Exhibit A
Single Family Streamlining Project
Proposed Amendments to SBMC Title 30
AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 30
Planning Commission Draft Showing Changes
From Current Code
420
FIGURE 30.300.250: YARD, FRONT
Yard, Open. A required yard, intended to provide minimum open areas within residential development.
Exhibit A
Single Family Streamlining Project
Proposed Amendments to SBMC Title 30
AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 30
Planning Commission Draft Showing Changes
From Current Code
421
30.300.260 “Z”.
Zone. See Zoning District.
Zone Map. The zoning maps of the City of Santa Barbara, California, together with all amendments. See Base Zone and ODDS Zone.
Zoning District. A specifically delineated area or district in the city within which regulations and requirements uniformly govern the use, placement, spacing, and size of land and structures. See Section 30.05.010, Zones Established (for Title 30 projects), and Section 25.01.090, Zones Established, (for Title 25 projects).
Exhibit A
Single Family Streamlining Project
Proposed Amendments to SBMC Title 30
AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 30
Planning Commission Draft Showing Changes
From Current Code
422
SECTION 19. Appendix of the Santa Barbara Municipal Code is amended to read as follows:
Appendix Sectional Maps
Exhibit A
Single Family Streamlining Project
Proposed Amendments to SBMC Title 30
AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 30
Planning Commission Draft Showing Changes
From Current Code
423
Map SA02
Exhibit A
Single Family Streamlining Project
Proposed Amendments to SBMC Title 30
AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 30
Planning Commission Draft Showing Changes
From Current Code
424
Exhibit A
Single Family Streamlining Project
Proposed Amendments to SBMC Title 30
AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 30
Planning Commission Draft Showing Changes
From Current Code
425
Map SA03
Exhibit A
Single Family Streamlining Project
Proposed Amendments to SBMC Title 30
AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 30
Planning Commission Draft Showing Changes
From Current Code
426
Exhibit A
Single Family Streamlining Project
Proposed Amendments to SBMC Title 30
AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 30
Planning Commission Draft Showing Changes
From Current Code
427
Map SA04
Exhibit A
Single Family Streamlining Project
Proposed Amendments to SBMC Title 30
AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 30
Planning Commission Draft Showing Changes
From Current Code
428
Exhibit A
Single Family Streamlining Project
Proposed Amendments to SBMC Title 30
AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 30
Planning Commission Draft Showing Changes
From Current Code
429
Map SB01
Exhibit A
Single Family Streamlining Project
Proposed Amendments to SBMC Title 30
AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 30
Planning Commission Draft Showing Changes
From Current Code
430
Exhibit A
Single Family Streamlining Project
Proposed Amendments to SBMC Title 30
AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 30
Planning Commission Draft Showing Changes
From Current Code
431
Map SB02
Exhibit A
Single Family Streamlining Project
Proposed Amendments to SBMC Title 30
AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 30
Planning Commission Draft Showing Changes
From Current Code
432
Exhibit A
Single Family Streamlining Project
Proposed Amendments to SBMC Title 30
AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 30
Planning Commission Draft Showing Changes
From Current Code
433
Map SB03
Exhibit A
Single Family Streamlining Project
Proposed Amendments to SBMC Title 30
AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 30
Planning Commission Draft Showing Changes
From Current Code
434
Exhibit A
Single Family Streamlining Project
Proposed Amendments to SBMC Title 30
AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 30
Planning Commission Draft Showing Changes
From Current Code
435
Map SB04
Exhibit A
Single Family Streamlining Project
Proposed Amendments to SBMC Title 30
AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 30
Planning Commission Draft Showing Changes
From Current Code
436
Exhibit A
Single Family Streamlining Project
Proposed Amendments to SBMC Title 30
AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 30
Planning Commission Draft Showing Changes
From Current Code
437
Map SC01
Exhibit A
Single Family Streamlining Project
Proposed Amendments to SBMC Title 30
AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 30
Planning Commission Draft Showing Changes
From Current Code
438
Exhibit A
Single Family Streamlining Project
Proposed Amendments to SBMC Title 30
AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 30
Planning Commission Draft Showing Changes
From Current Code
439
Map SC02
Exhibit A
Single Family Streamlining Project
Proposed Amendments to SBMC Title 30
AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 30
Planning Commission Draft Showing Changes
From Current Code
440
Exhibit A
Single Family Streamlining Project
Proposed Amendments to SBMC Title 30
AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 30
Planning Commission Draft Showing Changes
From Current Code
441
Map SC03
Exhibit A
Single Family Streamlining Project
Proposed Amendments to SBMC Title 30
AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 30
Planning Commission Draft Showing Changes
From Current Code
442
Exhibit A
Single Family Streamlining Project
Proposed Amendments to SBMC Title 30
AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 30
Planning Commission Draft Showing Changes
From Current Code
443
Map SD01
Exhibit A
Single Family Streamlining Project
Proposed Amendments to SBMC Title 30
AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 30
Planning Commission Draft Showing Changes
From Current Code
444
Exhibit A
Single Family Streamlining Project
Proposed Amendments to SBMC Title 30
AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 30
Planning Commission Draft Showing Changes
From Current Code
445
Map SD02
Exhibit A
Single Family Streamlining Project
Proposed Amendments to SBMC Title 30
AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 30
Planning Commission Draft Showing Changes
From Current Code
446
Exhibit A
Single Family Streamlining Project
Proposed Amendments to SBMC Title 30
AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 30
Planning Commission Draft Showing Changes
From Current Code
447
Map SD03
Exhibit A
Single Family Streamlining Project
Proposed Amendments to SBMC Title 30
AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 30
Planning Commission Draft Showing Changes
From Current Code
448
Exhibit A
Single Family Streamlining Project
Proposed Amendments to SBMC Title 30
AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 30
Planning Commission Draft Showing Changes
From Current Code
449
Map SE01
Exhibit A
Single Family Streamlining Project
Proposed Amendments to SBMC Title 30
AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 30
Planning Commission Draft Showing Changes
From Current Code
450
Exhibit A
Single Family Streamlining Project
Proposed Amendments to SBMC Title 30
AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 30
Planning Commission Draft Showing Changes
From Current Code
451
Map SE02
Exhibit A
Single Family Streamlining Project
Proposed Amendments to SBMC Title 30
AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 30
Planning Commission Draft Showing Changes
From Current Code
452
Exhibit A
Single Family Streamlining Project
Proposed Amendments to SBMC Title 30
AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 30
Planning Commission Draft Showing Changes
From Current Code
453
Map SE03
Exhibit A
Single Family Streamlining Project
Proposed Amendments to SBMC Title 30
AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 30
Planning Commission Draft Showing Changes
From Current Code
454
Exhibit A
Single Family Streamlining Project
Proposed Amendments to SBMC Title 30
AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 30
Planning Commission Draft Showing Changes
From Current Code
455
Exhibit A
Single Family Streamlining Project
Proposed Amendments to SBMC Title 30
AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 30
Planning Commission Draft Showing Changes
From Current Code
456
SECTION 20. Severability and Interpretation
A. Severability. If any provision of this Ordinance or the application thereof to any persons or circumstances is held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect other provisions or applications of this Ordinance which can be given effect without the invalid provision or application and, to this end, the provisions of this Ordinance are hereby declared to be severable.
