Planning Commission County of Santa Barbara 10_21_26

Zoning Ordinance Amendments (Case Numbers 23-26 ORD 13 and 26 ORD 14)

• Staff presented proposed amendments to streamline permitting for simple projects by expanding planning permit exemptions, downshifting permit requirements, and creating a non-appealable ministerial review pathway.
• The Montecito Planning Commission’s recommendations for the coastal zone were forwarded to the Board of Supervisors with two modifications: rejecting the exemption for small single-family dwellings and limiting historic structure protections to designated or listed resources.
• Commissioners requested a continuance to allow time for further deliberation and the preparation of a summary table clarifying current versus proposed permitting and design review requirements.
• The motion to continue the item to the next scheduled session on October 28 passed.

Closed Session

• No closed-session report was included in the provided meeting summary.

Meeting Convening and Roll Call

• The meeting for October 21 was convened, and the Pledge of Allegiance was recited. The Clerk of the Board announced that the hearing is televised live on CSB TV, rebroadcast on Fridays at 5 p.m., and streamed live on the county’s website and YouTube channel. Roll call indicated that Commissioners Park, Ford, and Chair Guy were present. Commissioner Martinez was absent. Commissioner Amer Connor participated remotely, citing illness.

General Public Comment

• The Chair set the total time for public comment at 15 minutes, with three minutes allocated per speaker. Speakers addressed the proposed Gratitude Canyon project in the San Miguel neighborhood of Winchester Canyon.
• Louise Keeler expressed concern regarding emergency evacuation, noting that the single roadway serving the neighborhood and the proposed project site could create bottlenecks during emergencies, particularly given the volume of vehicles associated with the camp.
• Sandra McGreevey stated opposition to the project, citing concerns about traffic, fire safety, environmental impact, water supply, noise, and parking. She noted that the noise study was conducted over only one 24-hour period and that the project’s scale exceeds that of a typical summer camp.
• Judy Jenkins focused on public safety, specifically the risk of a single point of failure for evacuation during fires or floods, and the potential for camp buses to overwhelm the narrow two-lane road.
• Richard Jenkins passed on the opportunity to speak.
• William McGreevey expressed opposition to the project, noting its proximity to marijuana farms in the canyon.
• Staff and the Chair noted that the application for the Gratitude Canyon project has not yet been deemed complete and that an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) will be prepared, providing future opportunities for public input.

Consent Agenda

• Motion: Commissioner Park moved to adopt the consent agenda.
• Second: Commissioner Ford seconded the motion.
• Discussion: No further discussion was requested.
• Vote: The motion passed by a vote of 4-0.

Standard Agenda: Zoning Ordinance Amendments (Case Numbers 23-26 ORD 13 and 26 ORD 14)

Staff Presentation and Recommendations

• The Commission heard a presentation regarding proposed amendments to the County Land Use and Development Code (LUDC) and the Coastal Zoning Ordinance. The objective of the package is to streamline permitting for simple projects, allowing staff to focus on complex projects. The amendments are grouped into four categories: planning permit exemptions, defined uses and permit requirements, design review, and ministerial review.
• 1. Planning Permit Exemptions: Staff explained that the amendments expand the list of projects exempt from planning permits, including changes of use between non-residential permitted uses (provided parking is not reduced), increasing the size limit for exempt accessory structures from 120 to 250 square feet, exempting most pools and pool equipment, soil remediation enclosures, and certain mechanical equipment. Staff clarified that these exemptions apply only to planning permits; building permits and other departmental approvals remain required. 2. Defined Uses and Permit Requirements: Staff presented amendments to consolidate use definitions, downshift permit requirements for certain uses (e.g., meeting facilities, hotels, mixed-use projects), add compatible uses to zoning tables (e.g., farmers markets, indoor entertainment), and remove incompatible or redundant uses. Staff noted that these changes aim to make the code more consistent and up-to-date. 3. Design Review: Staff outlined amendments to expand exemptions from design review, establish an administrative design review process handled by the Director, and set thresholds for eligibility.
• Exemptions: Accessory structures up to 800 square feet (if located behind a building or on the rear half of the lot), limited non-residential additions (up to 10% of existing square footage, min 500 sq ft, max 5,000 sq ft), and single-family residences meeting specific criteria (height ≤16 ft, FAR <0.35, not in designated sensitive areas).
• Administrative Review: The Director would handle design review for projects meeting specific criteria (e.g., single-family homes up to 16 ft in height in certain areas, up to 25 ft in others, FAR <0.35). This process involves consultation with a design professional but no public hearing.
• Staff confirmed that the package includes both inland and coastal amendments.
• 4. Ministerial Review: Staff described the creation of a non-appealable permit pathway for single-family residential and limited commercial development.
• Single-Family Residential: Projects meeting objective standards (e.g., outside sensitive areas, limited grading, public water/sewer) would be eligible for a zoning clearance (non-appealable) instead of an appealable land use permit.
• Commercial Development: Thresholds for zoning clearance, land use permit, and development plan were adjusted based on square footage and zone type (e.g., zoning clearance for <5,000 sq ft in most commercial zones).
• Review Authority: Changes were proposed to the review authority for development plans based on square footage.

