Montecito Planning Commission

Welcome, everyone who's finally gotten here. We're going to open the meeting of the Montecito Planning Commission. And David, if you could make the TV announcement?

Absolutely. All right, absolutely. Did you want to do the pledge first?

Oh, I thought we did that earlier.

And for those online, just raise your virtual hand and I'll call on you. Seeing no hands and seeing no one rise, we should move forward. Mr. Chair, should I read the first item into the record? Yes sir. Okay great thank you. The following is a hearing I'm sorry, the Montecito Planning Commission will conduct a workshop on ministerial permitting and streamlining ordinance amendments and will receive in file of report from the planning and development department regarding proposed amendments to the Montecito Land Use and Development Code and coastal zoning ordinance related to ministerial permitting and streamlining. Provide feedback to staff regarding the proposed amendments and determine that the recommended actions are not a project that is subject to environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to CEQA guidelines section 15378B5

Good morning Mr. Chair, members of the Commission I am not giving a director's report today but I am here to introduce the item that you'll be hearing in this workshop so back in 2022 late 2021 we had been working with the Board of Supervisors on the development A program that would work on streamlining our processes and simplifying them where possible. And as part of the budget hearings at that time, the board committed to giving the Division for Long-Range Planning an extra planner in order to carry out this three phased process.

We have so far today completed the first two phases and that involved what we call sort of these technical updates, which brought into alignment outdoor lighting standards, sign regulations. And we updated the shopping center zone district or actually we eliminated it because it was sort of an outdated zone district. So this was the beginning of us trying to sort of clean up the ordinance and streamline things for applicants where it makes sense.

The second phase of the process was in order to implement our housing element, it was a program. We had to modify pretty substantially the multifamily zone district to be able to accommodate the densities that are required for us to meet our regional needs allocation for housing units that are given to us by the state which we did. We essentially overhauled something that had been designed in the 1980's To bring it current. So now those zone districts are more consistent with what other jurisdictions are doing and Consistent with the densities that we need to be able to accommodate We also made changes to our commercial zone district And we did many things to streamline our processes and eliminate redundancies in our code as part of that phase two process and that was completed in 2025 And we are now on our third and final phase of this process.

And this is a really important element, this is something that the board talked to me about when they hired me as director. They wanted to create a greater number of ministerial permits truly ministerial permits. The county is currently an outlier In that we don't have, we have very very few truly ministerial permits. And so this effort is to bring us into greater alignment with what other jurisdiction is doing and to simplify the process for simple projects and keep complexity for the more complex process.

We went to the board for a, and the staff may talk about this in another slide, we went to the Board of Supervisors for a briefing on this In the spring May yeah in May To get direction from them. And so they gave us we brought some ideas to them They gave us good direction and then this is the next step of that process Is to have these workshops with the Planning Commission and then come back for action I think this process of having a workshop worked really well for phase two and Because it gives the Commission an opportunity to review the materials, ask questions. We can if we need to we can come back But it's it gives you an opportunity to discuss the item before you have to take any action on it So today we have Ben Singer who is our planner on it Alex Tuttle our deputy director and then we have our consultant Martha Miller Who is going to be online this morning?

to give you the presentation. So with that I'm going to turn it over to Alex Tuttle and Ben Sandler.

Would it be all right if we had some kind of, I appreciate that we're talking about the presentation but if we had some questions for you about the guidance process that the county has given is now that right time or

am I? You can certainly ask me any questions you would

like. I don't want to jump ahead if that was a...

I'm curious as

to there We are a funny kind of body to exist, meaning you were hired to run the county planning and development process. And you take your guidance from the five County Board of Supervisors as one should but that Our existence up here was the acknowledgment that our community kind of gets handled a little differently. And that was why they created the Montecito Planning Commission, and the Community Plan, and the code, and all of that.

