Planning Commission

OK, shall we move on to the agenda status report?

Chair and commissioners, in regards to the status of our agenda we have two items on the standard agenda. The first one is a workshop for the ministerial streamlining amendments ordinances, ordinance amendments. And then the second item is the Eastern Goleta Valley Community Plans Regulation Amendments. Staff is here and ready to present on those items today.

I can be the projection board Mr. Chair if you like? Looking at the calendar for the rest of the year, because we made some adjustments to prior hearings in regards to allowing the Montecito Planning Commission to review and take action on the ministerial streamlining amendments and make recommendations to the County Planning Commission. We will not meet again until October 28th. First.

October 21st. I stand corrected, I sit corrected. On that day there's two items and that will be here in Santa Barbara on October 21st we have the Government Code Conformity Determination and then we have the first hearing of the Ministerial Streamlining Amendments and that will be for the ability for the Commission to take action on. In the event that we don't finish it on that date we will reconvene on October 28th And then we still have the ministerial streamlining amendments scheduled for that date in case we need it. And then we also have three projects from development review, which is a revision of the Grand Hotel.

We have a development plan for Sabato-Tardy housing development in Isla Vista. And then we have the ministerial subdivisions lot line adjustments ordinance amendments as well. So that is on October 28th. So that is going to be a busy day. And then after the 28th, we will and that'll be here in Santa Barbara. On November 4th, we have the hearing on the Recreation Master Plan amendments.

And then we also have a government code conformity determination on that hearing as well which is typically a consent item. We are holding any other items for that hearing so we could have that day for the Recreation Master Plan amendments. And then after November 4th we don't meet again until December 2nd due to holidays in November. December 2nd, we have three items.

We have agendized or projected for the recreation master plan to go again on December 2nd. And then we have a couple other items from long-range planning which is a moderate income density bonus and then a multifamily housing project. There may be some agenda management that needs to happen towards end of the year because we have being projected, so we'll do what we can. And when we get to the end of the day, we might have to move items to other hearing dates depending on time allotments.

December 9th will be in Santa Maria with a telecommunications facility and then we have a couple projects in the Orchid area, the personal storage project and then the Keysight One project That will close us out for this year. And I think we had potentially looked at a date for our annual planning commission holiday luncheon, and that would be on December 16th potentially.

It's not in the projection report because there's no action needed other than to show up and eat, but we're targeting that date, December 16th as the annual Montecito County Planning Commission Other appointed, we have invited BAR members to attend as well. So December 16th, it seems like a long ways out but we have a busy end of the year so it's going to go fast.

That concludes the projection report Mr. Chair. CHRIS RODGERS.

Thank you very much. Next is public comment. Mr. Villalobos would you like me to read that or would you care to read it? OK, public comment period is set aside to allow public testimony on items not on today's agenda. The time allocated to each speaker will be set at the discretion of the chair. Total time allocated for public comment is 15 minutes when testifying before the Planning Commission personal attacks and other disruptive behavior are not appropriate.

Do we have any requests for public comment?

No physical speaker slips. We do have some members of the public online. If you'd like to speak on general public comment, raise your virtual hand and I'll call on you. No hands raised.

OK. Thank you Mr. Villalobos. Next is planning commissioners informal reports. Individual commissioners may present brief reports on planning issues such as seminars meetings and literature that will be of interest to the public and or Commission as a whole Mr.

Chair?

Yes, Commissioner Mary Connor?

I was delighted this year to attend my first farm day Saturday 10 days ago and I have to say it was everything that was advertised to me by the people who recommended that I go. It was both educational and engaging, and to see the efforts being made and the creativity being shown to engage high school students and college students in careers in agriculture It was very encouraging and very heartening. So I want to just express my appreciation to the people who organize that on an annual basis. I spent some time with the executive director of the group that puts it on, and they do an extraordinary job. So, I had a great time and I learned

a great deal. Outstanding. Thank you Commissioner Mary Connor. Commissioner Park?

Well, last week I attended the opening day of the RCRC conference that was held here in Santa Barbara and that's the rural counties representatives of California. And the reason I attended that is because I was on the first panel and it was about tourism in California I had two excellent young lady speakers that went first and they had me fill the time that was left.

They knew I would do that, and did speak to our AEO, Ag Enterprise Ordinance in the rec master plan things we've been doing. And then I figured well here I had an audience not just of five members of a board of supervisors but several hundred of them So I gave them 12 rules of how to get an ordinance through the system that deals with this. And they loved it, I had a great time.

I wanted to speak to this though because when it was all done we basically got a standing ovation. They said you gotta take this on the road but Various supervisors got up and they asked great questions. But I wanted to pass on what one of them, I think it was a gentleman from Humboldt County. He said he wanted to specifically thank our leadership in Santa Barbara County for Doing the things we're doing with the AEO and the Wreck Master Plan. And what a wonderful example it sets for other coastal counties all up and down the state of California, so I thought you should hear that because you deserve it.

