Montecito panel recommends county adopt 2025 ordinance amendment package, 3–2

The Montecito Planning Commission voted 3–2 on Nov. 19 to recommend that county officials adopt a package of 2025 ordinance amendments affecting the Montecito community plan area and coastal zoning.

Staff presenter Karina Martin told the commission the package would (1) create an exempt temporary‑use category for organized art, garden and architecture tours run by civic or charitable organizations (subject to limits), (2) revise local code to conform to recent state density‑bonus changes under Assembly Bill 3116, (3) repeal the Montecito Growth Management Ordinance (MGMO) because it conflicts with state law (SB 330), and (4) make a range of minor clarifying amendments to setbacks, accessory structures, ADU definitions, floor‑area calculations, and other provisions. Martin said the amendments are recommended to be determined exempt from environmental review under CEQA guidelines cited in the staff report.

Under the proposed tour exemption, staff explained, an eligible organization could hold up to four tours per year, each no longer than three days, with up to 300 attendees per day; receptions associated with tours would be limited to nonresidential zones. Staff also said the ordinance would treat typical site‑level participation as low intensity (generally no more than 25 people at a single participating property at any one time as an exempt level) and that events receiving compensation or selling tickets in a way that disqualifies them from a charitable category would instead require a minor conditional use permit.

Commissioners pressed staff on how the state density‑bonus changes would interact with local conditional‑use permits and campus CUPs. Martin and Deputy Director Alex Tuttle said the state law provides incentives and concessions (for example, increased height or reduced setbacks) for qualifying projects, and that a project that otherwise qualifies can pursue those incentives; existing CUP limits (for example, an enrollment cap at an institution) do not automatically change because of the state provision. On student housing, staff said AB 3116 added definitions and parking ratios for student housing and creates incentives for projects that provide stated levels of affordability.

Several commissioners expressed concern about importing a rule set driven by San Ynez Valley practices into Montecito without additional local tailoring. Commissioner Miller said, "I worry that this becomes a tool for fighting without accomplishing a tremendous amount within Montecito," calling for attention to enforcement, cross‑jurisdictional ticketing, and local parking impacts. Commissioner Kubiak and others said the change primarily codifies existing low‑intensity practices and offers clarity for organizers and enforcement.

On the MGMO, staff said the ordinance has not been enforced since the state law took effect and that repeal is intended to eliminate a local conflict with SB 330 and implement Program 16 of the county housing element. Staff also noted the MGMO has a sunset date of Dec. 31, 2030.

After discussion the commission voted to approve the staff recommendation (including a minor edit shown during the hearing). The motion carried 3–2. Staff confirmed the commission's recommendation, with a simple majority vote, will be transmitted to the County Planning Commission and to the Board of Supervisors for final action.

The board-level dates identified in the director's report include forthcoming hearings (the staff report referenced board action on related housing‑element amendments in early February and other administrative items in December). The county will also accept written requests for hearings on related supplemental notices (for example, the Creekside Road coastal permit notice) as specified in meeting materials.

The commission adjourned after the vote.