Additional Staff Recommendations

• Staff presented additional recommended amendments:
• Battery Energy Storage Systems (BESS): Proposed amendments to clarify that BESS facilities under one acre require a minor conditional use permit, with consistent application across land use tables and the coastal zoning ordinance.
• Design Review Exemptions: Proposed amendment to expand the exemption from design review to include "exterior alterations or other development determined to be minor by the director," applicable in both inland and coastal zones.
• Environmental Review: Staff recommended finding the LUDC amendments (Case 26ORD13) exempt from CEQA pursuant to Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3). The Coastal Zoning Ordinance amendments (Case 26ORD14) were recommended to be found exempt pursuant to Sections 15061(b)(3) and 15265.
• Recommended Action: Staff requested the Commission make required findings, recommend the Board of Supervisors make required findings, find the amendments exempt from CEQA, and adopt a resolution recommending the Board approve the amendments with any revisions determined by the Commission.

Montecito Planning Commission Recommendations

• Staff presented recommendations from the Montecito Planning Commission, which apply to the Coastal Zoning Ordinance. The Montecito Commission voted 5-0 to adopt these recommendations with revisions: 1. Pools: Do not exempt pools and pool equipment from planning permits. 2. Single-Story Dwellings: Do not exempt new or remodeled single-story dwellings from design review within the Montecito Community Plan overlay. 3. Historic Resources: Ensure structures listed, designated, or eligible for listing as historic resources are not exempt from design review. 4. Accessory Structures: Limit the design review exemption for accessory structures to 500 square feet (instead of the proposed 800 square feet) within the Montecito Community Plan area. 5. Non-Residential Additions: Limit the design review exemption for non-residential additions to 1,000 square feet (instead of the proposed 5,000 square feet). 6. CV Zone: Limit what is allowable with a coastal development permit in the CV zone to 2,500 square feet of cumulative floor area; anything above requires a development plan.

Commissioner Questions and Staff Responses

• Commissioner Park asked for clarification on the scope of the Montecito recommendations, noting confusion between inland and coastal provisions. Staff clarified that the Montecito recommendations are specific to the coastal zone and can be applied county-wide or limited to the Montecito overlay at the Commission’s discretion.
• Commissioner Park asked about the appealability of design review decisions in Montecito. Staff confirmed that design review decisions are appealable to the Montecito Planning Commission and then to the Board of Supervisors.
• Commissioner Mary Connor asked about the rationale for not exempting pools. Staff cited concerns about noise and disruption to neighbors.
• Commissioner Mary Connor asked if pools currently require planning permits. Staff confirmed they do.
• Commissioner Mary Connor asked if there have been appeals related to pool noise. Staff stated they are not aware of any.
• Commissioner Ford asked how the list of Montecito recommendations was formed. Staff explained that the Montecito Commission walked through each element and voted on the package as a whole.
• Commissioner Park asked for clarification on the 2,500-square-foot limit for single-story dwellings in Montecito. Staff explained this was a specific concern of the Montecito Commission regarding lot sizes, whereas other areas use a Floor Area Ratio (FAR) limit.
• Commissioner Park asked about the accessory structure exemption. Staff clarified that structures larger than the exempt size or in non-compliant locations would still require design review.
• Commissioner Park asked about the non-residential addition exemption. Staff noted the Montecito Commission felt the proposed 5,000-square-foot limit was too high and recommended a 1,000-square-foot limit.
• Commissioner Park asked about the CV zone recommendation. Staff noted that the CV zone currently only applies to three hotels in Montecito.

