APPENDIX A
VISUAL SIMULATION IMAGES
Reference Graphic
3206 Laurel Canyon Rd
Proposed Construction Second story
Southeast Balcony
(see note below)
NOTE: The point light source for the raytraee study is located where the six foot tail human figsre's eyes would be,
Figure 1. Simulated view of the south facade of the proposed addition at 3308.
Visibility Analysis for 3210/3208 Laurel Canyon Road
February 24, 2023
Looking East towards
3210 Laurel Canyon Road
.^
^
0^*^°
V0
3210 Laurel Canyon Rd
3208 Laurel Canyon
Road Proposed
\
Figure 2. Simulated view, and field of view to the east from the second floor balcony. Note clear visibi!ity into the bedroom, patio, and backyard of 3210 Laurei Canyon Rd.
Visibility Analysis for 3210/3208 Laurel Canyon Road
February 24, 2023
Raytraced Visibility Study
6 foot fence added to 3208
322& w
31 18 La
2t0
Cyn
fror
Figure 3. Raytraced simulated field of view from the southeast balcony to neighboring homes. Visibilty assumed at a person's height of 5'above the finished floor
Visibility Analysis for 3210/3208 Laurel Canyon Road
February 24, 2023
Raytraced Visibility Study
6 foot fence added to 3208
322'
16 La
31 s
sh
from pro
oor
Figure 4. Raytraced simulated field of view from the southwest deck to neighboring homes. Visibilty assumed at a person 's height of 6' above the finished floor.
Visibility Analysis for 3210/3208 Laurel Canyon Road
February 24, 2023
Figure 5. Computer simulation street view of size, bulk, mass and scale compared to neighboring homes.
Carport omitted for clarity.
Figure 6. Computer simulation backyard view of size, bulk, mass ond scale compared to neighboring homes. Carport omitted for clarity.
Ken Doud Visual Impacts Analyst
PO Box 696, Los Olivos, Ca 93441
Ken Doud @ comcast.net
805-331-8348
Education:
Masters Degree, Fine Arts/Mass Media
Skills:
University of California, Santa Barbara
25 years of experience in the preparation of graphics for use in CEQA/NEPA compliant environmental visual analysis with emphasis on the preparation of photo simulations, including the selection of viewpoints and depictions of visual mitigation measures and assistance in the placement of those measures.
15 years experience in conducting peer review of visual impact analysis, shadow studies, and graphics for EIR, including presentation of expert testimony in courtroom and governmental review settings.
High Level skills in CAD, photo editing, digital photography, and computer visualization software, including Autodesk 3ds Max, which is the industry standard for GIS based visual simulations.
Ability to read Architectural, Engineering and related Planning Documents and accurately migrate that information into the 3-d computer environment.
Qualifications (Selected projects)
2017
Project Title: Goleta Fire Station#10 Visual Simulations Location: Santa Barbara County, Ca
Contractor: City of Goleta; AMEC.
Descri tion: Due to the removal of many large existing trees, landscaping was a particularly sensitive issue regarding the visual impacts of this project. The depiction of foliage and landscape species can be difficult in the computer environment. Nevertheless, the results achieved by Ken Doud using advanced software and hardware were described as "Amazing" by the City of Goleta planner who supervised the project. 2017
Project Title: Rancho Santa Maria Golf Course Proposed Housing Project Location: Santa Barbara County, Ca
Contractor: Dudek; Capital Pacific Development Group
Descri tion: Ken Doud provided an extensive series of visual simulations in order to address concerns by both the golf course management and Santa Barbara County planners. The project, near Orcutt, Ca, proposed building over 150 single family homes between the golf course fairways. Ken Doud helped in the selection of sensitive views, many from the Tee boxes on this 18 hole golf course. The visual simulations depicted both landscaped and non-landscaped renderings from each point-of-view.
Project Title: Rice Ranch Clubhouse Visual Simulations
Location: Santa Barbara County, Ca
Contractor: Dudek; Trilogy by Shea Homes, Inc.
Descri tion: Ken Doud has provided visual simulations and view mitigation advice since 1998 for this large development project south of Orcutt, California. This includes selection of sensitive views; GIS enabled digital photography acquisition; parametric computer modeling from plans, emgineering drawings, and conceptual drawings; and optimized positioning of landscape screening elements within the three dimensional computer environment.
2014
Project Title: Tajiguas Landfill Peer Review
Location: Santa Barbara County, Ca
Contractor: Environmental Defense Center; Marc Chytilo
DescriDtion: Provided peer review of developer supplied visual impacts analysis materials for the Tajiguas Landfill Expansion Project. Using digital elevation data to graphically display where topography would be visible from sensitive viewpoints, determined adequacy of the report.
2013
Project Title: Cuyama Solar Project Visual Impacts Peer Review and Visual Simulations Location: Santa Barbara County, Ca
Contractor: AMEC Environment & Infrastructure, Inc.
Descri tion: Provided both peer review of applicant submitted materials and additional visual simulations from surrounding recreational lands for the 400 acre solar power generation facility.
2012
Project Title: Goleta Beach Managed Retreat
Location: Santa Barbara County, Ca
Contractor: AMEC Environment & Infrastructure, Inc.
Descri tion: Provided photo simulations showing the appearance of proposed erosioncontrol engineering and the removal and/or relocation of public appurtenances. To support these improvements, Ken Doud also provided illustrations which showed the historical changes in the beach configuration due to erosion or accumulation of sand. 2009
Project Title: El Paradiseo Ranch luxury homes on the Gaviota Coast Location: Santa Barbara County, Ca
Contractor: AMEC Earth and Environmental
Descri tion: Provided an extensive series of photo simulations based on grading and architectural plans for three luxury homes on the Gaviota coast. Methodology and supporting documentation in compliance with strict California Coastal Zone guidelines. 2008
Project Title: Santa Barbara Ranch ("Naples") Project Peer Review Location: Santa Barbara County
Contractor: Environmental Defense Center (EDC),
Descri tion: Ken Doud was hired by the EDC to examine, analyse and provide expert testimony regarding the findings presented in the DEIR for this controversial project.
Consideration was given to CEQA, Coastal Commission, and County of Santa Barbara guidelines compliance, the consistency by which stated methodologies were applied within those frameworks, and the validity of data used to support evaluation criteria. A report i. indicating non-compliance was prepared based on these findings and presented to the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors
City of Santa Barbara
SINGLE FAMILY DESIGN BOARD
MINUTES
OCTOBER 10, 2022
3:00 P.M.
David Gebhard Public Meeting Room
630 Garden Street
SantaBarbaraCA.gov
BOARD MEMBERS:
Brian Miller, Chair
Leslie Colasse, Vice Chair
Lauralee Anderson
Ohan Arakelian
Katie Klein
CITY COUNCIL LIAISON:
Meagan Harmon
PLANNING COMMISSION LIAISON:
Sheila Lodge
STAFF:
Ellen Kokinda, Design Review Supervisor
Holly Garcin, Assistant Planner
Kathleen Goo, Commission Secretary
(5:25PM) NEW ITEM: CONCEPT REVIEW
5. 3208 LAUREL CANYON ROAD
Assessor's Parcel Number: 055-180-002
Zone: RS-7.5
Application Number: PLN2022-00269
Owner: John & Kassie Goodman
Applicant: Joe Steuer, Studio 4 Design Group
(Proposal for additions to an existing one-story 1,288 square foot single-unit residence, comprised of a 207 square foot first floor addition and a 603 square foot second story addition. The project also includes an interior remodel, a new 200 square foot carport, a 247 square foot garage, a 345 square foot covered patio, a 134 square foot second story deck, removal of the existing concrete driveway and replacement with permeable paver system, and associate mechanical, electrical, and plumbing upgrades. The proposed total of 2,545 square foot on a 6,970 square foot lot is approximately 87% of the maximum required floor-to-lot area ratio (FAR).)
No final appealable decision will take place at this hearing. Neighborhood Preservation Findings will be required when the project is reviewed for Project Design Approval.
Actual time: 6:18 p.m.
Present: Joe Steuer, Applicant
Staff comments: Ms. Garcin requested the Board to include in their motion whether they will waive the requirement for supplemental floor-to-lot area ratio (FAR) materials.
Public comment opened at 6:27 p.m., and as no one wished to speak, it closed.
Straw vote: How many Board Members can support waiving the requirement for supplemental floorto-lot area ratio (FAR) materials? 4/0 Passed.
ATTACHMENT 2
Single Family Design Board Minutes October 10, 2022 Page 2 of 2 Motion: Continue indefinitely to Full Board with comments:
1. Provide additional neighborhood context and photos of the immediate neighborhood.
2. Consider using more traditional architectural details.
3. Restudy the proposed two-story elements to be more connected and consistent or consider a different location.
4. Provide a color and materials board.
5. Provide 3D renderings at minimum from the street view at the corner of the parcel and another of the corner at the rear of the property.
6. Provide a landscape plan.
7. The Board agreed to waive the requirement for the applicant to provide the supplemental floor-to-lot area ratio (FAR) materials.
Action: Arakelian/Colasse, 4/0/0. (Klein absent.) Motion carried.
City of Santa Barbara
SINGLE FAMILY DESIGN BOARD
MINUTES
TUESDAY, JANUARY 17, 2023
3:00 P.M.
David Gebhard Public Meeting Room
630 Garden Street
SantaBarbaraCA.gov
BOARD MEMBERS:
Leslie Colasse, Chair
Ohan Arakelian, Vice Chair
Lauralee Anderson
Katie Klein
Katie Gerpheide
CITY COUNCIL LIAISON:
Meagan Harmon
PLANNING COMMISSION LIAISON:
Sheila Lodge
STAFF:
Ellen Kokinda, Design Review Supervisor
Holly Garcin, Assistant Planner
Kathleen Goo, Commission Secretary
(3:15PM) CONTINUED ITEM: PROJECT DESIGN APPROVAL
1. 3208 LAUREL CANYON ROAD
Assessor's Parcel Number: 055-180-002
Zone: RS-7.5
Application Number: PLN2022-00269
Owner: John & Kassie Goodman
Architect/Applicant: Joe Steuer
(Proposal for additions to an existing one-story 1,288 square foot single-unit residence, comprised of 214 square feet first floor addition and a new 784 square foot second floor addition. The project also includes an interior remodel, a new 200 square foot carport, a 345 square foot covered patio, a 106 square foot second story deck, removal of the existing concrete driveway and replacement with permeable paver system, and associate mechanical, electrical, and plumbing upgrades. The proposed total of 2,727 square feet on a 6,970 square foot lot is approximately 93% of the maximum required floor-to-lot area ratio (FAR).)
Project Design Approval is requested. Neighborhood Preservation Findings are required.
Project was last reviewed on October 10, 2022.
Actual time: 3:21 p.m.
Present: Joe Steuer, Applicants
Public comment opened at 3:33 p.m., and as no one wished to speak, it closed.
Written correspondence from Anita Williamson was acknowledged.
Single Family Design Board Minutes Tuesday, January 17, 2023 DRAFT Page 2 of 2 Board Member Gerpheide confirmed for the Board and staff that she reviewed all previous documentation and architectural plans prior to review of this item.
Motion: Continue date-certain of January 30, 2023 to Full Board with comments:
1. Provide a FAR study of the 10 immediate neighboring parcels, consisting of at least 3 adjacent residences on either side of the proposed project, and 7 residences located across the street from the proposed project.
2. Restudy and consider minimizing the tower element or bringing this under the roof line of the second story.
3. Provide a tree plan identifying sizes of existing and proposed trees.
4. Provide additional exterior details to define the architectural style.
Action: Anderson/Klein, 5/0/0. Motion carried.
City of Santa Barbara
SINGLE FAMILY DESIGN BOARD
MINUTES
FEBRUARY 13, 2023
3:00 P.M.
David Gebhard Public Meeting Room
630 Garden Street
SantaBarbaraCA.gov
BOARD MEMBERS:
Leslie Colasse, Chair
Ohan Arakelian, Vice Chair
Lauralee Anderson
Katie Gerpheide
Katie Klein
CITY COUNCIL LIAISON:
Meagan Harmon
PLANNING COMMISSION LIAISON:
Sheila Lodge
STAFF:
Ellen Kokinda, Design Review Supervisor
Holly Garcin, Assistant Planner
Kathleen Goo, Commission Secretary
CALL TO ORDER
The Full Board meeting was called to order at 3:01 p.m. by Chair Colasse.
ATTENDANCE
Members present: Colasse, Arakelian, Klein, Anderson, and Gerpheide Members absent: None
Staff present: Kokinda (until 3:38 p.m.), Garcin, and Goo (4:25PM) CONTINED ITEM: PROJECT DESIGN APPROVAL
3. 3208 LAUREL CANYON ROAD
Assessor's Parcel Number: 055-180-002
Zone: RS-7.5
Application Number: PLN2022-00269
Owner: John & Kassie Goodman
Applicant/Architect: Joe Steuer, Studio 4 Design Group
(Proposal for additions to an existing one-story 1,288 square foot single-unit residence, comprised of 214 square feet first floor addition and a new 784 square foot second floor addition. The project also includes an interior remodel, a new 200 square foot carport, a 345 square foot covered patio, a 106 square foot second story deck, removal of the existing concrete driveway and replacement with permeable paver system, and associate mechanical, electrical, and plumbing upgrades. The proposed total of 2,727 square feet on a 6,970 square foot lot is approximately 93% of the maximum required floor-to-lot area ratio (FAR).)
Single Family Design Board Minutes February 13, 2023 DRAFT Page 2 of 2 Project Design Approval is requested. Neighborhood Preservation Findings are required.
Project was last reviewed on January 17, 2023.
Actual time: 4:26 p.m.
Present: Joe Steuer, Applicant, Studio 4 Design Group; and John Goodman, Owner Staff comments: Ms. Garcin stated that the proposed project has been deemed complete, and that due to project streamlining requirements, the Board would need to make a decision on the proposed project by the February 27, 2023, deadline.
Public comment opened at 4:41 p.m., and as no one wished to speak, it closed.
The following individuals spoke:
1. Marc Chytilo for Anita Williamson
2. Eric Wechsler (via Zoom)
Written correspondence from Eric Wechsler, Joe Steuer for Owners John & Kassie Goodman, John & Chiyoko Oshiro, David & Elizabeth Chase, Marc Chytilo for Anita Williamson, Cathy Peterson, Dan & Krista Rhodes, Tyler Boeddeker, Anita Williamson, and John & Kassie Goodman (Owners) were acknowledged.
Public comment closed at 4:53 p.m.
Straw vote: How many Board Members feel that the Board has enough information to support the FAR or an approval at this time? 0/5 Failed.
Straw vote: At this time, how many Board Members feel that the proposed tower is an acceptable element? 3/2 Passed; although the tower element and related plate height should be reduced.
Straw vote: Despite provided additional information, does the proposed project need a broader FAR study? 0/5 Failed.
Straw vote: Board Member Arkelian requested a FAR reduction below 90% (at 90% or below) would be a more acceptable FAR. 5/0 Passed.
Motion: Continue to the Full Board for date-certain of February 27, 2023, with comments:
1. Reduce the FAR to 90% or less as a particular in consideration for the easterly and westerly adjacent neighbors.
2. Reduce the height of the tower element.
3. Use neutral or earth color at the perimeter fencing that is lighter in tone than the building’s trim color.
4. Reduce the plate height at the easterly second floor to the lowest height possible, roughly 8-feet at the rear.
5. Identify and clarify the proposed plantings on the westerly property line that are providing screening for the small, less than 50 square foot deck on the second floor.
Action: Arakelian/Colasse, 5/0/0. Motion carried.
City of Santa Barbara
SINGLE FAMILY DESIGN BOARD
MINUTES
FEBRUARY 27, 2023
3:00 P.M.
David Gebhard Public Meeting Room
630 Garden Street
SantaBarbaraCA.gov
BOARD MEMBERS:
Leslie Colasse, Chair
Ohan Arakelian, Vice Chair
Lauralee Anderson
Katie Gerpheide
Katie Klein
CITY COUNCIL LIAISON:
Meagan Harmon
PLANNING COMMISSION LIAISON:
Sheila Lodge
STAFF:
Ellen Kokinda, Design Review Supervisor
Holly Garcin, Assistant Planner
Kathleen Goo, Commission Secretary
(3:40PM) CONTINUED ITEM: PROJECT DESIGN APPROVAL
2. 3208 LAUREL CANYON ROAD
Assessor's Parcel Number: 055-180-002
Zone: RS-7.5
Application Number: PLN2022-00269
Owner: John & Kassie Goodman
Architect/Applicant: Joe Steuer, Studio 4 Design Group
(Proposal for additions to an existing one-story 1,288 square foot single-unit residence, comprised of 192 square foot first floor addition and a new 758 square foot second floor addition. The project also includes an interior remodel, a new 200 square foot carport, a 345 square foot covered patio, a 106 square foot second story deck, removal of the existing concrete driveway and replacement with permeable paver system, and associate mechanical, electrical, and plumbing upgrades. The proposed total of 2,679 square feet on a 6,970 square foot lot is approximately 92% of the maximum required floor-to-lot area ratio (FAR).)
Project Design Approval is requested. Neighborhood Preservation Findings are required.
Project was last reviewed on February 13, 2023.
Actual time: 3:38 p.m.
Present: Joe Steuer, Applicant, Studio 4 Design Group; and John Goodman, Owner Staff comments: Ms. Garcin stated that the current project description accurately reflects the revised drawings that will be shown today.
Public comment opened at 4:00 p.m.
Single Family Design Board Minutes February 27, 2023 Page 2 of 2 The following individuals spoke:
1. Chris Guillen
2. Ken Doud
3. Marc Chytilo
Written correspondence from Marc Chytilo, Law Offices Marc Chytilo for Anita Williamson, including 3 submittals, Caitlin K. Malone of Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP for Owners Kassie & John Goodman, Mari & Garrett Headley, Maureen & Roger Earls, Eva Louda & Andrew Curtis, Qing Xue and Thomas Sekula, Todd Buynak, Heather Reed & Matthew Morphy, Eric Wechsler, Dan & Krista Rhodes, Anita Williamson (letter & visual analysis), Cathy Peterson, and Tyler Boeddeker were acknowledged.
Public comment closed at 4:08 p.m.
Motion: Project Design Approval and continue indefinitely to Consent with findings and comments:
1. The Neighborhood Preservation Ordinance criteria have been met as stated in Subsection 22.69.050 of the City of Santa Barbara Municipal Code:
a. The proposed development is consistent with the scenic character of the City and will enhance the appearance of the neighborhood. The applicant has provided multiple studies and images of the FAR, materials, and heights of the neighborhood. The proposed FAR is supportable based upon the Board’s review of neighborhood FAR’s and the fact that approximately 200 square feet of the FAR square footage is a product of an unenclosed carport.
b. The proposed development is compatible with the neighborhood, and its size, bulk, and scale is appropriate to the site and neighborhood. The applicant has adjusted the heights a few times, and most recently has decreased the height of the tower. c. The proposed buildings and structures are designed with quality architectural materials and details. The proposed materials and colors maintain the natural appearance of the ridgeline or hillside.
d. Removal of healthy, non-invasive trees is not proposed for this application and additional trees of a significant size are being added for privacy. e. The public health, safety, and welfare are appropriately protected and preserved. f. The project generally complies with the Good Neighbor Guidelines regarding privacy, landscaping, noise, and lighting. The applicant has made changes to the windows, relocated rooms, and added trees of a significant size for privacy. g. No public views are impacted by the project.
2. The proposed color of the fencing shall be provided in a material board and shall be an earth-tone neutral color, like a light tan.
