Local zoning · Santa Clarita

Santa Clarita — Design Review

Q: Do I need design review in Santa Clarita?

You may — the Director can require Architectural Design Review for additions, alterations, or redevelopment of single‑family, multifamily, commercial, industrial buildings, and parking facilities; major new projects are often processed through Development Review . The governing provisions are § 17.23.110 (architectural design review) and § 17.23.120 (development review).

Design Review under the Santa Clarita local zoning and planning code, with the controlling citations.

Ask a question free See coverage

Last reviewed: July 2, 2026

Overview

Design review in Santa Clarita is a discretionary planning procedure that the Director or other review authorities use to ensure proposals meet the Zoning Code, General Plan, and adopted design guidance before building permits are issued. The City distinguishes several review paths — Architectural Design Review, Development Review, and related administrative permit reviews — each with defined applicability, required findings, and possible conditions of approval. Key local rules are codified in Title 17 (the Zoning Code) and implemented through the Director; read these rules in the code at the cited sections below. § 17.23.110 establishes architectural design review; § 17.23.120 establishes development review.

Note: this page addresses only what the Santa Clarita Zoning Code requires about design/architectural/site-plan review. For building-code compliance see the California Building Standards Code. For how design review interacts with parking, setbacks, or development standards see the linked pages below (first mention only): Santa Clarita Zoning, Santa Clarita Parking, Santa Clarita Development Standards, Santa Clarita Overlay Districts, and Santa Clarita ADUs.

What the Code says (high-level)

Architectural Design Review is a Class II application process required when the Director determines that additions, alterations, and/or redevelopment of single‑family, multifamily, commercial, industrial buildings, or parking facilities must be architecturally reviewed; the Director can approve with conditions to ensure code, General Plan and adopted design guideline compliance. See § 17.23.110.
Development Review is a Class II process for the construction of permitted structures and initiation of permitted uses (single‑family subdivisions, multifamily developments, mobilehome parks, commercial or industrial establishments and major alterations) when the Director exercises discretion. See § 17.23.120.
Both review types require the applicant to substantiate the required findings in § 17.06.130 (Findings and Decision) before approval may be granted; the review authority may impose conditions including improvements, securities, or off‑site requirements.
Many design inputs and submittal requirements (renderings, landscape plans, parking/lighting changes, public notice) are called out in other chapters and specific zone or special district sections; where a proposal touches overlays (e.g., ridgeline, hillside), additional review triggers apply.

District-by-district (how design review typically operates by zone)

Below are the primary Santa Clarita zoning designations and the code excerpts that most affect design review expectations. For each district I give purpose, typical uses, typical dimensional standards that reviewers will check, and where that district is described.