When you all I appreciate for technical updates like outdoor lighting standards or shopping centers, why those are more countywide kind of, they make a light is a light regardless of where it is. But as we drift into ministerial permitting on housing I'm curious as to whether or not either the county gave guidance that was different for Montecito than it was for the rest of unincorporated county or does Does Supervisor Lee as the first district in which and the person appointing all of us, does he separately give you kind of like Montecito

I

understand where you're going. And there may be some value in you watching the hearing with the board,

to get an understanding of sort of how they were talking about the changes to the different communities. Overall, I think the board wants to try and be as consistent as possible throughout the county but they do recognize the unique qualities of some areas and so there are little differences I would say Between what's going to be happening in the broad area of the county and what will happen in Montecito.

So there will probably be differences, what happens on the Gaviota Coast potentially than what happens in the rest of the county. So there are little tweaks and we did work with individual board members after that briefing to talk to them about their unique communities and kind of the things that they were concerned about And to the greatest degree we could, we tried to work those concerns into the recommendations.

Mr. Tuttle and Mr. Singer and Ms. Miller can talk to you a little bit about how this is slightly different than it's going to be necessarily like in Goleta or Summerland or whatnot so So yes, there is a recognition of the unique communities But also a broad desire to kind of try and keep it as consistent as possible Because one of the issues I think that county has struggled with is having as many community plans as we do, which there's value in. But we have different policies addressing the same issues and they're all slightly different.

And that has created complexity in our process. And so what we are trying to do is bring things into alignment to the greatest degree we can while respecting the uniqueness of the communities.

And I do appreciate that, and I understand how this is kind of a prudential matter. It's hard to write a policy about how to write policy. There's some level of intellect and judgment that just has to overlay the process. I understand that there are multiple community plans but Montecito is unique because it has its own commission and planning code that is kind of a document unto itself. And so we are, I am curious as to whether or not I don't always follow the proceedings of the other bodies of government of Santa Barbara County as closely as I should. I'm curious as to whether or not there was any Montecito specific guidance that you that you were giving that I probably should be aware of from either the county level or from a board member, Lee level.

What I don't want to do is if I'm asking a bunch of questions or probing a topic, my goal is not to be crosswise to the intention of the County Board of Supervisors while still trying to represent the uniqueness of Montecito today. If that makes sense as a question?

Yes, Commissioner Miller through the Chair I understand that and we can share with you if If we observe something that we think is inconsistent with what the board's direction was, we can share that. We can say we understand that comment. We think that it might not be consistent with the first district's direction or the board's direction and so then it'll sort of give you some boundaries to work within.

So and you may come up with a recommendation that is different and the board will have to consider that

And I appreciate what you're saying and I appreciate the space that you are allowing us in that regard, but also ultimately like It is the board's vision that dominates here. And so if we are operating in a unconsidered or kind of white space kind of conversation, it's very different than the board has said this and I may not individually like it but that is a lot less space for discussion at that point is what I'm trying to get at.

Understood and I think you are correct. I mean the board has given direction The board has had a briefing, they've given direction. They have told us what they want us to do. They have asked us to make identify approaches or processes that might be slightly different in some communities to accommodate for the issue you raise about each community is unique And indeed you have in Montecito a separate code and a separate planning commission. But again, you're right there has been an overarching direction from the board to create more ministerial permits To make the process simpler for simple projects So that is the overarching message from the board and I do encourage you to watch the hearing As I think it'll give you a flavor and you can do that before you have to take action on the item Yes.

Commissioner Kearns?

Could you give us the date of that particular hearing, please?

May 12th. Thank you. Commissioner Kearns through the chair. 20th.

20? This year I believe it was

May 12, 2026.

No, it was this year. I'll send David the link to the materials from it and then he can disseminate that out to everyone.

Thank you. I think that would probably assist all of us. Yeah.

Yes.

Just to add to that, we did attach to the memo or for the packet that you have today. We did attach the board letter that was provided as part of that briefing as well as a copy of the minutes and other minutes aren't entirely helpful and lack some of the context but so you do have that information.