By the way, if anybody ever sits on a panel this one was sort of a luxury experience. They you know it's at the Hilton and they asked me well would I want to sit at a table? And I said I hate sitting in tables so what I would like to be the podium. I said I don't want to share a microphone with three or four people who mill around. So what they set up for me was on their stage a crescent of easy chairs And if you ever are in a panel, that's the way to go because you can just kind of sit back and you're looking at your other speakers like this and that. And then it makes these young women who were so nervous more comfortable because I was just right there almost holding their hand. And it was just a great time. It's just like being at a cocktail party for what it's worth.

But it was a lot of fun, good thing. And I totally missed the other conference that was going on at the same time in the Ag Tourism Summit. I had to finish painting my fence but whatever. OK, I'm done. CHRIS JERRAM

Thank you Commissioner Park. I guess there's no other comments. We'll move on to the minutes from the September 9th meeting. Move approval of the minutes. All in favor? Aye. None opposed? Motion carries 4-0. Okay, Director's Report and Board of Supervisors Hearing Summary.

Good afternoon Mr. Chair and members of the Commission I am very happy to hear that Commissioner Americana went to Farm Day it's always a really great experience I could not make it this year because I had terrible sinusitis. But, I had planned to go so I'm glad that somebody from the commission, I don't know if you were there Commissioner Guy but...

I've been there in the past

but I was not at this one. Yeah they're very educational and it just gives you a flavor of what life is like for somebody who's involved in commercial agriculture and that's a really important perspective because Primary economic drivers in our county And so I always I was really enjoy it and I always feel very enlightened when I Participate, so I encourage others to attend. I know Commissioner Park often goes but wasn't maybe not able to this year So, in terms of recent board actions I will say that the board acted upon the oil and gas ordinance amendments which will prohibit the drilling of new wells.

That was on the 15th of September. And then on the 22nd of September, we went back to extend the moratorium for retail firearm stores in order to give the department enough time to come back with an ordinance package to set some standards for where they can be located and protect sensitive receptors. And they also took action on the airport land use plan consistency amendments. So that was good to finally get that through and adopted.

And then future board items that we have coming include Constellation project, which was something that was heard by this Commission some time ago and that is a hotel and residential development in Vandenberg Village. That's going to go on the 10th of November And then we have the Malkin general plan amendment rezone and lot line adjustment Which I think is in the first district so it would have been an NPC case and that's also going on the 10 and then The item that you're hearing today, the two items that you're hearing today are expected to go to the board on December 8th.

And I think that covers the board actions. And I'm going to stay because I'm going to make some introductory comments to the ministerial ordinance package.

CHRIS JERRAM Thank you, Director Bellman. We appreciate your update. OK so now we're moving on to the standard agenda.

Thank you Mr. Chair. The County Planning Commission will conduct a workshop on ministerial streamlining amendments and will receive and file report from the planning and development department regarding proposed amendments to the county land use and development code, and coastal zoning ordinance related to ministerial permitting and streamlining. Provide feedback to staff regarding the proposed amendments and determine that the recommended actions are not a project that is subject to environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15378B5

So I wanted to start off this afternoon's hearing with just a little bit of background for the commission. When I was originally hired in this position in 2019, in discussions with the Board of Supervisors they made it very clear that they wanted to simplify our process where feasible. To make easy things easy and keep the complex things in a more complex process.

So, in 2022 the board gave the Division for Long-Range Planning additional staff and we came up with a three phased process and program for streamlining our ordinances. And the first phase was this technical kind of updates that we did which related to the outdoor lighting and signs Kind of simplifying it and making it consistent across our codes the sign regulations doing a similar thing and then Addressing our shopping center zone, which was defunct and very old and out-of-date. And so we removed that And then in phase two We had a lot of work to do To bring our zoning code to a more modern state with respect to our multifamily housing zone districts and our commercial zone districts so that we could accommodate the housing that's mandated by the state through our RHNA allocation process.

And so, we made a number of changes to those areas of the code and we did a lot of other standardization removing redundant language and simplifying procedures where we could And that was last year that that program was adopted, those changes. And we are now on our third and final phase and this was one of the issues that the board was most I would say passionate about and that is creating more truly ministerial permit types We are a county that's a bit of an outlier. We are unusual in that almost every, well pretty much every permit we issue unless it's a zoning clearance is appealable and it goes to the Planning Commission and then to the board.

Lots of other jurisdictions most other jurisdictions do not have that process they have certain permit types that cannot be appealed and those things tend to be additions to a house Fences over a certain height, small single-family homes and not even in some jurisdictions it doesn't matter how big your single family home is. It's a ministerial permit. So we are attempting to bring forward amendments that are in line with what the board had asked for.

We did go to the board in May of this year on May 12th and I'm—we're going to send out a link to that hearing so The commissioners can watch it if you care to, to hear what the board's direction was. So we took this package and went to a briefing with them to make sure that we were on the right track. And the board gave us feedback and the package that you have before you today is a result of that feedback. And the feedback generally was I would say make the simple thing simple so they do want to increase the number of ministerial permits that don't require noticing and are not appealable.

