Montecito Planning Commission Special Hearing

Zoning Ordinance Update (Phase 3) Presentation

• Staff presented proposed amendments to streamline permitting for single-family residential and limited commercial development, including expanded exemptions for accessory structures, pools, and mechanical equipment.
• The proposal includes downshifting permit requirements for specific uses, such as cultural institutions and theaters, from Conditional Use Permits to Land Use Permits.
• Design review exemptions were proposed for small single-story dwellings and limited additions, while a new "simple review process" was introduced for small inland residential projects.
• Staff recommended that both ordinance amendments be found exempt from CEQA environmental review under the Common Sense and Coastal Document exemptions.

Public Comment and Community Concerns

• Multiple speakers, including representatives from the Montecito Sanitary District and local associations, urged the Commission to delay final action to allow for adequate community review.
• Concerns were raised regarding the potential loss of notice mechanisms for infrastructure impacts and the vulnerability of historic homes to the proposed 2,500-square-foot exemption.
• Commenters requested specific protections for high fire zones, cultural resources, and public safety, as well as the retention of neighbor notification processes.

Commission Discussion and Clarifications

• Staff clarified that existing Conditional Use Permits remain in effect and that most Montecito commercial properties are already governed by development plans, limiting the practical impact of proposed threshold changes.
• Commissioners discussed the unique context of Montecito and the need for careful consideration of design review exemptions, noting that the 2,500-square-foot limit is a fixed square footage rather than a Floor Area Ratio.
• The Commission reviewed data indicating that only a small fraction of recent new or rebuilt homes in Montecito fall under the proposed exemption threshold.
• Staff confirmed that proposed changes do not interfere with coordination requirements for other agencies, as exempt projects still require building permits that allow for agency review.

Motion to Continue Item

• A motion was made and amended to continue the item to a special hearing on October 19th at 1:00 PM to allow for further discussion and straw votes on specific proposals.
• The next hearing will focus on specific revisions, including the 2,500-square-foot single-story dwelling threshold and limited additions to residential structures.
• The motion to continue the item to the special hearing was passed.

Agenda Item: Case Numbers 26 ORD 14 and 26 ORD 15 – Zoning Ordinance Update (Phase 3)

Procedural Matters and Staff Presentation

• Staff clarified that ex parte contact rules do not apply to this legislative item, and the Commission agreed not to conduct ex parte announcements. Staff confirmed that recommendations would be forwarded to the Board of Supervisors, with the coastal zone portion potentially also reviewed by the County Planning Commission. Staff noted a deadline to reach the Board of Supervisors by the end of the year.
• Staff presented Phase 3 of the zoning ordinance update, focusing on process improvements, ministerial permitting, and streamlining for single-family residential and limited commercial development. The presentation covered four main categories of proposed amendments:
• 1. Exemptions:
• Expansion of the list of development exempt from planning permits (building permits may still be required).
• Proposed exemptions include: changes of use between permitted non-residential uses; accessory structures increased from 120 to 250 square feet (maintaining a 12-foot height limit and setback compliance); most pools and pool equipment (limited to approximately 1,000 square feet and not involving significant grading); certain soil remediation enclosures (temporary facilities for chemical cleanup); certain mechanical equipment (including water heaters); limited freestanding poles (no more than 12 inches in diameter, 12 feet in height, except flagpoles up to zone height limits); and water tanks of 5,000 gallons or less.
• Fence and wall heights: The exempt height for fences (6 feet or less, or gate posts up to 8 feet) remains unchanged. However, the permit requirement for fences exceeding these heights in certain setbacks is being downshifted from a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to a Land Use Permit (LUP).
• 2. Defined Uses and Permit Requirements:
• Consolidation of similar use definitions and downshifting permit requirements for uses that do not warrant discretionary review.
• Specific downshifts include: Cultural institutions in the CV district (from CUP to LUP); theaters in the CN district (from CUP to LUP); mixed-use projects with residential components in CN and CV districts (from CUP to LUP); and fences of certain heights in the coastal zone (outside Montecito).
• Addition of compatible uses (e.g., martial arts, music studios, fitness facilities) and removal of incompatible or incorrectly listed uses from district tables.
• Staff clarified that existing CUPs remain in effect, and modifications to existing CUPs are subject to a range of review levels based on the extent of the change. Staff noted that properties in the CN zone are generally governed by development plans rather than CUPs.
• 3. Design Review:
• Expansion of exemptions from design review for specific projects in Montecito.
• Proposed exemptions include: new or remodeled single-story dwellings up to 2,500 square feet; limited single-story residential additions (10% of existing square footage or 500 square feet, whichever is less); detached accessory structures under 800 square feet (single-story, 16 feet or less in height) located behind another building or on the rear half of a lot; and limited non-residential additions (10% of existing square footage, min 500 sq ft, max 5,000 sq ft).
• Establishment of an administrative design review process for the coastal zone (outside Montecito) for certain signs and single-family residential/accessory development. Staff clarified that the current proposal does not include administrative design review for Montecito; projects are either exempt or subject to full Board of Architectural Review (BAR).
• 4. Ministerial Review:
• Creation of a "simple review process" (Zoning Clearance) for small, simple single-family and residential accessory development in the inland area that meet objective criteria.
• Establishment of a non-appealable permit pathway for single-family residential and accessory development that do not meet the simple review criteria but do not exceed CEQA thresholds. In the coastal zone, this would be a non-appealable Coastal Development Permit.
• For commercial development in CV and CN zones (Montecito), establishment of tiered permit requirements based on square footage:
• Less than 5,000 sq ft: Zoning Clearance.
• 5,000 to 10,000 sq ft: Land Use Permit.
• 10,000 sq ft or more: Development Plan.
• For Development Plans in the CN zone, the Director would be the review authority for projects up to 15,000 square feet; larger projects would go to the Montecito Planning Commission. All Development Plans require public notice and are appealable.

