Montecito Planning Commission Special Hearing

so this is a legislative item so it isn't necessary to do ex parte on this item.

Good!

On the items where you for projects or permits you do need to do exparte but you're not required to do experte on a legislative

item We shall not do it

Thank You

Lisa, I think it's your show.

Good morning Mr. Chair and members of the Commission. I just wanted to give a small intro today. I want to say we appreciated the robust conversation that we had last week And today staff has going to be able to present options for your recommendations that are intended to address some of the issues that you raised at the workshop last week. The other thing I wanted to mention was we've had some interest from some of the special districts in Montecito asking questions, how this process will impact their input. And I've spoken to those districts but some of them are here today and may ask some questions which is constructive.

But I wanted to assure the commission that we will continue to be working with those districts in a similar fashion. This process is not intended to change how they interact with the department their involvement in the different types of projects. So I just wanted to give that as a precursor but they can ask their questions and Alex and the team can answer them, and I think that's all I have to say and I just look forward to hearing your comments today and we will take whatever recommendations you have and we will forward those to the Board of Supervisors so thank you if yeah I can answer any questions let me know

I think we are ready. Director Plowman, have you been presented with any scheduling guidance from Supervisor Lee's office?

I have spoken with the First

District. We talked

about what is on

the calendar.

And then there was some discussion about how far we might get today, and I think we were going to leave it to the Commission to see how far we could get. If we can move quickly that's great if if we cannot we have an extra day scheduled for for the Commission to take their final recommendation So it's

up to the

Commission.

Okay, but I guess there is not an obvious concern about you are taking this process on a journey of 1,000 miles to kind of land the plane through the Board of Supervisors by the end of the year and that additional time by us is not Changing your flight plan. Yes,

we

have

a

deadline to be at the board by the end of the year

And so we're going to, we have to keep moving because we've got to get to the County Planning Commission and then we have to be at the board in December. So we need your commission to be able to work within the allocated time that we have provided to make your recommendation

What you're offering up actually raises another question in my mind is that the work of the Montecito Planning Commission and revisions to the Montecito planning code, does that go through the County Commission before it gets or are these separate trails that end up in the same place at the Board of Supervisors?

Well your recommendation goes directly to the board except for in the coastal zone.

got it

okay

yeah

they will that is true commissioner could be accurate mr. chair

is there a hypothetical situation and I'm not for I'm not trying to create this or necessarily envision this but where Our recommendations for Montecito writ large show up on the inland only whereas the county recommendations for the coastal zone as would apply to Montecito also like there's kind of two versions of the script. If

your question is could they be different? Yes, they could be different depending on what the board ultimately decides

I'm sorry when you say the Board of Supervisors decides but that they would be, thank you for indulging me in this process conversation. But that when the Board of Supervisors decides they are deciding uniformly for the coastal zone because there's not a Montecito Coastal Zone and the rest of the coastal zone is that accurate? I'm sorry, Director Plowman.

Mr. Tuttle, excuse me Commissioner Miller, Mr. Tuttle would like to chime in.

Absolutely, I should have directed the questions.

Commissioner Miller through the chair may attempt to answer that question so it's not uncommon for us as staff to have recommendations from the Montecito Planning Commission that differ from the County Planning Commission and we forward both sets of recommendations I would like The MPC's recommendations for the Montecito portion of the coastal zone only because there is an overlay, a Montecito community plan overlay within the coastal zone that does provide an opportunity.

for the regulations even in the coastal zone of Montecito to be different than elsewhere in the coastal zone. So generally what we do is we forward potentially conflicting recommendations or differing recommendations to the board and let the board make that ultimate decision.

So it is possible for there to be multiple flavors of coastal zone so to speak?

Yes, Commissioner Miller to the Chair. So your recommendations that we pass along today or whenever you make your recommendations those will address inland Montecito in their entirety and then really your recommendations will be in the coastal zone will be focused primarily on Montecito The County Planning Commission will not be commenting on your recommendations for the inland area, and this is where it does get a little convoluted. But they will be reviewing your recommendations for the coastal zone. And then it's – the County Planning Commission then has a choice whether to accept your recommendations for the coastal zone portion or to have their own set of recommendations. And that's where we often end up with forwarding to the board multiple sets of recommendations, and it will be up to the board to decide how to handle those.