And just to add one more thing I would say that Supervisor Lee Thought a lot about what he envisioned to be the best process for Montecito while trying to remain as consistent as possible. So we worked with him and his staff, I think twice we met with them to go over different items. He's given it consideration.

It can be because you want equal treatment

for applicants.

Yeah I mean, I only asked this or mentioned this as a comment because you know an inconsistent policy just leads to more litigation so I'm very interested in understanding how we're different than someone else as far as streamlining a condition of approval

Mr. Chair, commissioners I think as we walk through the presentation will hopefully provide shine a light on some of those differences and provide a greater context as to how our recommendations align with the board's direction while also kind of respecting some of the desires for the Montecito community and it will particularly come in in the context of design review so I think that's what we'll have a lengthy conversation about that

I have one more question and that is actually a comment. In going through the materials for today, I think of particular interest at least to me is how the ministerial process will affect the design review and the procedures for, for example, Thank you.

All right I think if there's no further intro questions then we'll go ahead and hand it off to our consultant Martha Miller who will be presenting the rest of the material remotely.

Great, thank you. It's good to be before you presenting this portion of the project today. I'm going to start with a little background of the county is existing permitting and design review process so for permitting there's five basic types. The first is exemptions and that's where there's no approvals required. So this is limited development that's exempt from planning permits as such exemptions.

is not appealable and there's no noticing. Then there are zoning clearances, and zoning clearances are where staff is looking just at the project for compliance with the code. Does it meet all of the requirements of the code? And if so then it's approved. So this zoning clearances also are appeal- are not appealable and there's no noticing. It's truly ministerial Land use permits are also where staff is evaluating the project for compliance with the code. Land use permits are appealable and there is public notice.

Coastal development permits, similar in that they're staff approvals unless the development is within a coastal appeals jurisdiction. Coastal development permits are appealable and there is public notice. And finally, discretionary permits. This includes development plans, conditional use permits. These are also appealable and require public notice. So in your code, and Lisa mentioned this land use permit or an appealable coastal development permit is required for all uses listed as permitted except as specifically identified And that kind of blanket county wide requirement for an appealable planning approval for nearly all development on that countywide basis is really unique to Santa Barbara County. Other jurisdictions typically tie that comparable permit requirements to specific triggers, things such as A certain amount of grading and development on slopes, development and sensitive resource areas.

And typically not kind of that blanket county wide requirement for an appealable planning permit for most all developments. In addition to the permitting requirements, there's requirements for design review. And in Montecito, review of projects by the Montecito Board of Architectural Review is really required for all development with certain limited exceptions to that.

County-wide, and I'm going to talk about in the coastal zone because a portion of Montecito is within the coastal zone. So the amendments that are before you also address the coastal zoning ordinance. So in the coastal zone outside of Montecito there's review of projects by other boards of architecture review for most discretionary and commercial development and residential development in certain areas. So residential development And in many of the community plan areas.

So that's a little difference between Montecito and countywide and coastal zone specific. So this was discussed a little bit, but just to kind of recap in May staff presented options to the board for streamlining and downshifting permit requirements and emphasis on making smaller projects Eligible for ministerial approval, focusing primarily on single family and limited commercial development.

And at that meeting board provides some encouragement to staff to make significant changes making the permit process easier more predictable without compromising compliance with land use and resource protection policies. Some of the direction included creating a truly process for smaller projects, establishing a simple review process for projects that don't require kind of a significant level of review to verify compliance with county standards.

Create a non-appealable permit pathway for certain single family and residential accessory development and limited commercial development, and incorporate limited differences in the process for certain communities Maintaining certain permit requirements within Gaviota, different design review requirements for specific areas. Recognizing that some areas do warrant some differences but overall trying to limit those differences in process. So following that direction we've developed a set of proposed amendments and We've categorized those into four broader categories and I'll go through a summary of each one of them, beginning with the exemptions. So the county zoning ordinances include a list of specific development and uses that don't require the issuance of a planning permit.

