Floor Area Ratio at Land Use Meeting

The Montecito Association Land Use Committee (LUC) March meeting was held at the Montecito Library community room and on Zoom. The meeting was called to order by LUC Chair, Dorinne Lee Johnson. Attendees were the LUC, Montecito Association Executive Director Houghton Hyatt, SBC Planning Commissioner Laura Bridley, and Aida Thau representing Roy Lee First District SBC Supervisor.

Johnson introduced John Watson from the Montecito Board of Architectural Review (MBAR) to present on Floor Area Ratio (FAR) and Land Use Setbacks. Floor Area Ratio – a measure often used in city planning to ensure new builds are compatible with their surroundings – compares the size of a building to the size of the lot it’s built on. Watson moved to Montecito in 1992, while the Montecito Community Plan (MCP) was being worked on. He joined MBAR eight years ago and was originally on a FAR subcommittee via his architectural work. Watson came with an eight-page handout. Some of the points he made were:

– The MCP’s Goal G-M-1 is to “Maintain and Preserve the residential low intensity semi-rural character of Montecito.” The FAR was the primary tool to address low intensity and a large contributor to the semi-rural provision according to Watson.

– The MCP Action LU-M-1.1.6 states, “The Architectural Guidelines and Development Standards shall establish clear and objective standards for review of both the applicant and the Board of Architectural Review by developing a residential Floor Area Ratio (FAR) in combination with height limitations, structural setbacks, and other standards related to the size, mass, scale, and bulk of residential units. In addition, specifications for limitations and exceptions to the residential FAR shall be included.” The FAR calculator was developed for this requirement.

– The shortcoming of FAR is its administration by people with a self-interest. MBAR wanted to limit the total growth build-out regardless of whether the build in question is a garage, an ADU, an artist studio, or a house. The planning department rejected this and parts of the community are thus more dense than others.

– There was not an objective, standard repeatable method to evaluate projects.

The City of SB came up with a Neighborhood Compatibility Study adopting the 20 closest properties, which did not work. Next, the group added percentiles to the method to achieve a uniform equal analysis to all projects. 

– MBAR is comprised of architects and landscape architects. They have used this method for three to six months to approve projects with a FAR of 75%. 

– Currently, the MBAR is approving any of the following instances:

1) A FAR of 110% or Less. “Earlier” MBARs started approving projects at 110% of the FAR well over a decade ago and so to be fair to new projects, the current Board has accepted this level of approval, OR

2) A FAR equal to or less than the HISTORICAL FAR for the property. Some projects and areas in the community are in excess of the 110% FAR. These larger FAR properties might be from “long ago” before the establishment of the FAR, or from projects that got approved “years ago” by an “earlier” MBAR that was not as rigorous in their review as the current Board, OR

3) A FAR that the Neighborhood Study demonstrates is compatible with the neighborhood. Even though the Montecito Community Plan calls for “clear and objective standards,” the MBAR has not yet adopted a specific standard as to what the Maximum Allowable Percentile is for all projects.

– ADUs are required to follow the ADU Ordinance, but the FAR for Montecito is not in the Ordinance. Summerland and the City of SB have their FAR in their respective ordinances. Montecito could not get its FAR into its Ordinance.

– ADUs should be land use issues and not be done by architects that may have self-interested incentives. The stopping point is MBAR: should architects be subjectively reviewing ADUs for compliance, or should FAR be baked into the Ordinance?

– The order in which the ADU is constructed makes a difference. If you build the ADU with the house you have to account for it; but that is not the case if you build it after, so it’s a problem the LUC may want to consider.

– Land Use Setbacks normally are: Front Yard – 50 feet from the center of the right-of-way, or 20 feet from the edge, whichever is greater; Rear Yard – 25 feet normally; Side Yard – varies by the width, 10% never less than five feet, never more than 10 feet.

– Recreational things like basketball courts don’t require a land use permit but require a setback. The Ordinance is there to protect the community.

– If you permit buildings at 50% FAR, the neighborhood compatibility study would rule, if its 100% the community grows and 75% is a bit balanced. Lot studies do not include number of stories in a structure, FAR does.

– MBAR is not permitted to review ADUs since the State came in and required ADUs to meet affordability standards. Watson reported this requirement is not being leveraged to do what the State wants, some people basically qualifying a pool house or second office as an ADU.

– There are five Boards of Architectural Review in SB County. Of these, MBAR is the only board of architectural review whose members are not paid.

Everyone on MBAR is an architect or landscape architect appointed by the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors.

– Watson then acknowledged that MBAR would love Land Use to make comments about projects that come before them. “There is no requirement from this Land Use to MBAR. You can write a letter to MBAR about a project that is short and concise with objective points. We listen to everything. The MPC issues the permits after MBAR approves it at two levels. Montecito Land Use and Development Code details it. MBAR agendas are published online, and you can ask to receive them every two weeks in an email, and the LUC can look at it and make your comments to us. Everyone is allowed on site visits. LUC can make a statement to MBAR and we can put you on a discussion to address the MBAR on public comment for more than 3 minutes.

SBC Planning Commissioner Laura M. Bridley suggested that the LUC contact Roy Lee and all the Board of Supervisors to put pressure on getting the FAR into the Ordinance now, and the LUC to write a letter to MBAR to make their presence known.  

411: www.montecitoassociation.org