overview, we're a technical nonprofit organization whose mission is to accelerate the transition to renewable energy and a modern modern grid through technical policy and project development expertise. And I just wanted to recognize and appreciate Commissioner Current's recognition of our comments. We have been very involved throughout the comment process and we want to emphasize first our support for the overall goal of the utility scale solar maintenance project and we appreciate the effort to clarify the tiering system. But we do ha still have a few concerns um kind of moving past tier classifications and going into um the ordinance as a whole. So, our primary concern here is that the ordinance must not create additional restrictions or discretionary requirements for project types that currently do not require planning permits. It was discussed a little bit before, but particularly we're talking about behind the meter projects deployed on the built environment. Um, and those are kind of those projects that are solar generated for on-site use only. And these were not subject to excessive planning permits um as they would be under the tiered approach um for those larger sizes. And we want to emphasize that the board's direction was to streamline and enable renewable energy development throughout the county. And streamlining should reduce friction and provide clarity, not expand the scope of discretionary review for projects that had not required it required as such previously. Projects that are already subject to building and electrical permits, fire department review, zoning compliance, and inspection should not be pulled into these new discretionary planning processes unless there's a clear land use justification. I also want to briefly emphasize the importance of clarity in throughout the tiering system and how it's structured. The ordinance should provide all actionable tier information in one central location so applicants can clear determine how their

project will be classified and what permits are required. Specifically, it should clearly state acreage um as a calculation based um footprint of renewable energy project structures, not the total project size. And that for paired plus solar projects, the combined footprint determines the applicable tier. Um this may seem kind of like technical details, but without clear language, uncertainty increases and uncertainty slows this deployment that we're kind of searching for. I know there's been a lot of talk about um kind of battery and standalone storage and I just want to briefly touch on this that solar storage should not be disincentivized for Santa Barbara and Monaceto as a whole. We're a very transmission vulnerable area that has been like as has been mentioned before with Monaceto mudslides and fires. Um regional resilience provided by energy storage should be supported and is vital to our um community's health and wellness. Um but this proposed ordinance could add additional regulatory regulatory hurdles for energy storage installations. Um adopting an ordinance that is overly restrictive will severely curb opportunities for renewable energy res um renewables were driven resilience and energy independence. Thank you.

I believe Miss Dice was our last speaker unless there are any is anyone else in the room that would like to speak. All right, seeing no requests to speak in the room, there are no other requests online, then the uh public comment period will be closed and we'll return the matter back to the commission for additional questions and uh potential action. Additional questions or comments from the commission as a matter of educating me for tier 2. We can if I have read this correctly can have up to five acres of solar panels on a given site in a bigger than a bread box or I don't know bigger than a Volkswagen bug. How big is a battery installation that is can measure it to you know kind of sized to appropriately match up to five acres of solar panels. is that I I I I have no sense of scale on this and and I would be interested to better understand that.

Uh Commissioner Miller to the chair. Um it's hard to give an exact because um battery systems it it depends on how much they're trying to store. Are they trying to store uh for like a 12-hour period of storage or 24? So there's no like direct uh kind of math that you can do, but uh generally we've heard that um like a a 5 acre facility uh may have uh could have potentially up to say an a,000 square foot uh cabinet area for um battery storage.

[laughter] a thousands like a So if I was to contextualize this, this would be kind of a like a small condo like an ADU

like [laughter] Well played, sir. Well played. Um um so this is a this is a structure at this point. Well, well, they're usually uh it's uh typically like you've probably seen them, maybe pay no attention to them, but they're like kind of cabinets, uh metal sort of utility cabinets. Probably the best example uh when you go up to Costco, you you see them over there if you get off the freeway on the left hand side as you're going on uh STO. But but a thousand square feet of cabinets is a lot of cabinetry. Like it's all like cabinet cabinet cabinet for the the size of an ad. I I'm I'm mean this to be kind of provocative. But I'm I'm I'm wanting to phrase these questions as a educate me kind of uh Commissioner Miller through the chair. By no means am I an engineer or a designer of a utility scale battery storage system. So I can't give you anything of precision of an answer

and and I I respect. So um they are cabinets. They're typically uh depending on how big they are, you might have multiple cabinets uh within in a row or in a in an area or it might be one large cabinet uh with the batteries on the inside. Well, I'm council is offering us on her laptop a picture of what a cabinet looks like, which is helpful. I'm not sure our public can see it, but we can see it.