And they want to try and make it as consistent as possible throughout the county we recognize there are some areas that maybe there's greater sensitivities and so there is there are some Small adjustments were making in those areas to try and address the concerns, but that by those communities And you'll see that today in the presentation when they don't talk a little bit about that But one of the issues I think that has been an ongoing issue that's nagged the department and I think been Hindered our process is having so many community plans addressing the same kinds of things, but all the policies are slightly different. Or the requirements in Article 2, the Coastal Zoning Ordinance and the Inland Zoning Ordinance are slightly different.

versus the Montecito zoning ordinance. So our goal is to try and make sure that whatever comes out of this process is as uniform, as reasonable and as possible so I think that was the general message Again, they did say you know there are some particular areas that might want more design review or want something slightly different. But I think that was the general message and I definitely encourage you to watch that hearing if you want to get a real sense of what the board was talking about but I think this is this is a really important change for our county and I think it's It will make our process simpler for people who are coming through and trying to do something that should be simple.

It'll be hopefully less expensive, that's part of the objective too is that it would take less time to process some of these permits. And so those are my introductory comments. I'm happy to answer any questions, and we have Ben Singer here today, Martha Miller who's been our consultant throughout much of this process, and Alex Tuttle, our deputy director. But before I turn it over, if you have questions for me, I'm happy to answer them.

CHRIS JERRAMICKI. I think Commissioner Park has some questions. COMMISSIONER

MARK PARKER. I do, and I think this is a better question for you before we get into the details. You know, this process makes me feel triumphant. OK? Because as you know I'm constantly concerned of what's the reputation of our whole planning process with our constituents and it's gone up and down. And when I talk to folks one thing they complain about the most is there's so much discretionary action And what we do, there's a CUP for everything.

Mr. Wilson and I were involved in hearing about one where somebody was going to get certain things by right under the AEO but the interpretation was that arose later that the road of a couple hundred feet that was already there as an ag road but needed more road base to satisfy the fire department They were now going to have to get a CUP for that. And we have that riddling our whole zoning ordinance.

We have more boxes that say CUP than probably the other 57 counties in the state, and it's sort of a lazy man's out because it just means you don't have to have development standards. You don't have to do this and that. But as you know that are experienced in this, the amount of supervision that it takes If you have the time to supervise a middle level planner who then supervises the junior planners and you're doing a CUP, it's a nightmare. So this process that you're completing right now, the reason I'm triumphant about it is you're dealing with that in a very meaningful way.

It's something that if the public understood it, they would be celebrating. So that's my question. What kind of post-adoption outreach will we have to get the word out that this really very important major change has been made?

Thank you Commissioner Park through the chair. I think that's an excellent question. do outreach after a major change like this, we will definitely be doing press releases and sharing information that way. But it does your question I think can trigger some additional thought about any other steps that we want to take so that people truly understand the change in the process.

We probably could. Well, we will definitely have something on our website about it that explains what the changes are and usually when we have a big ordinance package like this is the first thing you see on our website and it says new and so it draws people's attention but we'll give that additional thought on what

kind of outreach we do. I hope we do because I think it's really a tremendous opportunity for this department and for planning process in general for the county to defuse some of the cynicism that's out there. And it's really important. Thank you. Thanks.

OK, Commissioner Mary Connor? I'd like to follow up on what Commissioner Park noted and that is there are professionals in the community who know a great deal about the impact of our current overly complicated land use regulations on the applicants because many of those professionals, and I'm thinking of the architects in particular have regular contact with the zoning code and with all of our complicated regulations. And they may be a source of both additional ideas that could be looked at in the future, and more importantly a source of communication to the applicant world about how this has all changed.

They're the ones talking to those applicants on a regular basis and I guess I'm thinking the architects there are land-use planners there are contractors there are a number of different professional groups out there who can be very helpful to the county in spreading the word about how much simpler this process is going to be. And the side benefit may well be that they have their own pet peeves and their own ideas about how further streamlining can be implemented.

And so that may be something worth looking into, to see if that portion of the community can serve as a conduit for the county in spreading the word about how extensive these changes are.

Thank you Commissioner O'Mara Conner, I think that's a great point we have been talking to you know we have regular meetings with the building industry Groups and they include a lot of our land use planners in them. And I also had a meeting with the AIA and their annual meeting and I talked about this process with them and I said You need to participate. If this is something you support, you need to participate and I also encourage our land use planners to do that. I see we have one here today. Yay! Appreciate the attendance but excellent point because I think they are the right conduits because they're the people that are dealing with the applicants.

The one other thing I wanted to note is that post briefing at the board, we did meet with individual board members. In particular, I think we met with three of them. The third district, the first district and the fourth district to talk about sort of the things that they were concerned about for their districts, issues that they wanted to make us aware of and so we have been working with those districts to make sure that package that we bring forward addresses some of the things that they had specific ideas about or concerned about.

Director Plowman, thank you so much for the overview I would like to watch that County Supervisors meeting so that I can come up to speed on all the details. So thank you for sharing that.

Yeah sure we will get a link out to you.

Thank you, thank you.

I sent it out just check your email.

Oh okay well thank you Mr. Villalobos

All right, with that I think we'll turn it over to our team.

Okay.

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.