3. The westerly deck has been deemed supportable due to its diminutive size.
4. The mature olive trees proposed shall be a minimum of 20 feet in height from top of canopy to finish grade.
Action: Klein/Colasse, 4/1/0. (Anderson opposed.) Motion carried.
Individual comments: Board Member Anderson stated that she is opposed to the motion because she feels that the project is too large for adjacent neighbors. She would like to see a diagram of square footage that shows that the carport is included.
The ten-day appeal period was announced.
ATTACHMENT 3
3/2/23, 2:09 PM 22.69.050 Neighborhood Preservation, Grading and Vegetation Removal Ordinance Findings. https://library.qcode.us/lib/santa_barbara_ca/pub/municipal_code/item/title_22-chapter_22_69-22_69_050 1/2 Santa Barbara, California Municipal Code
TITLE 22 ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY AND CONSTRUCTION
Chapter 22.69 SINGLE FAMILY DESIGN BOARD
22.69.050 Neighborhood Preservation, Grading and Vegetation Removal Ordinance Findings.
If a project is referred to the Single Family Design Board for review pursuant to Section 22.69.020 and the Single Family Design Board Guidelines, the Single Family Design Board shall make the findings specified below prior to approving the project.
A. NEIGHBORHOOD PRESERVATION FINDINGS. Prior to approval of any project, the Single Family Design Board shall make each of the following findings:
1. Consistency and Appearance. The proposed development is consistent with the scenic character of the City and will enhance the appearance of the neighborhood.
2. Compatibility. The proposed development is compatible with the neighborhood, and its size, bulk, and scale are appropriate to the site and neighborhood.
3. Quality Architecture and Materials. The proposed buildings and structures are designed with quality architectural details. The proposed materials and colors maintain the natural appearance of the ridgeline or hillside.
4. Trees. The proposed project does not include the removal of or significantly impact any designated Specimen Tree, Historic Tree or Landmark Tree. The proposed project, to the maximum extent feasible, preserves and protects healthy, non-invasive trees with a trunk diameter of four inches or more measured four feet above natural grade. If the project includes the removal of any healthy, non-invasive tree with a diameter of four inches or more measured four feet above natural grade, the project includes a plan to mitigate the impact of such removal by planting replacement trees in accordance with applicable tree replacement ratios.
5. Health, Safety, and Welfare. The public health, safety, and welfare are appropriately protected and preserved.
6. Good Neighbor Guidelines. The project generally complies with the Good Neighbor Guidelines regarding privacy, landscaping, noise and lighting.
7. Public Views. The development, including proposed structures and grading, preserves significant public scenic views of and from the hillside.
ATTACHMENT 4
3/2/23, 2:09 PM 22.69.050 Neighborhood Preservation, Grading and Vegetation Removal Ordinance Findings. https://library.qcode.us/lib/santa_barbara_ca/pub/municipal_code/item/title_22-chapter_22_69-22_69_050 2/2 B. HILLSIDE DESIGN DISTRICT AND SLOPED LOT FINDINGS. In addition to the findings specified in subsection A above, prior to approval of any project on a lot within the Hillside Design District described in Section 22.68.060 or on a lot or a building site that has an average slope of 15% or more (as calculated pursuant to Section 28.15.080 or 30.15.030 of this code), the Single Family Design Board shall make each of the following findings:
1. Natural Topography Protection. The development, including the proposed structures and grading, is appropriate to the site, is designed to avoid visible scarring, and does not significantly modify the natural topography of the site or the natural appearance of any ridgeline or hillside.
2. Building Scale. The development maintains a scale and form that blends with the hillside by minimizing the visual appearance of structures and the overall height of structures.
C. GRADING FINDINGS. In addition to any other applicable findings specified in this section, prior to approval of any project that requires design review under Section 22.69.030 of this chapter, the Single Family Design Board shall make each of the following findings:
1. The proposed grading will not significantly increase siltation in or decrease the water quality of streams, drainages or water storage facilities to which the property drains; and
2. The proposed grading will not cause a substantial loss of southern oak woodland habitat.
D. VEGETATION REMOVAL FINDINGS. In addition to any other applicable findings specified in this section, prior to approving a vegetation removal permit that requires design review under Section
22.69.030 of this chapter, the Single Family Design Board shall make each of the following findings:
1. The proposed vegetation removal will not significantly increase siltation in or decrease the water quality of streams, drainages or water storage facilities to which the property drains; and
2. The proposed vegetation removal will not cause a substantial loss of southern oak woodland habitat; and
3. The proposed vegetation removal will comply with all applicable provisions of Chapter 22.10, “Vegetation Removal,” of this code. (Ord. 5798, 2017; Ord. 5444, 2008; Ord. 5416, 2007) Contact:
City Clerk: 805-564-5309
Published by Quality Code Publishing, Seattle, WA. By using this site, you agree to the terms of use.
ATTACHMENT 5
ATTACHMENT 6
LAW OFFICE OF MARC CHYTILO
————————————————————————
ENVIRONMENTAL LAW
LAW OFFICE OF MARC CHYTILO
P.O. Box 92233 • Santa Barbara, California 93190
Phone: (805) 682-0585
Handout to City Council
May 30, 2023
Summary: This appeal seeks your review of the appropriate application of the City’s Single Family Residence Design Guidelines (“SFRD Guidelines”) to a second story addition proposed at 3208 Laurel Canyon Road (“Project”) in a sloped area adjacent to the City’s Hillside District. o The building’s inconsistency with the Second Story Design Concepts resulted in a second story that is not set back from the sides, and as a result, looms over and overwhelms the next door homes. The SFRD Guidelines provide clear, unequivocal guidance that second stories should be set back to avoid these impacts, preserve solar access and achieve compatibility with the neighborhood.
o Further, the Project included a covered patio in the center of the first floor. The square footage of the covered patio was improperly excluded from the Floor to Area calculations, contrary to the applicable definitions in the zoning ordinance and despite plans showing doors enclosing the patio. Including this footage in the Floor to Area (“FAR”) calculations causes the building to exceed the maximum allowable FAR ratio. Buildings that exceed the maximum FAR ratio are prohibited by the zoning ordinance and require a Modification and the approval of five members of the Single Family Design Board (“SFDB”).
Even if the Project were approved, regardless of SFDB or Council Approval, the zoning ordinance prohibits building permit issuance. The SFDB Minutes, findings and deliberations did not address this critical issue and are thus legally flawed. o Finally, the Project includes two second floor decks that improperly violate the privacy of surrounding homes by creating direct views into the bedrooms and backyards of surrounding homes. The Good Neighbor Guidelines direct that second floor decks should not violate neighbors’ privacy and should be located on the front side of homes.
The City is currently preparing amendments to have SFDB appeals heard by the Planning Commission in the future. This appeal presents facts that elucidate several clear-cut issues upon which the Council can provide guidance to the SFDB and Planning Commission, and encourage applicants and their architects to conform more closely to the Single Family Residence Design Guidelines and comply with the Good Neighbor Guidelines in developing these projects with
APPELLANT DOCUMENTS
3208 Laurel Canyon Road
May 30, 2023
surrounding neighbors. This in turn will lead to higher quality projects, enhanced neighborhood compatibility and fewer appeals.
The Appellant can support a new second story if designed in compliance with the SFRD and Good Neighbor Guidelines. A modified design is included in these materials, suitable for Council’s conceptual approval and referral to SFDB for design review and appropriate action. 3208 Laurel Canyon Road
May 30, 2023
1. The SFRD Guidelines Require that Second Stories Be Set Back from Side Property Lines When the Second Story Will Impact Neighboring Residences As proposed, the Project has a continuous, twenty-two foot tall flat, blank wall on the side facing Ms.
Williamson’s home to the east, with no setback of the second story. The Single Family Residence Design Guidelines (“SFRD Guidelines”)(Applicable sections attached as Appendix A) identify three separate reasons why it is important for second story elements to be located towards the center of the building, and to step down building height towards the side property boundaries.
A. Solar Design Requires Second Story Additions be in the Center of a Structure The SFRD Guidelines contain guidance to avoid excessive impacts to neighbors. Solar Design concepts direct that taller structures should have the tallest elements in the center of the parcel, with the height of buildings reduced closer to the property lines.
Figure 1. Good Solar Design, SFRD Guidelines, p. 8-SP
B. Volume, Bulk and Massing: SFRD Guidelines Require Stepbacks and Setbacks of the Second Story
The SFRD Guidelines direct “Design Structures to be compatible with neighboring houses in terms of volume, size, massing, scale and bulk.” 17-C
Bulk is defined in the SFRD Guidelines as the “qualitative perception of a structure’s volumes (p.17- C).” Bulk concerns “the design of its architectural composition, shape and scale, including stepbacks and setbacks.” Id.
3208 Laurel Canyon Road
May 30, 2023
3208 Laurel Canyon Road
May 30, 2023
The Volume, Bulk and Scale sections of the SFRD Guidelines tie together several design concepts that the Project violates – second story decks, the covered patio in the middle of the first floor that adds bulk to the entire Project, the absence of second story setbacks, and the canyon effect of tall, uniform vertical walls without setbacks or stepbacks, all combining to fail the compatibility test.
C. SFRD Guidelines Second Story Design Concepts Require that the Second Story be Set Back from Side Property Lines
The SFRD Guidelines include extensive treatment of second story additions, as they have a greater potential to impact neighboring buildings. See 39-44-TS. These Guidelines establish a series of common sense actions to address the most obvious and problematic conflicts that can arise when second story elements are added adjacent to single story homes – akin to the Golden Rules. 3208 Laurel Canyon Road
May 30, 2023
These concepts are presented in illustrative form:
3208 Laurel Canyon Road
May 30, 2023
Regrettably, the proposed building at 3208 has continuous vertical walls from the ground to the eves on the east side, with no stepback whatsoever:
3208 Laurel Canyon Road
May 30, 2023
D. Modified Designs Solve This Problem
A modified version of the house at 3208 could have the following profile, preserving both solar access, reduce the Mass and Bulk and avoid looming over and overcrowding the house to the east. 3208 Laurel Canyon Road
May 30, 2023
3208 Laurel Canyon Road
May 30, 2023
This modified design meets the SFRD and Good Neighbor Guidelines and preserves all the Applicant’s desired functionality through an adjustment of the floor plan. As approved, the proposed design does not conform to the direction of the SFRD Guidelines, and thus is incompatible with the neighboring houses. The SFDB findings lack evidence to support a finding of compatibility while there is overwhelming evidence of incompatibility.
Setting back the second story from the easterly property line achieves the Guidelines’ direction to preserve solar access, avoid overcrowding neighbors, and reducing the bulk of the second story.
These modified plans could be approved by City Council in concept, and the Project returned to the SFDB for a revised preliminary design approval consistent with the conceptual approval.
2. The Covered Patio Adds Excessive Bulk and Mass to the Overall Building The Project includes a 345 square foot “covered patio”, open to the south. The Volume Bulk Massing and Scale elements of the Guidelines provide specific warnings and treatments for covered porches. See 20-C.
3208 Laurel Canyon Road
May 30, 2023
The covered patio contributes significantly to the building’s mass and bulk. By eliminating or 3208 Laurel Canyon Road
May 30, 2023
reducing the covered patio, the rest of the building shrinks and additional space is available to accommodate the interior elements, reducing the bulk and mass of the building.
Surprisingly, the Project plans include doors in the north and east wall of the covered patio, resulting in its nearly complete enclosure. Future owners will be tempted to add additional windows and doors to the covered patio to add interior space, evading the City’s rules. The SFRD Guidelines establish that these factors create the need for “Careful consideration” because the Project exceeds both triggers for heightened scrutiny: 1) more than 250 square feet (Project = 345 square feet) and 2) more than 10% of the total net square footage of the residential structure (Project = 15.4%).
There is no evidence that the SFDB gave any such “Careful consideration” to the excessive size of the covered patio, or took steps to reduce its size, other than one request to reduce the plate height.
Actions could have been to direct a reduction in size (and reduce the overall mass and bulk of the building), direct elimination of the central column (that could facilitate future enclosure), or elimination of the covered patio entirely by moving the proposed master bedroom over the existing first floor’s footprint.
3. Backyard Decks Invade the Privacy of the Five Surrounding Homes The third problematic Project components are the two bedroom decks facing the backyard. Backyard decks create privacy issues for neighboring homes. In this case, the decks provide bird’s eye views into the backyards of all of the five homes that are adjacent to the parcel, and allows direct views into the interior of Ms. Williamson’s bedroom and yard.
Figure 2. Projected 3D modeling of Applicant’s proposed design in comparison to neighboring homes. Videoscapes Visibility Analysis, p. 7.
3208 Laurel Canyon Road
May 30, 2023
The SFRD Guidelines and the Good Neighbor Guidelines address second story decks in two places. The SFRD Guidelines consider whether second story decks and their guardrails contribute to the bulk or scale of the Project, while the Good Neighbor Guidelines articulate the Privacy impacts that should be avoided in designing a second story deck:
3208 Laurel Canyon Road
May 30, 2023
Many of the neighborhood’s objections to the Project, including Appellant’s, would have been avoided if the Applicant had sought to meet with neighbors BEFORE beginning the City application process, as envisioned by the Good Neighbor Guidelines. Instead, the Applicant waited until AFTER the application was filed in July 2022 and reviewed by staff. The Applicant waited until AFTER the Project was submitted for SFDB review, and only ON THE DAY THAT THE SFDB HEARING WAS PUBLICLY NOTICED did they email Laurel Canyon Road neighbors, disclosing for the FIRST TIME they intended to pursue a second story remodel. Had the Good Neighbor Guidelines been faithfully observed and the neighbors’ concerns considered and addressed, there likely would be no neighborhood objection to the Project as these issues would have been addressed in the design stage. The neighborhood desires a well-designed and respectful second story that considers and incorporates neighborhood and neighbors’ interests. Regrettably, the Project defies the neighborhood’s interests and concerns.
The Good Neighbor Guidelines use a “Raytrace” tool to assess the privacy impacts of views from proposed decks and balconies (See 74-N). Since the SFDB did not require the Applicant to install story poles or prepare visual simulations, the Appellant commissioned a qualified expert, Ken Doud of Videoscapes, to prepare a Raytrace model to determine if the Project’s decks would provide views into neighboring back yards, patios or private inside locations. This study revealed that the Project’s two second floor decks will provide direct views into each of the adjoining five homes’ backyards, and Appellant’s bedroom and patio.
The first Raytrace image is the view from the southeastern, master bedroom deck, next to Ms.
Williamson’s house. All red coloring represents a direct, line of sight view from eye-level of a person standing on the deck.
Figure 3. Raytraced simulation of views into neighboring homes and yards from the southeastern deck. Videoscapes Visibility Analysis, p.5.
3208 Laurel Canyon Road
May 30, 2023
The second image shows the line of sight view that a person standing on the master bedroom deck will have looking into Ms. Williamson’s bedroom, patio and yard:
Figure 4. Simulated view and angle/field of view to the east from the southeastern deck.
Videoscapes Visibility Analysis, p.4.
3208 Laurel Canyon Road
May 30, 2023
Finally, the third Raytrace image shows the views from the other, southwesterly guest bedroom deck into the backyards and houses of neighbors on both Laurel Canyon Road and Lucinda Lane.
The complete Videoscapes Visibility Analysis was submitted to the SFDB and is submitted with the Appeal Appendices. These visual aids demonstrate that the two second floor decks will enable direct views into the interiors of the homes and yards at 3210 (Appellant) and 3202 Laurel Canyon Road, as well as direct views into the backyards of the three adjacent homes at 3185, 3193 and 3179 Lucinda Lane.
The Good Neighbor Guidelines suggest that Applicants meet with their neighbors before developing and submitting their designs, but the Applicant waited until after their plans were completed and filed with the City. Subsequently, the Applicant did offer to plant 2-3 trees to screen views from one deck into the 3202 backyard, but the effectiveness of this measure was questioned by a member of the SFDB and the affected neighbors. Vegetative screening is not permanent, or enforceable – future owners can cut trees and shrubs installed to mitigate visual impacts without recourse. Good Neighbor Guideline 36.2.2 requires screening of second story decks from neighboring properties through the use of “architectural screening elements such as enclosing walls, trellises or awnings.” Figure 5. Simulated view from the southwest deck to neighboring homes and yards.
Videoscapes Visibility Analysis, p.6.
3208 Laurel Canyon Road
May 30, 2023
Plantings can be used as a secondary measure, but the Guidelines propose structural and design elements to screen and protect neighbors’ privacy from second story decks.
The Neighborhood Preservation Ordinance requires a finding that the Project “generally complies with the applicable privacy, landscaping, noise and lighting Good Neighbor Guidelines.” There is no evidence that the Project complies with the applicable Good Neighbor Guidelines privacy guidelines because they did not consider: 1) “a suitable alternative design more sensitive to neighboring properties” (67-N); 2) relocating second story decks to front areas, instead of backyard areas adjacent to a neighbor (Good Neighbor Guidelines 36.2); 3) screening second story decks from neighboring properties through “architectural screening elements” (Good Neighbor Guidelines 36.2.2); or 4) locating the decks to avoid direct sight lines from the decks to neighbors’ windows, open yards and patios (Good Neighbor Guidelines 36.2.3). Consequently, the Council cannot find Project compatibility with the applicable Good Neighbor Guidelines concerning privacy.
4. Conclusion - Guidelines Incompatibility and Findings For the reasons stated above, the second story elements of the building proposed at 3208 Laurel Canyon Road fails to conform to the spirit or letter of the Single Family Residence Design Guidelines, and the findings of Compatibility may not be found based on the evidence in the record.
5. The Project Exceeds the Maximum FAR and Cannot be Approved The City erred in excluding the 345 square foot covered patio from the Project’s floor area, and under the SBMC, a building permit may not be issued for this Project.
A. Applicable Authority Requires The Covered Patio Be Included as Floor Area and Counted in FAR
The SBMC defines carefully the area that must be counted in the FAR. SBMC § 30.300.060 Definitions provide that floor area is defined as “[t]he total horizontal enclosed area of all the floors below the roof and within the exterior walls of a building or enclosed structure. The floor area of an unenclosed building or structure includes all horizontal area below the roof line. See also Section
30.15.070, Measuring Floor Area.”
SBMC § 30.15.070 provides “[t]he net floor area of a structure is the sum, in square feet, of the horizontal areas of all floors of a structure or other enclosed structure, or portions thereof, measured from either the interior perimeter of the exterior walls, or below the roofline, or the centerline of interior walls, as described below. All references to floor area in this title are to net floor area, unless otherwise indicated. The following are included in and excluded from floor area except as otherwise provided in this title.
A. Included in Floor Area.
3208 Laurel Canyon Road
May 30, 2023
1. Enclosed Structures. Net floor area includes all space within a structure that is below the roof and within the interior perimeter of the exterior walls of any main or accessory structure.
2. Interior Spaces. Net floor area of interior spaces, such as rooms or separate tenant spaces, includes all space within the centerlines of demising walls separating such spaces or portions thereof.
4. Unenclosed Structures. The net floor area of a structure with no walls, or partial walls, such as a carport, includes all space below the roof line.
B. Excluded from Floor Area. The following areas are excluded from floor area:
3. Unenclosed roofed areas such as patio covers, porches, trellises, gazebos, shade structures, or other similar unenclosed structures not used for the shelter, housing, or enclosure of persons, animals, or property.” The covered patio has walls on three sides, and is located fully below the second story and is fully roofed. Under the SBMC sections 30.300.060 and 30.15.070, the covered patio is classified as an “unenclosed structure”, possessing partial walls and a continuous roof above it. It does not fit within any exclusion as it is not a patio cover, porch, trellis, gazebo or similar unenclosed structure. Under SBMC § 30.15.070.A.4. it must be included in the Floor Area.