Thank you. Council is that to me looks like maybe 80 square feet that cabinet. So, but a a thousand I'm imagining a 80 foot square foot cabinet would in a thousand five acres of solar panels would result in 30 cabinet. I'm sorry, I'm I'm demonstrating a lack of quick mental math. [laughter]

And and so does the the does the ordinance speak to a a time frame of on-site battery storage? I mean, it so let's say I I'm permitting up to 5 acres of solar panels and [clears throat] let's pretend that I bring a mindset of Armageddon survivalist and I want two months of power on site. I'm not saying this is logical, but there's nothing that would prevent in a scenario like this me to install 5,000 square feet of of of batteries because I'm I'm just that kind of person. Is is that is that do we understand that from a permitting point of view?

Commissioner Miller through the chair. Um no, the ordinance does not get into that level of detail. uh because as I mentioned there is no like standard uh ratio between the amount of storage and the amount of solar um so it has to be uh commensurate in size. Um but uh there's no defined uh ratio between the size of the solar and the size of the battery because um again technology changes. The batteries are getting more and more efficient. Um and so you can get more storage within a smaller area is sort of the tra trajectory that uh technology is headed. If uh just to tackle a piece of that question, tier 2 is limited to half an acre.5 acres, right?

Uh tier one is limited to half an acre. Oh, it's great. Five acres. Tier two could go up to five.

My apologies. And the battery storage on site must be used to store energy that is generated from solar panels on site. So the batteries can't be any larger than necessary for that storage purpose. Right? So I'm given given the changes in technology, I'm not sure we can get a meaningful answer to the question of if you had 4 acres of solar, how much land would be used for the battery storage needed to store the energy generated from 4 acres of storage? which is probably a technical answer to that question, but I'm not sure that it's within the four corners of this particular set of rules. I guess for

where I'm headed with this land use decision-m

is is that there's not a li that that understanding it has to be used on site, but there is perhaps a common sense element of I have batteries. I have solar that works for me during the day and I want batteries that last me all night long or I want batteries that last me for 72 hours. But for there there's no there's no constraining principle to I have solar panels and I want batteries that would represent six months of power use that would be meaningfully more batteries. But this that that I appreciate that there's a technology element to size, but that the the limiting principle of tying the solar panels to on-site use, there's no constraint to the de that the time frame of of use and thus the scale. I think there's an economic constraint that that the ratio between your the size of your solar field and the size of your storage capacity is about the consumption when the solar panels are not producing power because your intention is to use that power. Uh, and I think if you wanted to have zillions of batteries that were lined up for a solar field that was just sitting there doing nothing other than to try to store batteries up for a longer period of time, it would be economically infeasible.

Okay. I mean, I I I I don't want to make you feel worse or better, but I have to tell you, I would, you know, in the event when we have one of these horrible catastrophes that occur in like a mud flow or things start flowing into our creeks or into our rivers, I'd be more worried about the number of uh cell phones, Teslas, computers, the thousand laptops that are going to wind up in the ocean. I mean, they these are all lithium batteries. We have so many lithium batteries and different things that you know

Oh, no. I I I I'm not disagreeing with you. I'm just saying that the for the the the volume of batteries connected to 5 acres of solar is is a is a is a whole lot of cell phone equivalents. Um well I mean you know how many how many lithium batteries are in your house or I would say 30 but they're all kind of my size of my fist are smaller. I mean five acres of solar panels is a is a huge amount of power.

Yeah I mean I agree. I mean, I think, you know, at least from my vantage point, I I'm pretty confident that the kind of building department regulations that are going to fall underneath the California building code are going to begin to address some of your concerns, especially about installation, safety of installation, how a solar batteries are being installed and protected from different things including you know I mean we go through UL ratings on things that have never been really used before in a particular way and that is an amazingly rigorous process that comes out with all kinds of recommendations about how a product is to be used and I think if these are going through building department review to get a building permit there's going to be some shity that these things are going to be made to comply ly with a a host of safety concerns and safety regulations.