Thank you very much. Appreciate it.

So Mr. Chair, before we go any further, we actually We skipped over a couple parts of our agenda. The first is reading the item into the record, but more importantly general public comment. So I believe that our speakers are all here for our standard agenda item but we should ask if we have anyone here for general public comment.

For items that are not on today's agenda?

And for those of you online, just raise your virtual hand if you'd like to speak. Okay thank you. I know it's

a formality that we must

abide. Thank you so before we start staff presentation why don't I read the item into the record?

Thank You Dave.

The following is a hearing on the request of the County of Santa Barbara Planning and Development Department to consider case number 26 ORD 14 as well as 26 ORD 15, and to determine that the ordinances are exempt from the provisions of CEQA pursuant to sections 15061B3 and 15265 of the state guidelines for implementation of CEQA.

Okay, good. Thank you. Good morning Mr. Chair members of the Commission So same team we have today with you as we had last week Martha Miller our consultant in person and Ben Singer our project planner We a lot of this is still hopefully pretty fresh in your minds from last week But we are going to just do a somewhat condensed So we'll do like a sort of a quick overview and touching back on all the issues.

And then we'll be set to be able to help support further discussion and maybe walking through different options. But I take a pause at that point and kind of see where we're at and how we want to proceed. So with that, I will pass it along to Martha Miller.

Thank you, Chair and Commissioners. As you know this is phase three of a larger zoning ordinance update amendment project that the county's been working on for the last couple years. Phases one and two included technical updates and some housing accommodation updates And now we're into more of the process improvement updates where we're looking at ministerial permitting and streamlining with a focus on primarily on single-family residential and limited commercial development.

A recap of kind of where we've been and the direction that staff has been given. Back in May, staff presented some options for streamlining and downshifting permit requirements to the Board of Supervisors. And that emphasis again is on smaller projects looking at things that could be eligible for ministerial review focusing primarily again on that single family and limited commercial development.

Through those discussions, the board encouraged staff to look at making significant changes. Overall, the intent of making the permitting process easier and more predictable for smaller projects and less complex projects make the process more predictable without compromising compliance with land use and resource protection policies. Some things included creating a truly ministerial process for smaller projects, establishing a simple review process for projects that don't require that significant review to ensure compliance with county standards.

idea of treating easier projects or simple projects through a more simple process, creating a non-appealable permit pathway for most single family and residential accessory development and limited commercial development. And then incorporating limited differences in the process for certain communities including maintaining certain permit requirements within the Gaviota area, different design requirements For specific areas, but overall looking to limit those differences again with idea of kind of simplifying what you have now is a very complex regulatory structure.

So following that direction the amendments that are before you today were prepared and they can broadly be grouped into four categories and I'll go through a quick summary of each one of those. Beginning first with exemptions, so the county zoning ordinances currently include a list of specific development and uses that do not require the issuance of zoning permits. So Zoning Clearance Land Use Permit, Coastal Development Permit.

Standards still apply, so not only the base standards of the districts and all of the standards of the code but even standards for those individual exemptions. Sometimes there's size limitations or other limitations built into those exemptions. So those standards still apply. Other permits and reviews may still be required, so you still may need a building permit, a construction permit, fire review etc.

But examples of that exempt development, and again it's only exempt from planning permits. But things include fences and walls below certain heights, small accessory structures less than 120 square feet, limited amounts of grading, interior alterations, things such as that. So the amendments revise and expand this list to exempt certain projects that don't otherwise really benefit from planning permit review, and those include changes of use. So if you're changing a use from an existing permitted non-residential use to another permitted non-residential use, that would be... And there's no reduction in parking that could be... That would be exempt from planning permits.