Public Comment

• Public comment was opened, with speakers addressing various aspects of the proposed amendments:
• Chip Wolbrant: Supported downshifting to zoning clearances but cited difficulties in processing simple projects (e.g., farmstays). Requested that changes in permitted commercial uses within commercial zones not require land use permits, citing examples of historic structures used commercially without permits. Opposed removing country clubs and philanthropic institutions from agricultural zones, arguing these uses have historical precedent and should be evaluated case-by-case.
• Mark Shutillo (Citizens Planning Association): Expressed concern about the loss of local control and the adequacy of the CEQA exemption. Argued that the ordinance amendments are subject to CEQA and require environmental review due to potential significant impacts (e.g., on slopes, cultural sites, biological resources). Criticized the lack of clear standards for "uninhabitable" accessory structures and the exemption of pools on slopes. Requested that the Commission direct staff to conduct environmental review.
• Candace Minigan (Coastal Ranches Conservancy): Expressed concern about the removal of appealability for LUPs, particularly regarding biological resources and cumulative impacts. Requested adequate public notice and the opportunity to appeal when biological resources are impacted. Asked about coordination with the Fire Department regarding battery storage hazards. Recommended separating new single-family construction from remodels and requiring LUPs for new construction.
• Sullivan Israel (Strong Towns Santa Barbara): Supported the proposed streamlining and ministerial permitting. Encouraged the county to reconsider parking reduction requirements for commercial use changes to facilitate adaptive reuse. Supported the zoning clearance pathway for smaller residential and commercial projects. Noted that state laws (e.g., SB 1123) may incentivize smaller, more compatible homes if local pathways are streamlined.
• Houghton Hyatt (Montecito Association): Supported efficient permitting but urged the Commission to respect the Montecito Planning Commission’s recommendations to retain design review for new/remodeled dwellings, retain planning permits for pools, protect historic resources, and limit accessory structure exemptions. Requested meaningful public notice and appeal opportunities.
• Ana Citrin (Gaviota Coast Conservancy): Supported the preparation of a visual chart. Requested an explanation of how these amendments interact with upcoming ministerial subdivision and lot line adjustment items. Emphasized the importance of public notice and the role of community input in identifying overlooked issues (e.g., bike paths, specimen trees). Recommended retaining notice for non-appealable permits, particularly for new single-family construction. Expressed concern about excluding philanthropic organizations from agricultural zones.
• Kendra Duncan O’Connor: Expressed concern that the proposed amendments would lead to the elimination of the South County Board of Architectural Review (SBAR). Argued that design review is not a holdup but a necessary check on development, noting that delays are often caused by unprepared applicants. Raised the question of whether land use code modifications constitute a project under CEQA requiring environmental impact evaluation.
• Kathleen Rosenthal (WE WATCH): Requested more time for deliberation with county planning staff. Argued that removing the possibility of neighborhood voice in Section 5.4 ministerial permitting for single-family dwellings, accessory structures, and small commercial developments requires further public scrutiny. Stated that the current proposal tilts the scale toward applicants and away from neighborhood compatibility.
• Amber Long (Architectural Historian): Thanked staff for adding consultation with a BAR member to the administrative design review process. Raised concerns regarding historic resources, specifically the language on slide 26. Argued that the proposed simplified review, which applies when neither designated nor listed resources are present, would prevent the evaluation of potential historic resources at the time of a proposed project. Requested modifications to allow for historic review of undesignated and unlisted resources, citing the City of Santa Barbara’s determination that such properties are unprotected without evaluation.
• Eva Turnchalk (Land Use Consultant): Spoke in support of the amendments. Noted that only 15 residences of up to 2,500 square feet were approved in the last decade, many of which were rebuilds from the 2018 debris flow. Argued that the additional time and cost of a full MBAR review are burdensome for individual families building homes of this size. Suggested that pools could be handled with objective design standards rather than land use permits and stated that the low number of appeals supports the appropriateness of streamlining efforts.
• Megan Whittle (Grower Shipper Association): Expressed general support for streamlining but raised concerns about service commercial (CS) zoned land in Santa Maria. Warned that allowing new sensitive uses adjacent to active agricultural operations could create food safety threats and land use conflicts. Requested that potentially sensitive service commercial uses, including recreation, education, public assembly, animal keeping, residential uses, and daycare centers, not be eligible for zoning clearances.
• Mary Ellen Brooks (Citizens Planning Association): Discussed process and policy. Noted that while staff indicated a desire to finish by the end of the year, there was no specific requirement to do so. Advocated for a second or third hearing to allow for further public education and review, citing the Montecito Planning Commission’s second hearing as a positive example of staff providing necessary research and language. Noted that initial public notices described the changes as "cleanup," which she felt was misleading given the scope of the amendments.
• Tom Bollet (Montecito Resident and MBAR Member): Expressed concern that the proposal to use a 0.35 Floor Area Ratio (FAR) for design review exemptions would allow for disproportionately large homes in rural areas like Toro Canyon. Suggested that if staff wants an FAR exception, it should be variable based on parcel size, similar to standards in Summerland or Montecito coastal zones. Requested that the commission seek input from the MBAR and other BARs before passing the item to the Board of Supervisors, noting that BARs had not been asked to comment.

