Thank you Chair and Commissioner. It's good to be before you today for this portion of the project and I'm going to start with a little background on the county's existing permitting and design review process. So for permitting, the county has five basic types. The first are things that are really exempt from planning permits. So these are exemptions, there's no approval required and therefore they're not appealable and there is no public notice for that.
The next step or the next type is zoning clearances and these are where staff looks at a project and verifies compliance with applicable county standards And if it complies with all the standards, then it's approved. That decision is not appealable and there's no public noticing for that. The next type of permit is a land use permit and that's also reviewed by planning staff and they look for compliance with county standards and policies but there is...that decision is appealable and there is public notice for land use permits.
Coastal development permits, this is in the coastal zone. Those are also reviewed by planning staff unless they're in a coastal appeals jurisdiction. Coastal development permits are also appealable and there's public notice. And then finally discretionary permits these are your development plans your conditional use permits that county decision maker depends on level of permit and kind of threshold of development but it could be the director, the zoning administrator or the planning commission and these decisions are also appealable and there's public notice.
So in your county a land use permit or an appealable coastal development permit is required for all uses listed as permitted except if it's specifically identified as requiring a zoning clearance or other type of permit. So as Director Plowman said, this requiring of an appealable planning permit for virtually all development on a countywide basis is really unique to Santa Barbara County.
Other jurisdictions typically tie that level of permit to specific triggers and typically again not on that basic county wide level. In addition to the permitting, the county also has a design review and that's review of the boards of projects by the Boards of Architectural Review. And you have a couple throughout the county and review by those boards is required for Most discretionary and commercial development. And then also for residential development in certain areas, and that's residential development in Ridgeline Hillside areas and in many of the community plan areas although that scope of review kind of varies by community plan In May, staff did go to the Board of Supervisors with options for streamlining and downshifting permit requirements with an emphasis on making smaller projects eligible for ministerial approval.
And the focus is really on single-family residential and limited commercial development. And kind of as was introduced before, the board encouragement from that meeting was to really make some significant changes with intent of making the permit process easier, more predictable without compromising compliance with land use and resource protection policies. And some direction included creating a truly ministerial permit process for small projects, establishing a simple review process for projects that don't require significant levels of review in order to ensure compliance with county standards.
Create a non-appealable pathway for certain single family residential and accessory development and some limited commercial development. And then incorporate limited differences for certain communities, so maintain certain permit requirements within Gaviota, different design review requirements for specific areas but overall try to minimize the differences among the different communities.
So based on that direction we put together the package of amendments and they, we grouped them into four categories now go through a summary of each one of them starting with the exemptions. So the zoning code includes a list of development that's exempt from planning permits and standards still apply so that development must still meet the standard such as setbacks and heights. Other permits may still be required such as a building or construction permit but a planning permit is not required, and examples of that development is Fences and walls under a certain height, small accessory structures less than 120 square feet, limited grading interior alterations those types of things.
So with the amendments, they revise and expand some things on this list to exempt some certain projects that don't otherwise benefit from planning permit review. This includes changes of use from one non-residential permitted use to another non-residential permitted use provided there's no reduction in parking. So if you have a non-residential use that's permitted and you're changing to another permitted use and not reducing parking, that would be exempt from planning permit.
For accessory structures increasing the size of exempt accessory structures from 120 square feet to 250 square feet and allowing some utilities still can't be habitable space but you could Some electricity or a sink, some limited utilities within that. Exempting most pools and pool equipment, certain equipment for soil remediation, certain mechanical equipment such as HVAC, EV chargers, limited freestanding poles and water tanks up to 5,000 gallons. So these are some of the things that planning comes across that could be exempt that don't really benefit from planning permits.
So the next category is defined uses and permit requirements. So these are the definitions of land uses, which districts they're allowed in and what level of permit is required. So in your current code that use allowances and associated permit requirement for the zone district is presented in really extensive tables and there's a lot of them Thank you. One more consistent, more concise and then up to date with modern permitting requirements and also keeping the direction of the board in mind.