So one example is maybe your bookstore, and you're changing into maybe a restaurant or a cafe is a permitted use in that same district. That could be something that would be exempt from planning permits. But of course, you'd still need to go through your tenant improvements, health department review, and all of that. Accessory structures. Increasing the size of exempt accessory structures from 120 square feet to 250 square feet and allow some utilities. So things, it still couldn't be habitable space but you could have a light or a sink within that. And that's accommodating kind of an example is a garden shed and you might have a light or electricity to that shed.

Pools, exempting most pools and pool equipment. Certain soil remediation enclosures, certain mechanical equipment and other equipment that are associated with permitted uses, uses that are allowed. Some limited freestanding poles, water tanks of 5,000 gallons or less. So those are the amendments include adding these to the list of exemptions The next category 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 the associated permit required in each district is presented in extensive tables. And they're very extensive if you go through the ordinance so we looked at first Where can we simplify the tables and make them more user-friendly and concise? So, we looked at consolidating some use definitions where there are uses that are very similar in nature.

And that can really be grouped into broader categories. So we consolidated some use definitions and then in light of the kind of that purpose of the project and direction from the board looked at downshifting permit requirements for uses that don't warrant that higher level of discretionary review. The CV district cultural institutions downshifting that from a conditional use permit to a land use permit. Similarly, theaters in the CN district and both the CN and CV districts mixed-use projects with a residential component downshifting that from a conditional use permit to a land use permit in accordance with the county's housing goals and accommodating housing.

And then downshifting for fences of a certain height, also some in the coastal zone but that are not within Montecito. In some of the districts that are there for certified farmers markets. With uses, we also looked at adding some uses that fit the purpose of the district but were not previously listed as allowed. And this just kind of happens over time as your tables are amended but haven't really been looked at on a comprehensive level.

So adding some uses such as martial arts and music studios into the CV District, fitness and health facilities into the commercial districts, theaters in the CV District. We also looked at kind of a cleanup removing uses that are currently listed but not really compatible with the purpose of the zone district. This occurs more in your, the countywide, the LUDC than it does in Montecito but there was some cleanups such as hospitals and residential and commercial zones so removing that use allowance.

And then also cleaning up the tables, removing some uses that are listed but are not allowed. So we talked a little bit about this at our last meeting where you do have a general statement that says anything listed is not allowed in a district. Anything that's not listed is not allowed and then you kind of had this duplicate thing where some uses were also listed in the tables but then a strikeout saying they weren't allowed so we're just to make the table shorter more concise with pertinent information, we're removing those lines. But that doesn't actually change an allowance or a prohibition.

For design review, the current design review process in Montecito there's a review of projects from the Montecito Board of Architectural Review is required for all development. There are some limited exceptions and some existing exemptions to that but otherwise it's all development. In the coastal zone the review of projects from the Boards of Architectural Review is a little different. It's required for most discretionary and commercial development and then residential development in certain areas including bridge line and hillsides in certain community plan areas.

So the proposed amendments, one expand development and uses that are exempt from design review and then in the coastal zone but not applicable in Montecito or the Montecito Coastal Zone establishing a new administrative design review process and then identifying the types of projects that would go through that administrative design review. So the amendments that are applicable to Montecito include expanding development and uses that are exempt from design review. So the amendments include a new exemption for new or remodeled single story dwellings up to 2,500 square feet.

Limited additions to residential structures, that is single-story additions that add 10% of the existing square footage or 500 square feet, whichever is less. Another exemption for detached accessory structures that are less than 800 square feet in size and located behind another building or on the rear half of a lot. And then limited additions to nonresidential structures Either up to 10% of the existing square footage with a minimum allowance of 500 square feet, a maximum allowance of 5,000 square feet. Just to make sure if you have a very small or very large project, you're still limiting the small ones too much or giving too much exemption to large projects.