B. Including the Covered Patio Area Increases Project FAR Above the Maximum FAR for the Parcel
The enclosed patio’s 345 square feet must be added to the building floor area. The Project as approved, without the covered patio, has a total floor area of 2,679 square feet. Adding the 345 square foot covered patio, the Project total floor area is 3,024 square feet. The total maximum FAR for this lot is 2,943 square feet.
Maximum FAR: 2,943 square feet
Project FAR: 3,024 square feet
When the area of the covered patio is added to the Project area as required by the City’s zoning ordinance, the total Project floor area exceeds the maximum FAR allowable on the parcel.
C. No Building Permit May Be Approved If The Maximum Allowable Floor Area is Exceeded
SBMC § 30.20.030, Development Standards, establishes unequivocally:
“No application for a Building Permit may be approved for a project in The RS Zone that will (1) result in an increase of the floor area on the lot . . . .if the following will occur:
a. The floor area will exceed the maximum allowable floor area for the lot.” 3208 Laurel Canyon Road
May 30, 2023
As such, regardless of Council action on the SFDB Appeal, the Project may not receive a building permit.
6. Council Cannot Make the Findings for Approval
In order to approve any project design approval, the SFDB must adopt minutes with findings, supported by evidence, defined by the Neighborhood Preservation Ordinance. SBMC 22.69.050. In reviewing this appeal, the Council is also required to make those findings itself. SBMC §
22.69.080.A. If a majority of the City Council finds they are unable to make the findings of project compatibility, it cannot uphold the project approval.
Appellant has submitted substantial evidence that the Project does NOT comply with the two sets of Guidelines, creating significant questions of compatibility. Appellant urges Council to recognize that there is no evidence in the record to support several key findings, and thus to uphold the appeal and deny the Project. Alternatively, Appellant has developed a modified Project design that meets the SFRD and the Good Neighbor Guidelines’ requirements that Council could approve conceptually and refer to the SFDB for preliminary design approval consistent with the conceptual approval.
7. Remedies
Council has several options it can take in upholding the basis of this appeal.
A. Denial of Project
Denial of the Project and upholding the appeal will send an important message to the SFDB, Planning Commission and the design community to pay closer attention to both the Single Family Residence Design and Good Neighbor Guidelines in project formulation, including the all-important step of discussing a proposed second story with affected neighbors early in the process. Second story remodels are not inherently bad, they simply trigger the need for collaboration with neighbors, more careful site and design planning, and careful review by design teams and reviewers.
B. Conceptual Approval of Modified Project
While denial of the approved Project on the basis of the appeal objections will trigger a more appropriate redesign of the Project, Appellant has prepared conceptual modified Project designs that include stepped back second story elements and elimination of the decks. The covered patio must 3208 Laurel Canyon Road
May 30, 2023
also be reduced or eliminated to meet maximum FAR limits. Council may give conceptual approval of these modified designs, and refer the Project to SFDB for additional review consistent with these modifications. Story poles should be required in this subsequent review, to guide the design team, neighbors and reviewers.
8. Summary
Ms. Williamson does not oppose a second story at 3208 Laurel Canyon Road, but only asks that a project be approved that conforms to the Single Family Residence Design Guidelines and is developed with due consideration of the Good Neighbor Guidelines, as well as the City’s solar access ordinance. As proposed, the Project will loom over her home and those of her neighbors, unnecessarily blocking sunlight, crowding her home, and providing direct line of sight views into her home, patio and backyard. Ms. Williamson also raises this appeal in consideration of her other neighbors that will be unfairly impacted by the Project, including residents of Lucinda Lane that back up to the proposed project lot or are in its direct view.
A solution exists to allow the second story to proceed, but not loom over and overwhelm Ms.
Williamson’s or other neighbors’ homes, and help maintain the privacy of their homes and yards.
We urge Council to adopt this middle path, endorse the modified plans conceptually, and direct the project to SFDB for preliminary design review of this revised Project as modified. 3208 Laurel Canyon Road Appeal Appendices
Appendix:
A. Single Family Residence Design Guidelines Compendium, Including Those Sections of the Guidelines applicable to the project and appeal B. Good Neighbor Guidelines, in their entirety
C. Videoscapes Visual Analysis, February 24, 2023, for 3210 Laurel Canyon Road
1-D
CITY OF SANTA BARBARA SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE DESIGN GUIDELINES PROJECTS THAT REQUIRE DESIGN REVIEWFollowing is a list of the general types of single family home projects which can be subject to Design Review. To view the source of the Design Review “triggers”, see the Municipal Code Neighobrhood Preservation Ordinance (SBMC§22.69.020). For details regarding the Design Review process, see the SFDB Guidelines or HLC Rules and Procedures.SPECIAL DISTRICTS ❑ Located in the Mission Area Special Design District (within 1,000 ft. of EPV II) (§22.69.020.B.1)
❑ New development only in the Lower Riviera Survey Area – Bungalow District (§22.69.070.E). Existing development is reviewed on a case-bycase basis (§22.69.020.B.1 and §22.69.070) ❑ Located in the Hillside Design District AND the average slope of the lot or building site is 20% or greater; (§22.69.020.B.2) ❑ Located in the Hillside Design District and on any slope, the replacement of an existing roof covering with a roof covering of different materials or colors (excluding “like for like” re-roof) (§22.69.020.B.2)
BUILDING HEIGHT AND FLOOR AREA
❑ If the building is taller than one story or taller than 17’ in height (measured from natural or fi nished grade, whichever is lower). (§22.69.020.C.1, .2 &.3) Exceptions:
a. alteration on the fi rst fl oor below 17’ onlyb. proposed construction is one-story, under 17’ tall, and does not signifi cantly alter a second fl oor (see illustration examples available at the public Planning and Zoning Counter). c. Any combination of a. or b., above.
❑ Net fl oor area of all stories of all buildings on the site (including garages and carports) will exceed 4,000 sq. ft. (§22.69.020.C.4). ❑ Modifi cation to exceed a maximum fl oor area is required (§22.69.020.C.5)
PREVIOUS APPROVALS/CONSTRUCTION
❑ Design Review was previously required in the past two years (from Certifi cate of Occupancy); or if the cumulative scope of work from permits in the past two years will trigger review (§22.69.020.J)
WALLS AND BALCONIES
❑ Construct, alter, or add a deck or balcony on the second or higher fl oor (including roof decks) that will be greater than 3’ deep or 7’ wide (§22.69.020.C.6) ❑ Walls, fences, or gates 3.5’ or greater in height located in any portion of the front yard, excluding those along interior lot lines. (§22.69.020.C.8) ❑ Retaining walls anywhere on a site 6’ or greater in height (§22.69.020.C.7)
❑ Retaining walls located on a lot or building site with an average slope of 15% or greater; (§22.69.020.G.1)
❑ Retaining walls located on a lot adjacent to or on a lot that contains an ocean bluff; (§22.69.020.G.2)❑ Multiple retaining walls with a combined height of 6’, that are not separated by either a building or 10’ of horizontal distance (§22.69.020.G.3) OTHER
❑ Installation of a manufactured home, mobile home, or factory built home (§22.69.020.C.9)
❑ Relocation in whole or in part of a single family residential unit (§22.69.020.C.10)
❑ Subdivision grading plans – in single family zones only (§22.69.020.D)❑ Grading on a vacant lot in a single family zone (alone or in combination with other work). (§22.69.020.E)
❑ Grading outside the main building footprint is proposed of more than 50 cubic yards in the Hillside Design District or more than 250 cubic yards in other areas. (§22.69.020.C.11) ❑ Vegetation removal permit (§22.69.020.F)❑ Parking exception for two uncovered spaces is requested (SBMC
28.90.100.G.1.c)
A GUIDE TO THE DESIGN REVIEW PROCESS
2-D
Step 1: Applic ation
Submit Master Application & other required information
Step 5: Appe als
If an SFDB or HLC preliminary project decision is appealed based on inconsistencies with applicable City Guidelines or NPO findings - City Council hearing held.
Step 6: Building Permit
If approved, submit Master Application and final working drawings to Building and Safety.
Step 2: Staff Re view
• Completeness• Compliance with Zoning & other City requirements• Preliminary Environmental Review• Appropriate level of Design Review determined Step 3: Mailed Noticing (if required)
Step 4A: Cons ent C alendar Re view
1 - Consent Calendar Hearing2 - Environmental Determination Completed3 - Complete other Discretionary Review (if required)4 - Preliminary and/or Final Review5 - Decision Ratified by Full Board Step 4B: F ull Board Re view
1 - Conceptual Review2 - Environmental Determination Completed3 - Complete other Discretionary Review (if required)4 - Preliminary Review5 - In-progress Review (if necessary)6 - Final Review Step 2A:
Administrativ e Staff Re view
• A simple review process available for some minor projects• After final staff approval is granted and appeal period ends, the project proceeds to Step 6: Building Permit
CITY OF SANTA BARBARASINGLE FAMILY DESIGN BOARD (SFDB) AND HISTORIC LANDMARKS COMMISSION (HLC)
DESIGN REVIEW PROCESS FLOW CHART
3-D
CITY OF SANTA BARBARA SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE DESIGN GUIDELINES DESIGN REVIEW SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS SUMMARY(See Single Family Design Board (SFDB) Guidelines & Planning and Zoning Counter Design Review submittal requirements handouts for details. Go to 630 Garden Street for handouts, staff advice, submittals and fee payments.) Single Family Design Board & Historic Landmarks Commission Submittal Requirements Summary
CONCEPT REVIEW
RequiredSuggested
Master Application & Submittal FeePhotographs - of the existing building (if any), adjacent structures, composite panoramic view of the site, surrounding areas & neighborhood streetscape - mounted or folded to no larger than an 8.5” x 14” photo display board. If over 85% of max. FAR*, then also panoramic streetscape photos.Plans - fl oor, roof, etc. drawn to scale, three sets of folded plans, minimum size 18” x 24”, required at time of submittal & with each plan revision.Vicinity Map and Project Statistics Forms/or Equivalent - (Include on fi rst sheet). If over 85% of max. FAR*, then also street elevation outlines.Site Plan - drawn to scale showing the property boundaries, existing & proposed structures, building & area square footages, building height, areas to be demolished, parking, site topography, conceptual grading & retaining walls, & existing landscaping. Include footprints of adjacent structures.Exterior elevations - showing existing & proposed grading where applicable. .Story Pole Plan – if story poles are required for the project.Topographic Survey – professional survey for sites averaging 15% or more.Perspective Drawing, Model or Computer Simulation - if project proposal is over 85% of a maximum FAR*.Site Sections - showing the relationship of the proposed building & grading where applicable.Rough sketches are encouraged early in the process for initial design review to avoid pursuing incompatible proposals. However, more complete & thorough information is recommended to facilitate an effi cient project review.
PROJECT DESIGN APPROVAL
RequiredSuggested
Same as above with the following additions:Site Sections - showing the relationship of the proposed building & grading where applicable.Preliminary Landscape Plans - required for some single family projects, for example, where grading or new landscaped areas are proposed or for over 85% of max. FAR* projects. Proposed tree removal or planting and other proposed planting areas must be shown per SFDB Guidelines, Part 2: Landscape Design. At least 80% of landscaped areas must be allocated for water-wise plants. Paved areas must be shown and site statistics provided. Plans must include any street parkway strips.Perspective Drawing, Model or Computer Simulation - if project proposal is over 85% of a maximum FAR*.Color & Material Samples - to be mounted on a board no larger than 8.5” x 14” & detailed on all sets of plans.Exterior Details - windows, doors, eaves, railings, chimney caps, fl ashing, etc.
Materials submitted for Project Design Approval form the basis for working drawings & must be complete & accurate.
FINAL & CONSENT
Required Same as above with the following additions:
Color & Material Samples - to be mounted on a board no larger than 8.5” x 14” and detailed on all sets of plans.Cut Sheets - exterior light fi xtures and accessories or noise generating equipment dBA CNEL levels at property line, where applicable.Exterior Details - windows, doors, eaves, railings, chimney caps, fl ashing, etc.Final Landscape Plans - landscape construction documents including additional planting specifi cations, erosion control measures, Storm Water Management Plan components and irrigation plan. Consultant/Engineer Plans - electrical, mechanical, structural, & plumbing, where applicable. *See submittal requirements for over 85% of maximum FAR or over maximum FAR projects listed on page 4-D. See Planning & Zoning Counter handouts for most current and more detailed requirements.
A GUIDE TO THE DESIGN REVIEW PROCESS
4-D
ADDITIONAL SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTSProjects 85% or Less Than Maximum Square FootageThese projects are subject to standard application and processing requirements. Applicants are encouraged to design homes under 85% of the maximum square footage for their lot size whenever possible to help ensure neighborhood compatibility. (See pages 21-C - 25-C for more information).Projects Over 85% of a Maximum Square FootageThese projects are more likely to pose neighborhood compatibility issues and are generally discouraged. However, careful design and review can sometimes produce projects that are still compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. Due to the special nature of these larger, potentially incompatible projects, special additional processing requirements apply for lots under 15,000 square feet.* • 20 closest homes County Assessor’s report copy• Panoramic streetscape photo presentation• Story poles likely to be required• Street elevation showing building outline silhouettes• Landscape plans• Perspective drawing or model Applications for projects over 85% of a maximum square footage on lots under 15,000 square feet require a Planning Commission modifi cation request if any of the following apply:
• Average property or building site slope is greater than 30%; or
• Height is greater than 25’; or• In the Hillside Design District & site grading outside the main building footprint is greater than 500 cubic yards.
Projects Over a Maximum Square FootageProjects proposing square footage over the maximum specifi ed for a property are strongly discouraged in most cases. However, there may be some project sites with special physical features, which when combined with exceptional design, can accommodate an over maximum home compatible with the neighborhood. A Planning Commission modifi cation is required for over maximum square footage proposals. Also, a super majority (fi ve out of seven) of the SFDB members must vote in support of the project approval. The following “fi ndings” must be made for approval of projects proposing to exceed a maximum required square footage. • The subject lot exhibits a physical condition (such as the location, surroundings, topography, or the size of the lot re lative to the other lots in the neighborhood) that does not generally exist on the other lots in the neighborhood • The physical condition of the lot allows the project to be compatible with existing development within the neighborhood that complies with the net fl oor area standard Projects proposing over 100% of a required maximum square footage must submit the following items in addition to normal submittal requirements:
• 20 closest homes analysis of current available data * The SFDB may require some project proposals on properties over 15,000 sq. ft. to include this information if needed. 5-D
CITY OF SANTA BARBARA SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE DESIGN GUIDELINES NEIGHBORHOOD PRESERVATIONORDINANCE FINDINGSAll Neighborhood Preservation Ordinance (NPO) single family projects subject to review and approval by the Single Family Design Board or Historic Landmarks Commission must be consistent with the following set of fi ndings.
GENERAL REQUIRED FINDINGS(Apply to all NPO projects subject to Design Review.)
1. Consistency & Appearance: The proposed
development will be consistent with the scenic character of the City and will enhance the appearance of the neighborhood.
2. Compatibility: The proposed development will
be compatible with the neighborhood, and its
size, bulk and scale will be appropriate to the site and neighborhood.
3. Quality Architecture & Materials: The
development, including proposed structures and grading, is designed with quality architectural details and quality materials. Proposed materials and colors will maintain the natural appearance of the ridgeline or hillside.
4. Trees: The proposed project will not remove
or signi
fi cantly impact any designated Specimen,
Historic and Landmark trees. Also, the proposed project, to the maximum extent feasible, preserves and protects healthy, non-invasive mature trees with a minimum trunk diameter of four inches (4”) measured four feet (4’) above natural grade. The project includes a plan to mitigate the impact of the removal of any healthy, non-invasive mature tree with a diameter of four inches (4”) or more at four feet (4’) above natural grade in compliance with applicable tree replacement ratios.
5. Health, Safety and Welfare: The public health,
safety and welfare will be protected.
6. Good Neighbor Guidelines: The project
generally complies with applicable privacy, landscaping, noise, and lighting Good Neighbor Guidelines.
7. Public Views: The development, including
proposed structures and grading, will preserve any existing signi fi cant public scenic views of and
from the hillside.
• Panoramic streetscape photo presentation which
includes a simulation of the proposed project superimposed on the streetscape panoramic photographs • Full level of story poles• Street elevation showing building outline silhouettes, including window and door details
• Landscape plans• Model or three-dimensional computer graphic• A neighbor workshop is required prior to the fi rst
SFDB hearing
See page 21-C for information regarding legal non-conforming as to maximum fl oor area properties with a project proposal
of up to 100 additional square feet.SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS CONT.
Site Planning and Structure
Placement
7-SP
CITY OF SANTA BARBARA SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE DESIGN GUIDELINES
SITE PLANNING AND STRUCTURE
PLACEMENT
One key element that defi nes visual character of an individual dwelling and a neighborhood is how a dwelling is located or placed on a site. A single building out of context with its site or neighboring dwellings can appear disruptive. Site design should reinforce the local context of the natural and built environment. When planning a site, consider the setting, opportunities for solar design, ways to maximize permeability, and ways to minimize parking aesthetic impacts.1. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING & LANDSCAPINGConsider the environmental setting and appropriate landscaping in the site planning and structure placement process.
1.1 Integrate structures and site plan with the
environmental setting.
Structures are integrated with the setting when new
dwellings and additions look as if they belong on the site, have been constructed to blend with the natural environment and natural land forms of the site, and are complementary to adjacent neighborhood structures. Projects adjacent to creeks should follow applicable “special area” landscape design guidelines for creeks, water courses and wetlands listed in the SFDB. Native plant preservation is important on some sites. Additionally, consider potential impacts of new and remodeled structures in the vicinity of historic resources identifi ed by the City.
1.2 Comply with landscape standards, codes and
guidelines. Projects are required to comply with applicable city water wise standards and Storm Water Management Program components. Additionally, the SFDB Guidelines contain a chapter of Landscape Design Guidelines which all projects should comply with.
2. NEIGHBORHOOD CONTEXTIntegrate structures and site plan with the neighborhood. Respect, complement or improve upon existing neighborhood patterns, such as:
• Distance from the street (sometimes greater than
present minimum zoning regulations)
• Existing parking arrangement patterns• If possible, consider private use and view areas of immediate neighbors (See Good Neighbor Guidelines and Tips) Undeveloped site Sensitive site development to retain significant, special vegetation and natural features.
SITE PLANNING AND STRUCTURE PLACEMENT
8-SP
3. SOLAR DESIGNDesign to maximize options for passive and active solar heating and cooling.Solar access refers to the potential to receive adequate sunlight in order for certain areas of the property to enjoy the benefi t of sunlight. Access to sunlight is important for energy effi ciency and landscaping, as well as for homes that use solar energy for space heating and cooling, water heating, electricity, and/or day lighting.
Generally, solar access can be compromised by structures or vegetation that cast excessive shadows for an extensive period. Solar access is protected in Santa Barbara by a Solar Ordinance (see details in Supplemental section). Where possible, orient building volumes and second stories away from the north, west, and east property lines when feasible to allow for the solar access of neighboring properties.
The second-story addition is held towards the center of the property, allowing greater sunlight onto neighboring properties. The second-story addition is inappropriately placed casting shadows on neighboring properties.
Original first-floor dwelling. Second-story addition. Rear first-story addition.
Original first- floor dwelling. Second full-story addition. Rear first- and second- story addition. 9 AM 12 PM 3 PM
9 AM 12 PM 3 PM
*note: Shadow Height is not to scale.