B. Interpretation. This Ordinance shall be construed to confer upon the City the maximum power and authority allowed by state and federal law. In the event state or federal law is found to conflict with and preempt any provision of this Ordinance, or in the event state or federal law changes to conflict with and preempt any provision of this Ordinance, the remaining and non-conflicting provisions of this Ordinance shall be interpreted and construed to give maximum effect to the remaining and non-conflicting provisions so as to effectuate, to the greatest extent possible, the purposes and restrictions expressed herein.
SECTION 21. California Environmental Quality Act
This action is exempt from further environmental review pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15305 based on the City’s adopted CEQA implementation ordinance per SBMC Section 22.100.070 (List of Ministerial Projects and Categorical Exemptions), Subsection C.5. Class 5: Minor Alternations in Land Use Limitations, Subsection c. Adoption or amendment of land use or development ordinance, regulations, standards, or guidelines that substantially maintain existing land use intensity or density. The amendments to Title 30 are
Exhibit A
Single Family Streamlining Project
Proposed Amendments to SBMC Title 30
AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 30
Planning Commission Draft Showing Changes
From Current Code
457
administrative in nature and will not result in any increase in the intensity or density of land use above what is currently allowed under the General Plan Land Use designations. There is no possibility of a significant effect on the environment from this action.
SECTION 22. Effective Date; Applicability to Pending Applications A. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall take effect on [insert date] (“Effective Date”).
B. Applications Submitted on or Before Effective Date. Notwithstanding the Effective Date set forth in Subsection A, any building permit application or planning application submitted to the Community Development Department prior to the Effective Date may, at the applicant’s discretion, be processed in accordance with the codes, standards, and regulations in effect at the time of initial submittal; provided that a valid building permit is issued for the proposed project, the application does not expire, and construction work is not deemed abandoned.
C. Applications Submitted After Effective Date. Any building permit application or planning application received by the Community Development Department on or after the Effective Date, shall be subject to the provisions of this Ordinance.
Exhibit A
Single Family Streamlining Project
Proposed Amendments to SBMC Title 30
Exhibit B
Single Family Streamlining Project
Proposed Title 25 Ordinance Amendments
1 ORDINANCE NO. ______
AN ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
SANTA BARBARA AMENDING THE SANTA BARBARA
MUNICIPAL CODE BY AND AMENDING CHAPTER 25.03
OF TITLE 25 PERTAINING TO REGULATIONS FOR
SINGLE FAMILY STREAMLINING
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA BARBARA DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Section 25.03.040 of Chapter 25.03 of Title 25 of the Santa Barbara Municipal Code is amended to read as follows:
25.03.040 Open Yards.
A. Intent. These standards provide space for recreational and leisure activities, allow for increased light and air, provide permeable surfaces for storm water retention, improve the visual environment, and increase livability.
B. Standards. All open yard minimum area and dimensions shall be in compliance with Section
30.140.140 (Open Yards) except as noted below based on the proposed building type. The minimum common and private open yard must be located within the design site boundary for each building type.
1. 2. Design sites developed with the Duplex Side-by-Side, Duplex Stacked, and Duplex Court Building Types must provide open yard in compliance with Section 30.140.140C.1 (Open Yards).
3. Projects on design sites in the Mixed-Use Corridor (MUC), Downtown Edge (DE), and Downtown Core (DC) zones may provide an alternative common open yard in compliance with Section 30.150.090G.2.b (Additional Development Incentives).
EXHIBIT B Page 478 of 767
Exhibit B
Single Family Streamlining Project
Proposed Title 25 Ordinance Amendments
2 4. All other Building Types must provide common and private open yard in compliance with Section 30.140.140C.2 (Open Yards).
Exhibit C
Single Family Streamlining Project
Proposed Title 22 Ordinance Amendments
1 ORDINANCE NO. ______
AN ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF SANTA BARBARA AMENDING THE SANTA
BARBARA MUNICIPAL CODE BY ADDING
CHAPTER 22.22 AND AMENDING CHAPTERS 22.68
AND 22.69 PERTAINING TO REGULATIONS FOR
SINGLE FAMILY STREAMLINING
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA BARBARA DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Chapter 22.22 of Title 22 of the Santa Barbara Municipal Code is added to read as follows:
CHAPTER 22.22
Historic Landmarks Commission
Design review is as required by Chapter 30.220, Design Review, Section 30.220.020, Historic Landmarks Commission.
EXHIBIT C Page 480 of 767
2 Exhibit C
Single Family Streamlining Project
Proposed Title 22 Ordinance Amendments
SECTION 2. Chapter 22.68 of Title 22 of the Santa Barbara Municipal Code is amended to read as follows:
CHAPTER 22.68
ARCHITECTURAL BOARD OF REVIEW
Design review is as required by Chapter 30.220, Design Review, Section 30.220.010, Architectural Board of Review.
§ 22.68.010. Architectural Board of Review.
A. Purpose. Section 814 of the Santa Barbara City Charter creates and establishes an Architectural Board of Review for the City to promote the general public welfare of the City and to protect and preserve the natural and historical charm and beauty of the City and its aesthetic appeal and beauty.
B. Membership. The Architectural Board of Review shall be composed of seven members to be appointed as provided in the Charter.
C. Officers - quorum. The members of the Architectural Board of Review shall elect from their own members a chair and vice-chair. The Community Development Director shall act as secretary and record Board actions and render written reports thereof for the Board as required by this chapter. The Board shall adopt its own rules of procedure. Four members shall constitute a quorum, one of which shall be an architect. § 22.68.015. Definitions.
Community Development Director. Community Development Director of the City of Santa Barbara, or designee.
Defined in this Chapter. If any word or phrase is defined in this chapter, the definition given in this chapter shall be operative for the purposes of this chapter.
Defined in the Municipal Code. If a word or phrase used in this chapter is not defined in this chapter, but is defined in Chapter 28.04 (for properties in the Coastal Zone), or either Chapter
30.295 or Chapter 30.300 (for properties in the Inland Zones) of this code, the word or phrase shall have the same meaning in this chapter as the meaning specified in the chapter that applies to the zone in which the property is located.
3 Exhibit C
Single Family Streamlining Project
Proposed Title 22 Ordinance Amendments
Project Design Approval. The review and approval of an application filed pursuant to this chapter where the minutes of the Single Family Design Board identify the approval as "Project Design Approval." For the purposes of the State Permit Streamlining Act (Government Code Section 65950 et seq.), the Project Design Approval is the substantive approval of the project on its design merits.
Undefined Words and Phrases. Any words or phrases used in this chapter that are not defined in this chapter, Chapter 28.04 (for properties in the Coastal Zone), or either Chapter 30.295 or Chapter 30.300 (for properties in the Inland Zones) of this code shall be construed according to the common meaning of the words and the context of their usage. § 22.68.020. Design Review - Nonresidential, Multi-Unit, Two-Unit Residential and MixedUse Development.
A. Approval required before issuance of permit. No building permit or grading permit, the
application for which is subject to design review by the Architectural Board of Review in accordance with the requirements of this chapter, shall be issued without the approval of the Board or the City Council, on appeal.
B. Building permits - nonresidential, multi-unit residential, two-unit residential, and mixed-use. Any application for a building permit to construct, alter, or add to the exterior of a nonresidential, multi-unit residential, two-unit residential, or mixed-use development, or any application which will result in two or more residential units on one lot in any zone (other than the Residential Single Unit Zones listed in Chapter 28.15 or Chapter 30.20 of this code), shall be referred to the Architectural Board of Review for design review in accordance with the requirements of this chapter.