The amendments that are applicable to the coastal zone but outside of Montecito include exempting single family residences and accessory structures. That meet a number of criteria including being single story, limited in square footage and then limited in certain areas. And then also establishing that administrative design review process where design review is the director's the review authority there's no notice, there's no hearing it's not appealable but they still must meet design guidelines and are subject to Findings and those projects that would be subject to administrative diner design review are certain signs And then certain single-family residential and accessory development that are outside of some limited areas For ministerial review, this is the fourth category So the most common permit requirement especially for smaller projects in the inland area as a land use permit in the coastal zone It's the coastal development permit these Projects require consistency with county policy.

They do require public notice and the decision is appealable And again, the Board of Supervisors Direction was to look at establishing a simple review process for projects that don't require that significant review But you're still ensuring compliance with County standards and creating the non-appealable permit pathway for most single family residential accessory development and limited commercial development So for the simple review processes, and this is applicable only to the inland area only.

Downshifting the permit requirement for small and simple single family and residential accessory development that meet certain objective standards and criteria Move that, downshift it from a land use permit to a zoning clearance. So objective standards and criteria are applied and by meeting those standards and that criteria really simplifies the review that's necessary to ensure compliance with county standards So that criteria is not subject to design review. The project has to be located out of a sensitive habitat area, located out of a flood hazard overlay zone. So the reason why those criteria help simplify the process is because if you're outside a sensitive habitat area, that's a triage that you don't have to go through the extensive policies that apply to sensitive resource areas Similarly, with the flood hazard zone.

If you're within the flood hazard zone that's a more complex project for review. Has public or municipal water and sanitary service again that's more simple than if you're looking at a well in septic. You're on a developed lot or an undeveloped lot created after 1980 where lots created after 1980 typically would have had undergone this CEQA review process. Limited amounts of grading, limited slope. It can't be a designated or listed historic structure and there's a maximum of two native trees removed and there's a built-in replacement ratio for that So if you meet all that criteria and all the standards in the code could qualify, that type of project would qualify for that simple review process subject to zoning clearance.

There would be projects that, and this is for single family residential development, there would be projects that wouldn't meet those criteria. And then they would have still be subject to a land use permit but the non-appealable permit pathway For that, in the inland area would be that land use permit would be non-appealable provided the development doesn't exceed county CEQA thresholds so that the project is not subject to CEQAs.

The counterpart in the coastal zone would be a non-appealable coastal development permit. So that would be, in order to qualify for that, the project would need to be located outside of the Coastal Appeals jurisdiction but also still could not exceed the county CEQA thresholds. And again so that's a project that we know is not subject to CEQAs. Those projects in the coastal zone, coastal notice of non-appealable development is still required. That's pursuant to the Coastal Act.

For commercial development there's proposed permit requirements in the commercial industrial zones so currently all development in the coastal industrial zones require either a land use permit or a development plan So the amendments include establishing different thresholds for when a zoning clearance is required, a land-use permit is required and when development plan is required. So with the amendments up to 5,000 square feet in all commercial zones would be subject to a zoning clearance rather than the current requirement there's different requirements in the different zones and we have them all up there because we're covering the coastal zone as well as Montecito But the only two zones that are applicable in Montecito are the CV and CN zones, which currently require a development plan for all commercial development.

The proposed amendments establish the tiers where less than 5,000 square feet would be subject to zoning clearance between 5,00 and 10,000 square feet it would be a land use permit, and then 10, 000 square feet or more it would be a development plan. Again, there's different levels for each kind of zone throughout the coastal zone as well. And again here is the focus on Montecito currently development plan for all structures. The proposed thresholds delineate zoning clearance land use permit development plan and then for the review authority of the development plan Currently, it's the Montecito Planning Commission. The amendments do include a recommendation that in the CN zone in Montecito that the director would be the review authority for up to 15,000 square feet.

Any more than that would be the Montecito Planning Commission. And regardless of the decision maker for development plans, they are public notices required and they are appealable.

Great, thank you Martha. So that is the end of our kind of re-summary of what was discussed last week and of the amendments we wanted to take a quick pause at this point before we get into what's next which is some slides to guide the deliberation of your commission and provide some options for discussion after that we also have slides on the environmental review of the project as well as the proposed actions for today but as Alex mentioned earlier I wanted to take a pause Potentially see if there are questions, open it up potentially at this time to do public comment or decide when that wants to be done.

