Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the SB9 And Telecom Package topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board adopts SB 9, telecom and ADU ordinance package with 120‑day delay to protect pending applications
Summary
After extended public comment and staff presentations, the Board adopted a package of ordinance amendments implementing SB 9, updating commercial telecom (small‑cell) standards, and revising ADU rules; the board delayed the inland ordinances' operative date 120 days to accommodate pending applications and altered one permit type in the M2 zone.
The Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors on Feb. 4 adopted a multi‑part ordinance package that implements state SB 9 lot‑split/unit provisions, updates commercial telecommunication standards for small wireless facilities and clarifies accessory dwelling unit (ADU) rules. The board approved the package after extended staff presentations, board discussion and a lengthy public comment period that focused largely on telecom siting, fire safety and public notice.
Planning staff outlined the state requirements under SB 9 (Government Code sections 65852.21 and 66411.7) — ministerial review for qualifying urban lot splits and up to two principal dwelling units per lot or up to four units if ADUs are included — and recommended a set of objective local design and development standards intended to protect neighborhood compatibility while complying with state law. Proposed local standards addressed lot area ranges and maximum unit sizes, reduced side and rear setbacks (down to 4 feet for single‑story units up to 16 feet tall), maximum unit floor areas (2,000 square feet, with a 0.4 FAR or 5,000 sq. ft cap in some cases), open‑space requirements and landscaping/tree replacement ratios.
Planning staff also presented proposed amendments to the county's Commercial Telecommunication Facilities Ordinance to align local review with federal shot‑clock deadlines and to add objective stealth and siting standards for Tier 1 and Tier 2 small wireless facilities (for example, shrouding and concealment as technically feasible, minimum separation from dwelling doors/windows and restrictions on pole placement). Staff noted that RF exposure compliance must be demonstrated through RF reports and that building and electrical plan review and inspections apply.
Public comment was extensive and largely focused on small wireless facilities. Dozens of speakers asked the board to pause adoption until experts (fire investigators, electrical engineers and public‑health advisers) could be consulted, described the Malibu safety protocol and cited reports raising concerns about electrical code compliance, wildfire risk and other issues. Planning and building staff and the county fire official told the board that building permits, electrical reviews and inspections are standard practice and that they had no local examples of telecommunications equipment causing ignitions.
Several land‑use consultants asked the board to exempt or grandfather pending SB 9 applications. Planning staff confirmed 28 SB 9 applications have been filed since the state law took effect and that 11 remained pending; staff said most pending applications were within one to three months of approval.
To address those pending projects and stakeholder concerns, the board adopted the package with the following directed modifications: a delayed operative (effective) date for inland ordinances (120 days after adoption) to allow applications already in process time to complete review; an exemption approach for applications already in process; and a change in permit type for a proposed use in the M2 zone (from a minor Conditional Use Permit to a land use permit). The Planning Commission had previously recommended retaining an optional affordability requirement for one principal unit to be deed‑restricted; the board discussed that provision during deliberations and preserved the board's discretion on affordability standards as part of the package's implementation and follow‑up work.
Supervisor Nelson, who moved the board's action with the board's directed modifications, said the 120‑day delay was intended to avoid disrupting applications already in active review. The board voted and the motion carried.
Next steps: staff will prepare ordinance text for second reading as appropriate, submit a local coastal program amendment to the California Coastal Commission where required for coastal zone rules, and incorporate any additional objective coastal resource and hazard standards as part of the Long Range Planning work program.