Yeah, I I tend to agree with that. I I think there are other review mechanisms to address the interesting and legitimate concerns that you're raising. I'm not sure that this is the vehicle [clears throat] legitimate concern

for that kind of oversight that this particular ordinance and the environmental review that went along with it is necessarily going to be the the best way to tackle and to ensure public safety. I I do hear what you're saying, but I I would I I guess where I respectfully descent is is that allow me the analogy of a gasoline or diesel storage tank that it needs to meet rigorous standards of being double lined, doesn't leak, you know, design elements to it. But when it comes to the design of the storage tank is the certification of is this an acceptable storage tank or not has not necessarily been done of what happens if it kind of gets pushed down the hill on park light. Well, but [laughter] but that should that should be one of the factors that the reviewing body, the fire department or the building department considers in deciding whether or not there is a significant public health or public safety issue with respect to any kind of a facility that's put on a piece of land, whether it's a a water tank or a uh a gas line or whatever else it might be. that is that [clears throat] any other kind of utility that is put out there in the community

and and I I worry I have pushed this point a little too far so I'm about I will I will stop shortly but my concern is is that we are matching that to a programmatic EI that's that that the that that's in my mind where like the EIR process for making sure the gas tank doesn't roll down the hill is that's that is what the sight specific EI process does and I'm worried the programmatic exemption here in Monaceto is a challenge but that I will be done

and and that but that's where I disagree with you. I don't think the EIR process is necessarily the best place to undertake the kind of public safety um diligence that we expect of our public agencies that are putting up water tanks, gas lines, battery storage, and other things that that are going to be in our communities. That there is a building permit process. There's a fire department that is involved, deeply involved in the building permit process. Environmental review is there, but I don't see that as our first line of defense when it comes to ensuring public safety from public utilities. And that that's that's my point is that I I think your your concerns are wellounded, but I think you may be shooting at a target that's not particularly well adapted to providing the kind of security and safety to the public that we all want to have.

And I agree with you as it relates to public utilities that this isn't well the EI process here, but these are projects that are ex that are not connected to public utilities. These are all privately. It's going to be reviewed by agencies that are that are charged with ensuring public safety, particularly the building department and the fire department. That's that's the point I'm coming from. And did I hear staff say um earlier that there are certain restrictions connected to the flood map zones?

Uh yes, Commissioner Rocken through the chair. Um just like any development uh there's prohibitions on on development within flood hazard areas or uh any development that is proposed within those areas is reviewed uh by flood control for compliance with their standards. Um the same would be said for uh any solar or battery component that would be proposed in one of those areas as well.

Thank you. So, other questions or comments before we move before we move forward? I don't want to cut this off, but I think we are we're coming up on the noon hour, so I just want to be sure that everybody has a chance to offer what they want to offer. I have no further questions and I'm prepared to go to a vote. Okay, Commissioner Kubak, you're ready to move to a vote? I am ready to All right, commissioners. Yes. Yes. Yes.

All right. So, we have recommended actions on the screen in front of us. Don't need to reread them. You've seen them. Is there a motion? I would move to approve the recommended actions from staff for the three items um shown on the screen. All right. Is there a second? I would second that. All right. Is there discussion on the motion?

I'm suspecting that I am in a voice of one, but I would for the third finding, I would um remove the two-tier battery, the tier 2 batteries from that we're certifying the programmatic ER and the SQL findings for that specifically. Is that an amendment to the motion? That would be an amendment to the motion. Is there a second to the amendment? All right, the amendment fails for lack of a second. Motion's on the floor. There being no further discussion, all in favor of the motion say I. I. I. I.

All oppose say no. Motion is unanimously adopted. I think that concludes our action on this item. Is that correct? All right. Yes, that is correct. Um, so let me put on my secretary hat here. Um, as I mentioned uh at the beginning looking at the projection report, our next uh March hearing uh currently has no items. Uh

actually before you go there, let me just express my appreciation to staff for what was obviously a massively uh complicated project and thank you for that and for your clear explanations this morning and the very fine presentation that you've made. We appreciate your hard work. All right. Yes, I second that very much so. Thank you. All right, back to you. Uh so we don't uh we're not aware of any project project looking to get on for your March agenda. Um, and so since a motion was taken on both items today and there was no continuence of either of those, I think you are free to cancel uh that meeting if you'd like. Does that require action by us to cancel the meeting? Yes, please.

It does. Is there a motion to cancel the March meeting for lack of interest? Sorry, lack of [laughter] lack of lack of any uh uh action items for that meeting. Is there a motion? Yes, I would make that motion. Thank you. Is there a second? Second. Any further discussion hearing? None. All in favor of the motion say I. I. All oppose say no. Unanimously approved. Thank you. Anything further before we adjourn? No. All right. Our meeting is adjourned. Thank you everybody for being here today. Thank you, Steph.