Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Rezoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Carpinteria residents urge county delay after rezoning language they say curbs environmental review
Summary
Residents and the county supervisor's office told Carpinteria City Council that a fine‑print "by‑right" provision in recent coastal rezones could remove discretionary review and CEQA in practice for projects such as the Baylard site; the county rep says the board has pulled the item to seek clarity and is asking the developer to withdraw builder's‑remedy status before resubmission.
Carpinteria — Dozens of residents urged the city council on Monday to press county supervisors to delay approval of rezoning language they say would strip local review and environmental scrutiny from planned housing projects. The item at issue, which comes before the Santa Barbara County board as an administrative matter, includes a provision residents described as giving developers ‘‘use by right’’ that could eliminate conditional use permits, environmental review under CEQA and other discretionary requirements.
"This little amendment that was in small print ... says the developer now has something called use by right, and that means ... the county's review shall not require a conditional use permit, development plan, environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act, or other discretionary review," said one resident during public comment, expressing alarm about future loss of local oversight.
Daisy, the first district supervisor's representative, told council she had pulled the county item scheduled for the following day to seek clarity from county staff and to ask the developer to withdraw builder's‑remedy status and refile a new project through the county process. "When folks say that this project has been approved, this project has not been approved because we haven't seen the project," she said, adding the office is asking for more transparency and coordination with the city and has agreed to monthly updates.
Residents raised safety concerns tied to the Baylard site — including limited egress and added traffic and parking pressure on adjacent neighborhoods — and asked the council to use its contacts with supervisors to press for protections. "It's a death trap trying to have this property with 173 units behind Casitas Village," a speaker said, referencing density and evacuation concerns.
Council members asked questions about what city advocacy might look like and whether the council should formally weigh in at the county level. Supervisor's staff said county supervisors are reviewing Coastal Commission modifications, including a requirement that at least 32 percent of units be affordable and remain affordable for the life of a project, but that fine‑print questions remained around the scope of local review.
Daisy said the county had convened an uncommon collaborative meeting with city staff, the housing authority and developer representatives to seek more transparency and that the next steps are for the builder's‑remedy status to be withdrawn and for a revised project to be submitted through the county process. She said the office expects to set meetings with the developer, county engineers and the fire marshal to examine ingress and egress options.
The council did not take a formal vote on the matter Monday, but members expressed support for staff and county follow‑up. Council asked staff to continue monitoring the county timeline and to report back as the situation evolves.
What happens next: the county board had scheduled the acceptance of Coastal Commission modifications for the following day; Supervisor's staff has pulled the item pending additional questions and said they will provide monthly updates to Carpinteria officials.