North
Compatibility Guidelines
ComPatiBility guidelines summary
6. neigHBorHood
Design a project to be compatible with the immediate
neighborhood, and carefully consider the neighborhood
study area for a project. p. 15-C
7. volume, Bulk, massing, and sCale
Design structures to be compatible with neighboring houses in terms of volume, bulk, massing, and scale. p. 17-C
8. floor to lot area ratio (far)
Strive for a project which falls in the “less than 85% of maximum FAR” range for the project lot size. p. 21C
9. HeigHt
Design building heights to be compatible with the
neighborhood. p. 26-C
10. façade artiCulation
Use façade articulation to create appropriate scale and add visual interest. p. 27-C
11. arCHiteCtural style
Choose a style compatible with the surrounding
neighborhood and use architectural features to create a consistent architectural style. p. 28-C
12. oPenings
Use openings such as doors and windows in a manner
compatible with the neighborhood. p. 30-C
13. entries
Main entries should be visible from the street and contribute towards a friendly neighborhood experience. p. 31-C
14. roof design
Carefully plan roof forms on a home for a well-designed structure compatible with the neighborhood. p. 32-C
15. roof materials
Roofing material and color should be consistent with the building architectural style. Eave closures, a.k.a. bird stops, if any are proposed, shall be mortared with natural cement. p. 34-C
16. exterior materials and Colors
Exterior materials and colors should complement the style of the house and neighborhood, as well as blend with surrounding natural features when viewed from a distance. p. 35-C
17. fenCes, walls, and Hedges
Integrate fences, walls and hedges with structures and
setting. p. 36-C
18. Partial Basement design
Carefully design partial basements to not create a bulky appearance, or contribute to inappropriate apparent height. p. 37-C 17-C
CITY OF SANTA BARBARA SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE DESIGN GUIDELINES
7. VOLUME, BULK, MASSING AND SCALEDesign structures to be compatible with neighboring houses in terms of volume, size, massing, scale and bulk.QUANTITATIVE DEFINITIONSVolume: The quantitative three-dimensional measurement of a structure’s height, width and depth combined.Size: The quantitative two-dimensional measurement of a structure’s length and width combined (i.e. “square feet”).QUALITATIVE DEFINITIONSMassing: The qualitative arrangement of a structure’s bulk, including relative openness and solidity.Proportion: The quantitative relative sizes and dimensions of architectural elements and details, as they relate to each other and to the entire structure.Scale: The qualitative proportional relationship of a structure and its architectural elements and details to human beings. [Note: To compare scale to other structures, use the words “compatibility” and “neighborhood”.]Bulk: The qualitative visual perception of the composition and shape of a structure’s massing. Bulk is affected by variations in height, setbacks and stepbacks of upper stories.
VOLUME VS. BULKVolume is a structure’s quantitative height, width and depth measurement. Bulk, on the other hand, is the qualitative perception of a structure’s volumes. These measurements, when compared to a measurement of a lot and measurements in its neighborhood, can provide a guide to a structure’s appropriate size. Bulk, on the other hand, is the qualitative, readily visible composition and perceived shape of the structure’s volume, i.e. the design of its architectural composition, shape and scale, including stepbacks and setbacks. For example, imagine the nine squares in Figures A through C are actually three-dimensional cubes. The nine squares in Figure B appear bulkier than Figure A even though Figure A is wider. Figure B also appears bulkier than Figure C, even though Figure C is both higher and wider than Figure B. (See page 19-C for addtl. illustrations.) SCALE VS. PROPORTIONProportion describes how building parts relate to each other and to a whole structure, as measured by size and dimensions. Scale, on the other hand, is the relationship of a structure or its parts to a defi nite unit of measure. For most Santa Barbara Infi ll neighborhoods, the defi nite unit of measure is a human being’s height, i.e. “human scale.” A common problem with larger homes is that the architectural elements of a structure should be in proportion to the overall structure size. As a structure gets bigger, its elements such as doors, windows, archways, and towers may need to get bigger as well. As a result, human scale can be lost, leading to neighborhood incompatibility. Another point is that a human scale structure may still lack proportion between its elements. For example, even a small home may have windows or doors so different in size or shape relative to each other or to the home that they detract from the home’s appearance. (Continued on page 19-C)
COMPATIBILITY GUIDELINES AND TECHNIQUES
18-C
VOLUME: A QUANTITATIVE MEASUREMENTThe home above has significantly less measured volume than the home below.
BULK: A QUALITATIVE VISUAL COMPONENTAlthough these homes have very similar square footages, the picture below may appear “bulkier,” in part because of the volume’s massing. 19-C
CITY OF SANTA BARBARA SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE DESIGN GUIDELINES
7. VOLUME, BULK, MASSING AND SCALE CONTINUED.Visible front door entries, traditional porch features, decorative pedestrian gates, small and medium-sized windows, short fences, minimization of large “blank” architectural features (such as through the use of small garage doors or decorative garage doors) can help provide a sense of “human scale.”Example Architectural Elements that Can Affect a Home’s “Scale”:Windows: size, proportion, number, placementDoors: single or double, heightEntrances: monumental height over 10’ or human scaleGarages: number of bays, type of doorRoof Slopes: towers, windows, dormersRoof Styles: hip, gable, mansard, gambrel, fl at Roof Pitches: slope rise to run, e.g. 4:12Columns: 1 story, 2 story, appropriate to styleStairs: exterior stair quantity and widths Pedestal Treatment: raised house or entranceBlank Walls: major or minor part of structure faces SCALE
This home relates well to human scale in part because of the appropriately sized and proportioned garage door, chimney and windows, in addition to elements such as the trellis on the upper story deck and modest front porch.A home illustrating a “monumental scale,” usually inappropriate on small lots. In particular, the size and proportions of the entry stairs, columns, front door, porch, and the significant pedestal (raised house) reflect a monumental scale.
Door openings (areas containing the door, frame, side lights, fan windows, transom, and any recessed or significant feature associated with the door) designed for a human scale should not exceed a width of 8’ or a height of 12’.
COMPATIBILITY GUIDELINES AND TECHNIQUES
20-C
VOLUME, BULK, MASSING AND SCALE ISSUESIssues that the SFDB considers related to volume, mass, bulk, size and scale include the following:
• Compatibility: How compatible is the structure’s
volume, bulk, and scale with the volume, bulk, and
scale of the existing neighborhood homes and structures? • Floor to Lot Area Ratios: Is a structure’s size
appropriate for its lot size?
• Second Story Decks: Do wall elements, guardrails,
furniture, or outdoor fi replaces contribute to the bulk or scale of the project? • Covered Porches, Loggias, and Covered Decks:
Do the covered porches, loggias, and/or covered decks enhance the building’s design, appearance, and function? Do they contribute to excessive mass, scale and bulk? Careful consideration should be given to projects that propose greater than 250 square feet of these areas, or when they are greater than 10% of the total net square footage of the structure. Because they include roof structures these areas might easily be enclosed in the future, possibly without design review. Future enclosure of existing covered areas may contribute to unacceptable size, bulk, and scale, eliminate a desirable architectural feature, or exceed FAR limits. • Garage Door Design and Placement: Does the
garage design minimize an appearance of bulk? Is the scale of the garage appropriate in comparison to the portion of the house visible from the street? • Second-Story Setbacks: How does the secondstory volume affect the streetscape or neighboring backyards? How bulky does a structure appear from the front or the back of a house because of how the massing of a building is composed? • Canyon Effect: How close is the volume of a
proposed second-story structure to the volume of any adjacent property’s existing second-story volume? • Wall Size: How does a large expanse of wall
contribute to a structure’s appearance of bulk? How can a structure’s volume be articulated consistent with an architectural style? Do building wall heights allow proportional human scale window and door details? • Roof Size: How does a large expanse of roof contribute to a structure’s appearance of bulk? How can a structure’s massing be changed to avoid large expanses of roof? • Plate Height: Do building plate heights allow for
appropriately scaled wall, window and door details?
21-C
CITY OF SANTA BARBARA SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE DESIGN GUIDELINES
8. FLOOR TO LOT AREA RATIO (FAR)Strive for a project which falls in the “less than 85% of maximum FAR” range for the project lot size.FARs measure and limit a structure’s size based on lot size. FARs do not translate to an accurate measure of volume because plate heights and roof slopes for homes vary. However, they are a useful indication of a structure’s bulk relative to its site. Architectural features such as covered porches, loggias, and covered decks contribute to the mass and bulk of a building. While they are not included in the FAR, they are considered as part of the project’s mass and bulk. FARs provide general parameters of reasonable lot build-out according to lot size. FARs are often used to analyze a proposed project’s potential for neighborhood compatibility. Many communities have implemented FARs to better control size, bulk and scale of development. Ideally FARs can help prevent sudden dramatic incompatible neighborhood changes.
FAR =
Net Floor Area
of all Site Structures
Lot Area
FAR is defined as the net square footage of a structure (or structures) divided by the net lot area. Net lot area excludes public road easements and public road rights-of-way.
Applicants seeking SFDB or HLC approval are required to provide the proposed project’s fl oor to lot area ratio. Covered parking is included in the square footage calculations for FAR. For full details of what is included in FAR calculations, see the Project Statistics Form directions and square footage measurements table available at the Community Development Department website and offi ce.
Net Floor Area
++
Main House Garage or Carport Any accessory structures, e.g. cabana
COMPATIBILITY GUIDELINES AND TECHNIQUES
22-C
= .22 FAR
1300 sq.ft. House
6,000 sq.ft. lot
Illustration assumes:• 60’ x 100’ lot
Example AverageExisting Home
= .45 FAR
2700 sq.ft. House
6,000 sq.ft. lot
Illustration assumes:• 60’ x 100’ lot
Example of Maximum FAR
= .35 FAR
2083 sq.ft. House
6,000 sq.ft. lot
Illustration assumes:• 60’ x 100’ lot
Example 85% of Maximum FAR
23-C
CITY OF SANTA BARBARA SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE DESIGN GUIDELINES T able 2: E x ample F AR C alculations T able
Lot Size
4000 2200 1700 1870 0.55
5000 2450 1950 2083 0.49
6000 2700 2200 2295 0.45
7000 2950 2450 2508 0.42
7499 3075 2575 2614 0.41
7500 3075 2575 2614 0.41
8000 3200 2700 2720 0.40
9000 3450 2950 2933 0.38
10000 3750 3250 3188 0.38
11000 3875 3375 3294 0.35
12000 4000 3500 3400 0.33
13000 4125 3625 3506 0.32
14000 4250 3750 3613 0.30
14999 4375 3875 3719 0.29
15000 4375 3875 3719 0.29
20000 4690 3940 3987 0.23
1/2 acre 4713 3963 4006 0.22
3/4 acres 4855 4105 4127 0.15
1 acre 4996 4246 4247 0.11
1.5 acres 5279 4529 4488 0.08
2 acres 5563 4813 4728 0.06
2.5 acres 5846 5096 4969 0.05
3 acres 6129 5379 5210 0.05
3.5 acres 6412 5662 5450 0.04
4 acres 6695 5945 5691 0.04
4.5 acres 6978 6228 5932 0.04
5 acres 7261 6511 6172 0.03
5.5 acres 7545 6795 6413 0.03
6 acres 7828 7078 6654 0.03
Propos al
Maximum
Home Size
excluding
garage/carport
allowance **
100%
Ma ximum
Home Size
including
garage/c arport
85% of
Ma ximun
Home Size
including
garage/c arport
Maximum FAR
including
garage/carport
APPLICABILITYMaximum FARs as requirements apply to a home taller than one story and a basement on lots smaller than 15,000 square feet in size in single-family zones. The maximum requirements also apply to homes taller than 17’ from natural or fi nished grade, whichver is lower on lots smaller than 15,000 square feet in single-family zones. Other properties, such as those 15,000 square foot lots or larger, or properties in multi-family zones, the FARs are applied as guidelines, rather than requirements. The only way to exceed a required maximum FAR for most projects would be to request a “Planning Commission Modifi cation” (see page 21-C for exception). However, for any project, no matter the location or height, a review board can request a smaller size if it is necessary in order for an approval to be made, for example to ensure the NPO Findings on page 5-D or other fi ndings on page 6-D can be made.
T able 1: F ormula T able
1200 + (0.25 x lot size) 2500 + (0.125 x lot size) 4180 + (0.013 x lot size) 4430 + (0.013 x lot size) 4000 - 10000 sq. ft.
Max. Home Siz e (in sq. ft.)
incl. garage/c arport
2200
Lot Siz e Range
in Sq. F t
≤4000 sq. ft.
10000 - 14999 sq. ft.15000 - 19999 sq. ft.
≥ 20000 sq. ft.
*Where zone district allows, see Municipal Code 28.87.160.4 ≥ 20000 750*
Garage/C arport
Allowanc e
Lot Size Allowance
< 20000 500
> 20000 750*
*
REQUIREDGUIDELINES **Garage/carport allowance does not need to be used only for garage/carport space for maximum square footage calculations. Max. sq. ft. can be distributed anywhere if consistent with Zoning regulations. Ex.: two-car covered parking minimum space requirement is 400 sq. ft. and 100 sq. ft. of remaining “allowance” could be used in the home instead of in the garage/carport.
COMPATIBILITY GUIDELINES AND TECHNIQUES
24-C
To determine maximum allowed net square footage for a property, follow these steps:1. Find the lot size range that includes the project lot size on the Formula Table, Table 1, see page 20-C.
2. Complete the formula using the lot size.3. If you would like to check your work with some example FAR calculations, see Table 2 on page 20-C.Projects Under 85% of Maximum FARs Are EncouragedProject applications under 85% of the maximum FAR are generally easier to design, prepare, process and review because they are more likely to be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood than projects over 85% of the maximum FAR. Projects under 85% of the maximum FAR are generally subject to the simpler standard Design Review submittal requirements listed on page 3-D and described in Planning and Zoning Counter handouts. Design Review fees for projects under 85% of the maximum FAR are lower than fees for larger projects. Projects over 85% of the maximum FAR are more likely to pose neighborhood compatibility issues and are generally discouraged. However, careful design and review can sometimes produce projects that are still compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. Due to the special nature of these larger, potentially incompatible projects, additional submittal information is required for these projects, described briefl y on page 4-D and in detail in Planning and Zoning Counter handouts. Projects proposing square footage over the maximum FAR are strongly discouraged in most cases. However, there may be some project sites with special physical features, which when combined with exceptional design, can accommodate an over FAR maximum home compatible with the neighborhood. A Planning Commission modifi cation and additional submittal requirements, described breifl y on page 4-D and in detail in Planning and Zoning Counter handouts, are required for over maximum FAR proposals.Applicability of FARs as GuidelinesMaximum FARs are applied as guidelines rather than requirements on lots that are 15,000 square feet or larger, or located in multi family or non-residential zones. Site and zoning variables might contribute to less reliability in the use of the 20 closest FAR Study. Some situations may support higher FARs and projects that approach or exceed guideline FARs might not pose a problem and FAR compatibility may be less critical. Larger lots may allow more space between structures and in some cases may allow the project to be less visible to the public and to neighbors. In multi-family or non-residential zones where density of development is usually higher, single-family residential projects will likely have lower FARs than other types of development. These zones are likely to have more variety of development. Other situations may support lower FARs. When the buildable portion of a site is small in relationship to the lot size, an FAR lower than what would normally be indicated for the lot size may be more appropriate. On some large lots not all of the lot 25-C
CITY OF SANTA BARBARA SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE DESIGN GUIDELINES area may be developable due to steep slopes or creek or ocean bluff setbacks. These site constraints can push development on a site closer to the street, or closer to neighbors. In the Riviera there are examples where development on larger lots is clustered close together around cul-de-sacs or built close to the public streets. The con fi guration of the lot may reduce its
developable area, for example
fl ag lots. Corner lots or other
lots with multiple street frontages have increased area within the front setbacks and development on these lots may be more visible. In situations like these, compatibility with neighboring FARs may be more pertinent. As a general rule, where the development is closer to property boundaries or more visible to the public and to neighbors, the proposed FAR should be reduced. Properties Legal Non-Conforming as to a Required Maximum SizeSome “legal non-conforming as to FAR” properties can have a one-time addition of up to 100 square feet without a Planning Commission modi fi cation being required. Municipal
Code 28.87.030.D.1.c allows such additions to reasonably accommodate minor changes in fl oor plans such as bathroom
or closet additions to provide some
fl exibility for structures
legal non-conforming as to a required maximum
fl oor area
(FAR standards) without the need for a Planning Commission modi fi cation. Consult the Municipal Code and City Staff for more information.
20 Closest FAR StudyWhen a project proposes to exceed 85% of a maximum required FAR, the applicant must provide a study of the FARs of the 20 closest lots. Using a geographic information system, the 20 closest lots are selected for the project’s neighborhood. This information is a tool used by the review board to assist in determining the compatibility of a project’s size within its neighborhood. Data on square footages and lot sizes are obtained from the County Assessor’s Offi ce or from City records and plan archives. The information is assumed to be approximate due to variations in calculation methods and because many County records re fl ect original home sizes, but
the data allows a general sense of the project’s size and FAR compatibility with nearby development. Factors to consider when using the 20 Closest FAR Study include:
• Variability of square footages in the neighborhood• Variability of lot sizes and FARs in the neighborhood• Site constraints; how much of the lot area is developable?• Is the project near the average for the neighborhood? • Is the project among the largest in the neighborhood?• The project’s volume, bulk, scale, height, and massing relative to its square footage
• Closer proximity to neighboring structures and/or
denser development in the neighborhood suggests closer adherence to the size of adjacent structures and to the average size of structures in the study.
Two-Story Design Concepts
two-story design ConCePts
This focus of this section of the Single Family Design Guidelines is on graphic illustrations of two-story design concepts.
The first page of the section emphasizes the importance of the Compatibility guidelines for two-story homes and provides additional guidelines especially important for two-story homes.
Next, a series of illustrations is provided as listed below. As in all of the sections of this document, many illustrations feature a list in parenthesis immediately after captions of the special twostory guidelines which are exemplified by the illustration. • Alternative Design Solutions for an Existing
One-Story House
Successful additions centered over the existing home,
p. 40-TS.
Successful and unsuccessful addition over the existing garage, p. 41-TS. • Example successful and unsuccessful drawings
of two-story homes in context with neighboring
homes, p. 42-TS.
• Example photos and illustrations of
second-story element design techniques, p. 43-
45-TS.
39-TS
CITY OF SANTA BARBARA SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE DESIGN GUIDELINES TWO-STORY DESIGN CONCEPTSTwo or more story homes require special care in design to ensure they are compatible in a neighborhood. The Compatibility Guidelines in the previous chapter are more important for two-story homes than for one-story homes because twostory homes can appear more prominent in a neighborhood. Following are special design techniques and illustrations for two or more story homes.
19. Avoid crowding or overwhelming neighboring
residences.
20. Avoid a “vertical canyon effect” between homes. The space between a proposed two-story home adjacent to one-story homes is important. Space between homes should increase as wall height increases. Consider setbacks greater than those required by the Municipal Code to avoid bulky structures.
21. Minimize areas of maximum height.22. Vary height of building elements.23. Vary roof lines.24. Set back taller portions of structures from the lot lines to reduce the appearance of height.
25. Use architectural features to break up unacceptable bulk.26. Three-story homes are generally incompatible in most of Santa Barbara’s fl at “infi ll” neighborhoods.
A two-story residence that maintains a single-story roofline common to the immediate neighborhood.
The mass of this house is reduced by lowering the plate height, using dormers and including an entry element.
