Proposed amendments to simplify Santa Barbara County’s development review process are making their way through the pipeline, with the next hearing set for Monday.

But some Montecito residents are sounding the alarm, concerned that the amendments would fundamentally change the character of the affluent community that prides itself on its semi-rural aesthetic.

The amendments were initially set into motion under direction of the county Board of Supervisors, Alex Tuttle from Santa Barbara County Planning & Development explained to a packed Montecito Association meeting on Tuesday.

Currently, the vast majority of development projects in Montecito are subject to review by the Montecito Board of Architectural Review (MBAR), with limited exceptions.

Most projects also require a land-use permit if located in the inland area or a coastal development permit if located in the Coastal Zone.

Those look at consistency with county policy and outline when a project can be appealed; they also dictate when neighbors are given public notice of a proposed project, such as through a mailed notice or a posted sign. 

As proposed, the amendments would streamline and downshift permit requirements. An objective list of standards and criteria would help to simplify the review process, bringing it back to a staff level, and no longer require MBAR review or public noticing for some smaller projects, per county staff.

Most smaller projects in the inland area of Montecito would also no longer be appealable by the public. The final decision for approval or denial for some projects would also fall on county staff rather than the Montecito Planning Commission, per Tuttle.

Notably, for inland areas, new or remodeled single-story houses up to 2,500 square feet would be exempt from the Design Review process, public notice and appeals if they meet certain criteria.

Over the past decade, the county has approved 15 homes of that size in the Montecito area, Tuttle said. Many of those were rebuilds of homes that were lost in the 2018 Montecito debris flows. 

Proposed new rules would also exempt some additions from review (less than 10% of the existing residential structure square feet, or 500 feet), and accessory buildings less than 800 square feet.  

Smaller residential projects that would become exempt from zoning permits include, among others, pools and accessory dwelling structures under 250 square feet with some utilities, like outdoor kitchens. 

Commercial spaces that change into another business that do not result in a reduction in parking would become exempt from zoning permits. That includes, for example, a bookstore that wanted to become a coffee shop. 

Because Coast Village Road falls under city of Santa Barbara boundaries, there are a limited number of commercial properties that would be impacted within the Montecito area.

Those include the shopping area and restaurants near the corner of East Valley and San Ysidro roads, as well as San Ysidro Ranch, the Rosewood Miramar Beach Hotel & Bar, and Four Seasons Resort The Biltmore.

Projects must still meet basic objective county standards such as setback and height. Other permits from the Building and Safety Division or other Santa Barbara County departments may be applicable.

A staff breakdown of the full amendments as currently proposed can be found here.

The drafted amendments may be altered by MBAR next week, Tuttle warned, based on previous conversations at the last two meetings. 

But Montecito residents have accused the county of pushing the changes through without proper notice. 

These changes could lead to homes being built that don’t fit in with the community’s character, they argued, and pushed back on the idea that future projects could be approved without public notice to nearby neighbors. 

“This is something that those of us that live here are going to be with for the rest of our lives while we’re living here,” board member Laura Bode said.

“…How come there isn’t input by us, in the public, in time for us to share the policy that’s going to impact all of our lives here? And our major investment, our primary asset — our homes?”

Tuttle said the amendments are part of a countywide effort to make the county’s permitting system less cumbersome to navigate.

He also noted the changes in Montecito are less “ambitious” than changes happening elsewhere in the county. 

He added that the amendments have been in the works for a few years and said staff has held both public hearings and workshops. 

He suggested concerned community members reach out to their district representative, given that the final decision does fall to the supervisors because Montecito is an unincorporated area.

The Montecito area is in First District Supervisor Roy Lee’s district.

“Some people would say we’re not going far enough” with the amendments, he said. “Other people would say we’re going too far.” 

Montecito Association Second Vice President Patrice Serrani asked if the county would consider letting individual homeowners fund outside help to speed the current review process along for their specific project instead of changing the current regulations. 

Tuttle said that creates an equity issue for those who cannot afford to hire outside help. 

“Not everybody could do it, but it would help,” Serrani said, suggesting that be done for smaller projects like a kitchen remodel or garage conversion. 

Others, like board member Rock Rockenbach, were concerned that more homes right under that 2,500-square-feet limit would be built so they wouldn’t have to undergo Design Review.

He also asked if the supervisors would consider making the changes temporary, then re-reviewing them every year to see how they work in practice.

Doing that, he said, would help, because “after the first ugly house that someone builds goes up, the pictures are now in front of the county Board of Supervisors.”

The Montecito Planning Commission reviewed the amendments in late September, and then again on Oct. 7. It is now set to vote on them at its Monday meeting which starts at 1 p.m.

If the commission does offer a recommendation next week, the changes will head to the County Planning Commission for review, then the Board of Supervisors for final approval. 

These amendments should go before the supervisors for review by the end of the year, according to County Planning & Development Executive Director Lisa Plowman.