Montecito Planning Commission Special Meeting

Progress.

to go to general public comment.

Yes if there is any general public comment on items that are not on today's agenda now was the time to speak

and for those online just raise your virtual hand and I'll call on you We have note takers. Okay.

Good afternoon. It's all up to you now Mr. Chair, members of the commission I'm actually Oh

sorry we've done this we've done this meeting several times so reading it into the record is

still

important

Thank you. Now, I'll hurry up so we can get to Lisa's very important words here. The following is a hearing on the request of the County of Santa Barbara Planning and Development Department to consider case numbers 26 ORD 14 and 15 and to determine that the ordinances are exempt from the previous provisions of CEQA pursuant to sections 15061B3 and 15265 of the state guidelines for the implementation of CEQUA.

Good afternoon Mr. Chair, members of the Commission. Today I'm going to be sitting with the commission as acting secretary Jeff Wilson is out at a conference this week so I will be with you throughout your hearing and am able to assist in any way I can With that I'm gonna turn over the presentation to Mr. Tuttle and Ms. Miller to continue from the two previous hearings that have already been held Mr. Tuttle.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair, members of the Commission. So as was indicated today is a continuation of hearing from last Wednesday this or was it two Wednesdays ago? October 7th. It's all bleeding through, to discuss the ministerial streamlining and permitting amendments that have been presented to your commission. The focus of the meeting today will be to try to walk through and assist with your deliberations to answer questions that you may have now that you've had more time to absorb the information and the extent of the amendments.

We will not be providing a full presentation, but I just do have a handful of slides to walk through and then we've kind of teed it up to where we can sort of take item by item and just try to walk through as I mentioned kind of where your concerns lie how to address those or sort of get towards an ultimate recommendation at the end of the hearing today. So just a refresher, we're in the third phase of a multi-phase effort at amending our ordinance. The current focus being primarily on single family residential development and limited commercial development in terms of trying to streamline the permit process Make it easier for projects to get through the permit process You recommended actions at the end of the hearing today Just to walk through those now and we can return to them at the end For the coastal zoning ordinance as you recall It's to make the findings and then make a recommendation to the County Planning Commission who then makes a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors on the ordinance amendments For the Montecito Land Use and Development Code, once you make the appropriate findings your recommendation goes straight to the Board of Supervisors with whatever recommendations you have.

And that can be as was discussed at the last hearing recommend the project as presented. You could make a recommendation to scrap the whole thing, you could make a recommendation to move the project along with some particular comments or tweaks or refinements as you see fit So well again we'll return to this at the end of the hearing I do want to just point out a couple clarifications or corrections from the last time we met Just to get those on the record, one was a correction identified for the CN neighborhood commercial zone. We had mistakenly struck out cultural institutions as a permitted use. Those are things like libraries and museums in the CN Zone District that was intended to just be downshifted from a conditional use permit to a permitted use.

The second is applicable to the coastal zone only But this is for a battery energy storage systems. Right now, unless you fit some minor criteria, battery energy storage system like a standalone commercial type battery energy storage requires a major conditional use permit and recommendation is to for projects less than an acre in size to make those a minor conditional use permit In Montecito, the decision-maker for minor and a major CEP is the same. So from implications in terms of Montecito community plan area it's really no difference but outside of Montecito area the zoning administrator is the decision maker on minor conditional use permits or the County Planning Commission is the decision maker for major conditional use permits and that's really the only distinction And then the last is to just clarify language on a standard design review exemption long Existing is language that allows for exterior alterations Determined to be minor by the director as to be exempt from Board of Architectural Review and that's a standard that applies countywide, and it's been in our code for quite some time The proposed Correction or clarification to that language is rather than limit it to just exterior alteration, which can be a little limiting would be to expand that to exterior alterations or other development determined to be minor by the director.