C. Subdivision grading plans. All subdivision grading plans involving grading on a lot or lots located in any zone (other than the Residential Single Unit Zones listed in Chapter 28.15 or Chapter 30.20 of this code) shall be referred to the Architectural Board of Review for a review of the proposed grading.
D. Grading permits. Any application for a grading permit that proposes grading on any lot (other than a lot located in the Residential Single Unit Zones listed in Chapter 28.15 or Chapter
4 Exhibit C
Single Family Streamlining Project
Proposed Title 22 Ordinance Amendments
30.20 of this code or a lot that is developed with either a single-unit residence, or a single- unit residence in combination with either an Additional Dwelling Unit (Section 28.93.030.E) or an Additional Residential Unit (Section 30.295.020.B.2)) and which application is not submitted in connection with an application for a building permit for the construction or alteration of a building or structure on the same lot shall be referred to the Architectural Board of Review for a review of the proposed grading.
E. Exterior color.
1. New Buildings. The Architectural Board of Review shall review the exterior color of any new building or structure that is subject to design review by the Architectural Board of Review.
2. Alterations. If a change of the exterior color of a building or structure is proposed in connection with another alteration to a building or structure that is subject to design review by the Architectural Board of Review, the Architectural Board of Review shall review the proposed change of color in the course of the design review of the other alteration(s).
3. Nonresidential Buildings or Structures. The Architectural Board of Review shall review any change to the exterior color of a nonresidential building or related accessory structure whether or not the change of color is proposed in connection with another alteration of the building or structure that is subject to design review by the Architectural Board of Review.
F. Highway 101 improvements. Improvements to U.S. Highway 101 or appurtenant highway structures which require a Coastal Development Permit pursuant to the City's Certified Local Coastal Program, and which are located within the Highway 101 Santa Barbara Coastal Parkway Special Design District as defined by Municipal Code Section 22.68.060, shall be referred to the Architectural Board of Review for design review, except for improvements to
those portions of U.S. Highway 101 and its appurtenant structures that are located within the El Pueblo Viejo Landmark District, which are subject to review by the Historic Landmarks Commission pursuant to Section 30.57.030.
G. Substantial alterations to approved landscape plans for lots developed with nonresidential or multi-unit residential uses. The Architectural Board of Review shall review
5 Exhibit C
Single Family Streamlining Project
Proposed Title 22 Ordinance Amendments
any substantial alteration or deviation from the design, character, plant coverage at maturity, or other improvements specified on an approved landscape plan for any lot within the City of Santa Barbara that is developed with multi-residential units, a mixed-use development, or a building that is occupied by a nonresidential use, whether or not such alteration or deviation to the landscape plan is proposed in connection with an alteration to a building or structure on the lot that is subject to design review by the Architectural Board of Review. Whether a proposed alteration or deviation is substantial shall be determined in accordance with the Architectural Board of Review guidelines.
H. Accessory buildings. The Architectural Board of Review shall review any new buildings, additions, or exterior alterations to existing buildings, on projects that are subject to design review by the Architectural Board of Review, for the following:
1. Detached accessory buildings greater than 500 square feet, or.
2. Buildings, or portions of buildings, providing covered parking, resulting in three or more covered parking spaces on the lot.
I. Minor zoning exceptions. The Architectural Board of Review shall review applications for a Minor Zoning Exception whenever it is allowed by Title 30 on all projects that are subject to review by the Architectural Board of Review, subject to the criteria and findings in Title 30.
J. Alternative open yard design. The Architectural Board of Review shall review applications for an Alternative Open Yard Design on multi-unit residential or mixed-use projects, subject to the criteria and findings Section 30.140.140, Open Yards.
K. Outdoor sales and display. The Architectural Board of Review shall review all proposals for Outdoor Sales and Display (as described in Section 30.295.040.W).
L. Architectural Board of Review submittal requirements. Applications for review by the Architectural Board of Review shall be made in writing in such form as is approved by the Community Development Director. No application required to be referred to the Architectural Board of Review shall be considered complete unless accompanied by the application fee in the amount established by resolution of the City Council.
M. Administrative review and approval. Minor design alterations, as specified in the Architectural Board of Review Design Guidelines approved by a resolution of the City Council, may be approved as a ministerial action by the Community Development Director without review by the Architectural Board of Review. The Community Development Director
6 Exhibit C
Single Family Streamlining Project
Proposed Title 22 Ordinance Amendments
shall have the authority and discretion to refer any minor design alteration to the Architectural Board of Review if, in the opinion of the Community Development Director, the alteration has the potential to have an adverse effect on the architectural or landscape integrity of the building, structure or surrounding property.
§ 22.68.030. Alternative Design Review by Historic Landmarks Commission.
A project that is otherwise subject to review by the Architectural Board of Review in accordance with the requirements of this chapter shall be referred to the Historic Landmarks Commission for review in accordance with the requirements of Chapter 30.157 if the project is proposed in any of the following locations:
A. A lot on which a City Landmark or City Structure of Merit is located, B. A property on the City's Potential Historic Resources List, or C. Any property located within El Pueblo Viejo Landmark District or another landmark district.
This referral to the Historic Landmarks Commission is supplemental to any other design review requirements required by Chapter 30.57 due to the status of any building or structure on the lot or the location of the lot within a landmark district. The fact that an application for a building permit or grading permit is not subject to design review pursuant to this chapter shall not excuse or exempt an application from review pursuant to Chapter 30.57 of this code. § 22.68.040. Architectural Board of Review Notice and Hearing.
A. Projects that require a noticed hearing. Review of the following projects by the Architectural Board of Review must be preceded by a noticed public hearing:
1. A new two-unit residential, multi-unit residential, mixed-use or nonresidential building,
2. The addition of over 500 square feet of net floor area to a two-unit residential or multiunit residential development,
3. An addition of a new story or an addition to an existing second or higher story of a two- unit residential or multi-unit residential development,
Exhibit C
Single Family Streamlining Project
Proposed Title 22 Ordinance Amendments
7 4. An addition or alteration that will result in an additional residential unit on a lot,
5. Small nonresidential additions as defined in Chapter 28.85 or Chapter 30.170 of this code,
6. Projects involving grading in excess of 250 cubic yards outside the footprint of any main building (soil located within five feet of an exterior wall of a main building that is excavated and recompacted shall not be included in the calculation of the volume of grading outside the building footprint), or
7. Projects involving exterior lighting with the apparent potential to create significant glare on neighboring parcels.
8. Projects involving an application for a Minor Zoning Exception as specified in Section
30.245.050 of this code.
B. Mailed notice. Not less than 10 calendar days before the date of the hearing required by subsection A above, the City shall cause written notice of the project hearing to be sent by first class mail to the following persons: the applicant and the current record owner (as shown on the latest equalized assessment roll) of any lot, or any portion of a lot, which is located not more than 300 feet from the exterior boundaries of the lot which is the subject of the action.
The written notice shall advise the recipient of the following: (1) the date, time and location of the hearing; (2) the right of the recipient to appear at the hearing and to be heard by the Architectural Board of Review; (3) the location of the subject property; and (4) the nature of the application subject to design review.
C. Additional noticing methods. In addition to the required mailed notice specified in subsection B above, the City may also require notice of the hearing to be provided by the applicant in any other manner that the City deems necessary or desirable, including, but not limited to, posted notice on the project site and notice delivered to non-owner residents of any of the 20 lots closest to the lot which is the subject of the action. However, the failure of any person or entity to receive notice given pursuant to such additional noticing methods shall not constitute grounds for any court to invalidate the actions of the City for which the notice was given.
