Montecito Planning Commission

Workshop on Ministerial Permitting and Streamlining Ordinance Amendments

• Staff presented a three-phase process to simplify permitting, with the current phase focusing on increasing ministerial permits for single-family and limited commercial development.
• Proposed amendments include expanding exemptions for accessory structures and pools, simplifying use definitions, and establishing non-appealable permit pathways for small residential and commercial projects.
• Commissioners discussed concerns regarding design review exemptions for single-family construction and the 15,000-square-foot threshold for director-level review in the CN zone.
• The Commission voted to approve the three recommended action items, with staff advising that specific modifications can be recommended before forwarding the package to the Board of Supervisors.

Agenda Item: Workshop on Ministerial Permitting and Streamlining Ordinance Amendments

Discussion and Presentation

• The Montecito Planning Commission convened a workshop to review proposed amendments to the Montecito Land Use and Development Code and the Coastal Zoning Ordinance regarding ministerial permitting and streamlining. Staff presented a three-phase process initiated in 2021–2022 to simplify permitting. Phases one and two, completed in 2025, addressed technical updates and housing element compliance. The current phase focuses on increasing the number of truly ministerial permits to align with other jurisdictions and reduce complexity for simple projects.
• Staff clarified that the Board of Supervisors provided direction in May 2026 to create a non-appealable permit pathway for certain single-family and limited commercial development while maintaining consistency across the county. Staff noted that specific adjustments were made for Montecito to accommodate its unique planning commission and code. Staff committed to flagging any Commission recommendations that might conflict with Board direction.
• The presentation outlined four categories of proposed amendments: 1. Exemptions: Expanding the list of development exempt from planning permits. This includes changes of use between non-residential permitted uses (if parking is not reduced), increasing exempt accessory structure size from 120 to 250 square feet, and exempting most pools, certain equipment (HVAC, generators, EV chargers), and water tanks up to 5,000 gallons. 2. Defined Uses and Permit Requirements: Simplifying use definitions by grouping similar uses, downshifting permit requirements for certain uses (e.g., cultural institutions, theaters, mixed-use projects, and certain fences from Conditional Use Permit to Land Use Permit), adding compatible uses (e.g., fitness facilities, parks), and removing incompatible or redundant uses (e.g., hospitals in residential zones, fairgrounds in resource zones). Staff clarified that removing uses from tables where they were already listed as "not allowed" is a non-substantive cleanup to reduce code redundancy. 3. Design Review:
• Montecito: Expanding exemptions from Board of Architectural Review (MBAR) for detached accessory structures under 800 square feet (located behind another building or on the rear half of the lot) and limited additions to non-residential structures (10% of existing square footage, min 500 sq ft, max 5,000 sq ft). Staff corrected a memo error, confirming that new or remodeled single-story dwellings up to 2,500 square feet (or additions up to 500 sq ft/10%) are also proposed for exemption from design review.
• Coastal Zone (Outside Montecito): Establishing an administrative design review process (staff-level, non-appealable, no public hearing) for specific projects, which does not apply to Montecito.
• 4. Ministerial Review (Permit Types):
• Residential: Downshifting small, simple single-family and accessory development to a Zoning Clearance (non-appealable, no notice) if specific criteria are met (e.g., outside sensitive areas, developed lot created after 1980, limited grading). Establishing a non-appealable Land Use Permit pathway for projects not meeting Zoning Clearance criteria but not triggering CEQA.
• Commercial: Establishing a Zoning Clearance (or non-appealable Coastal Development Permit in coastal zones) for development under 5,000 square feet in commercial zones. In Montecito (CV and CN zones), this replaces the current requirement for a Development Plan for all development. Projects between 5,000 and 10,000 square feet would require a Land Use Permit, and projects over 10,000 square feet would require a Development Plan.

Commissioner Questions and Staff Responses

• Guidance and Consistency: Commissioners inquired about specific guidance from the Board of Supervisors or Supervisor Lee regarding Montecito. Staff confirmed that while the Board seeks consistency, they worked with Supervisor Lee to accommodate Montecito’s unique code and community characteristics. Staff stated they would flag any Commission recommendations inconsistent with Board direction.
• Use Table Cleanup: Commissioners sought clarification on the removal of uses from tables. Staff explained this removes redundant "not allowed" listings, relying on the code presumption that unlisted uses are not allowed, except for sensitive uses like short-term rentals where explicit disallowance is retained.
• Design Review Exemptions: Commissioners questioned the scope of exemptions for non-residential additions and single-family dwellings. Staff clarified the 500–5,000 sq ft range applies to the addition size, not the total building size. Staff confirmed the exemption for single-story dwellings up to 2,500 sq ft is proposed for Montecito.
• Lot Creation and Conformance: Commissioners asked about lots created after 1980 and their conformance status. Staff stated that lots created after 1980 are generally considered conforming if legally created, and the 1980 cutoff is used to ensure CEQA review occurred for lot splits. Staff agreed to verify when minimum lot sizes were established in Montecito to confirm conformance status of existing lots.
• Fire and Height Standards: Commissioners asked about high fire zones and height limits. Staff explained that high fire zone status does not disqualify a project from the simple process, as Fire Department review occurs during the building permit phase. Height and setback compliance are required for all projects; requests for modifications would trigger discretionary review.
• Appeals and Notice: Commissioners discussed the implications of non-appealable permits. Staff clarified that while the planning permit (Zoning Clearance or non-appealable LUP) cannot be appealed by third parties, the applicant can appeal a denial. Design review remains appealable. For non-appealable inland permits, public notice (placard and mail) is no longer required, though neighbors can still contact staff for information.
• Commercial Development: Commissioners asked about the impact on commercial projects, such as hotels. Staff clarified that the 5,000 sq ft Zoning Clearance threshold applies to new development or additions, and design review requirements for commercial zones remain unchanged.

