Santa Barbara County is a unique place for a lot of reasons—mountains, beaches, food, wine.
And an anything-goes process for appealing land use permits, a system officials say grew too cumbersome and costly during the past two decades as it often pitted neighbor against neighbor.
No nearby county lets opponents fight essentially any development project. It’s one of several zoning-related policies guiding unincorporated Santa Barbara that planners and elected leaders now seek to streamline.
“We have to do something different,” Board of Supervisors Chairman Bob Nelson said, describing the county bureaucracy as a bottleneck. “We need to take some risks.”
“We have to make things faster and cheaper,” First District Supervisor Laura Capps added.
Proposals for ‘the mom and pop’
In a 4-0 vote, the board on Tuesday directed staff planners to recommend zoning ordinance changes that would make it easier and less expensive to perhaps put in an HVAC system, transition a building from one type of business to another or construct a single family home.
At the same time, the board warned against exposing scenic neighborhoods like Montecito, Old Town Orcutt and Bell Street in Los Alamos—where aesthetics and scale are more vigorously regulated—to a disruptive decline in oversight.
Third District Supervisor Joan Hartmann said she would guard against any potentially negative impacts to the Gaviota Coast or scenic highways, expressed concern about McMansions, and throughout the hearing appeared to be the most uncomfortable with making changes to residential rules.
“Those are something I’ve got top of mind,” said Hartmann, who left prior to the vote to catch a flight.
County planners will return to the board with a package of recommendations before the end of the year, said Lisa Plowman, county planning and development director.
“What I can tell you is what our objective is, and it’s to simplify the process and make it easier for the mom and pop that’s trying to get through the process, whether they want to put an addition on their house, or build a shed, or put in a pool or build a new single family home,” Plowman said, adding some of the recommendations might offer applicants a more predictable fixed fee structure.
A closer look
The board agreed to entertain thresholds that would exempt some but not all proposed single family dwellings and residential accessory structures from appeal. These projects would still be subject to county building codes and staff scrutiny.
“Let’s say you’re on a hillside ridgeline,” Plowman said. “You’re visible all the way around and a lot of your neighbors can see you. That would potentially trigger a more complex level of review. Or you’re doing a huge amount of grading because you’re on this slope. That would trigger a more complex review.”
In conjunction, the board will consider a tiered system that would send some but not other residential projects through the county’s architectural and design review process.
“Out and about people say, ‘Oh, you know, I tried to do this and it’s cost me so much money, and it took me fifteen months,’” Capps said. “I just look at things like making it so people can just do pools and not have to go through this arduous process, or even better yet HVAC systems or small structures. So this is music to my ears to just know that this will be much faster.
“The stories that I hear,” Capps said. “I just heard this the other night. They got into the project and the cost escalated… It’s one of those dilemmas. Do you pull out? But you’ve already spent ninety thousand dollars. Do you just keep going even though that is not at all what you’ve budgeted for?”
For commercial projects, the board will consider allowing minor expansions or some use changes like switching from a retail shop to a restaurant, without requiring additional parking.
The board will also consider thresholds for ministerial approval of commercial projects, and exempting some “limited commercial development” from design review—through new countywide rules applied uniformly or, conversely, fresh policies tailored to commercial zones that have existing community plans.
Certain projects in more heavily regulated coastal areas would still be subject to additional scrutiny, officials said.
‘A broken system’
Nelson, who represents the Fourth District, was particularly critical of current planning requirements, and early in the hearing expressed doubt any changes will go far enough.
“I guess I’m just really suspicious of this,” he told staff planners. “We’ve given direction like this before on other things, and then it turns into, you know, doctoral-level work.
“You guys spend months, I mean, sometimes even a year just for a permit for a house,” he said. “It’s a broken system.”
In response, Fifth District Supervisor Steve Lavagnino said the county was moving in the right direction.
“C’mon, man,” Lavagnino said humorously, drawing laughter across the hearing room in Santa Maria. “When I read this report, I was like, ‘Dude, this is what we’ve been talking about for 20 years.’ I’ve never seen it come as a staff report with recommendations. Maybe it’s always direction from the dais and that’s the problem. We were directing from the dais without a board majority to try to make this happen.
“These things aren’t north or south, Republican or Democrat. I think removing the appeal process from a single family dwelling is the way to go.”
‘Neighbors do not need to weigh in on everything’
Land use consultant Frances Romero told the board she supports making changes, despite a likely hit to her business shepherding clients through the county planning process.
Nobody from the public came to the board in opposition.
“Appeals have gotten out of hand and are eroding neighborly relations,” Romero said. “As an example, why should installing a pool in someone’s yard be appealable? And why should taxpayers fund appeals for issues between neighbors? Commercial zoning codes allow for multiple permitted uses. Why is it necessary to go through a change of use planning permit to go from one permitted use to another permitted use? No other jurisdiction does this.
“The current process contributes to buildings that are vacant and unproductive for months or years…. The ability to appeal adds time, expense, and scrutiny and does not produce better projects. It actually discourages them. Neighbors do not need to weigh in on everything that happens near them. This is how you erode community.”