Environmental Review

• Staff proposed that both ordinance amendments (Coastal Zoning and MLUDC) be found exempt from CEQA environmental review under Section 15061(b)(3) (Common Sense Exemption) and, for the coastal amendments, Section 15265 (Coastal Document Exemption).

Public Comment

• The Commission took a 10-minute break before resuming for public comment. Eight speakers addressed the Commission:
• Patrice Serrani: Requested that the Commission not take final action today, urging additional time for public review.
• John Weigold (Montecito Sanitary District): Expressed concern that proposed changes may eliminate the mechanism for the District to receive notice of development impacts on sewer infrastructure and easements. Requested that voting be delayed until the alternative process for special district review is clearly defined.
• Houghton Hyatt (Montecito Association): Urged the Commission to postpone action to allow adequate time for community review. Requested a clear comparison of existing and proposed requirements, retention of neighbor notice, and preservation of architectural oversight.
• Tom Boley (MBAR Member): Opposed exempting 5,000-square-foot developments in sensitive areas. Expressed concern about increasing exempt grading limits and the impact of pool equipment and accessory structures on neighbors. Requested more time for review and MBAR input.
• Bill Babbitt: Opposed the 2,500-square-foot exemption, citing vulnerability of historic homes. Suggested that any 10% additions should be restricted to the rear of properties.
• Cindy Feinberg: Supported the need for more time to review the proposal, expressing concern about the 2,500-square-foot exemption and potential loopholes related to ADUs.
• Amber Long: Expressed concern about the 2,500-square-foot exemption and the risk to historic structures that have not yet been designated. Requested consideration of protections for potential historic resources.
• Mary Ellen Brooks (CPA President): Requested a summary list of affected project types and permit issuance history. Urged the preparation of an environmental review document to assess impacts. Proposed inserting qualifying limits on ministerial and exempt projects, specifically disqualifying such treatment if projects are within 100 feet of a high fire zone, on sites with cultural/biological/historical resources, or if they create public safety/traffic risks. Suggested a mandatory good neighbor notification process.