So that could account for something that is a standalone structure or a minor addition that may not quite fit the definition of alteration per se. I will also before we get into the discussion just I Did receive the last couple of days some questions or a little confusion regarding the material that you have before you today After the workshop on September 30th, you were given hard copies of the draft amendments on September 30th then on October 1st We discovered that there was some corrections or things that were omitted from those draft amendments in the hard copy materials you provided.

So, the corrected amendments were posted on box and emailed to your commission but I understand that perhaps that wasn't clearly communicated or conveyed so there was some discrepancy between the hard copies that you originally provided what's posted online and what's been discussed at the hearing. And it's focused on the design review exemptions, particularly one of the hot topics of conversation at the last hearing, the design review exemption for single story new single-family dwellings up to 2,500 square feet in size and single story additions 10% or up to 500 square feet whichever is less so Those two provisions were, again, accidentally omitted from the draft amendments that were provided to you at the workshop but have since been corrected online.

And with that we'll go ahead and move into the discussion and I will hand it over to Miss Miller And again, really what we're going to do today is just kind of walk through. If you recall we've broken out the amendments into sort of four general categories topic areas exemptions use uses design review and then the ministerial permitting so we'll just kind of go one by one and give an opportunity for you to ask any questions or get any clarification to help you reach any type of recommendations It's up to your commission when to take public comment. But what we can do is kind of roll through these first, get out any questions you might have then break for public comment perhaps and then come back through into deliberation.

So the first of the four categories is exemptions and this is where the county ordinances currently have a list of development types that are exempt from planning permits. They're still developed subject to all other applicable permit requirements and review requirements, still required to be consistent with the requirements of the Development Code. There are standards that apply to each one of those But they would be exempt from planning permits. So the amendments include revising and expanding that list to exempt some certain projects that otherwise don't benefit from, again just planning review.

That includes changes of use between non-residential uses. Those are a non-residential permitted use, so from one permitted non-residential use to another permitted non residential use and there's no reduction in existing parking would be exempt from a planning permit review Accessory structures, increasing the size of exempt accessory structures from 120 square feet to 250 square feet and allow for some utilities within that structure. So say a garden shed has a light, maybe a sink, things like that.

Most pools and pool equipment, soil remediation enclosures. These are small enclosures that are just needed for the soil remediation equipment. That remediation process is typically temporary in nature although The timing changes, and those activities are highly regulated by other agencies. And then mechanical equipment, certain poles, water storage tanks, exempting some mechanical equipment, other equipment, again poles, limited water storage tanks up to a certain amount of gallons. And then there's, again, other standards that apply to those.

So that's the first category of amendments. So we can pause there for any questions before going into the next batch.

The number three pool exemptions, that currently, I'm sorry Mr. Talbot you had in the last meeting had appropriately corrected me when I had an outdated understanding of pool houses versus pool permitting. Are pools currently exempt or are they because there was some pool work in the technical round and round two?

Commissioner Miller through the chair, pools currently require a land-use permit or a coastal development permit in the coastal zone so they are not exempt from planning permits. The change that was made with the last set of amendments last year was removing the pool dimension requirements that allow for a property owner to have a pool cabana Thank you. So this would what is currently exempt from planning permits are things like spas and water features, water fountains things like that less than I think it's 2,000 gallons or Yeah less than 2,000 gallons. So you know theoretically maybe a plunge pool could fit within that category but the proposal here is to expand that to cover most pools we do put a size limit 1,000 square feet to be exempt And then we also require that in order to be exempt, it doesn't require grading.

So that would allow for pools like on a flat area but if you're building a pool out on the slope that has a lot of retaining features or you have to do a lot of site work to create your pool then that would kick it out of an exemption Thank you for the clarification.

Yes, I have a question regarding number five the mechanical equipment and in general this item and other items in our printed materials often use a kind of a general statement exempt certain mechanical. So what I want to know is at some point in time if maybe well before we make a final decision will we know what A list is of those things, like an exact list and it's in this material.

And I've read it and I probably just don't remember what page it's on.