So first we looked at consolidating some use definitions. So grouping like uses into broader categories based on common function or characteristics, so sometimes being overly specific is really a hindrance and if we group the uses into broader categories it can increase consistency treating those like uses similarly reduces the need for future amendments if there's some kind of similar uses that come up that aren't specifically identified And overall reducing redundancy. So your current code now will, sometimes it includes a use in a broader group but then also lists it separately as a separately defined use and that just provides some inconsistency and some confusion So where possible we looked at consolidating use definitions and then looked at the tables to look at the use allowances.
To see where we could downshift some permit requirements for uses that don't warrant that higher level of discretionary review, and some of the comments alluded to some to that notion or that idea. So there's examples, some examples on the slide but one instance is for in all commercial zones meeting facilities downshifting that from a conditional use permit to a minor conditional use permit.
Hotels in the C1 district from a conditional use permit to a land-use permit. Mixed-use projects that have a residential component in the CN and C2 districts down shifting that from a minor conditional use permit to a land use permit, kind of consistent with the housing objectives in the county. C3 and CS urgent care clinics from a COP2 or conditional use permit to a land use permit also fences over certain heights over six feet in front and interior setbacks or more than eight feet in other areas right now it requires a minor conditional use permit down shifting that to a land use permit So in addition to the downshifting as we went through the tables, we also looked at adding use allowances for uses that fit the purpose of a zone district but aren't currently listed as allowed in those districts.
So again there's some examples on the in the presentation but certified farmers markets and agriculture districts some of the commercial districts that Old Town Orchid areas Right now that's not currently listed as allowed in those districts. Similarly with fitness and health facilities in the CN, CV, Old Town Orchid districts a bar and tavern in the commercial visitor serving district so looking at added uses that fit with the purpose of the district And then some cleanup so removing uses that aren't compatible with the purpose of a particular zoning district. And as I mentioned, the tables really haven't been comprehensively updated in some time. So there's some kind of carryovers or some obsolete provisions that are really have been carried over So we're cleaning some of those up, removing uses such as fairgrounds and drive-thru facilities in your resource protection zones.
In residential zones music recording studios, drive-through facilities, hospitals, public airports right now in the tables those are technically somebody could apply for those through a conditional use permit Finally, removing uses that are listed but not allowed. So your county has a general statement of anything not listed is not allowed but then you also kind of have for some uses have a redundant provision where the use is allowed and then shown as not allowed so you kind of say it twice. So in the interest of simplification removing those uses that Have that redundancy except for select uses that should be explicitly disallowed in certain zones. And those are some of the more sensitive topics such as cannabis related uses, short-term rentals where those aren't allowed so keeping that explicit standard The third category of the amendments is design review.
So just a recap of the current design review process, so projects go before... Design review is the review of projects by boards of architectural review and that's required for one most discretionary and commercial projects and then also certain residential development and that's residential development in ridgeline hillside areas and some community plan areas.
The proposed amendments expand development and uses that are exempt from design review, establish a new administrative design review process and then identify projects that would go through that administrative design review process rather than the current Board of Architectural Review process. In a little more detail, specifically first this table shows the current design review requirements by community planning area. Again not all residential development is subject to design review but certain community plan areas have that requirement so this summarizes where design review is required in the community plans and whether there's residential or and or commercial design guidelines So Eastern Goleta Valley, Mission Canyon, Montecito and Summerland all have residential design guidelines.
So the amendments include first the exemptions, new exemptions to design review requirements. So there's a new exemption for or an expanded exception I would say for accessory structures so increasing the size of exempt accessory structures from 500 square feet to 800 square feet. In order to be exempt they still need to be located behind another building or on the rear half of the lot Another new exemption is an exemption for limited additions to non-residential structures. So up to 10% of the existing square footage with a minimum allowance of 500 square feet, a maximum allowance of 5,000 square feet could be exempt through this design review exemption.