Discussion of Design Review and Permit Thresholds

• Staff presented clarifications regarding the distinction between design review exemptions and zoning permit thresholds. It was established that the 500 to 5,000 square foot threshold for non-residential additions refers to the size of the expansion, not the cumulative project size, provided the addition maintains consistency with the existing site. Staff explained that while serial additions could theoretically occur within these thresholds, cumulative square footage triggers for development plans remain in effect. For example, properties operating under existing development plans would require plan amendments for further additions, which are discretionary processes.
• Staff outlined the proposed shift in review authority for the CN (Neighborhood Commercial) zone, where projects up to 15,000 square feet would move from the Planning Commission to the Planning Director. Staff noted that because most commercial areas in Montecito are fully developed, most future work would likely involve amending existing development plans, which generally remain at the Commission level unless they fall under a narrow "substantial conformity" determination.

Discussion of Administrative vs. Discretionary Review

• Commissioners inquired about the difference between ministerial design compatibility checks and full Board of Architectural Review (BAR) hearings. Staff explained that the goal is to streamline simple projects by reducing the level of granular architectural scrutiny (e.g., fenestration, trim details) for small additions, while retaining broader controls on scale, siting, and material compatibility. Staff acknowledged that this requires the community to accept a degree of reduced control over design details for smaller projects to improve efficiency and reduce costs.

Discussion of Coastal Zone Amendments (Outside Montecito)

• Staff presented proposed changes to the Coastal Zoning Ordinance for zones outside the Montecito area, including C1, C2, CH, PI, and MRP zones.
• C1 Zone: Proposed thresholds include a non-appealable CDP for less than 5,000 sq. ft., an appealable CDP for 5,000–10,000 sq. ft., and a CDP with Development Plan for 10,000+ sq. ft.
• C2 Zone: Proposed thresholds include a non-appealable CDP for less than 5,000 sq. ft., an appealable CDP for 5,000–15,000 sq. ft., and a CDP with Development Plan for 15,000+ sq. ft.
• CH, PI, and MRP Zones: Similar tiered structures were proposed, with the MRP (Industrial Research Park) zone proposing an appealable CDP for less than 20,000 sq. ft. and a CDP with Development Plan for 20,000+ sq. ft.
• Staff clarified that the Montecito Planning Commission must recommend on the entire Coastal Zoning Ordinance, even for areas outside Montecito, as the ordinance cannot be sectioned out.

Discussion of Change of Use and Parking

• Staff clarified that exempt changes of use apply to swapping between permitted non-residential uses (e.g., restaurant to gym) without physical additions. Changes involving conditional use permits or significant physical expansions do not qualify for this exemption. It was confirmed that the proposed amendments do not alter existing parking requirements, which are governed by separate regulations.

Public Comment

• The Clerk of the Board invited public comment. No members of the public in the room or online raised their hands to speak.

Commissioner Discussion and Concerns

• Commissioners discussed their preliminary concerns and areas for further review prior to the next meeting:
• Design Review Exemptions: Several commissioners expressed concern about removing design review for new single-family construction and substantial remodels, particularly on smaller lots (e.g., half-acre parcels) where visual impact on neighbors is higher. There was discussion about potentially tying exemptions to lot size or requiring administrative design review for certain projects.
• Commercial Thresholds: Commissioners raised concerns about the 15,000 square foot threshold for director-level review in the CN zone, suggesting it might be too high given recent high-value property sales and the potential for significant redevelopment. Some suggested lowering this threshold to keep more decisions at the Commission level.
• State Mandates (SB 9/ADUs): Staff clarified that ADUs and SB 9 lot splits are ministerial processes governed by state law and are not subject to the local design review changes proposed in this package. Staff noted that these state mandates create a disparity where some housing projects face less review than single-family dwellings, which the current proposal aims to address by streamlining local processes for small residential additions.
• Fees and Process: Commissioners discussed the financial burden of the current process on applicants and the county. One commissioner suggested that if Montecito maintains a more rigorous process, the community should be willing to bear the associated costs, potentially through a separate fee structure. Staff noted that fee schedules are a separate process recently adopted by the Board of Supervisors and are out of scope for this specific code amendment, but commissioners could include a recommendation for the department to evaluate fees.
• Process for Next Meeting: Staff advised that the Commission can make specific recommendations to modify the proposed package (e.g., adjusting thresholds or adding conditions) rather than rejecting the entire proposal. The goal is to forward the package with the Commission’s recommendations to the Board of Supervisors by the end of the calendar year. Commissioners agreed to review the materials and identify specific areas for potential compromise or modification before the next meeting.

Motion and Vote

• A motion was made to approve the three recommended action items presented by staff. The motion was seconded. The Chair called for a vote. The motion passed.

Adjournment

• A speaker thanked the Chair, Commissioners, and staff, and indicated the meeting would conclude.