Is it more appropriate at this point to do public comment before the slide presentation? Or to do the slide presentation and then public comment? CHAIRMAN

CLARE DUDA And Chair and Commissioners, it's your discretion I think to support or help the members that are here to speak on this item it'd be beneficial for them to hear what the Commission's thinking when they discuss inside so that they can provide their input and response and bring it back to the commission. So, I recommend having staff continue with their guiding slides and then we'll open up to public comment.

There are just a couple points of information I want to clarify if I can. A really simple one, soil remediation enclosures. What is that?

Yes, Commissioner DeLaGuardia through the chair so that's for cases when there it's often either a site that was a gas station at some point or often like a dry cleaning plant and there has been significant you know chemicals leached into the soil so that's just facilities and like a fencing enclosure around them to remediate that, clean it up. It's primarily handled by state agencies give the requirements but we've added it in so that we can say this much is exempt we don't need to check it we understand that that can be required and above that it's been added as a zoning clearance in each of the zones just so we can confirm that Someone's meeting state requirements on those kind of facilities. They are meant to be temporary, but temporary can be nebulous and may be there for many years but then eventually removed.

Great thank you

I have one other clarifying question I'd like to ask. For existing commercial operations that have a conditional use permit, can you talk about how a place that has that sort of permit now what scenarios would they have an opportunity to downshift that permit to something different and how would that interact with the restrictions that they're currently under with something like a conditional use permit?

Commissioner Rockenbach through the chair. I would say that entities or enterprises that are operating under a conditionally used permit would continue to be subject to the requirements of that can conditional use permit typically with a property under a conditional use permit if they're looking to make changes or you know, which could be changes in operation or changes in the scope of development. There's ways in which that is handled either through minor changes through what we call a substantial conformity determination or if they don't meet those criteria then we have criteria for either an amendment or a conditional revision which is essentially a new conditional use permit If a property were under a CUP and really they're proposing an entirely new use, and that new use is something that through this effort would no longer require a CUP then yeah there could be a scenario where where they would just need to obtain the permit that they'd be subject to under those new conditions.

But I think any existing facility or entity operating in our conditional CUP would still be operating under that CUP.

But modifications to that CUP would not be ministerial?

Correct. We have, again we sort of have three levels of changes that can be made to an existing CUP and ranging from a semi-ministerial substantial conformity determination there's a handful of criteria that are met And that's a non-appealable action up to an entirely new discretionary review. So yeah, I have a hard time anticipating or thinking of a scenario where an existing CUP were proposing modifications that would not be required to go through that process.

I want to bring up just as a hypothetical. Lotus Land decides they want to change their CUP, they want to operate on more days in the week than they currently operate. Who would review that CUP change?

It would be handled Mr. Chair, Commissioners it would be handled the same way it is currently Which is they submit a request to change their CEP and we determine sort of what level of revision or amendment, whether it substantially conforms with their existing operation.

So is that a ministerial decision?

No. The extent of the changes dictate the level of review required. And so if they're trying to change their, for example, hours of operation without getting into too many specifics that would be a modification to their CUP. We'd look at against various factors criteria and that will dictate what level of modification or revision to their permits required which have higher depending on the extent of the change would dictate who the decision maker review authority is So it starts sort of, it's a range. It could either be done at the staff level or director through an amendment or Montecito Planning Commission if it meets the criteria or standards for full revision.

Thank

you. Just to follow up on that. I'm trying to fit the puzzle pieces of what you're describing together in my head, so if I'm speaking in an overly simplistic way, I apologize. But we have a unique situation where we have some of our hotels in our district that are in zoned commercial and some that are, I believe, zoned – like the underlying zoning is residential but sits on a CUP?