Second-story addition oriented to home’s rear and designed to reduce structure’s volume visible from the street. (19, 21, 24)
TWO-STORY DESIGN CONCEPTS
40-TS
.EXAMPLES OF ALTERNATIVE DESIGN SOLUTIONS
Existing residence to be remodeled.Second story addition moved away from existing setback and designed in same style as existing house (21, 22, 24).Second story addition moved away from setback and whole house remodeled in a single style (21, 22, 24). 41-TS
CITY OF SANTA BARBARA SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE DESIGN GUIDELINES Second story addition over garage in same style as existing house, and the massing while still unbalanced is improved. (Further consideration of these guidelines is needed: 19, 20, 24).Large addition on setback in different style than existing house and the home appears “unbalanced.”Existing residence to be remodeled.
EXAMPLES OF ALTERNATIVE DESIGN SOLUTIONS
TWO-STORY DESIGN CONCEPTS
42-TS
The center building is in scale with neighboring houses.The center home has disproportionate building elements and a scale which is incompatible with the neighborhood. The center building is in scale with neighboring houses.
The center home has disproportionate building elements and a scale that is incompatible with the neighborhood. 43-TS
CITY OF SANTA BARBARA SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE DESIGN GUIDELINES Examples of design solutions that illustrate good application of two-story design.
This two-story home minimizes areas of maximum height (1.5), varies heights of building elements (22) and uses an arch and recessed windows to break up the home’s volume (25).
This two-story home features varied roof lines by varying the lengths of the roofs (23), minimizes areas of maximum height (21), and avoids crowding its neighbors (19).
This two-story home in the East Mesa neighborhood has a significant step back of its second floor (24) and has its windows and upper story deck oriented toward the street.
The second floor of this building is centered within the roof form, reducing apparent bulk and keeping the highest portion of the building away from property lines. (20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 26)
TWO-STORY DESIGN CONCEPTS
44-TS
The second floor of this home is within the roof form, reducing the apparent bulk of the house. (21, 25) The stepped back second story of this home is much smaller than the first floor. Also, architectural features and varied roof lines break up the second story bulk. (20, 21, 22, 24, 25,26) The second-story of this home is small in comparison to the first floor. Also, the home is set back far from the street on this large lot in the Foothill neighborhood. (21, 24) This two-story house in the East San Roque neighborhood features a stepped back second story. Architectural elements such as quality window & eave detailing and a prominent porch entry help the second floor to appear less massive. (21, 24, 25)
1-D
CITY OF SANTA BARBARA SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE DESIGN GUIDELINES PROJECTS THAT REQUIRE DESIGN REVIEWFollowing is a list of the general types of single family home projects which can be subject to Design Review. To view the source of the Design Review “triggers”, see the Municipal Code Neighobrhood Preservation Ordinance (SBMC§22.69.020). For details regarding the Design Review process, see the SFDB Guidelines or HLC Rules and Procedures.SPECIAL DISTRICTS ❑ Located in the Mission Area Special Design District (within 1,000 ft. of EPV II) (§22.69.020.B.1)
❑ New development only in the Lower Riviera Survey Area – Bungalow District (§22.69.070.E). Existing development is reviewed on a case-bycase basis (§22.69.020.B.1 and §22.69.070) ❑ Located in the Hillside Design District AND the average slope of the lot or building site is 20% or greater; (§22.69.020.B.2) ❑ Located in the Hillside Design District and on any slope, the replacement of an existing roof covering with a roof covering of different materials or colors (excluding “like for like” re-roof) (§22.69.020.B.2)
BUILDING HEIGHT AND FLOOR AREA
❑ If the building is taller than one story or taller than 17’ in height (measured from natural or fi nished grade, whichever is lower). (§22.69.020.C.1, .2 &.3) Exceptions:
a. alteration on the fi rst fl oor below 17’ onlyb. proposed construction is one-story, under 17’ tall, and does not signifi cantly alter a second fl oor (see illustration examples available at the public Planning and Zoning Counter). c. Any combination of a. or b., above.
❑ Net fl oor area of all stories of all buildings on the site (including garages and carports) will exceed 4,000 sq. ft. (§22.69.020.C.4). ❑ Modifi cation to exceed a maximum fl oor area is required (§22.69.020.C.5)
PREVIOUS APPROVALS/CONSTRUCTION
❑ Design Review was previously required in the past two years (from Certifi cate of Occupancy); or if the cumulative scope of work from permits in the past two years will trigger review (§22.69.020.J)
WALLS AND BALCONIES
❑ Construct, alter, or add a deck or balcony on the second or higher fl oor (including roof decks) that will be greater than 3’ deep or 7’ wide (§22.69.020.C.6) ❑ Walls, fences, or gates 3.5’ or greater in height located in any portion of the front yard, excluding those along interior lot lines. (§22.69.020.C.8) ❑ Retaining walls anywhere on a site 6’ or greater in height (§22.69.020.C.7)
❑ Retaining walls located on a lot or building site with an average slope of 15% or greater; (§22.69.020.G.1)
❑ Retaining walls located on a lot adjacent to or on a lot that contains an ocean bluff; (§22.69.020.G.2)❑ Multiple retaining walls with a combined height of 6’, that are not separated by either a building or 10’ of horizontal distance (§22.69.020.G.3) OTHER
❑ Installation of a manufactured home, mobile home, or factory built home (§22.69.020.C.9)
❑ Relocation in whole or in part of a single family residential unit (§22.69.020.C.10)
❑ Subdivision grading plans – in single family zones only (§22.69.020.D)❑ Grading on a vacant lot in a single family zone (alone or in combination with other work). (§22.69.020.E)
❑ Grading outside the main building footprint is proposed of more than 50 cubic yards in the Hillside Design District or more than 250 cubic yards in other areas. (§22.69.020.C.11) ❑ Vegetation removal permit (§22.69.020.F)❑ Parking exception for two uncovered spaces is requested (SBMC
28.90.100.G.1.c)
A GUIDE TO THE DESIGN REVIEW PROCESS
2-D
Step 1: Applic ation
Submit Master Application & other required information
Step 5: Appe als
If an SFDB or HLC preliminary project decision is appealed based on inconsistencies with applicable City Guidelines or NPO findings - City Council hearing held.
Step 6: Building Permit
If approved, submit Master Application and final working drawings to Building and Safety.
Step 2: Staff Re view
• Completeness• Compliance with Zoning & other City requirements• Preliminary Environmental Review• Appropriate level of Design Review determined Step 3: Mailed Noticing (if required)
Step 4A: Cons ent C alendar Re view
1 - Consent Calendar Hearing2 - Environmental Determination Completed3 - Complete other Discretionary Review (if required)4 - Preliminary and/or Final Review5 - Decision Ratified by Full Board Step 4B: F ull Board Re view
1 - Conceptual Review2 - Environmental Determination Completed3 - Complete other Discretionary Review (if required)4 - Preliminary Review5 - In-progress Review (if necessary)6 - Final Review Step 2A:
Administrativ e Staff Re view
• A simple review process available for some minor projects• After final staff approval is granted and appeal period ends, the project proceeds to Step 6: Building Permit
CITY OF SANTA BARBARASINGLE FAMILY DESIGN BOARD (SFDB) AND HISTORIC LANDMARKS COMMISSION (HLC)
DESIGN REVIEW PROCESS FLOW CHART
3-D
CITY OF SANTA BARBARA SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE DESIGN GUIDELINES DESIGN REVIEW SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS SUMMARY(See Single Family Design Board (SFDB) Guidelines & Planning and Zoning Counter Design Review submittal requirements handouts for details. Go to 630 Garden Street for handouts, staff advice, submittals and fee payments.) Single Family Design Board & Historic Landmarks Commission Submittal Requirements Summary
CONCEPT REVIEW
RequiredSuggested
Master Application & Submittal FeePhotographs - of the existing building (if any), adjacent structures, composite panoramic view of the site, surrounding areas & neighborhood streetscape - mounted or folded to no larger than an 8.5” x 14” photo display board. If over 85% of max. FAR*, then also panoramic streetscape photos.Plans - fl oor, roof, etc. drawn to scale, three sets of folded plans, minimum size 18” x 24”, required at time of submittal & with each plan revision.Vicinity Map and Project Statistics Forms/or Equivalent - (Include on fi rst sheet). If over 85% of max. FAR*, then also street elevation outlines.Site Plan - drawn to scale showing the property boundaries, existing & proposed structures, building & area square footages, building height, areas to be demolished, parking, site topography, conceptual grading & retaining walls, & existing landscaping. Include footprints of adjacent structures.Exterior elevations - showing existing & proposed grading where applicable. .Story Pole Plan – if story poles are required for the project.Topographic Survey – professional survey for sites averaging 15% or more.Perspective Drawing, Model or Computer Simulation - if project proposal is over 85% of a maximum FAR*.Site Sections - showing the relationship of the proposed building & grading where applicable.Rough sketches are encouraged early in the process for initial design review to avoid pursuing incompatible proposals. However, more complete & thorough information is recommended to facilitate an effi cient project review.
PROJECT DESIGN APPROVAL
RequiredSuggested
Same as above with the following additions:Site Sections - showing the relationship of the proposed building & grading where applicable.Preliminary Landscape Plans - required for some single family projects, for example, where grading or new landscaped areas are proposed or for over 85% of max. FAR* projects. Proposed tree removal or planting and other proposed planting areas must be shown per SFDB Guidelines, Part 2: Landscape Design. At least 80% of landscaped areas must be allocated for water-wise plants. Paved areas must be shown and site statistics provided. Plans must include any street parkway strips.Perspective Drawing, Model or Computer Simulation - if project proposal is over 85% of a maximum FAR*.Color & Material Samples - to be mounted on a board no larger than 8.5” x 14” & detailed on all sets of plans.Exterior Details - windows, doors, eaves, railings, chimney caps, fl ashing, etc.
Materials submitted for Project Design Approval form the basis for working drawings & must be complete & accurate.
FINAL & CONSENT
Required Same as above with the following additions:
Color & Material Samples - to be mounted on a board no larger than 8.5” x 14” and detailed on all sets of plans.Cut Sheets - exterior light fi xtures and accessories or noise generating equipment dBA CNEL levels at property line, where applicable.Exterior Details - windows, doors, eaves, railings, chimney caps, fl ashing, etc.Final Landscape Plans - landscape construction documents including additional planting specifi cations, erosion control measures, Storm Water Management Plan components and irrigation plan. Consultant/Engineer Plans - electrical, mechanical, structural, & plumbing, where applicable. *See submittal requirements for over 85% of maximum FAR or over maximum FAR projects listed on page 4-D. See Planning & Zoning Counter handouts for most current and more detailed requirements.
A GUIDE TO THE DESIGN REVIEW PROCESS
4-D
ADDITIONAL SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTSProjects 85% or Less Than Maximum Square FootageThese projects are subject to standard application and processing requirements. Applicants are encouraged to design homes under 85% of the maximum square footage for their lot size whenever possible to help ensure neighborhood compatibility. (See pages 21-C - 25-C for more information).Projects Over 85% of a Maximum Square FootageThese projects are more likely to pose neighborhood compatibility issues and are generally discouraged. However, careful design and review can sometimes produce projects that are still compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. Due to the special nature of these larger, potentially incompatible projects, special additional processing requirements apply for lots under 15,000 square feet.* • 20 closest homes County Assessor’s report copy• Panoramic streetscape photo presentation• Story poles likely to be required• Street elevation showing building outline silhouettes• Landscape plans• Perspective drawing or model Applications for projects over 85% of a maximum square footage on lots under 15,000 square feet require a Planning Commission modifi cation request if any of the following apply:
• Average property or building site slope is greater than 30%; or
• Height is greater than 25’; or• In the Hillside Design District & site grading outside the main building footprint is greater than 500 cubic yards.
Projects Over a Maximum Square FootageProjects proposing square footage over the maximum specifi ed for a property are strongly discouraged in most cases. However, there may be some project sites with special physical features, which when combined with exceptional design, can accommodate an over maximum home compatible with the neighborhood. A Planning Commission modifi cation is required for over maximum square footage proposals. Also, a super majority (fi ve out of seven) of the SFDB members must vote in support of the project approval. The following “fi ndings” must be made for approval of projects proposing to exceed a maximum required square footage. • The subject lot exhibits a physical condition (such as the location, surroundings, topography, or the size of the lot re lative to the other lots in the neighborhood) that does not generally exist on the other lots in the neighborhood • The physical condition of the lot allows the project to be compatible with existing development within the neighborhood that complies with the net fl oor area standard Projects proposing over 100% of a required maximum square footage must submit the following items in addition to normal submittal requirements:
• 20 closest homes analysis of current available data * The SFDB may require some project proposals on properties over 15,000 sq. ft. to include this information if needed. 5-D
CITY OF SANTA BARBARA SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE DESIGN GUIDELINES NEIGHBORHOOD PRESERVATIONORDINANCE FINDINGSAll Neighborhood Preservation Ordinance (NPO) single family projects subject to review and approval by the Single Family Design Board or Historic Landmarks Commission must be consistent with the following set of fi ndings.
GENERAL REQUIRED FINDINGS(Apply to all NPO projects subject to Design Review.)
1. Consistency & Appearance: The proposed
development will be consistent with the scenic character of the City and will enhance the appearance of the neighborhood.
2. Compatibility: The proposed development will
be compatible with the neighborhood, and its
size, bulk and scale will be appropriate to the site and neighborhood.
3. Quality Architecture & Materials: The
development, including proposed structures and grading, is designed with quality architectural details and quality materials. Proposed materials and colors will maintain the natural appearance of the ridgeline or hillside.
4. Trees: The proposed project will not remove
or signi
fi cantly impact any designated Specimen,
Historic and Landmark trees. Also, the proposed project, to the maximum extent feasible, preserves and protects healthy, non-invasive mature trees with a minimum trunk diameter of four inches (4”) measured four feet (4’) above natural grade. The project includes a plan to mitigate the impact of the removal of any healthy, non-invasive mature tree with a diameter of four inches (4”) or more at four feet (4’) above natural grade in compliance with applicable tree replacement ratios.
5. Health, Safety and Welfare: The public health,
safety and welfare will be protected.
6. Good Neighbor Guidelines: The project
generally complies with applicable privacy, landscaping, noise, and lighting Good Neighbor Guidelines.
7. Public Views: The development, including
proposed structures and grading, will preserve any existing signi fi cant public scenic views of and
from the hillside.
• Panoramic streetscape photo presentation which
includes a simulation of the proposed project superimposed on the streetscape panoramic photographs • Full level of story poles• Street elevation showing building outline silhouettes, including window and door details
• Landscape plans• Model or three-dimensional computer graphic• A neighbor workshop is required prior to the fi rst
SFDB hearing
See page 21-C for information regarding legal non-conforming as to maximum fl oor area properties with a project proposal
of up to 100 additional square feet.SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS CONT.
Site Planning and Structure
Placement
7-SP
CITY OF SANTA BARBARA SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE DESIGN GUIDELINES
SITE PLANNING AND STRUCTURE
PLACEMENT
One key element that defi nes visual character of an individual dwelling and a neighborhood is how a dwelling is located or placed on a site. A single building out of context with its site or neighboring dwellings can appear disruptive. Site design should reinforce the local context of the natural and built environment. When planning a site, consider the setting, opportunities for solar design, ways to maximize permeability, and ways to minimize parking aesthetic impacts.1. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING & LANDSCAPINGConsider the environmental setting and appropriate landscaping in the site planning and structure placement process.
1.1 Integrate structures and site plan with the
environmental setting.
Structures are integrated with the setting when new
dwellings and additions look as if they belong on the site, have been constructed to blend with the natural environment and natural land forms of the site, and are complementary to adjacent neighborhood structures. Projects adjacent to creeks should follow applicable “special area” landscape design guidelines for creeks, water courses and wetlands listed in the SFDB. Native plant preservation is important on some sites. Additionally, consider potential impacts of new and remodeled structures in the vicinity of historic resources identifi ed by the City.
1.2 Comply with landscape standards, codes and
guidelines. Projects are required to comply with applicable city water wise standards and Storm Water Management Program components. Additionally, the SFDB Guidelines contain a chapter of Landscape Design Guidelines which all projects should comply with.
2. NEIGHBORHOOD CONTEXTIntegrate structures and site plan with the neighborhood. Respect, complement or improve upon existing neighborhood patterns, such as:
• Distance from the street (sometimes greater than
present minimum zoning regulations)
• Existing parking arrangement patterns• If possible, consider private use and view areas of immediate neighbors (See Good Neighbor Guidelines and Tips) Undeveloped site Sensitive site development to retain significant, special vegetation and natural features.
SITE PLANNING AND STRUCTURE PLACEMENT
8-SP
3. SOLAR DESIGNDesign to maximize options for passive and active solar heating and cooling.Solar access refers to the potential to receive adequate sunlight in order for certain areas of the property to enjoy the benefi t of sunlight. Access to sunlight is important for energy effi ciency and landscaping, as well as for homes that use solar energy for space heating and cooling, water heating, electricity, and/or day lighting.
Generally, solar access can be compromised by structures or vegetation that cast excessive shadows for an extensive period. Solar access is protected in Santa Barbara by a Solar Ordinance (see details in Supplemental section). Where possible, orient building volumes and second stories away from the north, west, and east property lines when feasible to allow for the solar access of neighboring properties.
The second-story addition is held towards the center of the property, allowing greater sunlight onto neighboring properties. The second-story addition is inappropriately placed casting shadows on neighboring properties.
Original first-floor dwelling. Second-story addition. Rear first-story addition.
Original first- floor dwelling. Second full-story addition. Rear first- and second- story addition. 9 AM 12 PM 3 PM
9 AM 12 PM 3 PM
*note: Shadow Height is not to scale.
North
Compatibility Guidelines
ComPatiBility guidelines summary
6. neigHBorHood
Design a project to be compatible with the immediate
neighborhood, and carefully consider the neighborhood
study area for a project. p. 15-C
7. volume, Bulk, massing, and sCale
Design structures to be compatible with neighboring houses in terms of volume, bulk, massing, and scale. p. 17-C
8. floor to lot area ratio (far)
Strive for a project which falls in the “less than 85% of maximum FAR” range for the project lot size. p. 21C
9. HeigHt
Design building heights to be compatible with the
neighborhood. p. 26-C
10. façade artiCulation
Use façade articulation to create appropriate scale and add visual interest. p. 27-C
11. arCHiteCtural style
Choose a style compatible with the surrounding
neighborhood and use architectural features to create a consistent architectural style. p. 28-C
12. oPenings
Use openings such as doors and windows in a manner
compatible with the neighborhood. p. 30-C
13. entries
Main entries should be visible from the street and contribute towards a friendly neighborhood experience. p. 31-C
14. roof design
Carefully plan roof forms on a home for a well-designed structure compatible with the neighborhood. p. 32-C
15. roof materials
Roofing material and color should be consistent with the building architectural style. Eave closures, a.k.a. bird stops, if any are proposed, shall be mortared with natural cement. p. 34-C
16. exterior materials and Colors
Exterior materials and colors should complement the style of the house and neighborhood, as well as blend with surrounding natural features when viewed from a distance. p. 35-C
17. fenCes, walls, and Hedges
Integrate fences, walls and hedges with structures and
setting. p. 36-C
18. Partial Basement design
Carefully design partial basements to not create a bulky appearance, or contribute to inappropriate apparent height. p. 37-C 17-C
CITY OF SANTA BARBARA SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE DESIGN GUIDELINES
7. VOLUME, BULK, MASSING AND SCALEDesign structures to be compatible with neighboring houses in terms of volume, size, massing, scale and bulk.QUANTITATIVE DEFINITIONSVolume: The quantitative three-dimensional measurement of a structure’s height, width and depth combined.Size: The quantitative two-dimensional measurement of a structure’s length and width combined (i.e. “square feet”).QUALITATIVE DEFINITIONSMassing: The qualitative arrangement of a structure’s bulk, including relative openness and solidity.Proportion: The quantitative relative sizes and dimensions of architectural elements and details, as they relate to each other and to the entire structure.Scale: The qualitative proportional relationship of a structure and its architectural elements and details to human beings. [Note: To compare scale to other structures, use the words “compatibility” and “neighborhood”.]Bulk: The qualitative visual perception of the composition and shape of a structure’s massing. Bulk is affected by variations in height, setbacks and stepbacks of upper stories.