Commissioner Kerns to the chair. It is in the written material it's on page 5 of the Montecito Land Use Development Code. So we give some EGs, so examples but it's not meant to be a fully exhaustive list because for example EV chargers weren't a thing 10 years ago. So we don't want to create such a narrow list where we have to keep updating it every single time, but what we have is just mechanical or other equipment for permitted or approved use or structure, e.g., HVAC backup generators, battery energy storage systems for single family dwellings so that's like your Tesla battery pack, battery power wall.

I'm And 100 cubic feet in volume so this would not allow for some massive type of backup generator, for example. Really intended to be more residential and scale and also a noise compliance that so that the noise levels from those systems would not exceed 65 decibels at the property line which is our standard countywide adopted noise thresholds.

Thank you. That's helpful

Understanding that the idea is to move away from the planning permit process for these and that there will still be permits that are required for particular trades. What I didn't see in the red lines is exactly how some of those agencies would receive notice of some of these projects if they're not going through the planning process anymore. So, to use a specific example, if somebody is putting in an accessory structure or pool That's going to be a relatively permanent structure. How would someone like the Montecito Flood Control District or the Sanitary District get notice under the new process that that was going in so that they could have a chance to come out and look at it and do whatever they need to do to approve it?

Commissioner Rockenbach through the chair. So that would happen through the building permit phase which is a current process in place where as part of the building permit other departments and agencies need to sign off on that permit before it's issued and so plans get sent around to the different agencies or departments for their sign-off for clearance, so that would be like the fire district flood control if we were in flood hazard area The water, applicable water district projects would need to get like a sign off from those different agencies.

Commissioner Rockenbach through the chair we recently had a meeting to discuss this with the Sanitary District because there were issues where people were starting to build accessory structures over easements and so we're acutely aware of that concern So, I think what we're needing to do even though they may not be obtaining additional sewer service or water service. We need to let the districts know about the permits that are in play so they can make sure that they do not encroach into their easement areas in a way that's problematic for the district.

So, we're aware of that and we're going to make sure that those districts receive notification of our current permits that are in play.

So is it correct to say that it would be attached to the building permit process going forward, not the planning? That's correct.

I've got a question about item number one. If you could, I just want to understand this a little more clearly. Change of use non-residential permitted uses does not result in a reduction in existing parking so is there an example where a particular use would have required more parking but it's being transitioned from use that doesn't require as much parking and can you give an example?

Sure,

so a hypothetical example. So we have parking requirements for different types of commercial uses so a retail shop may have a different parking requirement than say a restaurant And I don't have the exact calculations in front of me to be able to speak to it. But essentially, the current process is if I'm a commercial, if I have a tenant space and I'm trying to change it from say a retail space to a cafe, it requires a planning permit. We look to see what the additional parking requirements may or may not be. Sometimes there are none and sometimes additional parking may be required And then in order for that use to change, those additional parking spaces would need to be made available.

That has been a barrier to a lot of commercial changes where there is no opportunity to provide that additional parking because the site is already developed and you'd have to take out square footage of your commercial in order to provide those additional parkings. So the board's direction was to understanding A lot of our commercial areas may be under parked or have historically maybe non-conforming as to parking.

We don't, that they didn't want that to be a barrier for commercial activity to be able to change out uses over time so the language here would provide that so long as you're changing from one permitted use to another so like a cafe to a retail or retail to a gym As long as you're not reducing your existing parking, then you would not be required to meet any recalculated parking demand.

And you would be exempt from planning permit.

I have a question. Under number five you had indicated that might include a battery wall for electric charges, when does a battery wall become a BESS? Just because we seem to be talking about batteries in two different processes.

Yeah it does get a little confusing Commissioner Miller the chair so when we talk about like a BESS Battery Energy Storage System that's really your more like your commercial scale where you'd have like multiple cabinets lined up in a particular area that are connected to the grid as opposed to like a little battery power attached to your garage wall. The language we've added to this exemption is an attempt to try to clarify that distinction

Okay so is there some like, is there a specific battery quantitative measurement of like when it ceases to be exempt and turns into a minus EUP?