D. Projects requiring decisions by the City Council, Planning Commission, or Staff Hearing Officer. Whenever a project requires another land use decision or approval by the City Council, the Planning Commission, or the Staff Hearing Officer, the mailed notice of the first hearing before the Architectural Board of Review shall comply with the notice
8 Exhibit C
Single Family Streamlining Project
Proposed Title 22 Ordinance Amendments
requirements of this section or the notice requirements applicable to the other land use decision or approval, whichever are greater. However, nothing in this section shall require either: (1) notice of any hearing before the Architectural Board of Review to be published in a newspaper; or (2) mailed notice of hearings before the Architectural Board of Review after the first hearing conducted by the Architectural Board of Review, except as otherwise provided in the Architectural Board of Review Guidelines adopted by resolution of the City Council.
§ 22.68.045. Project Compatibility Analysis.
A. Purpose. The purpose of this section is to promote effective and appropriate communication between the Architectural Board of Review and the Planning Commission (or the Staff Hearing Officer) in the review of development projects and in order to promote consistency between the City land use decision making process and the City design review process as well as to show appropriate concern for preserving the historic character of certain areas of the City.
B. Project compatibility findings. In addition to any other considerations and requirements specified in this code, the following findings shall be considered by the Architectural Board of Review when it reviews and approves or disapproves the design of a proposed development project in a noticed public hearing pursuant to the requirements of Chapter 22.68:
1. Consistency with Design Guidelines. The design of the project is consistent with design guidelines applicable to the location of the project within the City.
2. Compatible with Architectural Character of City and Neighborhood. The design of the project is compatible with the desirable architectural qualities and characteristics which are distinctive of Santa Barbara and of the particular neighborhood surrounding the project.
3. Appropriate size, mass, bulk, height, and scale. The size, mass, bulk, height, and scale of the project is appropriate for its location and its neighborhood.
4. Sensitivity to Adjacent Landmarks and Historic Resources. The design of the project is appropriately sensitive to adjacent Federal, State, and City Landmarks and other nearby designated historic resources, including City structures of merit, sites, or natural features.
5. Public Views of the Ocean and Mountains. The design of the project responds appropriately to established scenic public vistas.
9 Exhibit C
Single Family Streamlining Project
Proposed Title 22 Ordinance Amendments
6. Use of Open Space and Landscaping. The project includes an appropriate amount of open space and landscaping.
C. Review procedures.
1. Projects with Design Review Only. If a project only requires design review by the Architectural Board of Review pursuant to the provisions of this chapter and does not require some form of discretionary land use approval, the Architectural Board of Review shall consider the applicable Project Compatibility Findings during the course of its review prior to granting an approval, denial or continuance of project design approval for the project.
2. Projects with Design Review and Other Discretionary Approvals. If, in addition to design review by the Architectural Board of Review, a project requires a discretionary land use approval (either from the Staff Hearing Officer, the Planning Commission, or the City Council), the Architectural Board of Review shall review and discuss the applicable Project Compatibility Findings during its conceptual review of the project and shall provide its comments on those findings as part of the minutes of the Board decision forwarded to the Staff Hearing Officer, the Planning Commission, or the City Council (as applicable). § 22.68.050. Architectural Board of Review Referral to Planning Commission.
A. Planning commission comments. When the Architectural Board of Review determines that a project is proposed for a site which is highly visible to the public, the Board may, prior to granting preliminary approval on the application, require presentation of the application to the Planning Commission solely for the purpose of obtaining comments from the Planning Commission regarding the application for use by the Architectural Board of Review in its deliberations.
B. Planning commission notice and hearing. The Planning Commission shall hold a noticed hearing prior to making any comments on a project pursuant to this section. Notice of the Planning Commission hearing shall be provided in accordance with the requirements of Section 22.68.040.
§ 22.68.060. Special Design Districts.
The following areas are identified as City Special Design Districts:
A. Mission Area Special Design District. All real property located within 1,000 feet of Part II of El Pueblo Viejo Landmark District, as legally described in Section 22.22.100.B.
Exhibit C
Single Family Streamlining Project
Proposed Title 22 Ordinance Amendments
10 B. Hillside Design District. All real property within the Hillside Design District as delineated on the maps labeled "Hillside Design District" which are part of this code and are shown at the end of this chapter. All notations, references, and other information shown on said maps are incorporated herein and made a part hereof. The entirety of any annexation shall become a part of the Hillside Design District upon annexation, unless otherwise determined as part of the annexation.
C. Highway 101 Santa Barbara Coastal Parkway Special Design District. All real property within the State owned or leased right-of-way of Highway 101 and all City owned or leased right-of-way which intersects Highway 101 within the S-D-3 Coastal Overlay Zone.
D. Lower Riviera Survey Area - Bungalow District. All real property within "Lower Riviera Survey Area - Bungalow District" as shown on the map labeled as such and appended to the end of this section -hereinafter referred to as the "Bungalow District."
11 Exhibit C
Single Family Streamlining Project
Proposed Title 22 Ordinance Amendments
HILLSIDE DESIGN DISTRICT INDEX MAP
12 Exhibit C
Single Family Streamlining Project
Proposed Title 22 Ordinance Amendments
HILLSIDE DESIGN DISTRICT MAP - AREA 2
Exhibit C
Single Family Streamlining Project
Proposed Title 22 Ordinance Amendments
13
14 Exhibit C
Single Family Streamlining Project
Proposed Title 22 Ordinance Amendments
HILLSIDE DESIGN DISTRICT MAP - AREA 3
Exhibit C
Single Family Streamlining Project
Proposed Title 22 Ordinance Amendments
15 § 22.68.070. Special Design District - Lower Riviera Survey Area (Bungalow District).
A. Special Design District area map - Lower Riviera Survey Area - Bungalow District.
Applications for building permits to construct, alter, or add to multi-unit residential or twounit residential development on lots located within the "Lower Riviera Survey Area - Bungalow District" established pursuant to Section 22.68.060 shall be subject to design review in accordance with the requirements of this section as follows:
B. Review of building permit applications. Applications for building permits to construct, alter, or add to multi-unit residential or two-unit residential development on lots located within the Bungalow District shall be referred to the Community Development Director for review to determine if the application constitutes a project to demolish the structure. For the purposes of this section, a "demolition" shall be as defined in Section 30.300.080. Such a determination shall be made by the Community Development Director in writing within 30 days of the date of the original application. If the Community Development Director determines that the property is eligible for listing on the City's Potential Historic Resources list, the demolition application shall be referred to the Historic Landmarks Commission for determination of the historical significance of the building or structure pursuant to Section 30.157.110. If it is determined that the property is not eligible for listing on the City's Potential Historic Resources list and the Community Development Director determines that the application does constitute an application to demolish the structure, such application shall be referred to the City's Architectural Board of Review for review by the Board in accordance with the requirements of this section. If the Community Development Director determines that the application does not constitute a demolition under the terms of this section, the building permit shall be issued upon compliance with the otherwise applicable requirements of this code for appropriate and required design and development review.