NU1 – NU5 (Non‑Urban 1–5) — purpose and where it applies: rural/large‑lot areas (NU1 extreme constraints to NU5 ≈ 1 acre lots). Typical permitted uses: single‑family dwellings, equestrian/agricultural uses, limited local commercial in activity areas (NU5). Key dimensional standards reviewers check: density caps (NU1 as low as 0.05 u/ac to NU5 up to 1.0 u/ac), front setback 20 ft, side setbacks 5/5 ft, max structure height 35 ft. See § 17.32.010 through § 17.32.050 for NU1–NU5. Design review triggers: projects on ridgelines, natural slopes, or with oak tree impacts will be routed for special standards and design review.
UR1 – UR5 (Urban Residential 1–5) — purpose: urban residential neighborhoods with increasing densities (UR1 ≈ 2 u/ac, UR5 up to 30 u/ac). Typical permitted uses: single‑family and multifamily housing (density ranges vary by UR level). Key dimensional standards: minimum lot area and lot width scale down as density rises; standard setbacks often include 20 ft front, 5 ft side, rear 15 ft, max height typically 35 ft (specific table entries in each UR section). Reviewers will check massing, transitions to lower‑density neighborhoods, landscaping, and parking consistency. See § 17.33.010–§ 17.33.050.
CC (Community Commercial), CN (Neighborhood Commercial), CR (Regional Commercial) — purpose: local to regional retail/service centers. Typical uses: restaurants, markets, retail, medical services; mixed‑use and multifamily may be allowed. Key standards reviewers check: FAR limits (example CC FAR 0.75, CR FAR 2.0), lot coverage (up to 80–90% in commercial zones), setbacks to public right‑of‑way (5–10 ft), setbacks from residential property lines (25 ft), and max building heights without CUP (35 ft). See § 17.34.010 (CC) and § 17.34.030 (CR). Design review concerns: pedestrian access, parking layout, lighting/landscaping screening, and truck/service access.
BP (Business Park) — purpose: mixed employment campuses with high design expectations. Typical uses: offices, light industrial, R&D, and campus‑style development. Standards: higher FAR (up to 2.0), high lot coverage allowances, setbacks to ROW 5–10 ft, and 35 ft height generally without CUP. Design review emphasis: 360° architectural treatments, colored renderings, landscape at maturity, and screening of ground‑mounted equipment. See § 17.34.040 and related submission standards.
I (Industrial) — purpose: industrial uses where heavier operational impacts are expected. Permitted uses and intensity are regulated; reviewers pay attention to outdoor storage screening, odor/vibration, and landscape buffering to adjacent residential zones. See § 17.34.050.
MXC (Mixed Use Corridor) and other mixed‑use zones — projects here will be looked at for pedestrian orientation, building edge, and compatibility with street‑level uses and parking. See Chapter 17.35 for MXC rules. Not all mixed‑use rules are shown in the excerpts provided. Not found in retrieved materials for detailed MXC substandards.

Because permitted uses tables and specific use symbols (P, C, M, AP, H, etc.) live in Division 5 (Use Classifications), applicants should consult the appropriate use table for zone‑specific permit triggers.

Key design/submittal standards decision‑makers use

The table below summarizes the most decision‑relevant items a reviewer will check and the local code reference for each.

Issue / standard reviewed	What the reviewer looks for	Code reference
Need for Architectural Design Review	Director may require review for additions/renovations or redevelopment of single‑family, multifamily, commercial, industrial buildings and parking facilities; Class II application	§ 17.23.110
Need for Development Review	Major new construction (single‑family subdivisions, multifamily, commercial/industrial projects) or major alterations — Class II at Director discretion	§ 17.23.120
Required findings to approve	Applicant must substantiate findings in § 17.06.130 (consistency with code, General Plan, neighborhood compatibility)	§ 17.06.130 referenced in § 17.23.110/120
Submittal content (renderings, landscaping, parking)	Three‑dimensional colored renderings, 360° treatments, landscape plans showing maturity, parking/lighting changes, and screening for utilities/mechanical	Architecture/submit requirements and landscape/parking provisions (various sections)
Overlays / special standards triggers	Ridgeline, hillside, protected slopes, and special standards districts impose additional review standards and may require hillside/ridgeline permits	Chapter references 17.38 (Ridgeline) and 17.51.020 (Hillside Development) as cross‑triggers

Practical guidance and interpretation (plain‑English, technical tips)

The Director is the primary gatekeeper: many design reviews are discretionary “at the Director’s discretion.” If the Director determines a proposal needs architectural scrutiny it will be processed as a Class II application under § 17.23.110 or § 17.23.120, and the applicant must meet the findings in § 17.06.130. Plan accordingly: assume discretionary review unless you confirm otherwise with staff.
For commercial or business park projects expect a higher bar on 360° architectural treatments, colored renderings showing landscaping at maturity, and careful screening of mechanicals and parking. These submission expectations are explicit in the business/industrial guidance and project submittal notes.
Where an overlay (ridgeline, hillside, special standards like Happy Valley) applies, additional plan elements (oak tree preservation, slope analysis, public outreach in some special districts) are required before approval; verify overlay boundaries early.
Design review conditions commonly include off‑site improvements (curbs, sidewalks, street trees), securities (bonds), and landscape installation prior to final acceptance; expect the City to require these as conditions of approval. See the conditions/guarantee language in the design review and administrative permit sections.
ADUs: the Zoning Code contains ADU-specific architecture and parking compatibility requirements (ADUs must be compatible with the main dwelling per § 17.57.020 and § 17.24/17.57 ADU subsections); however statewide ADU law limits discretionary design rules — verify ministerial ADU provisions and state ADU law interaction. See the ADU chapter references in Divisions 5 and 6 and the ADU-specific subitems.