Well we did say so the language is battery storage systems for single-family residential use. And then there's a square footage like the 25 square feet in area. The fire department and fire code building code requirements depending on the size of a battery energy storage there's all these additional Code requirements that get triggered, they tend to escalate as batteries get larger. But generally speaking the fire department for the residential scale like your Tesla battery pack, they don't tend to have any code requirements on those but as they get larger they do.

Last week, last meeting we had talked a little bit about having a map for this of a breakdown of the Montecito Village in terms of is that outside of the packet or is that because there was some confusion I had an uninformed skepticism around whether there was a development plan for the southeast corner of that area.

Commissioner Maliff, the chair when we get to the commercial we could speak to that I can address it now if you'd like but we did do some permit research on the different corners of that intersection. It's a bit more convoluted and complicated permit history than one might think and then I think then I assumed as well And there's a host of development plans on different parcels, including one on that southeast corner.

But then there's also existing residence that's within that CN zone that is not under development plan on that southeast corner so there's two separate parcels.

I'm sorry, so it was not distillable down to a map and we have good conversation yet to come about it? Is that I was just I was worried. I hadn't seen it in the in the deck. Okay Happy to put a pin in that

Yeah, I have a question about number three In terms of how this process will work. I mean There are a lot of small this is akin to the conversation that we will have shortly about 2,500 square foot houses Small lots are impacted by these projects much more than larger parcels. I'm not sure how the review works without any review. Having sat on MBAR for years and years, that discussion on smaller lots about how swimming pools and their equipment, I realize there are probably now issues in the code that define sound migration from the equipment But actually, many of the things that get resolved at an MBAR review of swimming pools has to do with screening and landscaping and how close you are to property lines.

And if this is purely kind of by-the-book, I'm off the setback requirement, appropriate distance, then it just is a... You kinda click the switch and you move forward. And I'm just not sure how that works especially as we get into these smaller Smaller parcels in neighborhoods where one neighbor could be very adversely impact if certain kinds of mitigation measures are not in place. And I don't know how those mitigation measures will happen, the building department won't require it.

Planning Department doesn't seem to need to require it. So I'm a bit concerned about how does that work? How does a ministerial permit actually happen or not a permit, you know? It's just a checkbox. Is it off the setback requirement at the appropriate distance and then we move forward?

Commissioner Kubiak or Mr. Chair, Commission yes I mean it is more as a checklist type of review so does the pool equipment and does the pool meet our setback requirements? And there when an application is submitted for building permit or planning permit approval The specifications of the pool equipment are provided which typically include noise levels and if those noise levels comply with our, with the 65 decibel standard and it complies with the setback requirements then it would be approved and there wouldn't be any further Further review of adjacent uses or anything more discretionary like that.

An enforcement would only occur if a neighbor would file a complaint?

Consistent with our current enforcement provisions, it's all complaint driven correct.

Thank you

I just have one clarifying question on that. Are pools currently exempt from design review? I'm looking at page 49 of the red lines where pools are listed and I'm trying to understand whether they're exempt or not exempt currently.

Sure Commissioner Rockenbach through the chair perhaps we're talking about two different things, I was talking about exempt from planning permits Pools currently, if it's just a standalone pool they are exempt from design review but require a planning permit so like a land-use permit. But they would be exempt from design review the only time pools are subject to design review is if it's part of a larger project that is otherwise triggering design review but if I'm a property owner and I am just coming in for a pool it would not currently require design review

Okay, that's helpful. So we're currently not talking about removing pools from the MBAR process but we are talking about removing pools from the planning permit process? Correct. Thank you

This is where it gets a little complicated. So if you have a project that is subject to design review, board of architectural review and it happens to include a pool we're not proposing any changes to that process so there still might be opportunities for the Board of Architectural Review so I appreciate you bringing this up that if they're reviewing a project that has a pool, that they'd be able to review and comment on the pool location and whatnot. But if someone is just coming in for a pool and nothing else, that's currently exempt from design review and would remain exempt from design review.