C. Review of Bungalow District demolition applications by the Architectural Board of Review. An application referred to the Architectural Board of Review pursuant to subsection B above shall be reviewed by the Architectural Board of Review in accordance with the hearing, noticing, and appeal procedures established in Sections 22.68.040 and 22.68.100. An application referred to the Architectural Board of Review pursuant to subsection B above shall not be approved unless the Architectural Board of Review makes all of the following findings with respect to that application:
Exhibit C
Single Family Streamlining Project
Proposed Title 22 Ordinance Amendments
16 1. That the demolition will not result in the loss of a structure containing a primary feature or features of Bungalow or Arts and Crafts style residential architecture, which features are worthy of or appropriate for historical preservation;
2. That the demolition will not result in the loss of a structure which, although not eligible as a City Historic Resource, is a prime example of the Bungalow or Arts and Crafts style residential building appropriate for historical preservation;
3. That the demolition will not result in the loss of a structure which is prominent or which is a prime example of the Bungalow or Arts and Crafts style residential architecture for which this neighborhood is characterized or known.
D. Architectural Board of Review conditional approval of demolition within the Bungalow District.
1. Notwithstanding the above-stated requirement for appropriate demolition findings, the ABR may approve a demolition application within the Bungalow District if the ABR conditions the demolition permit such that any proposed future development of the real property upon which the structure or structures are located must comply with express conditions of approval designed to preserve certain existing architectural features or buildings, as determined appropriate by the ABR.
2. Such conditions may provide that any future development of the property involved must either incorporate the existing structures, in whole or in part, into the new development, or it must preserve certain features or aspects of the existing structures or of the site such that these features are incorporated into any future development of the real property, either through the preservation of the building or feature or its replication in the new development, as may be determined appropriate by the ABR.
3. Such conditions of approval shall be prepared in written form acceptable to the Community Development Director and the City Attorney and shall be recorded in the official records of Santa Barbara County with respect to the involved real property prior to issuance of any building permit for said demolition such that these conditions shall be binding on all future owners of the real property as conditions imposed on any new development for a period of 20 years after the conditional approval of the original demolition application and the completion of the demolition.
E. Review of new development within the Bungalow District by Architectural Board of Review. Applications for building permits to construct new multi-unit residential or two-unit
17 Exhibit C
Single Family Streamlining Project
Proposed Title 22 Ordinance Amendments
residential development on lots located within the Bungalow District shall be referred to the Architectural Board of Review for development plan review and approval in accordance with the public hearing, noticing and appeal requirements of Sections 22.68.040 and 22.68.100, provided that the property owner/applicant may be required to submit those development plan materials deemed necessary for full and appropriate review by the ABR prior to the ABR hearing.
F. Bungalow District findings. The ABR shall not approve a new development within the Bungalow District unless it makes both of the following findings:
1. Express conditions of approval have been imposed on the proposed development which appropriately incorporate the existing structures or architectural features or other aspects of these structures (or of the site involved) into the new development, or these structures, features or aspects will be appropriately replicated in the new development; and
2. The proposed development will not substantially diminish the unique architectural style and character of the Bungalow District as a residential neighborhood of the City.
G. Guidelines for Special Design District. The Lower Riviera Special Design District Guidelines adopted by resolution of the City Council shall provide direction and appropriate guidance to the ABR, the Planning Commission and City staff in connection with the review of applications filed pursuant to this section.
§ 22.68.080. Signs.
Application for sign permits shall be considered by the Architectural Board of Review only upon an appeal filed pursuant to Section 22.70.050.J of this code. § 22.68.090. Approval of Plans for Buildings or Structures on City Lands.
No building or structure shall be erected upon any land owned or leased by the City, or allowed to extend over or upon any street, or other public property, unless plans for the same and the location thereof shall first have been submitted to the Architectural Board of Review or the Historic Landmarks Commission, as applicable, for its approval. § 22.68.100. Appeal to Council - Notice and Hearing.
A. Procedure for appeal. Any action of the Architectural Board of Review on an application for preliminary or final approval taken pursuant to this chapter may be appealed to the City Council by the applicant or any interested person pursuant to Chapter 1.30 of this
18 Exhibit C
Single Family Streamlining Project
Proposed Title 22 Ordinance Amendments
Code. In deciding such an appeal, the City Council shall make those findings required of the Board with respect to a determination made pursuant to this chapter.
B. Notice of appeal. In addition to the procedures specified in Chapter 1.30, notice of the public hearing before the City Council on an appeal from a decision of the Architectural Board of Review made pursuant to this chapter shall be provided in the same manner as notice was provided for the hearing before the Architectural Board of Review.
C. Limits on new evidence. The City Council will decide the appeal in the exercise of its independent judgment based upon the record of the proceedings of the Single Family Design Board. New evidence will not be considered unless the City Council determines that relevant evidence exists that, in the exercise of reasonable diligence, could not have been produced or was improperly excluded at the hearing before the Architectural Board of Review. § 22.68.110. Expiration of Project Design Approvals.
A. Project design approval.
1. Approval Valid for Three Years. A Project Design Approval issued by the Architectural Board of Review or the City Council on appeal shall expire if a building permit for the project is not issued within three years of the granting of the Project Design Approval by the Architectural Board of Review or the City Council on appeal.
2. Extension of Project Design Approvals. Upon a written request from the applicant submitted prior to the expiration of the Project Design Approval, the Community Development Director may grant one two-year extension of a Project Design Approval.
B. Exclusions of time. The time period specified in this chapter for the validity of a Project Design Approval shall not include any period of time during which either of the following applies:
1. A City moratorium ordinance on the issuance of building permits is in effect; or
2. A lawsuit challenging the validity of the Project's approval by the City is pending in a court of competent jurisdiction.
19 Exhibit C
Single Family Streamlining Project
Proposed Title 22 Ordinance Amendments
SECTION 3. Chapter 22.69 of Title 22 of the Santa Barbara Municipal Code is amended to read as follows:
CHAPTER 22.69
SINGLE FAMILY DESIGN BOARD
Design review is as required by Chapter 30.220, Design Review, Section 30.220.040, Single Family Design Board.
§ 22.69.010. Single Family Design Board.
A. Purpose. A Single Family Design Board is hereby created and established by the City to promote the general public welfare, protect and preserve the City's natural and historical charm, and enhance the City's aesthetic appeal and beauty. The goal of the Single Family Design Board shall be to ensure that single-unit residential projects are compatible with the surrounding neighborhood in size and design. The Single Family Design Board is also charged with the task of protecting public visual resources and promoting the ecological sustainability of the City's built environment through the design review process.
B. Membership. The Single Family Design Board shall be composed of five members appointed by the City Council. At least one member shall be a licensed architect. Up to three members of the public at large, who reside in the city, may be appointed who do not possess professional qualifications in fields related to architecture. Remaining members shall possess professional qualifications in fields related to architecture or landscape architecture, including, but not limited to, building design, structural engineering, industrial design, urban planning, or landscape contracting. All members of the Board with professional qualifications shall reside within Santa Barbara County and all members shall hold office at the pleasure of the City Council. A person may serve on the Architectural Board of Review or the Historic Landmarks Commission and the Single Family Design Board at the same time.
C. Conduct of meetings. The members of the Single Family Design Board shall elect from their own members a chair and vice-chair. The Community Development Director shall act as secretary and record Board actions and render written reports thereof for the Board as required by this chapter. The rules of procedure for the Board shall be established and approved by resolution of the City Council. Three members shall constitute a quorum. § 22.69.015. Definitions.
20 Exhibit C
Single Family Streamlining Project
Proposed Title 22 Ordinance Amendments
Community Development Director. Community Development Director of the City of Santa Barbara, or designee.