Because when we look at the CV and CN mapping, we don't see the Biltmore in the San Ysidro Guest Ranch for instance. Is what you've just said, and let's keep this in the realm of the hypothetical. But a hotel that is in something that is zoned commercial that wants to turn a coffee shop into a nail salon but is in zoned commercial would be ministerial but a hotel that is zoned residential but has an extensive CUP that wants to turn a coffee shop into a nail salon would come to us because of the underlying zoning. Commissioner

Miller through the chair, maybe I can just to clarify one thing all the hotels in Montecito are on properties that are zoned CD or so I think we actually we didn't show all This slide doesn't depict all the different commercial properties. We do have a slide that shows all of Montecito so we can pull that up in a second but the Biltmore, Miramar and San Isidro Ranch, the three hotel properties in Montecito They're all located on commercial lease owner properties, I believe.

Oh so the CV that we're seeing identified as Rosewood Miramar That is one CV that is not two there because I'm sorry when I was doing the four location count I was

Yeah, so All of the three hotels are located in the CV zone that establishes a set of uses that are allowed within that zone all of these hotels as you know or Pretty built out at this point and any and they operate under primarily a development plan not CUPs Is their primary? Okay, governing permit. And so modifications to that development plan and sort of you look at what are the allowed uses within the CV zone That would dictate what they can do on their property

So and maybe I'm a little unclear as to kind of the full extent of zoning, of commercial zoning in Montecito because we've spent a lot of time talking about the infamous CVS parking lot. And that is neither

Commissioner Miller, if you give me just a second to skip through everything else I can go to the slide that shows that. There we go. So as you can see here, the red areas are the commercially zoned properties. The kind of northernmost one is the inland CV zone. The central one is your CN Montecito Village and then on the south you get two more CV sections.

The C2 property of the CVS parking lot is so small it's effectively not visible, it's a tiny sliver of red on the red line that is the City of Santa Barbara border.

So my example is not a good one but let me revise it then if a coffee shop on Westmont's campus that is servicing students suddenly there is an intense desire to have a nail salon there that would be subject to Is there a difference between the commercial zoning being ministerial versus the like the more elaborate CUP stuff that we've got?

Commissioner Miller through the chair, so I'm not sure the examples you're thinking of are realistic. Westmont College operates under a CUP it's in a residentially zoned That is a residential zone. It operates under a CUP. The CUP is for a university, a college. All the uses associated with that college are college related. They would not have the ability to open commercial facility that would be not student oriented on that property without going you know basically obtaining an entirely new permit which again that's a residential zone property so I don't think the examples you're worried about or I think they are certainly more theoretical than have any potential of becoming a reality.

Chair if I may, I think this is a good discussion but maybe we could put this in a parking lot and come back to it. And if we get back to the staff's presentations to walk through the discussion points I think that could help guide the discussion and then we can get back to Commissioner Miller's questions as far as some of these commercial zones if that's the chair's discretion

question on a different topic is that we have had a lot of conversation about reviewable or appealable versus non-appealable permits and I appreciate the public policy goal of perhaps not every Montecito neighborhood fight turning into something that's appealable to the County Board of Supervisors in terms of their time and attention. Is there Is there a, would there be a due process objection or a problem with the scenario in which there was limited appealability? Meaning that a permit was appealable to the Montecito Planning Commission but no further so that there was an opportunity for public review but it would not gum up the busier parts of our county government?

I'm sorry, I wasn't trying to be difficult in my question. It seems like we've been kind of...I appreciate why both of these are goals and it seems like if there was a compromise landing spot but on the topic that that might work because we're not an overly busy body ourselves. So Chair and

Commissioners, the standard appeal process is to go from a director appeal to the commission and then to the board there what staff is presenting is where director makes a decision and it's not appealable at that point. Is it foreseeable could there be an option or recommendation that is made that items may be appealed to the Commission but then there's no further appeals after that? That's a possibility, it's outside the norm but it's something that is a possibility that could happen again I would Move that down on the discussion points as far as having that discussion later when we get ready to make recommendations if that's what the other commissioners want to weigh in on. But, that would be something we'd want to talk about further but yes it's foreseeable that they could be appealable to the Montecito Planning Commission and not appealed further.