Is the pool exemption in this regard planning-wise only residential or would this also apply in, we have as a Montecito community has had the opportunity to discuss pools and in the hotel context before. And so I understand if they have a larger development plan overall, why that would be reviewed. But if someone wanted to come in in a very targeted way and say, I am doing nothing but building a pool, would that?

Commissioner Miller through the chair. If that operation say were a hotel for example, hypothetically They are operating under a development plan, so adding a pool would be a modification or revision to their development plan and so that would go through a normal discretionary process. They couldn't point to this exemption language and try to use that as way to bypass that review.

So the second character is defined uses and permit requirements. So currently your code includes extensive tables for each zoning district that lists out the land uses that are permitted or allowed in what permit review Level of permit review is required. The amendments do a couple of things, one consolidate use definitions where possible so where you have some overly specific or even outdated uses we like to group them into larger broader categories based on common functions or characteristics Then looked at downshifting some permit requirements for uses that may not require a higher level of discretionary review. There's some examples given on your screen, including cultural institutions, libraries, museums from a conditional use permit to a land use permit in the CV zone.

Similarly theaters from a conditional use permit to a land use permit in the CN zone Mixed-use projects with a residential component as well as certified farmers markets from a CUP to an LUP in the commercial zones. Certain fences more than six feet in height In different locations or fences more than eight feet in height and other locations from a CUP to an LUP And then some additional ones in the coastal zone moving a certified farmers market from A minor conditional use permit to a coastal development permit.

Additionally, adding uses that fit into the purposes of the district but for one reason or another weren't listed specifically as allowed, including dance, martial arts studios in the CV District, fitness and health facilities in the commercial districts, parks and playgrounds in the CN District. Removing some uses that were not compatible with the purposes of a particular zone district One example is hospitals in residential and commercial zones in Montecito. And then removing, this is kind of the cleanup, removing uses that are listed but aren't allowed in the zone so that's just a redundant statement by having them also listed in the tables. We did include leave-in some explicitly disallowed uses such as cannabis related uses and short term rentals.

So that's the The summary of the defined uses and permit requirement amendments.

Obviously we don't have any theaters at least as I'm understanding the definition of this in Montecito but that seems like a rather intensive parking use and kind of implication. Could you walk me through, I understand the logic of most of this but I'm wanting to understand the permitting of a theater seems like it would be kind of a big deal for our community so help me understand your thinking here.

And just to clarify, it is a theater or performing arts center with 100 person maximum capacity. So there is a limited capacity already built into that use allowance what's allowed.

And I would also just note that it's just making it a permitted use. It doesn't mean That they wouldn't have to meet requirements for Like if it was a brand new use type of situation.

But in the ability to swap commercial uses, if I decided that Through some complicated set of circumstances, we were going to turn the library into a performing arts center. The parking requirements for the library would be woefully inadequate in our community for a performing arts center. I'm using a slightly absurd example here or for a theater but that would all happen With that requirement for a CUP and as a commercial in the CN, that would all happen without any review. Correct?

Commissioner Miller to the Chair if they weren't making any if it was all just an interior change of use without any new square footage then theoretically yes like that could happen If it under that change of use provisions.

Okay, if we weren't downgrading it from CUP to LUP is that what's allowing for that change in that way or would it be changeable in usage case even under the current CUP language?

Commissioner Miller through the chair, if they were remaining as allowed with a CUP then that would not get captured through the change of you permitted change of use provisions because to be exempt change of use it has to be from one permitted use to another permitted use. Once a use becomes conditionally permitted, it doesn't get captured by that provision

Can you talk me through the proposal? Somebody hypothetically wants to build a 10-foot wall under this new proposal and we're going from a CUP to an LUP. Can you talk us through what that would look like? That's correct,

so Commissioner DiLoreto through the chair right now there's an exempt allowance for fences and walls and if you're over that then it triggers a minor conditional use permit The proposal is to downshift that from a conditional use permit to a land-use permit. In that instance, the land-use permit would still be noticed and appealable similar to a conditional use permit. The difference—the two primary differences are one no public hearing and two the findings for approval of a land-use permit are different than the findings for approval of a conditional use permit The conditional use permit findings are broader and do take into account things such as neighborhood compatibility whereas a land-use permit finding is really limited to, is the project consistent with comprehensive plan including policies of the Montecito Community Plan?