Defined in this Chapter. If any word or phrase is defined in this chapter, the definition given in this chapter shall be operative for the purposes of this chapter.
Defined in the Municipal Code. If a word or phrase used in this chapter is not defined in this chapter, but is defined in Chapter 28.04 (for properties in the Coastal Zone), or either Chapter
30.295 or Chapter 30.300 (for properties in the Inland Zones) of this code, the word or phrase shall have the same meaning in this chapter as the meaning specified in the chapter that applies to the zone in which the property is located.
Project Design Approval. The review and approval of an application filed pursuant to this chapter
where the minutes of the Single Family Design Board identify the approval as "Project Design Approval." For the purposes of the State Permit Streamlining Act (Government Code Section 65950 et seq.), the Project Design Approval is the substantive approval of the project on its design merits.
Undefined Words and Phrases. Any words or phrases used in this chapter that are not defined in this chapter, Chapter 28.04 (for properties in the Coastal Zone), or either Chapter 30.295 or Chapter 30.300 (for properties in the Inland Zones) of this code shall be construed according to the common meaning of the words and the context of their usage. § 22.69.020. Neighborhood Preservation - Single Family Residential Unit Design Review.
A. Approval required before issuance of permit. No building permit, grading permit, vegetation removal permit, or subdivision grading plan, the application for which is subject to the review of the Single Family Design Board pursuant to this chapter, shall be issued without the approval of the Board or the City Council, on appeal.
B. Building permits - special design districts.
1. Mission Area Special Design District and Lower Riviera Survey Area - Bungalow District. Applications for building permits to construct, alter, or add to the exterior of a singleunit residence or a related accessory structure on a lot or lots within the Mission Area Special Design District or the Lower Riviera Survey Area - Bungalow District identified in Section
22.68.060 shall be referred to the Single Family Design Board for design review in accordance
21 Exhibit C
Single Family Streamlining Project
Proposed Title 22 Ordinance Amendments
with the requirements of this chapter and the approved Single Family Design Board Guidelines.
2. Hillside Design District. Applications for building permits to construct, alter, or add to the exterior of any lot developed with either a single-unit residence, or a single-unit residence in combination with an Additional Dwelling Unit (Section 28.93.030.E), an Additional Residential Unit (Section 30.295.020.B.2), or an accessory structure on a lot or lots within the Hillside Design District identified in Section 22.68.060 shall be referred to the Single Family Design Board for design review in accordance with the requirements of this chapter and the approved Single Family Design Board Guidelines if either:
a. The average slope of the lot or the building site is 20% or more as calculated pursuant to Section 28.15.080 or 30.15.030 of this code; or
b. The application involves the replacement of an existing roof covering with a roof covering of different materials or colors.
C. Building permits - single-unit residential and additional residential units. Applications for building permits to construct, alter, or add to the exterior of any lot developed with either a single-unit residence, or a single-unit residence in combination with an Additional Dwelling Unit (Section 28.93.030.E), an Additional Residential Unit (Section 30.295.020.B.2), or an accessory structure on any lot shall be referred to the Single Family Design Board for design review in accordance with the requirements of this chapter and the Single Family Design Board Guidelines if the project for which the building permit is sought involves any of the following:
1. The construction of a new building or structure where any portion of the proposed construction is either: (a) two or more stories tall, or (b) 17 feet or taller in building height (for purposes of this paragraph 1, building height shall be measured from natural grade or finished grade, whichever is lower), or
2. An alteration to an existing building or structure where any portion of the proposed alteration either: (a) alters the second or higher story of the building or structure, or (b) alters a point on the existing building or structure that is 17 feet or higher in building height (for purposes of this paragraph 2, building height shall be measured from natural grade or finished grade, whichever is lower), or
3. An addition to an existing building or structure where any part of the proposed addition is either: (a) two or more stories tall, or (b) 17 feet or taller in building height (for
22 Exhibit C
Single Family Streamlining Project
Proposed Title 22 Ordinance Amendments
purposes of this paragraph 3, building height shall be measured from natural grade or finished grade, whichever is lower), or
4. The net floor area of all floors of all existing and new buildings on the lot will exceed 4,000 square feet as calculated pursuant to Section 28.15.083 or 30.20.030.A. of this code, or
5. The project requires a net floor area modification pursuant to Section 28.92.110.A.6 or 30.250.020.E of this code, or
6. The construction, alteration, or addition of a deck on the second or higher floor (including roof decks) or a balcony on the second or higher floor of any building that will extend perpendicularly more than three feet from the adjacent exterior wall or will be more than seven feet in length in the dimension parallel to the adjacent exterior wall, or
7. The construction, alteration, or addition of a retaining wall that is six feet or greater in height, or
8. The construction, alteration, or addition of a wall, fence or gate in the front yard of the lot that is greater than three and one half feet in height, excluding walls, fences, or gates that are constructed along the interior lot lines of the lot, shall be referred to the Single Family Design Board for a review of the proposed wall, fence or gate, or
9. The installation of a manufactured home, mobile home or factory-built home (as those terms are defined in the California Health and Safety Code), subject to the limitations on review specified in Government Code section 65852.3 et seq., or
10. The installation of a single-unit residence that was, as a whole or in part, previously located on another lot, or
11. Grading outside the footprint of the main building on the lot that exceeds either: (i) 50 cubic yards on a lot within the Hillside Design District identified in Section 22.68.060, or (ii) 250 cubic yards on a lot that is not within the Hillside Design District. For purposes of this paragraph 11, soil located within five feet of an exterior wall of a main building that is excavated and recompacted shall not be included in the calculation of the volume of grading outside the main building footprint, or
12. Projects involving an application for an exception to the covered parking requirements as specified in Section 28.90.100.G.1.c. or 30.175.030.N.1.a.ii. of this code.
23 Exhibit C
Single Family Streamlining Project
Proposed Title 22 Ordinance Amendments
13. Any new buildings, additions, or exterior alterations to existing buildings, resulting in either: (a) detached accessory buildings greater than 500 square feet, or (b) buildings, or portions of buildings, providing covered parking, resulting in three or more covered parking spaces on the lot.
D. Subdivision grading plans. All subdivision grading plans involving grading on a lot or lots located in any of the One Family Residence Zones (Chapter 28.15) or Single-Unit Residential Zones (Chapter 30.20) of this code shall be referred to the Single Family Design Board for a review of the proposed grading.
E. Grading permits. Applications for grading permits that propose grading on a vacant lot or lots located within a One-Family Residence Zones (Chapter 28.15) or Single-Unit Residential Zones (Chapter 30.20) of this code or on any lot that is developed with a singleunit residence, or a single-unit residence in combination with either an Additional Dwelling Unit (Section 28.93.030.E), an Additional Residential Unit (Section 30.295.020.B.2) or accessory buildings, and which are not submitted in connection with an application for a building permit for the construction or alteration of a building or structure on the same lot or lots, shall be referred to the Single Family Design Board for a review of the proposed grading.
F. Vegetation removal permits. Applications for vegetation removal permits pursuant to Chapter 22.10 of this title on a lot or lots located within a One-Family Residence Zone (Chapter 28.15) or a Single-Unit Residential Zone (Chapter 30.20), or on any lot that is developed with single-unit residence, or a single-unit residence in combination with an Additional Dwelling Unit (Section 28.93.030.E), an Additional Residential Unit (Section
30.295.020.B.2), or accessory buildings, shall be referred to the Single Family Design Board for a review of the proposed vegetation removal.