Staff Responses to Public Comment

• Director Bauman clarified that the proposed changes were not developed in closed-door meetings with the building industry but were based on long-standing feedback from the board and public, including discussions from the early 2000s. Emphasized that the goal is to streamline simple projects while maintaining complex review for larger developments. Noted that the vast majority of communities in the state have similar processes and that Santa Barbara County is an outlier in its current complexity.
• Staff Member (Unidentified Speaker 9) addressed CEQA concerns, explaining that the permit tiers are established with objective criteria for zoning clearances. Projects requiring CEQA review would be elevated to an appealable permit type. Stated that community plans have already undergone environmental review (EIRs) to evaluate build-out impacts, and the resulting policies and development standards remain in effect regardless of permit type. Argued that the proposal does not ignore CEQA but rather applies it to the appropriate level of development.
• Staff Member (Unidentified Speaker 6) clarified specific use definitions. Stated that recording studios in residential areas are considered accessory uses and are not currently permitted in residential areas. Clarified that the removal of "country club" as a primary use does not affect country clubs that are part of a golf course or winery, as those are considered accessory uses to the primary facility.
• Staff Member (Unidentified Speaker 10) provided perspective on the regulatory process, noting that the current system is complex and disproportionately affects small projects. Argued that streamlining one layer of review helps support small-scale development, which is often discouraged by the high costs and time associated with discretionary review processes.
• Staff Member (Unidentified Speaker 9) further clarified the distinction between noticing and appealability of permits. Noted that currently, land use permits and coastal development permits are both noticed and appealable. The proposal would make certain permits non-appealable and non-noticed, but staff indicated they could facilitate a discussion on separating these two components if the commission wished to preserve noticing while removing appealability.