And is it locally located on illegally created lot and compliant with all zone district requirements. less broad than the findings required for a conditional use permit.

I have what i think is the same question but with respect to mixed-use projects with residential component. The proposal as I understand it, is to downshift that from a CUP to an LUP. Is that correct? Residential... Mixed use projects with residential component. That's my question. Is it the same proposal? Downshift from a CUP to an LUP?

Correct.

Okay and is it currently a major or minor CUP?

It is currently a minor CUP for the residential component of the mixed-use. I will add one more thing to the fences and walls question right now there's in the Board of Architectural Review criteria for what's exempt from design review fences and walls less than six feet in height are exempt from design review And there was no proposal to change that. So if you were to build a 10-foot wall or fence, it would in Montecito trigger design review.

So that would be as a companion to the planning permit so. Thank you.

I want to acknowledge, I have at times been a little dyspeptic on this topic in the past but at this point is there any type of multi-family residential that would be reviewed by this or is that as a category all viewed as a countywide project? Or is that only applicable for workforce housing.

Commissioner Miller you are referring to affordable

housing. In terms of trying to understand scope, multifamily residential if it was not deemed affordable would go before this body but if it is affordable it would likely not And so for

a multi-use project like Director or that Commissioner Rockenbach was referring to if the residential component was deemed

affordable It would be different than if it was market. I'm sorry, I'm going to use the precise terminology that if it was market rate is that

Commissioner Miller through the chair I believe that's correct but I will verify that.

Okay, I'm sorry I'm really not trying to put you on the spot I just wanted to know areas of focus if

we're

never gonna deal with it then we shouldn't worry about it now yeah

but but you have the issue of market or like a market rate mixed project that you need to be talking about and thinking about thank

you We kind of briefly had this conversation last time. Just to clarify what the definition of multifamily residential is within the Montecito district, if a project is how does a project become multifamily residential?

Commissioner or I'm sorry Mr. Chair more than two units. Two units are more. Two units are more is how it's defined particularly under the Housing Accountability Act that's how it's defined

I

just want

to clarify this and make it part of our broader discussions. If I'm building a house and I have an accessory dwelling unit as part of that project, it is immediately a multifamily residential project and it is exempt from design review? That is correct. Currently

under state law.

Under state

law. This is

not

about

our zoning amendments.

It's driven by state law is what I should say. It's driven by state

law. I don't want to dwell on that. Because

it's not part of this package.

No, no but it's an interesting question and I guess the question is if the project comes in as two units, is that the same as the ADU process which is exempt from review?

Commissioner DiLoreto through the chair Yeah, so ADUs uniformly universally across the board are exempt from design review at any point whether it's proposed along with a other project or on standalone. If an applicant is proposing at the same time a new home on say a vacant lot within ADU then they are both units would be exempt from designer view

Just to be painfully clear, this is limited to undeveloped parcels.

With some limited exceptions that I again this is not part of this package so probably best not to get into a bigger discussion about that

It's just that I have a live audience here of Montecitans who don't, I don't think understand this law. And I think it's a problem. It's a problem that needs to be aired and clarified and it may not be part of this package but I think the understanding of the implication of what Sacramento has imposed upon our communities is significant. Last time we were discussing this, I was under the impression that it was limited to undeveloped parcels although then I would want to know what's an undeveloped parcel? If I tear a house down and vacate it and there's nothing on it, is that now an undeveloped parcel?

I agree with you. I think it's something that requires a lot of discussion and probably more than we, considering what we have in front of us. But I agree that we should find an opportunity to discuss this more thoroughly. I

agree but as chair, I decided it is my purvey to make a comment to my constituents that are here so be very conscious of when you go to the polls to vote.