G. Retaining walls. The following types of retaining wall improvements, if located on a lot or lots within a One-Family Residence Zone (Chapter 28.15) or a Single-Unit Residential Zone (Chapter 30.20), or on any lot that is developed with a single-unit residence, or a singleunit residence in combination with an Additional Dwelling Unit (Section 28.93.030.E), an Additional Residential Unit (Section 30.295.020.B.2), or accessory buildings shall be referred to the Single Family Design Board for design review of the proposed retaining walls in accordance with the requirements of this chapter and the approved Single Family Design Board Guidelines:
1. The construction of a retaining wall on a lot or a building site with an average slope of 15% or more (as calculated pursuant to Section 28.15.080 or 30.15.030 of this code), or
Exhibit C
Single Family Streamlining Project
Proposed Title 22 Ordinance Amendments
24 2. The construction of a retaining wall on a lot that is adjacent to or contains an ocean bluff, or
3. The construction of multiple terracing retaining walls that are not separated by a building or a horizontal distance of more than 10 feet where the combined height of the walls exceeds six feet.
H. Substantial alterations to approved landscape plans. The Single Family Design Board shall review any substantial alteration or deviation from the design, character, plant coverage at maturity, or other improvements specified on an approved landscape plan for any lot within the City of Santa Barbara that is developed with a single-unit residence where the conditions of approval for the development on the lot require the installation and maintenance of trees or landscaping in accordance with an approved landscape plan, whether or not such alteration or deviation to the landscape plan is proposed in connection with an alteration to a building or structure on the lot that is subject to design review by the Single Family Design Board.
Whether a proposed alteration or deviation is substantial shall be determined in accordance with the Single Family Design Guidelines.
I. Minor zoning exceptions. The Single Family Design Board shall review applications for a Minor Zoning Exception whenever it is allowed by Title 30, on any lot that is developed with a single-unit residence or a single-unit residence in combination with Additional Residential Unit (Section 30.295.020.B.2), subject to the criteria and findings in Title 30.
J. Submittal requirements. Applications for review by the Single Family Design Board shall be made in writing in such form as is approved by the Director of Community Development. No application shall be considered complete unless accompanied by the application fee in the amount established by resolution of the City Council.
K. Administrative approval. Minor design alterations, as specified in the Single Family Design Guidelines or the Single Family Design Board Guidelines approved by a resolution of the City Council, may be approved as a ministerial action by the Community Development Director without review by the Single Family Design Board. The Community Development Director shall have the authority and discretion to refer any minor design alteration to the Single Family Design Board if, in the opinion of the Community Development Director, the alteration has the potential to have an adverse effect on the architectural or landscape integrity of the building, structure or surrounding property.
L. Presumption regarding prior grading, tree removal, and construction. There shall be a presumption that any grading, removal of trees, or construction that occurred on the lot within
25 Exhibit C
Single Family Streamlining Project
Proposed Title 22 Ordinance Amendments
two years prior to the submittal of an application for a building permit to construct, alter, or add to a single-unit residence, an Additional Dwelling Unit (Section 28.93.030.E), an Additional Residential Unit (Section 30.295.020.B.2) or a related accessory structure was done in anticipation of such application, and said activities will be included in determining whether the project is subject to review by the Single Family Design Board pursuant to this chapter.
For purposes of this presumption, if the prior work required a permit from the City, the prior work shall not be considered complete unless a final inspection has occurred or a certificate of occupancy has been issued. An applicant has the burden to rebut this presumption with substantial evidence sufficient to convince the Single Family Design Board that such work was not done in an effort to avoid review of the entirety of the project by the Single Family Design Board.
M. Single family design guidelines. The Single Family Design Guidelines adopted by resolution of the City Council shall provide direction and appropriate guidance to decision makers and City staff in connection with applications reviewed pursuant to this chapter. § 22.69.030. Alternative Design Review by Historic Landmarks Commission.
A project shall be referred to the Historic Landmarks Commission for review under Section
30.220.020 of this Code if the project is proposed in any of the following locations:
A. A lot on which a City Landmark or City Structure of Merit is located; B. A property on the City's Potential Historic Resources List; or C. Any property located within the El Pueblo Viejo Landmark District or another landmark district.
Review by the Historic Landmarks Commission is in lieu of review by the Single Family Design Board under this chapter.
§ 22.69.040. Single Family Design Board Notice and Hearing.
A. Projects that require a noticed public hearing. Single Family Design Board review of the following projects must be preceded by a noticed public hearing:
Exhibit C
Single Family Streamlining Project
Proposed Title 22 Ordinance Amendments
26 1. New single-unit residence, Additional Dwelling Unit (Section 28.93.030.E) or Additional Residential Unit (Section 30.295.020.B.2);
2. The addition of over 500 square feet of net floor area to a single-unit residence, an Additional Dwelling Unit (Section 28.93.030.E) or an Additional Residential Unit (Section
30.295.020.B.2);
3. An addition of a new second or higher story to a single-unit residence, an Additional Dwelling Unit (Section 28.93.030.E), an Additional Residential Unit (Section 30.295.020.B.2), or a related accessory structure;
4. An addition of over 150 square feet of net floor area to an existing second or higher story of a single-unit residence, an Additional Dwelling Unit (Section 28.93.030.E), an Additional Residential Unit (Section 30.295.020.B.2), or a related accessory structure;
5. Projects involving an application for a Minor Zoning Exception as specified in Title 30 of this code;
6. Projects involving grading in excess of 250 cubic yards outside the footprint of any main building (soil located within five feet of an exterior wall of a main building that is excavated and recompacted shall not be included in the calculation of the volume of grading outside the building footprint);
7. Projects involving exterior lighting with the apparent potential to create significant glare on neighboring parcels; or
8. Projects involving an application for an exception to the covered parking requirements as specified in Section 28.90.100.G.1.c or 30.175.030.M of this code.
B. Mailed notice. Not less than 10 calendar days before the date of the hearing required by subsection A above, the City shall cause written notice of the project hearing to be sent by first class mail to the following persons: (1) the applicant, and (2) the current record owner (as shown on the latest equalized assessment roll) of any lot, or any portion of a lot, which is located not more than 300 feet from the exterior boundaries of the lot which is the subject of the action. The written notice shall advise the recipient of the following: (1) the date, time and location of the hearing, (2) the right of the recipient to appear at the hearing and to be heard by the Single Family Design Board, (3) the location of the subject property, and (4) the nature of the application subject to design review.
Exhibit C
Single Family Streamlining Project
Proposed Title 22 Ordinance Amendments
27 C. Additional noticing methods. In addition to the required mailed notice specified in subsection B above, the City may also require notice of the hearing to be provided by the applicant in any other manner that the City deems necessary or desirable, including, but not limited to, posted notice on the project site and notice delivered to non-owner residents of any of the 10 lots closest to the lot which is the subject of the action. However, the failure of any person or entity to receive notice given pursuant to such additional noticing methods shall not constitute grounds for any court to invalidate the actions of the City for which the notice was given.
D. Projects requiring decisions by the city Council, Planning Commission, or Staff Hearing Officer. Whenever a project requires another land use decision or approval by the City Council, the Planning Commission, or the Staff Hearing Officer, the mailed notice of the first hearing before the Single Family Design Board shall comply with the notice requirements of this section or the notice requirements applicable to the other land use decision or approval, whichever are greater. However, nothing in this section shall require either: (1) notice of any hearing before the Single Family Design Board to be published in a newspaper; or (2) mailed notice of hearings before the Single Family Design Board after the first hearing conducted by the Single Family Design Board, except as otherwise provided in the Single Family Design Board Guidelines adopted by resolution of the City Council. § 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.
