Meeting Summary
Present: Kupiec, Kearns, Miller, Rockenbach, Connor
This summary was AI-generated to save you time. It may miss or misstate details, so verify against the official recording and the transcript.
At a glance
Election of 2026 Officers
- Nominations were opened for Chair, First Vice-Chair, and Second Vice-Chair positions.
- One nomination for Chair was withdrawn following discussion on rotation traditions.
- The remaining nominees for all three officer positions were elected unanimously.
Appointment of 2026 Secretary and Recording Secretary
- Staff recommended two individuals for the roles based on historical service.
- The commission approved the staff recommendation unanimously.
Agenda Status Report
- Staff presented the projection report for upcoming meetings.
- The March 18, 2026 meeting has no items, while the April 15, 2026 meeting includes one Development Plan Amendment.
- No action was taken on this informational item.
Planning Commissioners’ Informational Reports
- Commissioners provided brief reports on recent planning issues.
- One commissioner noted that recent rains did not cause water to hold back against freeway sound walls.
- Another commissioner publicized an American Institute of Architects exhibit at the Faulkner Gallery.
Minutes of December 17
- A correction was proposed to clarify the attendance record in Section 4.
- The minutes were approved with the correction unanimously.
- A commissioner noted a change in their vote on a previous motion due to an absence, which was recorded.
Director’s Report and Board of Supervisors Hearing Summary
- The Director reported on recent Board actions, including modifications to the Streamlining and Housing Accommodations Ordinance.
- The Coastal Commission conditionally certified the coastal zone rezones as part of the housing element.
- Upcoming Board items include the Raya Hayduck Appeal, Environmental Justice Element, and Cannabis Ordinance Extensions.
WAVE Public Hearing
- Staff explained the item serves as supplemental notice for projects where the hearing request period has expired.
- No hearing requests were received for the specific project mentioned.
- No action was required.
1410 North Jameson Lane
- The applicant requested permits to validate an as-built sound wall and entrance gate within the front setback.
- Staff recommended approval, noting the project is exempt from CEQA and complies with flood control standards.
- Commissioners discussed flood control allowances, venting systems, and wall height regulations.
- The motion to accept staff recommendations passed unanimously.
Utility Scale Solar Project – Ordinance and Comprehensive Plan Amendments
- Staff presented proposed amendments establishing a tiered permitting system for solar energy systems and facilities.
- The amendments include development standards, removal of the Cuyama Valley overlay, and updates to the coastal land use plan.
- Commissioners discussed battery storage safety, environmental review processes, and the adequacy of the Program EIR.
- Public commenters expressed support for grid resilience while raising concerns about regulatory clarity and restrictions.
Programmatic EIR and CEQA Findings for Solar and Battery Storage Projects
- Discussion focused on the adequacy of the EIR process for ensuring public safety regarding solar and battery storage.
- An amendment to remove Tier 2 batteries from the certification failed for lack of a second.
- The motion to approve the recommended actions for the three items was adopted unanimously.
Administrative Item: March Meeting Schedule
- Staff suggested canceling the upcoming March hearing due to a lack of scheduled items.
- The motion to cancel the March meeting was approved unanimously.
Full summary
Meeting Start and Pledge of Allegiance
- The February 18, 2026, meeting of the Montecito Planning Commission was called to order. The Pledge of Allegiance was recited, and a television coverage announcement was made. Roll call confirmed the presence of all commissioners.
Item 5: Election of 2026 Officers
- Nominations were opened for the positions of Chair, First Vice-Chair, and Second Vice-Chair.
- Chair: Two nominations were received. Following discussion regarding the tradition of annual rotation versus procedural discretion, one nomination was withdrawn. A motion was made and seconded to elect the remaining nominee as Chair. The motion passed unanimously.
- First Vice-Chair: A motion was made and seconded to appoint the First Vice-Chair. The motion passed unanimously.
- Second Vice-Chair: A motion was made and seconded to appoint the Second Vice-Chair. During discussion, the commission noted an informal understanding that the Second Vice-Chair would move to First Vice-Chair and the First Vice-Chair would move to Chair in the following year. The motion passed unanimously.
Item 6: Appointment of 2026 Secretary and Recording Secretary
- Staff recommended two individuals for the roles of Secretary and Recording Secretary based on their historical service. A motion was made and seconded to approve the staff recommendation. The motion passed unanimously.