May I divert back slightly to our plan? Would a situation of two houses on a single lot that were both, or two separate homeowning units that would each be 5,000 square feet. That would be multifamily residential neither it would be an ADU that would be subject to design review by this body assuming it wasn't affordable. Sorry Commissioner Miller could you repeat the question?

I am in, we have a lot of exceptions now that we were just talking. But if I have a project in a residential lot that I'm wanting to put multifamily residential but that it is two or more units that each unit would be above size-wise an ADU qualifying so I'm 2,000 3,000 square foot homes on a residential lot that are neither are deemed to be affordable housing.

It's a multi, that is a multifamily residential but it would be subject to design review that would flow through this body?

Commissioner Miller, the chair. I think the only scenario that you're describing could occur through SB 9 perhaps where you can have two primary dwelling units on a single lot? Those would be exempt from design review. That's the current requirement per state law and no change there There really is no other scenario where you could be a single lot owner and propose multiple single family dwellings without the proper zoning to support that.

Mr. Chair, I think Council is informing me we are not noticed for this.

We will move away from this subject because it's not particularly germane to what today's agenda is. I think we've made enough echoes into the room.

Mostly, I was just wondering if there really is no multifamily scenario where it is applicable to us?

Mr. Chair, Commissioner Miller within the CN Zone a project could come in for like a mixed use housing project that includes a combination of commercial and residential uses that may or may not, depending on the outcome of these amendments require a development plan which would potentially come to your commission but maybe not if it's small enough and depending on where these amendments land. So we can get into a bit more of that.

when we get into the ministerial permitting for the commercial zones, because where the square footage would potentially dictate whether it's reviewed by your commission or more at the staff level. But from looking at this slide really the change that you're speaking to is if you have a mixed use project right now. having to process two fairly duplicative applications, a development plan and a CUP. The CUP isn't really accomplishing anything that the development plan isn't already accomplishing.

The decision maker is the same. The design review requirements are the same so it's just downshifting that residential piece to a land use permit instead of a CUP.

Let's continue.

The third category of amendments is design review. There's a couple of proposed amendments applicable to Montecito, and I think I'll walk through each one before breaking for discussion. So the first is overall to expand development and uses that are exempt from design review. The amendments include new exemptions for new or remodeled single-story dwellings up to 2,500 square feet Your commission, of course, can make any type of recommendation they have for it. We did try to summarize some options based on just what we heard. One would be just to exempt those as proposed in the amendments, exempt them but modify the square footage threshold and have them subject to administrative design review by their director Rather than the full BAR review or to continue to have them subject to BAR review as is the current scenario.

Another proposed amendment is to exempt limited additions to residential structures from design review, so single-story additions up to 10% of the existing square footage or 500 square feet, whichever is less. Exempt detached accessory structures that are less than 800 square feet and located behind another building or on the rear half of the lot And then finally, exempting limited additions to non-residential structures. That's up to 10% of the existing square footage with a minimum of 500 square feet and a maximum of 5,000 square feet allowed just to not be overly burdensome on the smaller projects and not allow too much on larger projects.

So that's the summary of the proposed amendments to design review that are applicable in Montecito.

Could you thread the needle for me on the detached accessory structures here at 800 square feet and the accessory structures that are on page 7, that is 250 square feet? Just help me understand kind of how those two buckets interact or don't.

Sure, Commissioner Miller to the Chair. Good question. So if you're under 250 square feet you'd be exempt from a planning permit so design review would not be triggered. So 250 square feet even if you don't propose this or don't recommend moving forward with this proposal for the explicit design review exemption that 250 square foot allowance would continue to be exempt from planning permit and therefore exempt from design review.

There's not a scenario where something would require design review if it's exempt from a planning permit. So really what this would capture, this provision would be those structures that are kind of in the 250 to 800 square foot range I suppose you could look at it that way

So they would be still requiring a planning permit but would be exempt from design. Correct. That 250 to 800 would be a?

Require a planning permit but not be subject to design review.