And then for areas where single family residential is subject to design review, an exemption for single-family residences and accessory structures that meet certain criteria. And that criteria is listed but it includes its single story so 16 feet in height or less The total floor area ratio and that's the ratio of square footage of the structure to the lot area is less than 0.35.
It's not located in a ridgeline or hills or it's not subject to a ridge line or hillside development guidelines and it's not located in Summerland, Gaviota Coast Plan Area, Los Alamos Community Plan Area or Old Town Orchid So areas where this exemption for single family residential development would apply is in the San Ynez area within the D overlay, Eastern Goleta Valley, Toro Canyon, Mission Canyon and Isla Vista. So all other areas either don't require design review for this development or are specifically excluded.
And just to give kind of an example of what might be or what would be exempt for design review, the structures shown in the illustrations all again single story. The maximum square footage that would be allowed to be exempt through design review would be .35 FAR. The second piece is establishing the administrative design review process. The board of architecture review, there's public notice, hearing.
That is all staying the same. The new process, the administrative process, the review authority would be the director but the director can consult with the BAR or a design professional. There's no public notice, no hearing. There is review for consistency with design guidelines The findings for design review still need to be made and that decision can be appealed by the applicant, but it can't be appealed generally.
So the projects that would be subject to administrative design review as proposed in the amendments are projects that if they require design review, but their amendments to existing development plans signs unless they're signs that are part of an overall sign plan or a project that is otherwise going to the Board of Architecture Review. And then single-family residential and accessory development that meets certain criteria. So before we had the criteria to be exempt from design review, if you're subject to design review but your maximum 16 feet in Summerland and within the Ridgeline Hillside areas, maximum of 25 feet in other areas still have a total floor area of 0.35 or less. Within Summerland there's They already have an additional floor area cap, so you still need to be under that.
And then not located in certain areas, so critical view shut corridors, the old town overlay, you're not on a lot adjacent to the sea. So if you meet all of... If you're subject to design review and you meet all that criteria, that would go before the administrative design review process. Anything else that has design review would, that doesn't meet that criteria would still require full Board of Architectural Review review.
And we do anticipate that a good chunk of the single family residential development would fit into that criteria for administrative design review. Just to kind of give you a try and give you a sense of scale of that. There is not a lot of single family development that the county sees that reaches or exceeds the .35 we did find one project this is a site plan the lot outline as in red, the structure outline is in green here's a better rendition of that this gets is basically .35 FAR So this is the type of project that would qualify for that, that would be within the administrative design review.
Getting back to the illustrations that we did, we prepared the single story ones. Those would be again in the areas where design review applies if they were this way. The single story ones are exempt once you get to the two-story. You still have to keep within that size threshold but you're subject to administrative design review and again we think that would capture quite a bit of the residential development The fourth and final category for the amendments is ministerial review. So I'm going to break this into two pieces, single family residential and accessory development and then commercial development. So for single family residential development the most common permit type especially for smaller projects is a land use permit in inland areas in the coastal zone it's a coastal development permit.
And both of those permit processes require consistency with county standards and policy, public notice and they are appealable. And again the Board of Supervisors direction was to establish a simple review process for certain projects that don't require that significant review but still ensure compliance with county standards and create a non-appealable permit pathway for other certain types of single family and accessory development.
So for the simple review process and this would apply just in the inland area, but projects that currently require that land use permit downshifting small and simple single-family residential accessory development to a zoning clearance. So we're still staff is still checking for compliance with all county standards and policies but if they meet these certain criteria A lot of the complexity is kind of taken out just by virtue of characteristics so Downshifting small single-family and residential accessory development to zoning clearance for projects that one are not subject to design review Not located in sensitive habitat areas or a flood hazard overlay in Gaviota Plan area, limited gross floor areas. So within the critical viewshed corridor less than 3,000 square feet outside of that but still within Gaviota less than 5,000 square feet you have public or municipal water and sanitary service You're on a developed lot or an undeveloped lot created after 1980 And that's where we're pretty certain if you've created After 1980 you went through the environmental review process So there's environmental review conducted.