Item 7: Agenda Status Report
- Staff presented the projection report. The next scheduled meeting is March 18, 2026, with no items currently on the agenda. The subsequent meeting is April 15, 2026, with one item scheduled: a Development Plan Amendment for 1260 Channel Drive. No action was taken.
Item 9: Public Comment
- The public comment period was opened for items not on the agenda. No members of the public requested to speak. The period was closed.
Planning Commissioners’ Informational Reports
- Commissioners provided brief reports on planning issues. One commissioner noted that recent rains did not appear to cause water holding back against freeway sound walls. Another commissioner publicized an American Institute of Architects exhibit at the Faulkner Gallery showcasing work by local architectural firms.
Minutes of December 17
- A correction was proposed to the minutes regarding the attendance record in Section 4, clarifying that one commissioner was absent. A motion was made and seconded to approve the minutes with the correction. The motion passed unanimously. Additionally, a commissioner noted a change in their vote on a previous motion due to an absence, which was recorded.
Item 12: Director’s Report and Board of Supervisors Hearing Summary
- The Director of Planning and Development reported on recent Board of Supervisors actions and upcoming items:
- Streamlining and Housing Accommodations Ordinance: The Board acted on January 27, making modifications to commercial zone changes and open space requirements. The Board maintained most Montecito Planning Commission recommendations for code consistency, except for an accessory structure exemption, which the Board upheld as non-exempt.
- Coastal Zone Rezoning: The Coastal Commission conditionally certified the coastal zone rezones as part of the housing element, finalizing the adoption process.
- General Cleanup Package: Ordinance changes passed on February 3 with no Board modifications.
- Upcoming Board Items:
- Raya Hayduck Appeal: An appeal regarding a damaged wall in San Ysidro Creek, previously denied by the Planning Commission, is scheduled for February 24.
- Environmental Justice Element: Scheduled for March 10.
- Cannabis Ordinance Extensions: Requests for extensions related to odor control equipment are scheduled for March 3.
- Long Range Work Program: Scheduled for April 7, prior to budget workshops.
- Inclusionary Housing Ordinance: Amendments including a local preference concept are expected in April.
Item 13: WAVE Public Hearing
- Staff explained that this item serves as supplemental notice for projects where the period to request a hearing has expired. No hearing requests were received for the specific project mentioned. No action was required.
Item 14: Standard Agenda Item 1 – 1410 North Jameson Lane
- Case Numbers: 23 CUP-00034 and 24 CDH-000025.
- Applicant: Montecito LLC.
- Project Description: Request for a minor conditional use permit and coastal development permit to validate an as-built 235-foot CMU and plaster sound wall (height varying from 6'7" to 7'10") and an entrance gate. The wall is located within the front setback and within the Coastal Commission appeals jurisdiction due to proximity to Montecito Creek. The request includes reducing the required 50-foot buffer from Montecito Creek’s top of bank to 43 feet for a 13-linear-foot section of the wall.
- Ex Parte Disclosures: One commissioner disclosed a conversation with the planner. Another commissioner, a neighbor, consulted with County Counsel and recused themselves from the item.
- Staff Presentation: Staff presented the project details, noting the wall was constructed with Caltrans funding for noise abatement. A zoning violation was issued in 2023 for unpermitted construction. Public Works Flood Control approved the design, which includes 45 vents to allow water flow, ensuring compliance with floodplain standards. A biological report supported the buffer reduction, stating the area is significantly disturbed and not considered Essential Habitat (ESH). Staff recommended approval, finding the project exempt from CEQA under Section 15303.
- Questions and Discussion:
- Commissioners inquired about flood control standards. The Engineering Manager for County Flood Control explained that while previous sound walls were held to a "no rise" standard, this project was approved with a one-foot rise allowance due to upcoming FEMA map changes (effective June 10) and the specific site conditions.
- Commissioners asked about the venting system, confirming it is a condition of approval and not yet installed.
- Commissioners asked about the wall height, and staff explained that walls over six feet in the front setback are allowed with a minor conditional use permit.
- Commissioners asked about the specific location of the buffer reduction, which staff identified as a 13-linear-foot section near the driveway.
- Applicant Presentation: The applicant’s representative provided additional context, noting the wall was built with Caltrans funds, the owner was unaware of permit requirements, and the height was chosen due to the highway elevation. They confirmed the project received preliminary approval from MBAR and will return for final approval.
