Montecito Planning Commission Special Meeting

Ministerial Streamlining and Permitting Amendments

• Staff presented multi-phase amendments to streamline permitting for single-family residential and limited commercial development, including clarifications on cultural institutions and battery energy storage systems.
• The Commission decided not to exempt pools or pool equipment from planning permits, retaining the requirement for community notice.
• Design review exemptions were narrowed, with new single-story dwellings remaining subject to review and detached accessory structures limited to 500 square feet.
• Commercial permit thresholds were adjusted to eliminate Zoning Clearance, downshift smaller projects to Land Use Permits, and refine review authority based on square footage.
• The Commission voted to pass the motion incorporating these recommended revisions for both the Coastal Zoning Ordinance and the Montecito Land Use and Development Code.

Agenda Item: General Public Comment

• The Chair opened the meeting and called for general public comment on items not on the agenda. No public comments were recorded during this segment.

Agenda Item: Case Numbers 26 ORD 14 and 15 – Ministerial Streamlining and Permitting Amendments

Context and Clarifications

• The Commission reviewed a multi-phase effort to amend the Coastal Zoning Ordinance and the Montecito Land Use and Development Code to streamline the permit process for single-family residential and limited commercial development. Staff provided clarifications and corrections regarding previous drafts:
• CN Zone Cultural Institutions: Corrected an error where cultural institutions (e.g., libraries, museums) were mistakenly struck as permitted uses; the intent is to downshift them from a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to a Permitted Use.
• Battery Energy Storage Systems (BESS): Proposed downshifting standalone commercial BESS projects under one acre from a Major CUP to a Minor CUP in the coastal zone.
• Design Review Exemptions: Proposed expanding exemption language for "exterior alterations" to include "other development" (e.g., standalone structures) to avoid limiting exemptions strictly to alterations.
• Document Discrepancy: Clarified that hard copies distributed on September 30th omitted certain design review exemptions for single-story new dwellings and additions; corrected amendments were posted online on October 1st.

Category 1: Exemptions from Planning Permits

• Staff presented proposed expansions to projects exempt from planning permits, noting these projects remain subject to other permits and code compliance.
• Changes of Use: Proposed exemption for changes between non-residential permitted uses, provided there is no reduction in existing parking.
• Accessory Structures: Proposed increasing the exemption size from 120 to 250 square feet.
• Pools: Proposed exemption for most pools up to 1,000 square feet, provided no grading is required. Staff clarified that pools are currently exempt from design review if standalone; this proposal exempts them from the planning permit process.
• Mechanical Equipment: Proposed exemption for equipment associated with permitted uses (e.g., HVAC, backup generators), limited to 100 cubic feet in volume and noise levels not exceeding 65 decibels at the property line.
• Other Exemptions: Included soil remediation enclosures, certain poles, and limited water storage tanks.
• Agency Notification: Staff confirmed that notification and sign-off by agencies (e.g., Flood Control, Sanitary District) occur during the building permit phase, not the planning phase.

Category 2: Defined Uses and Permit Requirements

• Staff outlined amendments to use tables, including consolidating definitions, downshifting permit levels, and adding or removing uses.
• Downshifts (CUP to LUP): Proposed for cultural institutions in the CV zone, theaters (max 100-person capacity) in the CN zone, mixed-use projects with residential components in commercial zones, certified farmers markets, and fences/walls over specific height limits.
• Additions: Proposed for dance/martial arts studios, fitness/health facilities, and parks/playgrounds in specific commercial zones.
• Removals: Proposed removal of hospitals in residential/commercial zones and redundant use listings.
• Clarifications: Staff clarified that downshifting fences/walls from CUP to LUP removes the requirement for a public hearing. Regarding mixed-use projects, staff noted that jurisdiction depends on whether the residential component is affordable or market-rate and square footage thresholds, with ADUs universally exempt from design review under state law.

Category 3: Design Review Exemptions

• Staff presented proposed exemptions from Board of Architectural Review (BAR) design review.
• New Dwellings: Proposed exemption for new or remodeled single-story dwellings up to 2,500 square feet.
• Residential Additions: Proposed exemption for single-story additions up to 10% of existing square footage or 500 square feet (whichever is less).
• Accessory Structures: Proposed exemption for detached accessory structures under 800 square feet located behind another building or on the rear half of the lot.
• Non-Residential Additions: Proposed exemption for additions to non-residential structures up to 10% of existing square footage, with a minimum of 500 sq. ft. and a maximum of 5,000 sq. ft.

Category 4: Ministerial Review (Inland and Commercial)

• Single-Family Residential (Inland): Proposed a "Simple Review Process" (Zoning Clearance) for small single-family/accessory development meeting objective criteria, and a "Non-Appealable LUP" pathway for projects not meeting simple review criteria but not exceeding CEQA thresholds.
• Commercial Development (CN and CV Zones): Proposed tiered review thresholds:
• < 5,000 sq. ft.: Zoning Clearance.
• 5,000 – 10,000 sq. ft.: Land Use Permit.
• ≥ 10,000 sq. ft.: Development Plan.
• Review Authority (CN Zone): Development Plans ≤ 15,000 sq. ft. reviewed by the Director; > 15,000 sq. ft. reviewed by the Montecito Planning Commission. No changes proposed for the CV zone.
• Upper Village/CN Zone Nuances: Staff provided a breakdown of permit histories for parcels around the Upper Village intersection, noting that parcels without development plans could potentially be developed at the staff/director level under the proposed amendments.