Commission Deliberation

• Lunch Break: The commission took a one-hour lunch break.
• Resumption of Session: Upon resuming, Commissioner Park suggested deciding whether to continue the matter to allow for the creation of a spreadsheet or detailed review, as requested by several commissioners. Staff recommended taking time to go through the items one by one to elicit specific questions and determine if a continuance was necessary, noting that the schedule was tight to meet the Board of Supervisors' end-of-year deadline.
• Discussion of Specific Slides:
• Exemptions: The commission reviewed the slide on proposed exemptions. Commissioner Park had no objections. Commissioner Connor concurred.
• Defined Uses and Permit Requirements: The commission reviewed the slide on defined uses and permit requirements. Commissioner Park found the second item (downshift) ambiguous but had no specific objections. Commissioner Connor had no objections. Commissioner Park noted an objection to the CS zone, which would be addressed later.
• Design Review Exemptions:
• Accessory Structures: Staff explained the proposal to increase the size of exempt accessory structures from 500 to 800 square feet, with location and style requirements. No questions were raised.
• Non-Residential Additions: Staff explained the proposal for limited additions to non-residential structures up to 10% of existing square footage (min 500, max 5,000 sq ft) with style requirements. No concerns were raised.
• Single-Family Residences: Staff explained the exemption for single-story single-family residences and accessory structures with a FAR less than 0.35, excluding specific areas (Summerland, Gaviota, Los Alamos, Old Town Orcutt, view corridors, sea-adjacent lots, and Montecito). Commissioner Park asked why those areas were excluded. Staff explained that those areas have different sensitivities, such as hillside visibility, view corridors, or downtown character. Commissioner Park expressed support for the staff’s original recommendation to extend the exemption to the Montecito planning area, but agreed to wait until the Montecito Planning Commission’s recommendations were addressed.
• FAR Discussion: Commissioner Park asked about the origin of the 0.35 FAR. Staff explained it was based on permit data, other jurisdictions (e.g., City of Santa Barbara, Summerland), and a desire to accommodate a reasonable amount of development without becoming overly complex. Commissioner Park raised the issue of recent state housing laws (e.g., SB 9) potentially creating smaller lots and asked if a higher FAR might be appropriate for exemptions to accommodate affordable housing. Staff noted that SB 9 guarantees a minimum 800 sq ft residence even if it exceeds the FAR, and that most standard zoning lots are large enough to accommodate development within the 0.35 FAR.
• Administrative Design Review:
• Staff explained the new administrative design review process, which would apply to projects requiring design review but meeting specific criteria (e.g., height limits, FAR limits). It would involve director approval with consultation with a BAR chair or design professional, without public notice or hearing.
• Commissioner Park clarified that this slide deals with the administrative process, not the threshold question of what requires design review. Staff confirmed that the commission was not adding design review requirements to areas that do not currently have them, but rather distinguishing between administrative and full board review for areas that do.
• Commissioner Park questioned whether the ordinance eliminates design review in any area where it is currently required. Staff clarified that the proposal expands exemptions (e.g., accessory structures, single-family homes in specific areas) but does not eliminate the hillside ridgeline trigger for design review countywide.
• Commissioner Park expressed confusion about the scope of design review requirements in the county, noting that the ordinance appears to limit design review to specific areas. Staff confirmed that single-family residential development is not subject to design review in most areas of the county unless it is in a ridgeline hillside area or one of the specific community plan areas listed.
• Commissioner Park stated that she and others have comments on whether design review should be required in other areas, indicating that the discussion was not yet complete on this point.

Discussion on Current Design Review Requirements

• Staff presented a slide detailing where design review is currently required within the county, noting that requirements vary by community plan (e.g., Eastern Goleta Valley, Gaviota Coast, Mission Canyon) and that commercial development generally requires design review. Staff clarified that the proposed amendments would create nuances where some projects currently requiring full board architectural review would instead undergo administrative review, while others currently exempt might become subject to review. Commissioners noted that the presentation focused primarily on single-family residential development and requested that the distinction between residential and commercial/multi-family design review triggers be clarified in future materials.

Discussion on Public Notice and Administrative Review

• Commissioners discussed the proposal to eliminate public hearings for certain administrative design reviews. One commissioner argued that public notice should remain a requirement for administrative design reviews to allow neighbors to provide local context and to mitigate public concern about exclusion. Staff responded that administrative design review is not structured to accommodate public hearings, as such hearings would effectively revert the process to full board architectural review. Staff noted that while notice is currently provided for appealable staff-level decisions, the proposed package would eliminate the appealability of certain permits. The commission agreed to defer final deliberation on this issue to a future meeting.