Standards still apply they still have to meet all the standards other permits may be required But a planning permit is not required. Examples of this kind of exempt development is fences and walls under a certain height, small accessory structures up to 120 square feet, limited grading interior alterations, things such as this. So the proposed amendments revise and expand this list to exempt certain projects that don't otherwise require benefit from permit review.

These include changes of use between non-residential permitted uses that don't result in a reduction of existing parking. So if you have an existing permitted non-residential use and you're changing to another permitted non-residential use, and you're not reducing parking, that's exempt from planning permits. Also for accessory structures, increasing the size of exempt accessory structures from 120 to 250 square feet and allow some limited utilities. So it still can't be habitable but you could have a light or a sink, some limited utilities.

Exempting most pools, pool equipment, certain equipment for soil remediation And certain mechanical equipment such as HVAC, generators, EV chargers, freestanding poles and water tanks up to 5000 gallons. And so this list of exemptions is really consistent across these proposed amendments are consistent countywide Montecito and the coastal zone. So the next category for the amendments is defined uses and permit requirements. So these are the definitions of land uses, where they can be located and what type of permit is required.

So currently, the uses allowed in associated permit requirement in each zone district is listed or presented in extensive tables. The tables have been amended numerous times over the years but haven't really been comprehensively updated. Some of the use types are very specific, overly specific. And overall the amendments are geared to make the use allowances tables more consistent, more concise and then updating with modern permitting requirements and updating with a sense of the direction of the board.

So first we looked to simplify and consolidated some use definitions where possible, grouping like uses into broader categories that are based on common function or characteristics. Kind of trying to get away from the overly specific to a more broader group so that they can kind of stand the test of time. It also helps to increase consistency by treating like uses similarly Reduces the need for future amendments to accommodate again these new similar use types and overall reducing redundancy. So we had now is sometimes a use will be included in a broader use group and then also called out separately as an individual use, and so there's that redundancy within there.

So where possible, we consolidated some use definitions. And then we went through the tables for the amendments Where we could downshift permit requirements for uses that don't warrant a higher level of discretionary review. So in Montecito, examples include things in the CV district, cultural institutions, things such as libraries and museums. Downshifting that from a conditional use permit to a land-use permit Theaters in the CN district downshifting from a conditional use permit to a land use permit.

The mixed-use projects with a residential component, downshifting that in both the CN and CV districts from the CUP to the LUP. Also certified farmers markets which are also subject to specific standards some of these other uses are as well. Also downshifting fences more than six feet in height in front and interior setbacks or fences greater than eight feet in height in other areas. Downshifting that review requirement from a conditional use permit to a land-use permit. Additionally, in the coastal zone but not applicable to Montecito part of the Coastal Zone Ordinance, some downshifting including in the C1, C2, CHPI districts certified farmers markets from a minor conditional use permit to a coastal development permit. Also going through the tables, the amendments add some uses, some use allowances that fit the purpose of the districts but previously weren't listed as allowed.

This includes in the CB districts and dance martial arts music studios fitness and health facilities in your commercial zones A park and a playground in CN, and theaters in the CV district. So adding some limited uses. And then removing some uses that are listed as allowable but really aren't compatible with the purpose of the particular zone district. These are some of those kind of older uses have been carried over time and haven't been removed from those districts. So one example includes in the residential commercial zones, the allowance for hospitals to be located there.

So those are really allowed in other more appropriate zoning districts. And then finally some more cleanup including removing uses that are listed in the tables but actually aren't allowed. So just cleaning up making those tables a little more concise We did leave in some explicit disallowances in certain zones for sensitive kind of uses things such as short-term rentals where they're currently not allowed. Where we wanted to explicitly have that stated very clearly. Do

you have the list of what those things are? I mean, I'm tracking what you're saying but So maybe I'm not tracking what you're saying. What you're saying is that elsewhere in the code, there were things that were not permitted but in the tables were still listed and so the code was internally contradictory to itself? Am I understanding what you are communicating?

Do

you want to

go ahead Martha?

Go

ahead.