VOLUME VS. BULKVolume is a structure’s quantitative height, width and depth measurement. Bulk, on the other hand, is the qualitative perception of a structure’s volumes. These measurements, when compared to a measurement of a lot and measurements in its neighborhood, can provide a guide to a structure’s appropriate size. Bulk, on the other hand, is the qualitative, readily visible composition and perceived shape of the structure’s volume, i.e. the design of its architectural composition, shape and scale, including stepbacks and setbacks. For example, imagine the nine squares in Figures A through C are actually three-dimensional cubes. The nine squares in Figure B appear bulkier than Figure A even though Figure A is wider. Figure B also appears bulkier than Figure C, even though Figure C is both higher and wider than Figure B. (See page 19-C for addtl. illustrations.) SCALE VS. PROPORTIONProportion describes how building parts relate to each other and to a whole structure, as measured by size and dimensions. Scale, on the other hand, is the relationship of a structure or its parts to a defi nite unit of measure. For most Santa Barbara Infi ll neighborhoods, the defi nite unit of measure is a human being’s height, i.e. “human scale.” A common problem with larger homes is that the architectural elements of a structure should be in proportion to the overall structure size. As a structure gets bigger, its elements such as doors, windows, archways, and towers may need to get bigger as well. As a result, human scale can be lost, leading to neighborhood incompatibility. Another point is that a human scale structure may still lack proportion between its elements. For example, even a small home may have windows or doors so different in size or shape relative to each other or to the home that they detract from the home’s appearance. (Continued on page 19-C)
COMPATIBILITY GUIDELINES AND TECHNIQUES
18-C
VOLUME: A QUANTITATIVE MEASUREMENTThe home above has significantly less measured volume than the home below.
BULK: A QUALITATIVE VISUAL COMPONENTAlthough these homes have very similar square footages, the picture below may appear “bulkier,” in part because of the volume’s massing. 19-C
CITY OF SANTA BARBARA SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE DESIGN GUIDELINES
7. VOLUME, BULK, MASSING AND SCALE CONTINUED.Visible front door entries, traditional porch features, decorative pedestrian gates, small and medium-sized windows, short fences, minimization of large “blank” architectural features (such as through the use of small garage doors or decorative garage doors) can help provide a sense of “human scale.”Example Architectural Elements that Can Affect a Home’s “Scale”:Windows: size, proportion, number, placementDoors: single or double, heightEntrances: monumental height over 10’ or human scaleGarages: number of bays, type of doorRoof Slopes: towers, windows, dormersRoof Styles: hip, gable, mansard, gambrel, fl at Roof Pitches: slope rise to run, e.g. 4:12Columns: 1 story, 2 story, appropriate to styleStairs: exterior stair quantity and widths Pedestal Treatment: raised house or entranceBlank Walls: major or minor part of structure faces SCALE
This home relates well to human scale in part because of the appropriately sized and proportioned garage door, chimney and windows, in addition to elements such as the trellis on the upper story deck and modest front porch.A home illustrating a “monumental scale,” usually inappropriate on small lots. In particular, the size and proportions of the entry stairs, columns, front door, porch, and the significant pedestal (raised house) reflect a monumental scale.
Door openings (areas containing the door, frame, side lights, fan windows, transom, and any recessed or significant feature associated with the door) designed for a human scale should not exceed a width of 8’ or a height of 12’.
COMPATIBILITY GUIDELINES AND TECHNIQUES
20-C
VOLUME, BULK, MASSING AND SCALE ISSUESIssues that the SFDB considers related to volume, mass, bulk, size and scale include the following:
• Compatibility: How compatible is the structure’s
volume, bulk, and scale with the volume, bulk, and
scale of the existing neighborhood homes and structures? • Floor to Lot Area Ratios: Is a structure’s size
appropriate for its lot size?
• Second Story Decks: Do wall elements, guardrails,
furniture, or outdoor fi replaces contribute to the bulk or scale of the project? • Covered Porches, Loggias, and Covered Decks:
Do the covered porches, loggias, and/or covered decks enhance the building’s design, appearance, and function? Do they contribute to excessive mass, scale and bulk? Careful consideration should be given to projects that propose greater than 250 square feet of these areas, or when they are greater than 10% of the total net square footage of the structure. Because they include roof structures these areas might easily be enclosed in the future, possibly without design review. Future enclosure of existing covered areas may contribute to unacceptable size, bulk, and scale, eliminate a desirable architectural feature, or exceed FAR limits. • Garage Door Design and Placement: Does the
garage design minimize an appearance of bulk? Is the scale of the garage appropriate in comparison to the portion of the house visible from the street? • Second-Story Setbacks: How does the secondstory volume affect the streetscape or neighboring backyards? How bulky does a structure appear from the front or the back of a house because of how the massing of a building is composed? • Canyon Effect: How close is the volume of a
proposed second-story structure to the volume of any adjacent property’s existing second-story volume? • Wall Size: How does a large expanse of wall
contribute to a structure’s appearance of bulk? How can a structure’s volume be articulated consistent with an architectural style? Do building wall heights allow proportional human scale window and door details? • Roof Size: How does a large expanse of roof contribute to a structure’s appearance of bulk? How can a structure’s massing be changed to avoid large expanses of roof? • Plate Height: Do building plate heights allow for
appropriately scaled wall, window and door details?
21-C
CITY OF SANTA BARBARA SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE DESIGN GUIDELINES
8. FLOOR TO LOT AREA RATIO (FAR)Strive for a project which falls in the “less than 85% of maximum FAR” range for the project lot size.FARs measure and limit a structure’s size based on lot size. FARs do not translate to an accurate measure of volume because plate heights and roof slopes for homes vary. However, they are a useful indication of a structure’s bulk relative to its site. Architectural features such as covered porches, loggias, and covered decks contribute to the mass and bulk of a building. While they are not included in the FAR, they are considered as part of the project’s mass and bulk. FARs provide general parameters of reasonable lot build-out according to lot size. FARs are often used to analyze a proposed project’s potential for neighborhood compatibility. Many communities have implemented FARs to better control size, bulk and scale of development. Ideally FARs can help prevent sudden dramatic incompatible neighborhood changes.
FAR =
Net Floor Area
of all Site Structures
Lot Area
FAR is defined as the net square footage of a structure (or structures) divided by the net lot area. Net lot area excludes public road easements and public road rights-of-way.
Applicants seeking SFDB or HLC approval are required to provide the proposed project’s fl oor to lot area ratio. Covered parking is included in the square footage calculations for FAR. For full details of what is included in FAR calculations, see the Project Statistics Form directions and square footage measurements table available at the Community Development Department website and offi ce.
Net Floor Area
++
Main House Garage or Carport Any accessory structures, e.g. cabana
COMPATIBILITY GUIDELINES AND TECHNIQUES
22-C
= .22 FAR
1300 sq.ft. House
6,000 sq.ft. lot
Illustration assumes:• 60’ x 100’ lot
Example AverageExisting Home
= .45 FAR
2700 sq.ft. House
6,000 sq.ft. lot
Illustration assumes:• 60’ x 100’ lot
Example of Maximum FAR
= .35 FAR
2083 sq.ft. House
6,000 sq.ft. lot
Illustration assumes:• 60’ x 100’ lot
Example 85% of Maximum FAR
23-C
CITY OF SANTA BARBARA SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE DESIGN GUIDELINES T able 2: E x ample F AR C alculations T able
Lot Size
4000 2200 1700 1870 0.55
5000 2450 1950 2083 0.49
6000 2700 2200 2295 0.45
7000 2950 2450 2508 0.42
7499 3075 2575 2614 0.41
7500 3075 2575 2614 0.41
8000 3200 2700 2720 0.40
9000 3450 2950 2933 0.38
10000 3750 3250 3188 0.38
11000 3875 3375 3294 0.35
12000 4000 3500 3400 0.33
13000 4125 3625 3506 0.32
14000 4250 3750 3613 0.30
14999 4375 3875 3719 0.29
15000 4375 3875 3719 0.29
20000 4690 3940 3987 0.23
1/2 acre 4713 3963 4006 0.22
3/4 acres 4855 4105 4127 0.15
1 acre 4996 4246 4247 0.11
1.5 acres 5279 4529 4488 0.08
2 acres 5563 4813 4728 0.06
2.5 acres 5846 5096 4969 0.05
3 acres 6129 5379 5210 0.05
3.5 acres 6412 5662 5450 0.04
4 acres 6695 5945 5691 0.04
4.5 acres 6978 6228 5932 0.04
5 acres 7261 6511 6172 0.03
5.5 acres 7545 6795 6413 0.03
6 acres 7828 7078 6654 0.03
Propos al
Maximum
Home Size
excluding
garage/carport
allowance **
100%
Ma ximum
Home Size
including
garage/c arport
85% of
Ma ximun
Home Size
including
garage/c arport
Maximum FAR
including
garage/carport
APPLICABILITYMaximum FARs as requirements apply to a home taller than one story and a basement on lots smaller than 15,000 square feet in size in single-family zones. The maximum requirements also apply to homes taller than 17’ from natural or fi nished grade, whichver is lower on lots smaller than 15,000 square feet in single-family zones. Other properties, such as those 15,000 square foot lots or larger, or properties in multi-family zones, the FARs are applied as guidelines, rather than requirements. The only way to exceed a required maximum FAR for most projects would be to request a “Planning Commission Modifi cation” (see page 21-C for exception). However, for any project, no matter the location or height, a review board can request a smaller size if it is necessary in order for an approval to be made, for example to ensure the NPO Findings on page 5-D or other fi ndings on page 6-D can be made.
T able 1: F ormula T able
1200 + (0.25 x lot size) 2500 + (0.125 x lot size) 4180 + (0.013 x lot size) 4430 + (0.013 x lot size) 4000 - 10000 sq. ft.
Max. Home Siz e (in sq. ft.)
incl. garage/c arport
2200
Lot Siz e Range
in Sq. F t
≤4000 sq. ft.
10000 - 14999 sq. ft.15000 - 19999 sq. ft.
≥ 20000 sq. ft.
*Where zone district allows, see Municipal Code 28.87.160.4 ≥ 20000 750*
Garage/C arport
Allowanc e
Lot Size Allowance
< 20000 500
> 20000 750*
*
REQUIREDGUIDELINES **Garage/carport allowance does not need to be used only for garage/carport space for maximum square footage calculations. Max. sq. ft. can be distributed anywhere if consistent with Zoning regulations. Ex.: two-car covered parking minimum space requirement is 400 sq. ft. and 100 sq. ft. of remaining “allowance” could be used in the home instead of in the garage/carport.
COMPATIBILITY GUIDELINES AND TECHNIQUES
24-C
To determine maximum allowed net square footage for a property, follow these steps:1. Find the lot size range that includes the project lot size on the Formula Table, Table 1, see page 20-C.
2. Complete the formula using the lot size.3. If you would like to check your work with some example FAR calculations, see Table 2 on page 20-C.Projects Under 85% of Maximum FARs Are EncouragedProject applications under 85% of the maximum FAR are generally easier to design, prepare, process and review because they are more likely to be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood than projects over 85% of the maximum FAR. Projects under 85% of the maximum FAR are generally subject to the simpler standard Design Review submittal requirements listed on page 3-D and described in Planning and Zoning Counter handouts. Design Review fees for projects under 85% of the maximum FAR are lower than fees for larger projects. Projects over 85% of the maximum FAR are more likely to pose neighborhood compatibility issues and are generally discouraged. However, careful design and review can sometimes produce projects that are still compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. Due to the special nature of these larger, potentially incompatible projects, additional submittal information is required for these projects, described briefl y on page 4-D and in detail in Planning and Zoning Counter handouts. Projects proposing square footage over the maximum FAR are strongly discouraged in most cases. However, there may be some project sites with special physical features, which when combined with exceptional design, can accommodate an over FAR maximum home compatible with the neighborhood. A Planning Commission modifi cation and additional submittal requirements, described breifl y on page 4-D and in detail in Planning and Zoning Counter handouts, are required for over maximum FAR proposals.Applicability of FARs as GuidelinesMaximum FARs are applied as guidelines rather than requirements on lots that are 15,000 square feet or larger, or located in multi family or non-residential zones. Site and zoning variables might contribute to less reliability in the use of the 20 closest FAR Study. Some situations may support higher FARs and projects that approach or exceed guideline FARs might not pose a problem and FAR compatibility may be less critical. Larger lots may allow more space between structures and in some cases may allow the project to be less visible to the public and to neighbors. In multi-family or non-residential zones where density of development is usually higher, single-family residential projects will likely have lower FARs than other types of development. These zones are likely to have more variety of development. Other situations may support lower FARs. When the buildable portion of a site is small in relationship to the lot size, an FAR lower than what would normally be indicated for the lot size may be more appropriate. On some large lots not all of the lot 25-C
CITY OF SANTA BARBARA SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE DESIGN GUIDELINES area may be developable due to steep slopes or creek or ocean bluff setbacks. These site constraints can push development on a site closer to the street, or closer to neighbors. In the Riviera there are examples where development on larger lots is clustered close together around cul-de-sacs or built close to the public streets. The con fi guration of the lot may reduce its
developable area, for example
fl ag lots. Corner lots or other
lots with multiple street frontages have increased area within the front setbacks and development on these lots may be more visible. In situations like these, compatibility with neighboring FARs may be more pertinent. As a general rule, where the development is closer to property boundaries or more visible to the public and to neighbors, the proposed FAR should be reduced. Properties Legal Non-Conforming as to a Required Maximum SizeSome “legal non-conforming as to FAR” properties can have a one-time addition of up to 100 square feet without a Planning Commission modi fi cation being required. Municipal
Code 28.87.030.D.1.c allows such additions to reasonably accommodate minor changes in fl oor plans such as bathroom
or closet additions to provide some
fl exibility for structures
legal non-conforming as to a required maximum
fl oor area
(FAR standards) without the need for a Planning Commission modi fi cation. Consult the Municipal Code and City Staff for more information.
20 Closest FAR StudyWhen a project proposes to exceed 85% of a maximum required FAR, the applicant must provide a study of the FARs of the 20 closest lots. Using a geographic information system, the 20 closest lots are selected for the project’s neighborhood. This information is a tool used by the review board to assist in determining the compatibility of a project’s size within its neighborhood. Data on square footages and lot sizes are obtained from the County Assessor’s Offi ce or from City records and plan archives. The information is assumed to be approximate due to variations in calculation methods and because many County records re fl ect original home sizes, but
the data allows a general sense of the project’s size and FAR compatibility with nearby development. Factors to consider when using the 20 Closest FAR Study include:
• Variability of square footages in the neighborhood• Variability of lot sizes and FARs in the neighborhood• Site constraints; how much of the lot area is developable?• Is the project near the average for the neighborhood? • Is the project among the largest in the neighborhood?• The project’s volume, bulk, scale, height, and massing relative to its square footage
• Closer proximity to neighboring structures and/or
denser development in the neighborhood suggests closer adherence to the size of adjacent structures and to the average size of structures in the study.
Two-Story Design Concepts
two-story design ConCePts
This focus of this section of the Single Family Design Guidelines is on graphic illustrations of two-story design concepts.
The first page of the section emphasizes the importance of the Compatibility guidelines for two-story homes and provides additional guidelines especially important for two-story homes.
Next, a series of illustrations is provided as listed below. As in all of the sections of this document, many illustrations feature a list in parenthesis immediately after captions of the special twostory guidelines which are exemplified by the illustration. • Alternative Design Solutions for an Existing
One-Story House
Successful additions centered over the existing home,
p. 40-TS.
Successful and unsuccessful addition over the existing garage, p. 41-TS. • Example successful and unsuccessful drawings
of two-story homes in context with neighboring
homes, p. 42-TS.
• Example photos and illustrations of
second-story element design techniques, p. 43-
45-TS.
39-TS
CITY OF SANTA BARBARA SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE DESIGN GUIDELINES TWO-STORY DESIGN CONCEPTSTwo or more story homes require special care in design to ensure they are compatible in a neighborhood. The Compatibility Guidelines in the previous chapter are more important for two-story homes than for one-story homes because twostory homes can appear more prominent in a neighborhood. Following are special design techniques and illustrations for two or more story homes.
19. Avoid crowding or overwhelming neighboring
residences.
20. Avoid a “vertical canyon effect” between homes. The space between a proposed two-story home adjacent to one-story homes is important. Space between homes should increase as wall height increases. Consider setbacks greater than those required by the Municipal Code to avoid bulky structures.
21. Minimize areas of maximum height.22. Vary height of building elements.23. Vary roof lines.24. Set back taller portions of structures from the lot lines to reduce the appearance of height.
25. Use architectural features to break up unacceptable bulk.26. Three-story homes are generally incompatible in most of Santa Barbara’s fl at “infi ll” neighborhoods.
A two-story residence that maintains a single-story roofline common to the immediate neighborhood.
The mass of this house is reduced by lowering the plate height, using dormers and including an entry element.
Second-story addition oriented to home’s rear and designed to reduce structure’s volume visible from the street. (19, 21, 24)
TWO-STORY DESIGN CONCEPTS
40-TS
.EXAMPLES OF ALTERNATIVE DESIGN SOLUTIONS
Existing residence to be remodeled.Second story addition moved away from existing setback and designed in same style as existing house (21, 22, 24).Second story addition moved away from setback and whole house remodeled in a single style (21, 22, 24). 41-TS
CITY OF SANTA BARBARA SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE DESIGN GUIDELINES Second story addition over garage in same style as existing house, and the massing while still unbalanced is improved. (Further consideration of these guidelines is needed: 19, 20, 24).Large addition on setback in different style than existing house and the home appears “unbalanced.”Existing residence to be remodeled.
EXAMPLES OF ALTERNATIVE DESIGN SOLUTIONS
TWO-STORY DESIGN CONCEPTS
42-TS
The center building is in scale with neighboring houses.The center home has disproportionate building elements and a scale which is incompatible with the neighborhood. The center building is in scale with neighboring houses.
The center home has disproportionate building elements and a scale that is incompatible with the neighborhood. 43-TS
CITY OF SANTA BARBARA SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE DESIGN GUIDELINES Examples of design solutions that illustrate good application of two-story design.
This two-story home minimizes areas of maximum height (1.5), varies heights of building elements (22) and uses an arch and recessed windows to break up the home’s volume (25).
This two-story home features varied roof lines by varying the lengths of the roofs (23), minimizes areas of maximum height (21), and avoids crowding its neighbors (19).
This two-story home in the East Mesa neighborhood has a significant step back of its second floor (24) and has its windows and upper story deck oriented toward the street.