- Public Hearing: No members of the public requested to speak.
- Motion and Vote: A motion was made and seconded to accept the staff recommendations. The motion passed unanimously.
Utility Scale Solar Project – Ordinance and Comprehensive Plan Amendments
- Staff Presentation: Staff presented the background and proposed changes for the Utility Scale Solar Project.
- Background: In 2014, the Board of Supervisors adopted amendments allowing utility-scale solar in the Cuyama Valley via a 600-acre overlay. In 2019, the Strategic Energy Plan directed the expansion of renewable energy generation. In 2021, the Board directed Long-Range Planning to develop amendments allowing utility-scale solar throughout the county and on Williamson Act contracted lands.
- Proposed Amendments: The amendments to the Montecito Land Use and Development Code (MLUDC) and Coastal Zoning Ordinance (CZO) establish a tiered permitting system for solar energy systems (Tier 1 and 2) and facilities (Tier 3 and 4).
- Tier 1 (Solar Energy Systems): Exempt from planning permits in inland areas; ground-mounted projects in the coastal zone require a Coastal Development Permit. Intended for on-site use.
- Tier 2 (Solar Energy Systems): Ground-mounted systems >0.5 acres up to 5 acres on developed/improved areas. Allowed with a zoning clearance. In the coastal zone, a non-locally appealable Coastal Development Permit is required. Must produce power primarily for on-site use in agricultural, recreation, and mountainous zones.
- Tier 3 (Community Scale Facilities): Up to 30 acres. Permitted with a minor conditional use permit (CUP) and, if in the coastal zone, a Coastal Development Permit.
- Tier 4 (Utility Scale Facilities): Over 30 acres. Permitted with a major CUP and, if in the coastal zone, a Coastal Development Permit.
- Battery Energy Storage Systems (BESS): Clarified as allowed as public utility facilities or private services. Proposed to be allowed as a component of solar projects if commensurate in size. No changes proposed for standalone BESS.
- Development Standards: Includes height, setbacks, visual screening, noise, traffic, safety, resource protection, hazard prevention, and decommissioning standards.
- Comprehensive Plan Amendments: Removal of the 600-acre utility-scale solar overlay in the Cuyama Valley and associated Policy 15. Updates to the coastal land use plan to clarify solar facilities as conditionally permitted uses.
- Williamson Act: Proposed amendments to uniform rules to allow utility-scale solar on Williamson Act contracted lands. Staff noted there is no Williamson Act contracted land within the Montecito Planning Area, so no action is required by the Commission on this specific aspect.
- Outreach and Environmental Review:
- CEQA Notice of Preparation issued Nov 7, 2024; Scoping hearing held Nov 21, 2024.
- Meetings held with developers/stakeholders (May 23, 2024) and the Agricultural Advisory Committee (Aug 8, 2024, and Nov 13, 2025).
- Draft Program EIR circulated Aug 19, 2025 – Oct 3, 2025.
- The Program EIR identified significant and unavoidable impacts for aesthetics, agricultural resources, and cultural/paleontological resources. Significant but mitigable impacts were identified for air quality, biological resources, greenhouse gases, hazards, noise, transportation, utilities, and wildfire.
- Alternatives evaluated: No-project, reduced Williamson Act allowance, and prohibition of Tier 4 in the coastal zone. Alternative 3 was identified as environmentally superior, but staff recommends the proposed project for meeting objectives with mitigation.
- Policy Consistency: Staff concluded the project is consistent with the County Comprehensive Plan, Coastal Land Use Plan, and Montecito Community Plan.
- Recommendation: Staff recommended the Commission adopt resolutions to recommend approval of the Coastal Zone Ordinance Amendments, MLUDC Amendments, and certification of the Program EIR.
- Commission Discussion and Questions:
- Tier 1 Exemptions: Staff clarified that Tier 1 projects are exempt from planning permits but must still comply with standard requirements (setbacks, tree removal, etc.). No full consistency analysis is required for exempt projects. Ground-mounted solar is currently exempt countywide in inland areas; the amendment clarifies size limits.
- Eligible Parcels: Staff identified one Ag-1 parcel (approx. 5 acres, orchard, in coastal zone) and several small Public Utility zone parcels in Montecito. Staff noted that while Tier 3/4 are allowed in these zones for consistency, the parcels are generally too small for such projects.