Go ahead. Commissioner Miller if you're the chair, if I'm understanding what you're asking is this about I guess the third of these they remove uses or is this about one of the others just to make sure I know?

Yeah well I'm interested in the full list on both but it's the third of these that I'm wanting to make sure I mean understanding intellectual concept of it before we talk about the items within that would be on the list

Understood. Yes, so for the third one these were uses that in the use table you would have a use listed defined in the table and then shown as not allowed in the zones kind of across the board in that table So for example your commercial zones at CN and CV and you would have a use I can't think of one off the top of my head, but it would say, you know

fireworks

manufacturing Fireworks manufacturing not allowed in either zone Okay And we kind of took that and looked at that and said Is that necessary to have in this table if it's not allowed in either zone? The presumption of the code is that, if it is not listed in a zone, it is not allowed in that zone. So having that presumption of not listed and not allowed and then also listing it and not allowing it was kind of just a redundancy that adds text to the code and adds length to all these tables. And for most of them things we felt could be taken out of the tables just to make them shorter and clearer with the exception of a few again like short-term rentals where we know that can be more kind of sensitive topic that we want to really be even redundantly clear where that is not allowed.

So what is being removed is things that were previously listed as, as allowed but that the code has been revised to not allow or that it was being listed as You know, I can have a chicken coop with six chickens but no ostriches. And the idea is that we don't have to say no ostriches because as long Is it a double negative here or I guess, I'm wanting to make sure I'm understanding. I don't mean to be dense but I'm not sure I'm getting it.

It's closer to two sections saying that a use is not allowed so you have section at the beginning saying these aren't allowed and then you come back and another section says these aren't allowed So it's just redundant to have both of those. So the second time we are removing that saying, we really don't need to be so explicitly clear for each of these spelled out uses that they aren't allowed when we can just take them out and then the presumption is that they're not allowed because they're not listed.

So if a use is not allowed in zones across the board in a table, you know again commercial is an easy one because you have two of them. You have a table it has two commercial zones that long list of everything in it and you'd have a bunch of uses that just say not allowed in CN, not allowed in CV. And we're looking at that saying this doesn't need to be in the table because it's not allowed on either one of them. If you take it out of the table then it's no longer listed as an allowed use and the assumption is that it is therefore not allowed

Commissioner Miller through the chair, I guess I would just add that it's really an artifact of when the code Has sort of evolved over the years from its earlier iterations where we didn't actually have use tables. We had just It was a different structure or framework for our code but when the Montecito Land Use and Development Code and land use development code were established in I think it was 2007 from a prior version of our zoning codes that created these use tables and part of what happened was these uses got put into these tables but in some cases they were added but still as not allowed use. So, it has just added unnecessary volume to our zoning code when it's a use that wasn't previously allowed is still not allowed in those particular zones and so it's really just a cleanup.

It's a non-substantive cleanup.

So the assumption is the only things allowed in a particular zone are the things that are listed?

Are

listed. In our never ever changing world what happens if a use comes

up? Well, that's... How does that get... That's a great question Commissioner Kubiak or Mr. Chair I want to start by saying thank you broader categories, we can say okay well that use fits within this broader category so it would be allowed. And if it doesn't fit

within one of your categories how does it get

administered? Then then it would be not allowed So there's basically a use determination provision in our code that says if a use is proposed that's listed the director... That seems like a

governmental foible There may be a use that comes up that should be allowed

Well if there is a use that comes up, there's a provision that says okay is this substantially similar in character or nature or intensity to a use that is listed and if it is then we can go through that permit process. But if it is not substantially similar then it would be not allowed and if someone wanted to try to make it allowed then they'd have to go through a zoning code update at that point.

Okay but there's a process?

There is a process. There's always a process

I understand that. Thank you.

