Board of Supervisors — May 12, 2026

Meeting Summary

Present: Lavagnino, Lee, Capps, Hartmann, Nelson

This summary was AI-generated to save you time. It may miss or misstate details — verify against the official recording and the transcript.

Staff clarified that existing buildings changing use would not be forced to add parking spaces.
Supervisor Lee raised concerns regarding traffic and parking shortages in residential areas.
The Board agreed to explore amendments exempting changes of use from additional parking requirements.

Staff recommended making all single-family residential permits ministerial to eliminate costly neighbor appeals.
Supervisor Hartman expressed concern about impacts on scenic areas like the Gaviota Coast.
The Board directed staff to consider carve-outs for specific community plan areas regarding design review.

Staff proposed a three-tiered system including exempt, administrative, and full Board of Architectural Review levels.
Supervisor Lee requested specific coordination for District 1 due to unique community guidelines.
The Board directed staff to maintain design review standards in specific commercial corridors while exempting smaller projects.

Staff proposed establishing thresholds for ministerial commercial approval starting at 5,000 square feet.
The Board agreed to explore exemptions from design review for limited development.
Direction included protections for specific design districts alongside the new thresholds.

Staff proposed expanding the list of exempt structures to include pools, HVAC, and generators.
The Board agreed to explore downshifting permit levels for items like farmer’s markets and fences.
The Board requested a review of exemptions for Industrial Zones that currently lack specific provisions.

The Board of Supervisors reviewed a staff report regarding "Phase Three" amendments to the county’s land use code. The primary goal is to streamline permitting processes to reduce costs, timing, and complexity for residential, commercial, and industrial development. The Board discussed shifting from discretionary/appealable permits to ministerial processes, expanding exemptions, and modifying design review requirements.

Frances Romero, a county resident with 25 years in the land use field, spoke in support of the proposals (specifically "Option Two"). She argued that the current appeal process is out of hand, costly, and erodes community relations. She cited examples of businesses abandoning projects due to high permit costs and delays (e.g., a farmer’s market permit costing the equivalent of six months' profit). She urged the Board to reduce complexity and adopt the most liberal streamlining options uniformly.

Proposal: Exempt changes of use (e.g., retail to restaurant) from requiring additional on-site parking if the existing building already meets code.
Discussion: Supervisor Lee raised concerns about traffic and parking shortages in residential areas. Staff clarified that new developments would still require parking, but existing buildings changing use would not be forced to add spaces they do not have.
Direction: The Board agreed to explore amendments to exempt changes of use and minor expansions from additional on-site parking requirements.

Options:
Option 1: Split permits into appealable (for large projects) and ministerial (for smaller projects).
Option 2: Make all single-family residential permits ministerial (non-appealable), with internal staff reviews for complexity (e.g., hillside grading, environmental issues).
Discussion: Supervisor Hartman expressed concern about "McMansions" and scenic areas like Gaviota Coast. Supervisor Okaps requested cost/time estimates for projects. Staff recommended Option 2 to eliminate neighbor appeals, which are often frivolous and costly.
Direction: The Board leaned toward Option 2 (making residential permits ministerial/non-appealable) but directed staff to consider carve-outs for specific community plan areas (e.g., Gaviota Coast, Montecito, Old Town Orchid) regarding design review triggers.

Proposal: Implement a three-tiered system:
1. Exempt (small/minor projects). 2. Administrative/Staff Review (middle tier, not appealable). 3. Full Board of Architectural Review (large/high-impact projects).
Discussion: Thresholds could include Floor Area Ratio (FAR), height, and ridgeline visibility. Supervisor Lee requested staff coordinate specifically on District 1 (Montecito/Mission Canyon) due to unique community guidelines. Staff recommended uniform thresholds for simplicity but acknowledged the need for flexibility in historic districts.
Direction: The Board directed staff to explore the three-tiered approach and maintain design review standards in specific commercial corridors (e.g., Bell Street, Old Town) while exempting smaller projects elsewhere.

Proposal: Establish thresholds for ministerial commercial approval (e.g., 500–5,000 sq. ft.) and exempt limited development from design review.
Direction: The Board agreed to explore ministerial thresholds for commercial development (discussed starting at 5,000 sq. ft.) and exemptions from design review, with protections for specific design districts.

Proposal: Downshift permits for items like farmer’s markets and fences. Expand the list of exempt structures (e.g., increasing from 120 sq. ft. to 250 sq. ft., including pools, HVAC, and generators).
Direction: The Board agreed to explore expanding exemptions and downshifting permit levels. Supervisor 52 added a request to review exemptions for Industrial Zones, noting they currently lack specific exemptions despite having large development plans.

Staff will draft code amendments based on the Board's direction.
Goal: Return to the Board with proposals before the end of the calendar year.
Motion: A motion was made and seconded to approve items A through C (receiving the report and providing direction). The motion passed unanimously.
Adjournment: Meeting adjourned; next regular meeting is June 9, 2026.