Checklist (what an applicant must satisfy for a typical design review / development review)

Prepare a complete Class II application (Design Review or Development Review) per filing rules; expect fees and Director completeness check. See § 17.23.110 / § 17.23.120.
Demonstrate the required findings in § 17.06.130 (consistency with code and General Plan).
Provide full 3‑D color architectural renderings (360° treatments) and elevations as required for commercial / business park projects.
Submit landscape plans showing species, 24‑inch box tree requirements (where applicable), and screening details.
Show parking plans and any proposed changes to parking/lighting; address spill/screening requirements.
Document compliance with applicable overlay standards (ridgeline, hillside, Oak preservation) if the property lies in those zones.
Include materials/color board, mechanical screening details, and utility screening (pad‑mounted transformer locations).
Complete public notice/mailings per the Development Code when required and be prepared for possible appeal to Planning Commission.

Risks & Ambiguities

Issue	Why it matters	What to verify
“Director discretion” to require design review	Creates uncertainty on whether your project is ministerial or discretionary; affects timeline and public noticing	Confirm with pre‑application meeting whether your proposal will be processed as Class II; verify completeness items. Verify with the jurisdiction.
Overlap with overlays (ridgeline/hillside)	Overlays can add mandatory findings and extra submittals (e.g., slope studies, oak tree mitigation)	Check the zoning map and overlay maps early; if within overlay, plan on additional studies. § 17.38.070 and § 17.51.020 referenced.
ADU design vs state ADU rules	City design requirements cannot conflict with California ADU statutory limitations on discretionary review	If ADU, verify which elements are ministerial under state law vs subject to local design control. Verify with the jurisdiction and consult ADU chapter. Not all ADU ministers/details are fully set out in the retrieved materials.
Which approval body will decide (Director, Hearing Officer, Commission)	Different bodies carry different appeal rights and timelines (Director decisions may be appealable)	Confirm review authority via Table 17.06‑1 (Review Authority) at pre‑app. Verify with the jurisdiction.
Exact list of submittal drawings and environmental review requirements	Incomplete submittal means delays; CEQA may be required for discretionary projects	Obtain the Director’s completeness checklist and confirm CEQA expectations early. Verify with the jurisdiction.

Plain‑English Summary

If you are changing or building something that the Director thinks could affect neighborhood appearance — additions, new commercial buildings, multifamily developments, or significant site changes — Santa Clarita will usually require a discretionary design or development review under Title 17. The City reviews consistency with the Zoning Code, General Plan, and the Community Character and Design Guidelines, and can require changes, landscaping, or off‑site improvements before permits are issued. Key rules live in § 17.23.110 and § 17.23.120; meet with planning staff early to confirm submittal needs and whether your project will be ministerial or discretionary.

Source References

Title 17 (Zoning), City of Santa Clarita — Title and general purpose (Title 17 preface and general provisions). § 17.01.010 – § 17.01.040.
§ 17.23.110. Architectural Design Review (purpose, applicability, findings, conditions, securities).
§ 17.23.120. Development Review (purpose, applicability, findings).
Urban Residential zones § 17.33.010 – § 17.33.050 (UR1–UR5 development standards and uses).
Non‑Urban zones § 17.32.010 – § 17.32.050 (NU1–NU5 development standards and uses).
Commercial/Industrial zones § 17.34.010 (CC), § 17.34.030 (CR), § 17.34.040 (BP), § 17.34.050 (I) (standards affecting design review).
Use classifications and required parking (Division 5) — permit symbols and how uses are processed; see Chapter 17.41 / 17.42.
Ridgeline/Hillside and overlay trigger references; development on slopes table and cross‑triggers (Chapter excerpts). See Chapter 17.49 and references to § 17.51.020 / § 17.38.070.

If a specific parcel query or the Director’s interpretation is needed, verify with City Planning staff; some parcel‑specific overlays or recent amendments may alter applicability. Not found in retrieved materials: a single consolidated “Design Review” page URL in the municipal code — requirements are dispersed among the cited sections above.