Discussion

• Accessory Structures and Pools: Staff clarified that the proposed increase in exempt accessory structure size maintains a 12-foot height limit and requires compliance with setback requirements. Regarding pools, staff explained that the exemption applies to pools not involving significant grading and is limited to approximately 1,000 square feet.
• Use Definitions and Commercial Zones: Staff outlined changes to use definitions, including the consolidation of uses into "cultural institutions." Staff noted that changes in the Montecito area (CN and CV zones) are less significant than in other county areas because most consolidations targeted commercial zones. Staff clarified that properties in the CN zone are generally governed by development plans rather than conditional use permits.
• Design Review Exemptions for Single-Family Dwellings: Staff presented four options for single-story dwellings up to 2,500 square feet: (1) keep exempt as proposed, (2) exempt at a different size threshold, (3) subject to administrative design review, or (4) maintain status quo requiring full Board of Architectural Review (BAR). Staff clarified that the 2,500-square-foot limit is a fixed square footage, not a Floor Area Ratio (FAR) requirement. Data presented indicated that of approximately 140 new or rebuilt homes approved in Montecito over the last 10 years, about 15 were under 2,500 square feet.
• ADUs and Design Review Interactions: Staff explained that under existing regulations, a new single-family dwelling on a vacant lot with an attached ADU is currently exempt from design review, regardless of the home's size, due to Housing Accountability Act requirements. Staff clarified that exemptions for ministerial zoning clearances and design review are separate; a project exempt from design review is not eligible for a simple zoning clearance permit.
• Other Design Review Exemptions: Staff outlined additional proposed exemptions for small additions, detached accessory structures, and commercial additions. Staff clarified that the 10% calculation for residential additions is based on the primary residence, excluding any attached ADU.
• Agency Coordination: Staff clarified that proposed changes do not interfere with coordination requirements for other agencies (Fire, Flood Control, Water, Sanitary Districts). Staff noted that even exempt projects require building permits, which allow for agency review.
• Commercial Zones: Staff noted that in Montecito, most commercial properties are already under development plans, making the proposed lower thresholds unlikely to be triggered in practice.
• Appealability and Design Review: Staff explained that currently, most single-family development is handled at the staff level (noticed/appealable). Design review is a separate public hearing process via the Board of Architectural Review (BAR), which is appealable to the MPC. Staff clarified that making ministerial permits appealable would result in a narrow appeal scope limited to code compliance. Staff explained the distinction between public notice and appealability, noting that non-appealable permits can still require public notice.
• Community Context and Schedule: Commissioners discussed the unique nature of Montecito’s community and the difficulty in applying standard terminology. Commissioners discussed available dates for a reconvened hearing, noting that the County Planning Commission is scheduled for the 21st, requiring the MPC to finalize recommendations before then. Commissioners expressed reluctance to rush the decision due to the significant impact on the community and the volume of expected public comment. Staff reminded the commission that this is not the final decision; the Board of Supervisors will make the final decision. Commissioners raised concerns about affordability and the cost of the process, inquiring about the possibility of a Montecito-specific fee structure to self-fund the extra work associated with design review. Staff clarified that the process is funded by applicants.
• Residential Additions and Multifamily Development Definitions: Commissioner Kearns clarified a previous statement regarding "commercial additions," noting that the text actually refers to limited additions to residential structures. Bob Nelson requested that the next meeting include language clarifying the definition of multifamily development and its application in Montecito, specifically regarding exemptions from design review for existing lots versus lot splits, and for single-family residences with attached or detached ADUs. Staff noted that this is a separate state law topic and offered to provide information in a director’s report or during a public hearing.
• LUP vs. CUP Appealability and Commercial Scale: A Commissioner expressed concerns regarding the CN and CV zones, requesting greater detail. They appreciated the clarification on Local Use Permit (LUP) versus Conditional Use Permit (CUP) appealability factors but requested confirmation that downscaling a project to a LUP does not restrict appeal issues. They also raised concerns regarding commercial development scale.

Motion and Vote

• Motion: A motion was made to adjourn the meeting and reconvene on a date selected by the Chair and staff, with commissioners prepared to discuss specific proposals.
• Amendment: The motion was amended to specify a special hearing on October 19th at 1:00 PM. The amendment proposed that the next hearing focus on discussion slides and include straw votes on specific items (e.g., square footage thresholds, appealability) to reach a consensus for a recommendation.
• Second: The motion was seconded.
• Vote: The motion to continue the item to a special hearing on October 19th at 1:00 PM was passed.

Post-Vote Discussion

• Bob Nelson encouraged community members to submit written comments or messages to staff before the October 19th hearing.
• The Clerk of the Board noted that the standard comment deadline for a Monday hearing would be the preceding Wednesday at noon.
• Commissioner Miller asked for clarification on the motion, initially thinking it included adjournment. Bob Nelson clarified that the motion was to continue the item, not to adjourn the meeting immediately.
• Commissioner Miller requested that Commissioner Kearns briefly outline the specific topics of focus for the next meeting. Commissioner Kearns stated that specific revisions would focus on the 2,500 sq ft single-story dwelling threshold and limited additions to residential structures. Indicated willingness to provide proposed language for other items.

Adjournment

• Bob Nelson stated that the meeting was concluded and adjourned.