Discussion on Ministerial Review and Historic Structures

• Staff presented the proposed ministerial review process for single-family residential and accessory development, including a non-appealable permit pathway. The Montecito Planning Commission’s recommendation to expand historic structure protections to include structures "eligible for listing" (not just designated or listed) was discussed. One commissioner expressed concern that using a vague standard of "historic significance" without an official list could surprise property owners who purchase homes unaware of such status. Staff explained that the current process relies on case-by-case determinations for structures over 50 years old and that the proposed language aims to capture structures of known historic value that are not formally listed. Another commissioner supported the objective of simplifying the process for single-family homes but suggested changing the terminology from "small/simple" to "certain" single-family development to avoid characterizing the project size or complexity.

Discussion on Commercial Development Thresholds

• Staff outlined proposed thresholds for commercial and industrial development, establishing zoning clearances for projects under 5,000 square feet, land use permits for projects between 5,000 and 10,000/15,000 square feet, and development plans for larger projects. Commissioners discussed the practical impact of these thresholds, noting that many commercial properties are already developed, which may limit the number of projects affected. One commissioner suggested adjusting the minimum square footage threshold but acknowledged that the practical impact might be minimal based on recent appeal history. Staff noted that all proposed permits except zoning clearances would remain appealable.

Discussion on Development Plan Review Authority

• Staff presented proposed adjustments to review authority for development plans in CN and CV zones, increasing the square footage threshold for zoning administrator review to 25,000 square feet, with the Planning Commission retaining authority for larger projects. Commissioners indicated no objections to this specific slide.

Deliberation on Montecito Planning Commission Recommendations

• The commission reviewed the Montecito Planning Commission’s recommendations regarding the coastal zone. Staff clarified that recommendations for the inland Montecito zoning code go directly to the Board of Supervisors, while recommendations for the coastal zone are subject to County Planning Commission review. Commissioners discussed specific bullet points in the Montecito recommendations:
• Bullet 2 (Exemption for small single-family dwellings): One commissioner disagreed with the exemption, arguing that small housing is needed in Montecito and that exempting it from design review could be detrimental.
• Bullet 3 (Historic Structures): One commissioner suggested deleting the phrase "or eligible to be listed" to avoid applying design review to structures without official designation, citing concerns about property owner surprise.
• Scope of Application: Commissioners debated whether to apply the Montecito recommendations only to the Montecito portion of the coastal zone or to the broader coastal zone. Multiple commissioners expressed support for limiting the recommendations to Montecito only.

Motion and Vote on Montecito Recommendations

• A motion was made to forward the Montecito Planning Commission’s recommendations to the Board of Supervisors for the Montecito portion of the coastal zone, with two modifications: 1. Not supporting the second bullet (exemption for small single-family dwellings from design review). 2. Removing the word "eligible" from the third bullet (limiting historic structure protections to designated or listed structures).
• The motion was seconded. The vote was taken, and the motion passed.

Discussion on Continuance and Future Materials

• Commissioners discussed the need for additional time to review the ordinance and requested that staff prepare a summary table or spreadsheet clarifying the current vs. proposed permitting and design review requirements. The table was requested to distinguish between building permits, architectural review, and land use permits, and to clarify which reviews are being streamlined versus retained. Commissioners noted that a clear visual summary would help the public and the Board of Supervisors understand the scope of the changes.

Motion and Vote on Continuance

• A motion was made to continue the item to a future meeting to allow for further deliberation and the preparation of the requested summary materials. The motion was seconded. The vote was taken, and the motion passed.

Closing Remarks and Motion to Continue

• Commissioners expressed appreciation for the staff’s work on the complex project. Commissioner Ford moved to continue the hearing to the next scheduled session on October 28. The motion was seconded. A question was raised regarding the full agenda for the following week, including a long-range planning item and a "Sabato Tarde" item, confirming that the next session would also be lengthy.

Vote on Continuance

• A roll call vote was taken on the motion to continue the hearing to October 28. The motion passed.

Adjournment

• Following the passage of the continuance motion, the Chair thanked the members and ended the meeting.