The second floor of this building is centered within the roof form, reducing apparent bulk and keeping the highest portion of the building away from property lines. (20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 26)
TWO-STORY DESIGN CONCEPTS
44-TS
The second floor of this home is within the roof form, reducing the apparent bulk of the house. (21, 25) The stepped back second story of this home is much smaller than the first floor. Also, architectural features and varied roof lines break up the second story bulk. (20, 21, 22, 24, 25,26) The second-story of this home is small in comparison to the first floor. Also, the home is set back far from the street on this large lot in the Foothill neighborhood. (21, 24) This two-story house in the East San Roque neighborhood features a stepped back second story. Architectural elements such as quality window & eave detailing and a prominent porch entry help the second floor to appear less massive. (21, 24, 25) *RRG1HLJKERU*XLGHOLQHV
DQG7LSV
Appellant's Appendix B
*22'1(,*+%25*8,'(/,1(6 $1'7,366800$5<
*22'1(,*+%25*8,'(/,1(6 3ULYDF\S1 /DQGVFDSLQJS1 1RLVHS1 /LJKWLQJS1*22'1(,*+%257,369LHZVS1&RQVWUXFWLRQ,PSDFWVS 10DQDJLQJ&RQÁLFWZLWK&RPIRUWS1
Appellant's Appendix B
67-N
CITY OF SANTA BARBARA SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE DESIGN GUIDELINES GOOD NEIGHBOR GUIDELINES & TIPSThe following guidelines and tips can help you remain friends with your neighbors after the completion of your new or remodeled house. They are based on the Golden Rule: “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”Think about what your concerns would be if your next door neighbor were proposing to either build a new house or add on to an existing house. Incorporate those concerns into your thinking as you design your own new or remodeled house.It is the intent of these guidelines and tips to advance sound planning in building homes and additions with scrutiny of neighborhood compatibility, views and privacy. While it is not the intent to create a right to privacy or views, a compromise that advances these goals is highly desirable.BEFORE COMPLETING YOUR DESIGN • Design your addition or your new house as if you were going to live next door to it.
• Talk with your neighbors and show them your
proposed design.
• Consider organizing a meeting with your neighbors to
encourage neighbor discussions.
• Read the article regarding “Tips for Managing ConÁ ict with Comfort” provided in this section which can helpprovide guidance for successful discussions.
In GeneralWhen your project is reviewed by the Single Family Design Board (SFDB), the SFDB will be looking for general compliance with these Good Neighbor Guidelines (See Finding 6 on page 5-D) along with other Neighborhood Compatibility Findings.The SFDB understands that, in some cases, strong compliancewith privacy, landscaping, noise and lighting guidelines may notbe possible or necessary. However, in cases where there appearto be signiÀ cant potential issues raised by a project design thatwould not be posed with a suitable alternative design moresensitive to neighboring properties, the SFDB may deny theproject. It is necessary that you communicate to the SFDB howyour project is generally consistent with the Good NeighborGuidelines. The techniques below will help when you appearbefore the SFDB:
• Discuss how you have designed your project with your
neighbors in mind
• Summarize for the SFDB the results of any discussions you have had with neighbors about your project.
Using these techniques can help the SFDB to see how you have made a “good faith effort” to be generally consistent with the Good Neighbor Guidelines.This chapter covers the following guideline and tip topics.Guidelines Tips
1. Privacy • Private Views2. Landscaping • Construction Impacts3. Noise • Managing ConÁ ict with Comfort4. Lighting Appellant's Appendix B
GOOD NEIGHBOR GUIDELINES & TIPS
68-N
GOOD NEIGHBOR GUIDELINES36. PRIVACY GUIDELINES36.1 Visual Distance Locate structures and additions to increase visual distance between buildings. Avoiding large two-story building masses at the sides and rear of adjacent single family rear yards can help preserve privacy and sunlight access for your home and for neighboring properties.
Rather than simply following Municipal Code minimum setback standards, consider what a comfortable distance between a proposed addition and an existing neighbor’s structure would be. Also consider the pattern of building separation in the immediate neighborhood and design a project compatible with this pattern. Locate areas that require more privacy away from your neighbors. Orient active outdoor areas away from neighbors.
36.2 Upper-Story Decks and Balconies
Avoid or minimize the number of decks that overlook neighboring properties. Locate upper-story balconies and decks to minimize the loss of privacy for neighboring properties. Upper-story balconies or decks facing the street are usually preferable to upperstory balconies or decks facing a yard area adjacent to a neighbor. Techniques to lessen impacts to neighboring property privacy include the following:
36.2.1 Meeting with neighbors adjacent to proposed
upper-story balconies and decks prior to beginning the City application process is strongly encouraged.
36.2.2 Screen second-story balconies and decks
from neighboring property by incorporating architectural screening elements such as enclosing walls, trellises, or awnings. For example, effective enclosures might include walls over 4’ and perimeter planters facing neighbor’s side or rear yards.
36.2.3 Locate second-story balconies and decks
to avoid direct sight lines from the deck or balcony to neighbors’ windows, open yard, patio, deck, and/or loggia areas.
36.2.4 Set back upper-story decks or balconies over
20 square feet at least 15’ from interior lot lines when possible.
36.2.5 Avoid siting any “free-standing” chimneys on
upper-story decks or balconies. Such chimneys look “out of place” architecturally and are better sited adjacent to a structure. Also, such chimney might block neighbors’ views. If Building and Safety minimum clearance standards can be met, chimneys are generally recommended to be less than 8’ in height.
36.2.6 In Hillside areas, special consideration is
needed for decks and outdoor courtyard placement. Depending on topography, these features have the potential to greatly affect downhill neighbors’ privacy and noise levels. Often, keeping decks and outdoor courtyards within the Municipal Code setbacks listed for a zone district, even when not required, can help to maintain good neighbor relations.
Appellant's Appendix B
69-N
CITY OF SANTA BARBARA SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE DESIGN GUIDELINES Positive Neighborhood Amenity Front Porch
First-floor patios & decks inside setback lines2nd-Story decks and balconies on front property line2nd-story decks and balconies on side or rear of house, more than 15’ from a neighbor’s property line2nd-story decks and balconies on side or rear of house, less than 15’ from property line, less than 3’ x 7’ in size2nd-story decks and balconies on side or rear of house, less than 15’ from property line, larger than 3’ x 7’ in size Least Privacy Impact to Neighbors
(Preferred)
Most Privacy Impact to Neighbors
(Discouraged)
Balcony: A platform cantilevered from the wall of a building, usually resting on brackets or consoles, and enclosed with a railing.Deck: A flat open platform, typically with a railing, either attached to a building or free-standing and supported by pillars, posts, or walls.
Appellant's Appendix B
GOOD NEIGHBOR GUIDELINES & TIPS
70-N
Front yard deck in the East Mesa neighborhood is set forward from neighbors’ front building lines and it also features deeply recessed privacy sidewalls. (36.2.2, 36.2.3, 36.2.5)This front yard deck in the Alta Mesa neighborhood is set closer to the street than the adjacent neighbor’s home, resulting in less privacy impacts to the neighbor’s side yard windows and living space. (36.2.3, 36.2.5) This front yard deck in the East Mesa neighborhood features a privacy screening wall on the edge of the deck closest to an adjacent neighbor. (36.2.2, 36.2.3, 36.2.5)A second floor uncovered deck set into the roof of the first floor maintains the apparent volume of the structure and avoids a “looming” effect in the Samarkand neighborhood. (36.2, 36.2.3, 36.2.5) Note: The focus of these photos are the deck privacy features only. Please refer to Compatibility Guidelines and InÀ ll Guideline for information regarding designing compatible two-story homes.
Appellant's Appendix B
71-N
CITY OF SANTA BARBARA SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE DESIGN GUIDELINES Side yard decks invade privacy. More attention to guidelines 36.2.2 and 36.2.3 is needed for projects and below.This deck appears to “wrap around” the house, creating the ability for occupants to look over neighboring properties from every point, which can create privacy issues for neighbors.
Free-standing decks supported by pillars rather than building elements are less attractive.Avoid placing fireplaces with chimneys on outdoor decks separated from the main structure. (36.2.5) Appellant's Appendix B
GOOD NEIGHBOR GUIDELINES & TIPS
72-N
36.3 Upper-Story Windows: Minimize the number of
windows on proposed buildings that overlook neighboring properties. Orient your upper-story windows to protect your neighbor’s privacy. You may not want to see them any more than they want to be seen by you.
36.3.1 Place windows to avoid direct views into
existing neighboring windows by offsetting or staggering windows facing neighbors’ windows.
36.3.2 Avoid large upper-story windows overlooking
adjacent rear yards.
36.3.3 Use translucent window glass or high windows
to allow illumination while protecting privacy.
36.3.4 Set back upper Á oors or increase side and rear
setbacks to pull windows farther away from neighboring residences.
Privacy Views: Setting second stories back further than the first-story requirement will help screen views between adjacent houses. (36.3.1, 36.3.2, 36.3.4) Privacy Views: Offset window location or strategically placed trellises will help prevent views into adjacent houses. (36.3.1) Orient second-story windows to protect neighbor’s privacy.
Appellant's Appendix
B
73-N
CITY OF SANTA BARBARA SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE DESIGN GUIDELINES Inset corner windows can help avoid direct alignment with neighbor’s windows. (36.3.1, 36.3.4) Privacy Views: Avoid placing windows in locations that would look into adjacent windows or active yard spaces, where possible.
High window placement helps prevent views into adjacent houses. (36.3.1,36.3.2, 36.3.3, 36.3.4)
Appellant's Appendix B
GOOD NEIGHBOR GUIDELINES & TIPS
74-N
Application for proposed spa
Wide planter keeps view from deck edge, privacy increasedScreen planting reduces sensation of upper house looming over neighbor belowScreening tree selected to have a low mature height to prevent blocking the long view of the neighbor Appellant's Appendix
B
75-N
CITY OF SANTA BARBARA SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE DESIGN GUIDELINES
37. LANDSCAPING GUIDELINES37.1 Review the SFDB Guidelines, Part II. 2.1. Screening plants, such as hedges on side and rear property lines, should be considered to create privacy between neighbors. Hedges must comply with SBMC 28.87.170.
37.2 Keep existing vegetation that currently gives privacy to you or your neighbors.
37.3 Use landscaping to screen living areas.37.4 Use evergreen trees and shrubs to provide year-round privacy.
37.5 When window placement creates direct views between neighbors that need to be shielded, such as when a balcony placement may allow a line of sight into a neighbor’s side or rear yard, or if an applicant is not able to stagger windows, a landscape plan to provide additional screening may be required by the SFDB.
37.6 Review the SFDB Guidelines, Part II and design
landscaping consistent with the guidelines.
38. NOISE GUIDELINES38.1 Orient active outdoor areas away from neighbors.
38.2 Avoid placing noise sources at the sides of small lots or near neighboring windows of frequently used rooms (pool or air conditioning equipment, garbage can, parking areas, balconies, barbecue areas, spas, outdoor furniture, etc.).
38.3 Retain or add walls that act as noise buffers.
38.4 Equipment which runs on a regular basis and that
must be attached to a structure should minimize noise impacts to neighboring properties. Consider siting air conditioning, pool, and other mechanical equipment as far from neighboring structures as possible and insulate equipment. Municipal Code 9.16.025.C requires that all mechanical equipment not exceed 60 dB(A) CNEL at a residential property line.
39. LIGHTING GUIDELINESLighting for single family homes is usually proposed for security and decorative reasons, and should be designed in a way that it is not detrimental to neighboring properties. A good lighting plan for a home will provide sufÀ cient light for adequate site security, will use À xtures appropriate for the style of architecture, and will use the least amount of light and energy necessary to meet those objectives. “Night glow,” the effect of arti À cial
lights illuminating the night sky and making stars less visible, has become a concern in many neighborhoods. All projects must comply with the City of Santa Barbara’s Outdoor Lighting Ordinance (Municipal Code Chapter 22.75) and Outdoor Lighting and Streetlight Design Guidelines, as well as State energy codes. Following these guidelines will help create an attractive ambience in your neighborhood and allow Santa Barbara’s stars to be more visible at night time.The design of the exterior lighting should not attempt to compensate for low levels of street lighting typical in hillside neighborhoods. Lighting in hillside areas requires special attention and care, as the low ambient light levels can exaggerate the impact of poorly designed lighting.
Appellant's Appendix B
GOOD NEIGHBOR GUIDELINES & TIPS
76-N
39.1 Generally. In general, all exterior lighting should be designed, located and lamped in order to prevent or minimize overlighting, energy waste, glare, light trespass, and skyglow.
39.2 Minimize Lighting. Plan carefully to only install
lighting where it is needed. Directional lighting and lower intensity lamps can reduce lighting impacts. Indiscriminate Á ood-lighting of broad areas is unacceptable. Where safety “Á ood-lighting” is proposed for areas such as garage entries, only use lighting activated by motion sensors and directed downward.
39.3 Keep Lighting Low and Close. Light sources for
landscape lighting should be near to the ground. Fixtures mounted on the building should relate to a human scale in their size and mounting height. Floodlighting for security, when used, must be aimed close to the building and not create glare for neighbors.
39.4 Consider Distant Views. Light sources must not
be objectionable when seen from a distance. Is your property on a hillside visible from other areas? Consider how to place lighting on your site in ways that will minimize visibility from distant locations.
39.5 Driveways. Where possible, design driveways and
landscaping so that headlights do not shine onto neighboring properties. Avoid the use of lighting À xtures spaced along the length of a driveway, limiting use and placement to the minimum necessary for safety. Keep in mind the view of this lighting from surrounding areas.
39.6 Walkway Lighting. Along walkways, low-level lighting in the form of bollards or À xtures mounted on short posts are the preferred lighting solution. Fixtures should be located to avoid hazards for pedestrians or vehicles, and should account for growth of landscaping.
39.7 Light Shielding. Where other than low-intensity
light sources are used, À xtures must incorporate
shielding to prevent objectionable brightness or light trespass. The city’s Outdoor Lighting Guidelines contains useful charts of the intensity of different light sources, and when shielding becomes required. Keep in mind that even low-intensity light sources that are shielded, may still be directly visible from downhill neighbors, and considered a nuisance.
39.8 Landscape and Building Lighting. “Up-lighting”
of trees and building elements is discouraged, but when used, such lighting must be limited in its use, and À xtures must conÀ ne lighting to features being lit through use of shielding, lamps with low intensity and appropriate beam spread, and timers.
39.9 Outdoor Living Areas. Lighting for outdoor living areas such as decks, patios, and swimming pools should be designed to minimize the visibility of the lighting from the surrounding neighborhood. Mounting of Á oodlights on the building wall and aiming away from the building is not acceptable. (Continued on page 78-N)
Appellant's Appendix
B
77-N
CITY OF SANTA BARBARA SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE DESIGN GUIDELINES Flood lights are only allowed with motion sensors or controls.
Use downward directed shielded fixtures especially if not located under a roof eave or dormer.
Modest landscape area lighting for safety is appropriate.
Unshielded fixtures can result in light on neighboring properties and detracts from the night sky appearance.
Upward directed landscape lighting.
Appellant's Appendix
B
GOOD NEIGHBOR GUIDELINES & TIPS
78-N
GOOD NEIGHBOR TIPSTIPS FOR CONSIDERING NEIGHBORS’ VIEWS • Visit your neighbors’ houses to see how your building will affect their views and work to accommodate their concerns. • Be sensitive to your neighbors’ views in the placement and architectural appearance of your house or addition. - Identify neighbors’ lines of sight and current
views and how both your neighbors’ views and your own can be preserved or enhanced through a good design. - Where it is possible to preserve a view from a
neighbor’s property, achieve your project goals and respond effectively to environmental and other site constraints, then locate new dwellings so they interfere minimally with the neighbors’ views. Where compromise between these various project components must be made, if possible, strive to place a new dwelling so that similar amount and quality of private views may be achieved on a neighbor’s property as on your property. - Fences and hedges on Coastal bluff properties
often follow property lines perpendicular to the shoreline. These fences and hedges should maintain an open and unobstructed feeling in keeping with the ocean front. Consider your views and your neighbors views that occur at
39.10 Prohibited Lighting. Municipal Code Section
22.75.030.A prohibits the use of the following À xtures in all zones:
1. Lighting À xtures mounted in such a way as to illuminate a roof or awning.
2. Lighting À xtures mounted to aim light only toward a property line.
3. Lighting À xtures mounted in a way that is distracting to motorists or that interferes with the safe operation of a motor vehicle, as may be determined by the City Engineer. In addition to these ordinance provisions, lighting of architectural features or athletic courts is not appropriate for single family structures.
Appellant's Appendix
B
79-N
CITY OF SANTA BARBARA SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE DESIGN GUIDELINES oblique angles across one another’s properties. Avoid privacy fencing or hedges that extend well beyond the house toward the ocean. Minimize the visibility of fences and hedges from neighboring houses and from the ocean and beach. • Reduce height of the structure to minimize blockage
of views.
- DeÀ ne neighbors’ views and how your new
project will affect the views.
- Introduce methods that can be used to limit
views blocked due to a building’s height.
- Be sensitive to the existing size and bulk patterns
in the neighborhood.
• Locate higher portions of the structures to minimize
view blockage.
• Consider views from major living areas as well as other high quality views.
• Avoid tall landscaping, fences or walls that interfere with your neighbors’ views. Consider the mature plant growth height when selecting plants. • Screen solar panels, satellite dishes, radio antennae and other equipment from neighbors’ views to the maximum amount possible. • Refer to pages 73-N and 74-N regarding design
techniques to minimize impacts on views
TIPS FOR MINIMIZING CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS
• Tell neighbors:
- When work will begin and the approximate
completion date.
- Who they can contact if any problems or
concerns arise.
• Limit the noise of power tools to standard business
hours. Municipal Code 9.16.015 generally limits construction to between 7AM and 8 PM. • Have materials dropped in the driveway or yard, not
the street.
• Have dumpsters removed as soon as they are full; only keep them when they are truly needed.
Appellant's Appendix
B
GOOD NEIGHBOR GUIDELINES & TIPS
80-N
Proposed structure blocks only part of the view to the side and would preserve views of well-known Santa Barbara landmarks. Proposed structure blocks only part of the view to the side and does not interrupt the horizon.
The horizon line is the most sensitive part of a view, then the foreground, then the middleground. If possible, avoid cutting off the horizon line of a neighbor’s view. Also, avoid blockage of important landmarks in a neighbor’s view (e.g. the harbor, State Street, the Courthouse).Proposed structure blocks part of the center of view, however, the lower height maintains the neighbor’s view of the horizon line.Proposed structure blocks center of view.
Appellant's Appendix
B
81-N
CITY OF SANTA BARBARA SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE DESIGN GUIDELINES Neighbor Remaining View Area
Neighbor Remaining View Area
Appellant's Appendix
B
GOOD NEIGHBOR GUIDELINES & TIPS
82-N
TIPS FOR MANAGING CONFLICT WITH COMFORTValue of conÁ ict. ConÁ ict can strengthen and enhance relationships, or it can destroy them. Since we tend to regard conÁ ict as negative, the À rst step toward constructive conÁ ict is to recognize both positive and negative aspects.Positive outcomes of conÁ ict resolution can include:
• Opens communication between people.• Replaces old goals with more relevant ones.• Increases innovation through a greater diversity of viewpoints.
• Groups and individuals achieve greater awareness of
their own identities.
• Leads to innovation and better solutions to problems.• Strengthens relationships and interpersonal skills.• Improves problem-solving skills.• Provides an opportunity to avoid aggression.
Negative outcomes of conÁ ict can include:
• Misallocation of limited resources (time and money) to circumvent the conÁ ict.
• Barriers to communication, cooperation, and
understanding.
• Lower productivity and diverted energy from
accomplishing goals.
• Negative impact on mental and physical health.• An “Us vs. Them” environment.• Irresponsible behavior and distortion of goals or motives.