No more than 250 cubic yards of grading, limited slopes not a historic structure and tree removal is minimized maximum up to and replaced on a one-to-one basis. So if you meet that, down shifted to a zoning clearance for the next kind of level up where you're not subject to zoning clearance. You still need a land use permit but creating a non-appealable permit pathway for projects that maybe don't qualify for a simple permit but are still not subject to CEQA.
So in the coastal zone, a non-appealable coastal development permit for things that are outside the Coastal Appeals Jurisdiction, not subject to CEQA and also located outside of the Gaviota coast plan area. So in coastal, that does require a Coastal Notice of Non-Appealable Development. That's just a provision of the Coastal Act but inland the equivalent would be in the non appealable land use permit so if you don't exceed county CEQA thresholds not subject to CEQAs located outside of the Gaviota coast plan area that would be a non appealable LUP that also does not And that would not require public notice.
For commercial development, so in the commercial and industrial zones all development really requires either a land use permit or a development plan. And these are the different thresholds there's land use permit for certain amounts up to certain amount of square footage in commercial zones and the MCR zone otherwise for all other development and commercial and industrial zones a development plan is required Again, looking at for commercial development that simple review process and a non-appealable permit pathway.
So the proposed amendments include kind of modify the permit requirements in commercial and industrial zones. So the first part is for development less than 5,000 square feet in all commercial zones that would require a zoning clearance so downshifting that and really making it across-the-board for all commercial zones If you're less than 5,000 square feet it's subject to a zoning clearance. The counterpart in the coastal zone is a non-appealable coastal development permit.
And then we've created a three tier system. The next tier would be development that's subject to a land use permit or in the coastal zone an appealable coastal development permit and I'll go through each one of these in future slides but that's development between certain square footages and other zones And then finally, if you exceed that threshold for a land use permit the development plan would be required.
So in the CN and C1 zones, and these are smaller scale kind of commercial areas. Currently it's a land use permit less than 5,000 square feet development plan greater than 5000. This creates the three tier series where zoning clearance less than 5000 square footage between five and 10,000 would require a land use permit and over 10000 a development plan would be required.
The C-2 and C-3 zones, this is getting into your larger scale properties more community or regional scaled areas. Land use currently the land use permit is required under 5,000 square feet development plan over that. The proposed threshold again zoning clearance less than 5000 land use permit for anything between five and 15,000 square feet and then over 15, 000 is a development plan Again, kind of moving up in the intensity of the commercial zones.
Currently in the CH, CS and CV which is currently not mapped in your inland area all development requires a development plan. The proposed amendments again have that three-tier under 5,000 zoning clearance between five and ten thousand as a land use permit and over 10,000 a development plan Similarly with the public institutional zone, these are typically educational, institutional uses, government uses, public facilities. Currently a development plan is required for everything.
This again would have up to 5,000 square feet zoning clearance, land use permit between five and 15,000 square feet and a development plan over 15,00. In the industrial zones, this just has kind of two tiers rather than the three-tier development. So in industrial zones current requirement is all development gets a development plan. The proposed threshold is to have a land use permit under 20,000 square feet and a development plan for over 20,000 square feet And then the final thing related to commercial development and development plan is revisions or refinements to the review authority.
So in the CN and CV zones, shifting the zoning administrative review or right now the zoning administrator reviews everything less than 15,000 square feet. The proposed amendments have the zoning administrator reviewing things less than 25,000 square feet And then the Planning Commission reviews anything more than that. And all other commercial and industrial zones, including the mixed use zone. The director would review things less than 20,000 square feet. Right now the threshold's 10,000. The zoning administrator would look at everything between 20 and 25,000 square feet that is increased from between 10 and 15. And then the planning commission looks at everything 25,00 square feet or more, or as the decision maker.
All development plans require public notice and are appealable regardless of who that review authority is. So with that I will pass it to Ben or Alex, anything I missed?