Process and Jurisdiction

• Recommendations: For the Montecito Land Use and Development Code, recommendations go directly to the Board of Supervisors. For the Coastal Zoning Ordinance, recommendations go to the County Planning Commission, which then recommends to the Board of Supervisors.
• Historic Structures: Criteria for exemption from simple review include not being a "designated or listed" historic structure. Structures over 50 years old receive a review for potential historic significance.

Public Comment

• Public comment was received regarding the proposed amendments.
• Opposition: Speakers expressed concerns regarding the removal of design review for buildings under 2,500 square feet, the elimination of neighborhood notification, and the prevention of appeals to the Board of Supervisors. Specific concerns included impacts on historic enclaves, the qualifications of staff for historic preservation review, and the potential for speculative flipping. Requests were made to slow the process to allow for consultation with special districts (fire, sanitary, water) and to include environmental, social justice, and tribal entities in the input process.
• Support: Speakers supported the amendments as process improvements that reduce unnecessary discretionary review for minor projects. It was noted that projects with significant grading, steep slopes, or environmental hazards would still receive higher-level review, and that multiple agencies provide checks and balances.

Staff Clarifications and Commission Discussion

• Following public comment, staff provided further clarifications and the Commission deliberated specific provisions.
• Historic Structures: Staff presented options for expanding criteria for structures triggering a non-appealable LUP, including using a 50-year age threshold, structures eligible for listing, or structures of "known historic interest."
• Accessory Structures: Staff clarified that exempt structures must comply with setback requirements and have a height limit of 12 feet.
• Pools: Staff clarified that pools would still require a building permit. The Commission noted the loss of the appealable process for standalone pools.
• Special District Coordination: Staff stated that while the process would not be codified in the zoning code, the county has a practice of distributing plans to agencies. Staff proposed modifying application language to notify applicants of the need to coordinate with special districts.

Straw Poll on Pool Exemption

• The Commission conducted a straw poll on exempting standalone pools from planning permits. The poll was split, with some commissioners expressing opposition due to the lack of notice and appeal rights, while others were supportive or neutral. No final motion was taken on this specific item at that time.

Commission Decisions and Recommendations

• The Commission discussed and decided on the following revisions to the proposed amendments:
• Pools: The Commission decided not to exempt pools or pool equipment from planning permits, determining that the community prefers notice for pool construction.
• Theaters, Cultural Institutions, and Mixed-Use Projects: The Commission decided to retain Conditional Use Permit (CUP) requirements for theaters, cultural institutions, and mixed-use projects with residential components in CN and CV zones, while agreeing to downshift requirements for other uses.
• Sports Courts: The Commission agreed to treat sports courts differently from other residential accessory uses, requiring them to continue to require a planning permit.
• New or Remodeled Single-Story Dwellings: The Commission decided not to exempt new or remodeled single-story dwellings up to 2,500 square feet from design review; all such projects would remain subject to BAR design review.
• Minor Additions: The Commission decided to limit the design review exemption for minor additions (10% of existing square footage or 500 square feet) to structures that are not designated, listed, or eligible for listing as historic structures.
• Detached Accessory Structures: The Commission decided to limit the design review exemption for detached accessory structures to 500 square feet (reduced from the proposed 800 square feet) and require that they match the architectural style of the main residence.
• Non-Residential Additions: The Commission decided to limit the non-residential design review exemption to additions of 10% with a maximum of 1,000 square feet (reduced from the proposed 5,000 square feet).
• Commercial Zones (CN/CV): The Commission decided to:
• Eliminate the Zoning Clearance level for commercial projects.
• Downshift permit requirements for structures 2,500 square feet or less in CN and CV zones from a Development Plan to a Land Use Permit (noticed and appealable).
• Maintain Development Plan requirements for structures greater than 2,500 square feet.
• Change the review authority for Development Plans: Structures 5,000 square feet or less in the CN zone would be reviewed by the Director (noticed and appealable), while structures greater than 5,000 square feet would be reviewed by the Montecito Planning Commission. No changes were made to the CV zone review authority.
• Historic Structure Language: The Commission refined the language for distinguishing between simple and non-appealable permit pathways regarding historic structures, including criteria for structures that are not designated, listed, or eligible for listing, or are not structures of known historic interest.

Motion and Vote

• Motion: A motion was made to incorporate the recited recommended actions for both Case No. 26 ORD 14 (Coastal Zoning Ordinance) and Case No. 26 ORD 15 (MLUDC). The recommended actions include making required findings, recommending the County Planning Commission make findings, recommending the Board of Supervisors find the ordinances exempt from CEQA, and adopting a resolution recommending the Board approve the cases with the recommended revisions.
• Second: The motion was seconded.
• Vote Outcome: The motion passed.

Closing Remarks

• The meeting concluded with remarks directing attendees to the County Planning Commission meeting scheduled for 9 a.m.