I guess my clarification on this point is that there's not some like state constitution due process violation that makes that idea dead-on arrival?

Chair and Commissioner Miller that's correct.

So I'll go through the rest of the slides, these slides were really summary of what you've already seen what our intention in putting these together were to as you deliberate in your kind Going through each one, you would have something to look at that kind of summarizes what we presented. So we have a slide on exemptions that present those. We consolidated the different slides on defined uses and permit requirements again through discussion if it's helpful to have that up in front of you.

consolidated and kind of presented one by one the different proposed amendments applicable to Montecito for design review. Some different options that you can think about for new and remodeled single-story dwellings, the exemption that's proposed, and then again just slides to kind of highlight each one to facilitate discussion And then finally, similarly with ministerial review. They're really just resource slides.

Pictures worth a thousand words and then Ben will summarize the recommendations.

Yeah and we can, we'll do this again at the end I'm sure but for environmental review uh we're proposing that the both ordinance amendments sections the coastal zoning orients and MLUDC can be found exempt from environmental review primarily from section 15061b3 of the state CEQA guidelines. That's the common sense exemption it's usually called and then in the coastal as well as Section 15265, which is the exempting preparing a coastal document.

And then recommendations will be for the Coastal Zoning Amendments to make recommendations to the Planning Commission to make the findings and then recommend to the board including any revisions that the commission wants to add in today and then for the MLUDC make it recommendation directly to the board Again, including any recommendations and revisions that the Coastal Commission wants to include today.

So a little bit of the intent of this was also the potential of stopping on each of those slides that Martha went over and kind of doing a check on especially the first two, the exemptions There has been a little bit less discussion of these so far in the commission. kind of revisions that you might like to see on this. Again, there's been a little bit less discussion overall on this single part of the amendments.

So I'd open up currently for any questions or recommendations and revisions that you might like to see related to expanding the exemptions.

So I have a question on number one, changes of use. Does the proposed amendment include current CUP holders and development plan holders?

Commissioner Rockenbach to the chair. So that is permitted uses which is basically anything that does not require a CUP Depending on the reason for development plan it may be possible that that wouldn't be required. So if you have a development plan like for a shopping center with multiple tenants, you might be able to have one of the tenants switch permitted uses without modifying the development plan but otherwise the larger permits would not be included in exempting the changes of use

Yeah and to just further expand on that so as it you know examples can often be helpful right. So in the context of Montecito where you might see this is in the upper village and that's the end zone district where you have various tenants within those commercial spaces, those tenants you know the entire development operates under a development plan but with individual commercial spaces and as you've seen and is very common those commercials The tenants occupying those spaces change over time and right now anytime you go in and you're changing, unless it's a like-for-like change so restaurant to restaurant then it requires a planning permit. So if you're changing from restaurant I'm

the entire property were to be redeveloped, that would not be an exemption because the entire property as a whole operates under a development plan. Correct.

I have one question as well. On number five on the slide, I'm sure the list is not exhaustive. But are hot water heaters included on being exempt in the future?

Commissioner Kerns to the chair, you know something like that I don't know as even like ever risen to anyone's radar so a water heater is has always been exempt. You've never needed a planning permit just to replace a water heater whereas other things that some many of which can be freestanding like HVAC system or EV charging station or EV charger like on your property Over the years it's been a little gray area as to whether a planning permit has been required for those.

The change is to provide some greater clarity and certainty as to what falls within that range of exemptions, but yes something like a water heater has always been exempt.

Thank you. Chair, just a clarification. A lot of these, all these uses that we're talking about today are planning permits related but for the water heaters you're still gonna need building permits. So the scenario is going to be that like the expansion of accessory storage or accessory structures greater than 120 could be exempt from planning but you're still gonna need a building permit because a building permit is 120 square feet that you don't need a building permit for So just disclaimer to those that are watching, I'm sure there's masses out there watching this hearing today.

You still need a building permit for some of these items.