In the words of consultant Martha Miller — who works with agencies and counties across the state — Santa Barbara County‘s current project review process is one of the “most complex” she’s seen.

Changes are underway to make it faster and easier for smaller and simpler projects to get approved, staff explained to the County Planning Commission on Wednesday.

The proposed amendments have been in the works for several years, according to Miller and County Planning & Development Department representatives Lisa Plowman and Alex Tuttle.

The three broke down the ins and outs of the amendments for the commission on Wednesday.

They said the county’s current review process is an “outlier.” Other areas across the state have simpler project review processes. These amendments, they said, would put the county more in line with other agencies.

The changes also come at the direction of the Board of Supervisors, who years ago said they wanted the county to be able to process simpler projects faster.

“There are so many layers” of review, Miller said. These changes are “trying to streamline one of the layers… When you’re wound this tightly, and everything gets caught up for some reason in the review process, you’re disproportionately affecting small projects.”

Plowman, Planning & Development director, said the amendments aim to “keep the simple things simple” and let county staff — and relevant review boards — focus on more complex projects that do require longer review.

Over the course of an eight-hour meeting, the commission heard and discussed the amendments at length before pushing the vote back to its meeting on Oct. 28.

The Board of Supervisors will ultimately have the final say on the amendments to the process, but they will consider the County Planning Commission’s recommendations.

County staff hopes to bring the amendments before the supervisors by December, according to Plowman.

The Amendments as Proposed

The proposed amendments are part of a three-phase process. The first phase was approved last year; the second was approved in January.

The current phase largely tackles limited commercial development and single-family developments.

Currently, most development projects proposed in the county have to go before a county Design Review board.

Those are the North Board of Architectural Review, the South Board of Architectural Review, the Montecito Board of Architectural Review and the Central Board of Architectural Review.

(Montecito is unique; other unincorporated areas of the county don’t have their own Board of Architectural Review and Planning Commission. The Montecito Planning Commission on Monday separately reviewed amendments to the project review process that were specific to Montecito.)

The scope of that design review also varies by area.

Most projects also have to obtain planning permits, which check that a project meets an area’s standards for location, size and design.

As proposed, the changes would establish a “simple,” checklist-based process for projects that do not require significant review and exempt projects from board Design Review. Eligible projects include certain single-story, single-family residential developments under a certain height and floor ratio and in only a few areas of the county.

Projects that are more complex would not be eligible for that “simple” review process and would still go through the regular Design Review process by the relevant board, staff explained on Wednesday.

The changes also limit which projects can be appealed by members of the public and are publicly noticed.

The amendments would also expand the list of smaller projects that would no longer require a planning permit. For example, accessory structures up to 250 square feet with limited utilities, some swimming pools, poles under a certain height and some equipment like generators would also no longer require a planning permit.

Those accessory structures with limited utilities cannot be lived in; that carveout is for projects like garden sheds or outdoor kitchens.

“My garden shed is freaky, full of black widows… having a light would be nice,” Tuttle joked.

Projects would still require other permits, like a building permit. County staff stressed that all projects must still meet basic objective standards such as setback, height and safety, and will still be reviewed by staff to ensure they are suitable for the area they are proposed for.

Appeals are also currently not common, per staff.

Over the past five years, the Board of Supervisors has heard fewer than 10 appeals of single-family developments, according to Tuttle. And roughly 90% of the time, he said, those projects still moved forward.

“There’s a lot of fear or concern that we’re removing this opportunity for appeal when, in actuality, not a lot of projects get appealed,” Tuttle said.

Appeals also cost time and money. Because the county bills all costs back to a project applicant, appeals disproportionately affect smaller projects and those on more restricted incomes, staff said.

Removing the ability to appeal does not limit someone’s ability to file a lawsuit or challenge in Santa Barbara Superior Court.

The amendments also clean up parts of the county’s code that haven’t been modified in decades and are no longer useful or relevant. For example, they remove an allowance that would permit public airports in residential zones.

Commissioners also suggested staff come back with a visual flow chart so they and members of the public can clearly see the changes.

The staff breakdown of the full amendments discussed by the County Planning Commission last week can be seen by clicking here.

Community Concerns

Some members of the community have expressed concerns over the changes at public meetings, noting that some neighbors of a project may be able to identify project issues that county planners who don’t live in the area cannot.

Meetings of the Montecito Planning Commission and the Montecito Association drew voices concerned that the amendments would lead to “ugly” houses being built.

Marc Chytilo, a lawyer who spoke on behalf of the Citizens Planning Association on Wednesday, said there is substantial community concern.

He agreed with the suggestion to create a chart of the proposed changes.

Others have said the changes are much needed, like Kaitlyn Earnest, an associate land use planner.

Earnest said on Monday at the Montecito Planning Commission that the changes are a “thoughtful effort to cut unnecessary costs and processing time and let staff focus on projects that truly need discretionary review.”

The commission will meet again on Oct. 28 at 9 a.m. in the Planning Commission Hearing Room at 123 E. Anapamu St. in Santa Barbara.

Meeting agendas can be seen by clicking here.