- Battery Storage and Environmental Review:
- Commissioner Miller raised concerns about the environmental review of battery storage, specifically regarding fire safety, chemical hazards, and potential impacts on watersheds during natural disasters.
- Staff explained that the Program EIR provides a baseline with mitigation measures but does not preclude future project-specific environmental review. Projects must still obtain building permits, which require fire department review and compliance with fire codes.
- Staff noted that Tier 3 and 4 projects (CUPs) are appealable and subject to rigorous review, including potential hazards assessments. Tier 1 and 2 projects are not appealable in the same manner but must comply with building codes.
- Staff clarified that battery storage must be commensurate with the solar project and located on developed/improved land for Tier 2. Standalone battery storage is not the focus of this ordinance.
- Staff stated that battery products undergo rigorous testing (e.g., UL certification) for safety.
- Commissioner Miller asked if neighbors could challenge battery installations based on environmental concerns. Staff confirmed that Tier 3/4 CUPs are appealable, while Tier 1/2 are not, but all projects must comply with building and fire codes.
- Program EIR Expiration: Staff stated there is no expiration date for the Program EIR, but it sets mitigation measures that future projects must adhere to. Future projects may need additional studies depending on site-specific conditions.
- Clean Coalition Comments: Staff acknowledged comments from the Clean Coalition, noting they requested lower permit tiers for some projects. Staff maintained that the Tier 2 level (zoning clearance) is appropriate for facilities up to 5 acres. Staff also noted that standalone battery storage was not within the scope of this project.
- Tier 2 Battery Size: Staff estimated that a 5-acre Tier 2 facility might have up to 1,000 square feet of battery storage cabinets. The ordinance does not specify a timeframe for storage, but batteries must be commensurate with the solar installation.
- Public Comment:
- 1. Juan Lattis (Central Coast Climate Justice Network): Spoke in support of the proposed ordinance updates. Highlighted the importance of battery storage for grid reliability, resilience, and reducing reliance on fossil fuels. Noted that modern battery technologies have enhanced thermal stability and do not contain mercury. Urged support for the updates to improve air quality and resilience. 2. Isabelle Stice (Clean Coalition): Spoke in support of the overall goal but raised concerns about the ordinance potentially creating additional restrictions for projects that currently do not require planning permits. Emphasized the need for clarity in the tiering system, specifically regarding acreage calculations and the classification of paired solar-plus-storage projects. Stated that overly restrictive regulations could curb renewable energy deployment and resilience.
- Commission Action:
- After public comment, the Commission returned to discussion. Commissioner Miller asked for clarification on the size of battery storage relative to Tier 2 solar panels. Staff reiterated that there is no standard ratio, but batteries must be commensurate with the solar project. Commissioner Kupiak noted that economic constraints likely limit battery size.
- No motion was made, seconded, or voted upon in this part of the transcript. The Commission indicated they would continue discussion and potentially take action after addressing other matters.
Programmatic EIR and CEQA Findings for Solar and Battery Storage Projects
- Discussion: Public commenters and commissioners discussed the adequacy of the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) process for ensuring public safety regarding privately owned solar and battery storage facilities. One commenter argued that site-specific EIRs are necessary to address safety concerns, such as structural integrity and flood zone restrictions, and expressed concern that a programmatic exemption might be insufficient. Another participant countered that public safety diligence is primarily the responsibility of the building and fire departments through the permitting process, rather than the EIR process. Staff confirmed that development within flood hazard areas is prohibited or subject to review by Flood Control, including for solar and battery components.
- Motion and Amendment: A motion was made to approve the recommended actions from staff for the three items presented. An amendment was proposed to remove Tier 2 batteries from the certification of the programmatic EIR and CEQA findings. The amendment failed for lack of a second.
- Decision: The motion to approve the recommended actions was adopted unanimously.
Administrative Item: March Meeting Schedule
- Discussion: Staff noted that the upcoming March hearing currently has no items scheduled and suggested canceling the meeting since no continuances were requested for the items discussed in the current session.
- Motion: A motion was made to cancel the March meeting due to a lack of action items.
- Decision: The motion to cancel the March meeting was approved unanimously.
Adjournment
- The meeting was adjourned.