Value constructive controversy. Thoughtful dissent (what may appear to be interpersonal conÁ ict) results in reaching better decisions. ConÁ ict resolution is not about eliminating disagreements, diversity of opinion, or alternate viewpoints that are crucial to good decision making. Good leaders build dissent and controversy into the decision-making process so that people are more willing to speak out and offer ideas contrary to their own. Take the time - and encourage others - to listen to ideas, information, facts, or concepts that are contrary to your own. Too often “conÁ ict resolution” takes the form of suppressing all disagreements, rather than using them as decision improvement opportunities.Before you work on a resolution. Keep in mind these ideas before you start to work on an issue:
• Be sure it’s a real problem worth spending the time to resolve.
• Focus on the root causes of the problem - not just the symptoms or personalities.
• Be prepared to work toward a mutually agreeable
solution - not just winning your point of view.
• Prepare yourself to listen and understand other points of view on the issue.
• Keep some perspective. Disagreement and conÁ ict
are expected whenever people coexist. Relationships are not destroyed - and often enhanced - by working towards a mutually agreeable solution. • Remember that it’s all right to disagree, and the other person is not wrong to disagree with you.
Appellant's Appendix
B
83-N
CITY OF SANTA BARBARA SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE DESIGN GUIDELINES Listen for perspective. Understanding other perspectives is a key to À nding resolution. Use re
Á ective listening techniques
such as paraphrasing, repeating back, and non-verbal signs. Do your best to understand the frame of reference of the speaker; seek out the background and life experiences on which they base their perspective.Own your part. It takes at least two or more parties for a con Á ict
to exist. Be willing to take responsibility for your contribution to the problem. Acknowledging your contribution (or perceived contribution) can be an important À rst step in the resolution
process by opening communication and lowering barriers.Be the À rst to make a concession. Take the lead in making
the negotiation work. An early concession in an area important to the other person/group usually results in their reciprocation in other areas or ideas. Take the lead in suggesting tradeoffs by giving something another person wants in return for something you want.Stay objective. In the heat of discussion, it’s easy to display your feelings and emotions to a point they block the possibility of resolution. Use “I messages” and other techniques to talk about your feelings rather than acting them out. Work on not letting your own feelings block you from hearing what the other person is saying.Practice effective communication skills. You model the way and encourage resolution when you apply good communication skills during the discussion:
• Listen and make sure the other person knows you’re listening.• Maintain eye contact. • Use the person’s name.• Take notes, if appropriate, to show interest.• Don’t interrupt - let the person fully express their thoughts and feelings.
• Ask questions to clarify and con
À rm details.
• Stop talking and listen again.
Deal with one issue at a time. Maintain your focus on the point of con Á ict. There is a temptation to bring up unresolved
issues from the past in an attempt to catch the other person off guard. This can start a second con Á ict unrelated to the
À rst. If an unrelated issue is raised, do not respond except to indicate that it is not what you are dealing with at the time. Try suggesting that it could be dealt with at a later time. Many times these other issues become insigni À cant once the key
con
Á ict is resolved. One exception is if the secondary issue is, in fact, the root cause and is blocking the resolution of the current issue. If so, move to resolve the secondary issue À rst.
Search for the “win/win.” When working on an issue
constantly search for arrangements where both parties are involved in a “win.”Timing. Find a time when all parties are ready and willing to work on dealing with the con Á ict. Give everyone a little time
to deal with anger or the “heat of the moment” and prepare them to deal with the issues. Finding the right time helps prevent unnecessary defensiveness, resentment or personal animosity that occurs when one of the parties feels dragged into the discussion.Reacting to unintentional remarks. Often in the heat of a discussion things are said that are regretted an instant later.
Appellant's Appendix B
GOOD NEIGHBOR GUIDELINES & TIPS
84-N
TIPS FOR MANAGING CONFLICT WITH COMFORT (CONT’D)This is particularly true when the issue is of deep personal signiÀ cance to one or both of the parties. It occurs because often people don’t know precisely what they think or feel until they hear themselves verbalizing these feelings or thoughts. When such a questionable comment is made, determine whether it accurately conveys what the speaker meant. If not, everyone should ignore it and move on. If yes, it may indicate a root cause of the conÁ ict and should be further explored.
Discussion techniques. Try some of these ideas to help diagnose the conÁ ict and identify the root cause(s):
• Ask those who disagree to paraphrase one another’s
comments. This may help them learn if they really understand one another. • Ask each member to list what the other side should do.
Exchange lists and seek options which all parties can live with. • Search for cause, not blame.• Seek closure at the end of a discussion by summarizing points made and points agreed upon.
Allow for saving face. Being “right” and devastating one’s opponent may appear personally satisfying. However, this approach produces only momentary satisfaction and can be very costly by precluding any solid resolution and spawning future retaliation. The longer a conÁ ict goes on, the higher the ego involvement and the greater the need to save face. Everyone should keep this in mind when seeking resolution, but above all opponents must be allowed to save face. This is particularly critical when it becomes clear one party cannot win a particular argument. The person who allows a graceful retreat accords the opponent the respect that is deserved. This approach usually results in some degree of appreciation from the opponent, which is valuable in reaching a consensus on a resolution and in future encounters.Focus on interests, not positions. Focus on what is wanted rather than why it is wanted. It is essential to clearly establish what each party wants and how the objectives differ. Spending energy on why each party wants what he or she wants can be a waste of time and an invitation to a psychological melee. In fact, very few people know exactly why they want what they want. Most are not too concerned with their own motivation - for them, it’s simply enough that they want it. The best strategy is to avoid asking and answering queries about motivation and instead concentrate on accomplishing the speciÀ c goals of each party.Hot buttons. Be aware of your “hot buttons” - those words, phrases, mannerisms or approaches that raise your defenses and block listening and objective thinking. When they occur, consciously set them aside. Try to identify the hot buttons of the other party and avoid those trigger points. They may provide immediate gratiÀ cation but do little to resolve the issue.
Avoid solutions that come too quickly. When an issue is resolved too quickly or a simple but incomplete resolution is agreed to, the negative side effects are usually more painful and damaging in the long run than the original issue itself. UnÀ nished elements do not go away and will surface later, or Appellant's Appendix
B
85-N
CITY OF SANTA BARBARA SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE DESIGN GUIDELINES a party who later feels unsatis
À ed with the resolution will feel
free to create future con
Á ict on the same issue. The easiest
solution is not always the best one because it tends to treat symptoms and thereby obscure the real problem. Allow enough time for the parties to explore the disagreement and all possible resolutions. As each piece of an agreement is reached, check for other options. Look for any signs of concern and check if all involved can live with it. Abandon ideas - no matter how good you think they are - that receive little commitment or enthusiasm. Search for the second or third “right” answer.Keep your sense of humor. A con Á ict can be viewed as serious
and grim business. However it’s important that participants not loose their perspectives. One of the best ways to retain perspective is to use positive humor. A well-timed humorous remark (about content not parties involved) is a great way to recognize the humor of the situation. The parties involved may be unable to control their laughter and subsequently may À nd
the con
Á ict has disintegrated. It’s important for participants to remember to take the issues and con
Á ict seriously - not
themselves.A Process for Managing Con
Á ict and Disagreement
Constructively. A systematic process for dealing with con Á ict
and disagreement is vital to producing desirable outcomes. Remember to follow these six steps:
1. Diagnosis: Identify the root cause of the differences or conÁ ict.
2. Consider options: Explore differences and discuss alternatives which meet the goals and objectives of all parties.
3. Plan: Select a strategy from the options and create an action plan for implementation. Write out the plan with speci
À c agreements and consequences for not living up
to commitments.
4. Do: Implement and monitor the plan while
maintaining a tone of mutual respect and goodwill.
5. Check: Meet again to evaluate the success of the action plan in resolving the con
Á ict and verify the agreement
is being honored. Make changes or take corrective action. Reinforce each other’s positive behavior.
6. Act: Learn from the experience and apply the process in other con
Á ict or disagreement situations. Continue
working on the agreement, action plan and relationship.
TEST YOUR CONFLICT MANAGEMENT SKILLS
ɷ Do you view con
Á ict as an opportunity for growth,
rather than a contest to win or something to avoid?
ɷ Have you recently questioned or changed a deeply held belief?
ɷ Can you remove yourself at times from a con
Á ict situation,
putting yourself in the place of a neutral observer?
ɷ Do you search for cause rather than blame?ɷ Do you search for common ground more than differences?ɷ Are you as interested in learning from the other party as you are in making your own views known?
ɷ Do you rely on your own good judgment rather than
allowing group loyalty to stand in its way?
ɷ When the other party is talking, do you focus on their needs and concerns rather than your own?
ɷ Do you maintain eye contact with the speaker?
Appellant's Appendix B
GOOD NEIGHBOR GUIDELINES & TIPS
86-N
TIPS FOR MANAGING CONFLICT WITH COMFORT (CONT’D)
ɷ Do your responses allow open expression of the other
party’s view rather than judging them?
ɷ Do you give feedback by asking informational
questions and paraphrasing?
ɷ Do you look for clues for agreement or discomfort in
the other party’s body language?
ɷ Do you allow - even encourage - the other party to
point out your own erroneous assumptions?
ɷ Do you make every effort to hear the other party and
establish good will before stating your needs?
ɷ Do you clearly express your own needs?ɷ Are you sensitive to the best time to meet?ɷ Do you look for options agreeable to both parties?ɷ Do you invite the other party to explore other options by asking “What if …?”
ɷ Can you recognize when different conÁ ict modes are
being used or could be used?
ɷ Do you establish boundaries - the minimum you can
accept and the maximum you can give?
ɷ Do you work with the other party to establish an action plan for mutually established goals and behavior changes? ɷ Do you check for agreement and understanding on
agreed on resolutions?
NEGATIVE VS. POSITIVE CONFLICT
Negative ConflictHappens when …It escalates.It leads to hostility and fear.It leads to accusation and threats.Issues proliferate• From one to many.Specifics are replaced by general issues.• From specific behavior to entire relationship.
Concern for self turns into retaliation.• Objectivity wanes.• Statements become personal attacks.
• Getting even and hurting
others is primary.
The number of parties
involved increases.
• Indirect attack and gossip
reigns.
• Factions and cliques form.
Positive ConflictHappens when …It is manifested as a symptom of discontent.It produces change for thebetter.• e.g. outdated policies revised:
It produces gains, innovations and new ideas.It fosters unity and understanding.You gather information on how to better understand others for future use.It brings about behavior changes.• Harmony between what you believe and what you do develops.
From “Dealing with ConÁ ict & Confrontation” by Helga Rhode, Pys.D.
Appellant's Appendix
B
VIDEOSCAPES
Visibility Analysis
For 3210 Laurel Canyon Road, Santa Barbara, Ca 93105
Created for The Law Office of Marc Chytilo, APC
February 24, 2023
The purpose of this study is to illustrate the view which would be obtained from a second floor balcony that is part of construction proposed for 3208 Laurel Canyon Rd ., especially as it would impact the adjacent residence to the East at 3210 Laurel Canyon Road and more generally the homes and backyards of residences on Lucinda Lane. Additionally, this analysis also generally illustrates the views obtained from a proposed second story deck adjacent to the home on the west side. These analyses demonstrate that the proposed balcony and deck will provide direct views into backyards and private living areas, compromising the privacy in those adjacent homes and backyards. These results are presented as simulated 3-dimensional model images located in Appendix A of this report.
Methodology:
A three dimensional model of the neighborhood surrounding 3210 Laurel Canyon Road was crafted in Autodesk 3ds Max. The model encompasses a radius of about 275 feet centered on the house at the above address, which is the residence of Anita Williamson.
The existing house at 3210 Laurel Canyon Road was parametrically modeled based on the plans provided by the owner.
The proposed house at 3208 Laurel Canyon Road was also parametrically modeled using the January 17 version of the plans and elevations on file with the City of Santa Barbara, with the balcony and deck heights adjusted to the conform to the February 23, 2023 version of the plans and elevations. All of the other homes are represented as volumetric massing models based on the building footprint and highest roof peak height.
Two studies were conducted:
One is a raytraced visualization of structures illuminated by a light source placed where a person might be viewing the neighborhood from the proposed southeastern second floor balcony of 3208 Laurel Canyon Road. Structures illuminated by the light, indicated by a red wash on the illustrations, could be seen by a person standing on the balcony.
The presence of screening vegetation is not considered in this study, as vegetative screening is ephemeral relative to building structures and hardscapes.
A second study places a virtual camera on the proposed southeastern second floor deck of 3208 Laurel Canyon Road approximately where the eyes of a 6 foot tall person would be. The models were then rendered by the computer from this view. Again, the presence of screening vegetation is not considered in this study.
Appellant Appendix C
Visibility Analysis for 3210/3208 Laurel Canyon Road
February 24, 2023
Conclusions:
It is possible to easily look directly into patio, backyard and the bedroom of the residence at 3210 Laurel Canyon Rd from the proposed southeastern second floor balcony. The privacy of the residential backyards of 3202 Laurel Canyon Road and 3193, 3185, and 3279 Lucinda Lane is compromised by the proximity and height of the viewpoint from the proposed southeastern second floor balcony and southwestern deck of 3208 Laurel Canyon Road.
References:
Santa Barbara Topographic Map – Section F05
2023-02-13_February_13_2023_3208_Laurel_Canyon_Rd.pdf
Ken Doud
Visual Impacts Analyst
[email protected]
805-331-8348
Appelant Appendix C
Visibility Analysis for 3210/3208 Laurel Canyon Road
February 24, 2023
APPENDIX A
VISUAL SIMULATION IMAGES
Figure 1. Simulated view of the south facade of the proposed addition at 3208.
Appelant Appendix C
Visibility Analysis for 3210/3208 Laurel Canyon Road
February 24, 2023
Figure 2. Simulated view, and field of view to the east from the second floor balcony. Note clear visibility into the bedroom, patio, and backyard of 3210 Laurel Canyon Rd.
Appelant Appendix C
Visibility Analysis for 3210/3208 Laurel Canyon Road
February 24, 2023
Figure 3. Raytraced simulated field of view from the southeast balcony to neighboring homes. Visibilty assumed at a person's height of 6' above the finished floor.
Appelant Appendix C
Visibility Analysis for 3210/3208 Laurel Canyon Road
February 24, 2023
Figure 4. Raytraced simulated field of view from the southwest deck to neighboring homes. Visibilty assumed at a person's height of 6' above the finished floor.
Appelant Appendix C
Visibility Analysis for 3210/3208 Laurel Canyon Road
February 24, 2023
Figure 5. Computer simulation street view of size, bulk, mass and scale compared to neighboring homes.
Carport omitted for clarity.
Figure 6. Computer simulation backyard view of size, bulk, mass and scale compared to neighboring homes. Carport omitted for clarity.
Appelant Appendix C
Ken Doud Visual Impacts Analyst Ken Doud @ comcast.net
PO Box 696, Los Olivos, Ca 93441 805-331-8348
Education:
Masters Degree, Fine Arts/Mass Media University of California, Santa Barbara Skills:
25 years of experience in the preparation of graphics for use in CEQA/NEPA compliant environmental visual analysis with emphasis on the preparation of photo simulations, including the selection of viewpoints and depictions of visual mitigation measures and assistance in the placement of those measures.
15 years experience in conducting peer review of visual impact analysis, shadow studies, and graphics for EIR, including presentation of expert testimony in courtroom and governmental review settings.
High Level skills in CAD, photo editing, digital photography, and computer visualization software, including Autodesk 3ds Max, which is the industry standard for GIS based visual simulations.
Ability to read Architectural, Engineering and related Planning Documents and accurately migrate that information into the 3-d computer environment.
Qualifications (Selected projects)
2017
Project Title: Goleta Fire Station#10 Visual Simulations Location: Santa Barbara County, Ca
Contractor: City of Goleta; AMEC.
Description: Due to the removal of many large existing trees, landscaping was a particularly sensitive issue regarding the visual impacts of this project. The depiction of foliage and landscape species can be difficult in the computer environment. Nevertheless, the results achieved by Ken Doud using advanced software and hardware were described as “Amazing” by the City of Goleta planner who supervised the project. 2017
Project Title: Rancho Santa Maria Golf Course Proposed Housing Project Location: Santa Barbara County, Ca
Contractor: Dudek; Capital Pacific Development Group
Description: Ken Doud provided an extensive series of visual simulations in order to address concerns by both the golf course management and Santa Barbara County planners. The project, near Orcutt, Ca, proposed building over 150 single family homes between the golf course fairways. Ken Doud helped in the selection of sensitive views, many from the Tee Appelant Appendix C
boxes on this 18 hole golf course. The visual simulations depicted both landscaped and non-landscaped renderings from each point-of-view.
Project Title: Rice Ranch Clubhouse Visual Simulations
Location: Santa Barbara County, Ca
Contractor: Dudek; Trilogy by Shea Homes, Inc.
Description: Ken Doud has provided visual simulations and view mitigation advice since 1998 for this large development project south of Orcutt, California. This includes selection of sensitive views; GIS enabled digital photography acquisition; parametric computer modeling from plans, emgineering drawings, and conceptual drawings; and optimized positioning of landscape screening elements within the three dimensional computer environment.
2014
Project Title: Tajiguas Landfill Peer Review
Location: Santa Barbara County, Ca
Contractor: Environmental Defense Center; Marc Chytilo
Description: Provided peer review of developer supplied visual impacts analysis materials for the Tajiguas Landfill Expansion Project. Using digital elevation data to graphically display where topography would be visible from sensitive viewpoints, determined adequacy of the report.
2013
Project Title: Cuyama Solar Project Visual Impacts Peer Review and Visual Simulations Location: Santa Barbara County, Ca
Contractor: AMEC Environment & Infrastructure, Inc.
Description: Provided both peer review of applicant submitted materials and additional visual simulations from surrounding recreational lands for the 400 acre solar power generation facility.
2012
Project Title: Goleta Beach Managed Retreat
Location: Santa Barbara County, Ca
Contractor: AMEC Environment & Infrastructure, Inc.
Description: Provided photo simulations showing the appearance of proposed erosioncontrol engineering and the removal and/or relocation of public appurtenances. To support these improvements, Ken Doud also provided illustrations which showed the historical changes in the beach configuration due to erosion or accumulation of sand. 2009
Project Title: El Paradiseo Ranch luxury homes on the Gaviota Coast Location: Santa Barbara County, Ca
Contractor: AMEC Earth and Environmental
Description: Provided an extensive series of photo simulations based on grading and architectural plans for three luxury homes on the Gaviota coast. Methodology and supporting documentation in compliance with strict California Coastal Zone guidelines.
Appelant Appendix C
2008
Project Title: Santa Barbara Ranch (“Naples”) Project Peer Review Location: Santa Barbara County
Contractor: Environmental Defense Center (EDC),
Description: Ken Doud was hired by the EDC to examine, analyse and provide expert testimony regarding the findings presented in the DEIR for this controversial project.
Consideration was given to CEQA, Coastal Commission, and County of Santa Barbara guidelines compliance, the consistency by which stated methodologies were applied within those frameworks, and the validity of data used to support evaluation criteria. A report indicating non-compliance was prepared based on these findings and presented to the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors
Appelant Appendix C
CITY OF SANTA BARBARA
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
AGENDA DATE: June 6, 2023
TO: Mayor and Councilmembers
FROM: City Attorney’s Office
SUBJECT: Conference with City Attorney -- Gov. Code § 54956.9(d)(4):
Initiation of Litigation on One Matter
RECOMMENDATION:
That Council hold a closed session to consider initiating litigation pursuant to subsection (d)(4) of Section 54956.9 of the Government Code and take appropriate action as needed (one potential case).
Scheduling: Duration, 30 minutes; anytime
Report: None anticipated
PREPARED BY: Daniel S. Hentschke, Assistant City Attorney SUBMITTED BY: Sarah J. Knecht, City Attorney
APPROVED BY: City Administrator's Office
Agenda Item No. 26
File Code No. 160.03