Going back to section 2, I appreciate the example of no hospitals and residential. I guess the commercial thing impacts Montecito less but what are other examples of things that are being deemed non-compatible? What is that list

Commissioner Miller through the chair. Another example would be like a fairgrounds in the Resource Management Zone District of Montecito, which I think is currently listed as a CUP but I don't think there would ever be a scenario where we would think a fairgrounds was an appropriate land use and resource management zone district to Montecito or an airport. I think airport is currently allowed with a CUP Most all zones within the county and there are certain areas of the county where an airport would not be an appropriate use even through a CUP process. So we went through and tried to remove those where there would never be a scenario where we would deem that to be a compatible use.

I'm sorry, it may be in a packet and I just didn't see it but is there that kind of list of all of the crazy and obscure and no longer appropriate?

Commissioner Miller to the chair, we did not put together a list kind of broken down in this way. In the packet in the ordinances there are the tables as part of the ordinance amendment all of the land use tables are spelled out and then the uses that are crossed out generally that were allowed at some point like example the fairgrounds say if it was allowed by some use and its crossed out the general thought is that those are the uses that we are removing from the allowed use list because they're not compatible with the exception of some like we talked about before that we're combining so you know when removing library but then you see cultural institution being added or combining some but we did not put together specific lists of kind of all the uses that were being changed related to these.

Okay

and I would say this is much less of an incident in in Montecito in the MLUDC than it is in the LUDC So this is very limited in Montecito where you had these carryover kinds of uses. The examples in the LEDC are more extensive. Okay, so for design review So in Montecito, the review of projects by the Montecito Board of Architectural Review or MBAR is required for all development again with limited exceptions. In the coastal zone a little different where there's review of board of architectural review for most discretionary commercial development and the residential development in those certain areas ridgeline hillsides and certain community plan areas So the amendments cover three areas. One, expanding development and uses that are exempt from design review.

Establish a new administrative design review process. This is only applicable to the coastal zone outside of Montecito so that administrative design review process while I'll talk about it doesn't apply to Montecito. And then also establishing thresholds to identify projects that would be subject rather than our review. Again, applicable only to the coastal zone outside of Montecito.

And sorry to interrupt Martha but so the next couple slides will highlight like you know back to your earlier question one of the key differences in terms of how we're moving forward with Montecito relative to some other areas of the county. So as Martha speaks to the next couple slides and goes into further detail, we can highlight some of those differences for you so you can get a sense how Montecito is being treated differently in this instance.

So the proposed amendments applicable to Montecito are expanding the development and uses exempt from design review, and there's really two things. One is detached accessory structures less than 800 square feet located behind another building or on the rear half of the lot So that's a proposed new exemption from design review. Also limited additions to non-residential structures.

So exempting from design review additions that are 10% of the existing square footage with a minimum of 500 square feet and maximum of 5,000 square feet that can be exempt. It's not overly limiting on smaller projects and doesn't allow too much on larger projects. Those limited additions to existing non-residential structures would be exempt from design review.

Is the scope

of that 500 to 5000, is that number applying to the initial size of the non residential structure? Or is that the size of the 10% increase allowed?

That's the size of the 10% increase.

So you could do a 5,000 square foot addition on a hypothetical 50,000 square foot building without a permit? Without approval. Design review. Design review. Thank you. So that's the way to understand that?

Mr. Chair, Commissioners sorry I do have to and Martha let me just interject real quick so I think there's maybe a little miscommunication with this note so in addition to the detached accessory structures and the non-residential structures there is a proposed exemption that would exempt new or remodeled single story dwellings up to 2,500 square feet or additions to of that similar 10% of the existing square footage, or a maximum of 500 square feet. So I apologize for a little confusion but that is proposed exemption would be for single-story dwellings up to 200 and up to 2,500 square feet or additions to those additions or remodels with additions up to 500 square feet or 10% whichever is less. What was incorrect in the memo was on the detached accessory structures that had listed at 500 square feet but the intention and what was written in the code was 800 square feet and that is, in terms of comparing that to Montecito or from Montecito to elsewhere County that 800 square foot exemption for detached accessory structures is proposed to be across the board countywide.