Sources

Retrieved passages

Santa Clarita Zoning Code (§ 4) High relevance
Santa Clarita Zoning Code (§ 4) High relevance
Santa Clarita Zoning Code (section as) High relevance
Santa Clarita Zoning Code (section is) High relevance
Santa Clarita Zoning Code (§ 4) High relevance
Santa Clarita Zoning Code (§ 4) High relevance
CBC § 66314 (§ 66314) High relevance
Santa Clarita Zoning Code (§ 66317) High relevance
Santa Clarita Zoning Code (§ 4) Medium relevance
Santa Clarita Zoning Code Medium relevance
Santa Clarita Zoning Code Medium relevance
Santa Clarita Zoning Code (§ 4) Medium relevance
Santa Clarita Zoning Code (§ 4) Medium relevance
Santa Clarita Zoning Code (§ 4) Medium relevance
Santa Clarita Zoning Code (§ 4) Medium relevance
Santa Clarita Zoning Code (§ 4) Medium relevance

Cited sections

Official Santa Clarita code library

Frequently asked questions

Do I need design review in Santa Clarita?

You may — the Director can require Architectural Design Review for additions, alterations, or redevelopment of single‑family, multifamily, commercial, industrial buildings, and parking facilities; major new projects are often processed through Development Review. The governing provisions are § 17.23.110 (architectural design review) and § 17.23.120 (development review).

What findings does the City require to approve a design review?

The review authority will only approve after the applicant substantiates the findings listed in § 17.06.130 (Findings and Decision), which require consistency with the Code, the General Plan, and neighborhood compatibility; those findings are referenced directly in § 17.23.110 and § 17.23.120.

What submittals are typically required for a commercial design review?

Commercial and business park projects typically require full color 3‑D renderings (360°), elevations, landscape plans showing planting at maturity, parking and lighting changes, and mechanical screening details; these expectations are described in the commercial submission notes and the business/industrial guidance found in the Code.

Does design review require public noticing or a hearing?

Many Class II Director decisions require public notice and are appealable; the Code spells out notice distribution and appeal paths in the project notice sections and the Class II/Class III procedures — confirm via the Director’s completeness determination early in the process. See the notice/submission language and the referenced review authority tables.

Will a design review trigger CEQA?

Discretionary design or development reviews are subject to CEQA in the normal way; ministerial approvals (e.g., where state ADU rules remove discretion) may be exempt. The Code requires environmental clearance before construction for applicable projects (Division references). Verify with the jurisdiction for your parcel.

How do overlays (hillside, ridgeline, Happy Valley special standards) affect design review?

If your site lies in an overlay, additional required standards and review triggers apply (e.g., ridgeline preservation, hillside development, oak tree preservation in Happy Valley). These overlays can require additional findings, studies, or public outreach; see the ridgeline/hillside references and the Happy Valley Special Standards District language.

Can design review impose off‑site improvements or bonds?

Yes. The Director and review authority may impose conditions requiring improvements (curbs, sidewalks, street trees, medians) and may require security/bonds to ensure completion of conditions as part of approval. This conditioning authority is explicit in § 17.23.110.

If I’m building an ADU, will design review apply?

ADUs are subject to local ADU provisions in the Zoning Code and must be compatible with the primary dwelling (references to § 17.57.020). However, state ADU law restricts discretionary standards the City can apply in many cases. Check both the ADU chapter and confer with planning staff to determine whether your ADU is ministerial or discretionary. Not all ministerial vs discretionary ADU interpretations are explicit in the retrieved excerpts; verify with the jurisdiction.

Who makes the decision on appeals of a Director design review?

Appeals of Director decisions are processed according to the review authority and appeal tables in the Code (see Table 17.06‑1 and related Class II/III procedures); a Director’s decision can be appealed to the Planning Commission or decided by the Hearing Officer depending on the application path. Verify with the jurisdiction for your case.

Ask about any Santa Clarita property

Get a cited, plain-English answer on Santa Clarita zoning, setbacks, FAR, ADUs and permits — for any address.

Start Free Trial