Current rules next to the proposed changes for Coastal and Inland areas of Montecito.
Updated October 28, 2026
The Santa Barbara County Planning Commission voted 4–0 to recommend approval of the County’s permitting and streamlining amendments, with revisions, following its second hearing on the package.
The recommendations now move to the Board of Supervisors. The ordinances have not been adopted. Coastal amendments would also require California Coastal Commission certification following County approval.
For Montecito, the outcome included support for mailed informational notice and broader historic-resource protections. However, the CPC departed from the Montecito Planning Commission’s recommendation to retain architectural review for new and remodeled smaller homes.
The MPC recommended retaining architectural review for new and remodeled single-family homes, rejecting the proposed exemption for single-story homes up to 2,500 square feet.
Commissioner Steve Amerikaner, Supervisor Roy Lee’s First District appointee, continued to advocate for that exemption in coastal Montecito. He also asked that the CPC’s report recommend the same approach for inland Montecito for consistency.
The CPC’s final recommendation followed that position.
This does not overturn the MPC’s inland recommendation. The MPC’s recommendations for inland Montecito go directly to the Board of Supervisors. The CPC formally considers the coastal ordinance and can communicate its views about inland consistency, leaving the Board to resolve the difference.
Public notice became an important point of agreement.
Commissioner Park, who previously opposed broadly removing residential permit appeals, said he would support the streamlined process if it retained a way for neighbors to learn about proposed projects.
Staff described an informational mailed notice, potentially using a postcard with a QR code linking to project information and plans. The notice would explain that the permit is not appealable but would allow residents to understand the proposal, contact staff, and share relevant information.
The Commission incorporated mail notice for planning permits into its recommended revisions.
This represents an important change from the earlier proposal to remove notice along with certain appeal rights. However:
Informational notice does not restore an appeal right.
Projects exempt from planning permits would not receive this notice.
The notice would occur through the planning process, rather than whenever a building permit is issued.
Commissioners again debated whether historic-resource safeguards should cover only formally designated or listed properties, or also structures of known or potential historic interest.
Staff explained that many significant buildings have never been formally designated. Limiting review to an official list could allow important resources to be overlooked and conflict with existing County preservation policies.
Commissioner Amerikaner initially continued his objection to the broader language, citing uncertainty and unexpected costs for applicants. Before making the final motion, he withdrew that objection to help secure unanimous agreement.
The recommendation therefore proceeded without his proposed deletion of the broader historic-resource language. This was a meaningful change from the CPC’s preliminary direction at the October 21 hearing.
The Commission’s closing discussion supported the remaining MPC recommendations for coastal Montecito, including:
Retaining planning permits for pools and pool equipment.
Limiting the architectural-review exemption for qualifying detached accessory structures to 500 square feet, rather than 800, with location requirements and matching architectural style, materials, and colors.
Reducing the maximum design-review exemption for nonresidential additions to 1,000 square feet, rather than 5,000.
Retaining Development Plan review above 2,500 square feet of cumulative development in the Visitor-Serving Commercial zone, rather than allowing development up to 10,000 square feet before requiring a Development Plan.
These Montecito provisions should be distinguished from the broader countywide thresholds described in the staff presentation.
Executive Director Houghton Hyatt spoke on behalf of the MA Board, supporting efficient permitting while urging the Commission to preserve architectural oversight, notice, appeal rights, and the Montecito Community Plan.
The Association’s central request was to establish enforceable height limits, maximum residential floor areas, and accessory building allowances in the zoning ordinances, consistent with the Montecito Architectural Guidelines.
MA Board member and MBAR member Tom Bollay reinforced that request. He also questioned using a uniform 0.35 floor area ratio as a design-review threshold on larger parcels, where it could allow very large buildings to qualify for reduced review.
The recorded motion did not specifically incorporate the MA’s requested floor-area schedules, additional square-footage caps, or revised height limits. Those requests remain important issues for consideration by the Board of Supervisors.
The CPC supported the overall framework for simpler approvals, expanded exemptions, administrative design review, and non-appealable pathways for qualifying projects.
It also recommended retaining Development Plans for all development in the Service Commercial zone near Santa Maria, responding to concerns about compatibility with neighboring agriculture.
The Commission recommended that the Board find the amendments exempt from further environmental review under the cited CEQA provisions. Commissioner Amerikaner separately requested a report approximately one year after implementation to assess how the new process is working.
The Board of Supervisors will consider the recommendations and the differences between the two planning commissions on December 8th.
For Montecito, the remaining questions include whether smaller homes should lose architectural review, whether stronger development standards should be written into the ordinances, and how the new informational notice process will operate.
The Montecito Association will continue advocating for efficient permitting that preserves meaningful community participation and the protections supporting Montecito’s semi-rural character.
Updated October 21, 2026
Following approximately five hours of discussion and public comment from 12 community members, the Montecito Planning Commission recommended approval of the County’s proposed permitting amendments with modifications that would retain important protections for Montecito.
These are recommendations, not adopted ordinance changes. Final decisions rest with the Board of Supervisors.
Retain architectural review for homes
Reject the proposed exemption for new or remodeled single-story dwellings up to 2,500 square feet, keeping those projects subject to architectural review.
Keep planning permits for pools and pool equipment
Reject the proposed broad exemption from planning permits for pools and associated equipment.
Narrow exemptions for residential additions and accessory structures
The recommended design review exemptions would:
Limit qualifying single-story residential additions to 10% of existing square footage or 500 square feet, whichever is less, and exclude designated, listed, or eligible historic resources.
Limit qualifying detached accessory structures to less than 500 square feet, rather than the proposed 800-square-foot threshold. Structures must be behind another building or on the rear half of the lot and match the architectural style, materials, and colors of the existing building.
Reduce the exemption for nonresidential additions
Limit the design review exemption to a 10% allowance, with a minimum allowance of 500 square feet and a maximum of 1,000 square feet, rather than the proposed 5,000-square-foot maximum.
Preserve greater oversight of commercial development
In the Neighborhood Commercial (CN) and Visitor-Serving Commercial (CV) zones, allow structures of 2,500 square feet or less to proceed through a Land Use Permit instead of a Development Plan. Retain the Development Plan requirement for structures greater than 2,500 square feet.
For Development Plans in the CN zone, limit Director-level review to structures of 5,000 square feet or less, rather than the originally proposed 15,000-square-foot threshold.
Retain Conditional Use Permit requirements for certain uses
Keep existing Conditional Use Permit requirements for theaters, cultural institutions, and the residential component of mixed-use projects.
Strengthen historic resource protections
Modify the historic-structure eligibility criteria for the proposed “simple” review process.
The Montecito Association supports efficient, predictable permitting while preserving the architectural oversight and community participation that have helped maintain Montecito’s semi-rural character.
The MPC’s recommendations address several concerns raised by the Association and residents. We continue to advocate for:
Meaningful public notice and opportunities to appeal.
Clear safeguards against successive applications that circumvent review thresholds.
Development standards consistent with the Montecito Community Plan.
Appropriate oversight of commercial development.
The recommendations summarized above do not resolve every question about notice, appeals, or cumulative development. Those issues remain important as the amendments move forward.