Can I just ask for a quick clarification? So are we talking about the note at the bottom of the screen?

Yes, that note and I think it's created, sorry a little bit of confusion but in addition to those first two bullets so just restate the proposal is to exempt single-story single family dwellings up to 2,500 square feet from design review.

But that exemption is not, maybe I'm not understanding the note. I read the packet to say that remodeled single-story dwellings up to 2,500 square feet was being proposed as an exemption and now this note is saying it's not being proposed.

And so I guess what I'm trying to say is that note should not have been added.

This note

is incorrect? Yes.

Okay thank you.

I believe what's explained in the memo is accurate

So then the amendments that are applicable to the coastal zone outside of Montecito, again these are things that would not apply in Montecito. Our design review exemptions Other single family residences and accessory structures that meet certain criteria, including being single story under certain square footage and located outside of certain areas. The coastal zone outside of Montecito also has an administrative design review process where there's design review by the director no notice, no hearing not appealable still needs to meet design guidelines findings still must be made As the projects that are subject to that administrative design review, rather than the Board of Architecture Review would be amendments to existing development plans.

Signs except those that are part of an overall sign program or otherwise a project that's otherwise going to the BAR and then certain single family and accessory development again located outside of some sensitive view corridor areas or on a lot adjacent to Amendments applicable to the coastal zone, but not applicable in Montecito. And then the fourth category is ministerial review.

So the most common permit requirement, especially for smaller projects on a county wide kind of basis is a land use permit in the inland areas and a coastal development permit in the coastal areas. And these approvals require consistent with county policy. They require notice and they are appealable. And again, the Board of Supervisors direction is to establish a simple review process for projects that don't require that significant review to ensure compliance with county standards and policies and create a non-appealable permit pathway for certain single family in residential accessory development. Actually, just to start I'll talk my ministerial review. I'll talk first about the residential portion that I'll talk about the commercial so this is for the residential portion and then on the next slide.

So for the simple review process. In the inland area, there's some difference in the coastal zip area. But in the inland area downshifting small simple single family and residential accessory development to a zoning clearance so from the land use permit to the zoning clearance. And this would be for projects that 1 aren't subject to design review. Located outside of sensitive habitat areas, outside the flood hazard overlay zone that have public or municipal water and sanitary service are on a developed lot or a lot created after 1980 where staff has, the county has records that it was illegally created lot.

Limited amount of grading on slopes less than 20%. Doesn't involve a historic structure or resource and limited trees are removed, and they're replaced at basic ratio. So if you meet all of these criteria that goes through the more simple review process for being checked against consistency with county standards. And then for the non appealable pathway process...

Just a second Martha, Commissioner Curran do you have a question?

Yes I have a question going back to the prior slide about the Board of Supervisors direction. So, to establish a simple review process for projects that do not require significant review so has the staff made a determination of what those projects are or who makes that determination?

Commissioner Kerns for the chair. So essentially those thresholds on the next slide are those thresholds indicating that if you're below those thresholds, you would qualify as that simple project. And really, as we were developing those thresholds or those triggers, we were looking at what are the common issues that come up in reviewing applications in terms of evaluating a project for consistency with like resource protection policies, biological resources?

grading quantities things of that nature and these are the often the issues that come up as we're reviewing they can take considerable time. Excellent,

that's helpful.

And so essentially if a project can meet all these fairly stringent or rigorous criteria then it would kind of sail through the process and be able to be presumed or assumed consistent with all of our applicable policies

And so that would lead to the second bullet point that is created on appealable pathway.

Well, that would be the symbol. So that's a zoning clearance and then the non-appealable pathway I think Martha will get into on the subsequent slide.

Okay thank you.

One question lots created in the next slide for lots that were created after 1980. So based upon the current zoning code Were any of those lots created after 1980 be considered non-conforming?

There's two acres

zoning in Montecito.

No, they would likely all be considered conforming and you can develop a non-conforming lot so long as it was legally created. You can develop it with the single family dwelling and others permitted development.