Exhibit C
Single Family Streamlining Project
Proposed Title 22 Ordinance Amendments
28 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.
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.
29 Exhibit C
Single Family Streamlining Project
Proposed Title 22 Ordinance Amendments
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.
§ 22.69.055. Green Building Standard for Large Residences.
If a project proposes more than 500 square feet of new net floor area (new construction, replacement construction, or additions), and the net floor area of all existing and new buildings on the lot resulting from the application will exceed 4,000 square feet of net floor area as calculated pursuant to Chapter 28.04, all new square footage (new construction, replacement construction, or additions) proposed as part of the project shall meet or exceed a three-star designation under the Santa Barbara Contractors' Association Built Green program or equivalent standards under another green construction program recognized by the City. § 22.69.060. Single Family Design Board Referral to Planning Commission for Comments.
A. Planning Commission comments. When the Single Family Design Board determines that a project is proposed for a site which is highly visible to the public, the Board may, prior to granting preliminary approval of the application, require presentation of the application to the Planning Commission solely for the purpose of obtaining comments from the Commission regarding the application for use by the Single Family Design Board in its deliberations.
B. Notice and hearing. Prior to making any comments regarding an application pursuant to this section, the Planning Commission shall hold a noticed public hearing. Notice of the hearing shall be provided in accordance with the requirements of Section 22.69.040. § 22.69.070. Special Design District - Lower Riviera Survey Area (Bungalow District).
Exhibit C
Single Family Streamlining Project
Proposed Title 22 Ordinance Amendments
30 A. Special Design District area map - Lower Riviera Survey Area - Bungalow District.
Applications for building permits to construct, alter, or add to single-unit residential development or related accessory buildings or structures on lots located within the "Lower Riviera Survey Area - Bungalow District" established pursuant to Section 22.68.060 shall be subject to design review in accordance with the requirements of this section as follows:
B. Review of building permit applications. Applications for building permits to construct, alter, or add to single-unit residential development on lots located within the Bungalow District shall be referred to the Community Development Director for review to determine if the application constitutes a project to demolish the structure. For the purposes of this section, a "demolition" shall be as defined in Section 30.300.080. Such a determination shall be made by the Community Development Director in writing within 30 days of the date of the original permit application. If the Community Development Director determines that the property is eligible for listing on the City's Potential Historic Resources list, the application shall be referred to the Historic Landmarks Commission for determination of the historical significance of the buildings or structures pursuant to Section 30.157.110. If it is determined that the property is not eligible for listing on the City's Potential Historic Resources list, and the Community Development Director determines that the application does constitute an application to demolish the structure, such application shall be referred to the City's Single Family Design Board for review by the Board in accordance with the requirements of this section. If the Community Development Director determines that the application does not constitute a demolition under the terms of this section, the building permit shall be issued upon compliance with the otherwise applicable requirements of this code for appropriate and required design and development review.
C. Review of Bungalow District demolition applications by the Single Family Design Board. An application referred to the Single Family Design Board pursuant to subsection B above shall be reviewed by the Board in accordance with the hearing, noticing, and appeal procedures established in Sections 22.69.040 and 22.69.080. An application referred to the Single Family Design Board pursuant to subsection B above shall not be approved unless the Single Family Design Board makes all of the following findings with respect to that application:
1. That the demolition will not result in the loss of a structure containing a primary feature or features of Bungalow or Arts and Crafts style residential architecture, which features are worthy of or appropriate for historical preservation;
Exhibit C
Single Family Streamlining Project
Proposed Title 22 Ordinance Amendments
31 2. That the demolition will not result in the loss of a structure which, although not eligible as a City Historic Resource, is a prime example of the Bungalow or Arts and Crafts style residential building appropriate for historical preservation;
3. That the demolition will not result in the loss of a structure which is prominent or which is a prime example of the Bungalow or Arts and Crafts style residential architecture for which this neighborhood is characterized or known.
D. Single Family Design Board conditional approval of demolition within the Bungalow District.
1. Notwithstanding the above-stated requirement for appropriate demolition findings, the Single Family Design Board may approve a demolition application within the Bungalow District if the Board conditions the demolition permit such that any proposed future development of the real property upon which the structure or structures are located must comply with express conditions of approval designed to preserve certain existing architectural features or buildings, as determined appropriate by the Board.
2. Such conditions may provide that any future development of the property involved must either incorporate the existing structures, in whole or in part, into the new development, or it must preserve certain features or aspects of the existing structures or of the site such that these features are incorporated into any future development of the real property, either through the preservation of the building or feature or its replication in the new development, as may be determined appropriate by the Board.
3. Such conditions of approval shall be prepared in written format acceptable to the Community Development Director and the City Attorney and shall be recorded in the official records of Santa Barbara County with respect to the involved real property prior to issuance of any building permit for said demolition such that these conditions shall be binding on all future owners of the real property as conditions imposed on any new development for a period of 20 years after the conditional approval of the original demolition application and the completion of the demolition.
E. Review of new development within the Bungalow District by Single Family Design Board. Applications for building permits to construct new single-unit residential development on lots located within the Bungalow District shall be referred to the Single Family Design Board for development plan review and approval in accordance with the public hearing, noticing and appeal requirements of Sections 22.69.040 and 22.69.080.
32 Exhibit C
Single Family Streamlining Project
Proposed Title 22 Ordinance Amendments
F. Bungalow District findings. The Single Family Design Board shall not approve a new single- unit residential development within the Bungalow District unless it makes both of the following findings:
1. Express conditions of approval have been imposed on the proposed development which appropriately incorporate the existing structures or architectural features or other aspects of these structures (or of the site involved) into the new development, or these structures, features or aspects will be appropriately replicated in the new development; and
2. The proposed development will not substantially diminish the unique architectural style and character of the Bungalow District as a residential neighborhood of the City.
G. Guidelines for Special Design District. The Lower Riviera Special Design District Guidelines adopted by resolution of the City Council shall provide direction and appropriate guidance to the decision makers and City staff in connection with the review of applications filed pursuant to this section.
§ 22.69.080. Appeals to Planning Commission - Notice and Hearing.
A. Procedure for appeal. Any action of the Single Family Design Board to approve, conditionally approve, or deny project design approval or project final approval subject to this chapter shall be appealable to the Planning Commission under the provisions of subsection B of Section 30.205.150 of this Code and subsections B and C of this section. Notwithstanding Section 30.205.150, subsection A.3, and Section 1.30.050 of this Code, the Planning Commission decision on appeal shall be final subject only to judicial review as provided in Section 1.30.020.
B. Notice of appeal. Notice of the public hearing before the Planning Commission on an appeal from a decision of the Single Family Design Board made pursuant to this chapter shall be provided in the same manner as notice was provided for the hearing before the Single Family Design Board.
C. Planning Commission decision - limits on new evidence. The Planning Commission will decide the appeal in the exercise of its independent judgment based upon the record of the proceedings of the Single Family Design Board. New evidence will not be considered unless the Planning Commission determines by a majority vote at the hearing on the appeal that relevant evidence exists that, in the exercise of reasonable diligence, could not have been produced or was improperly excluded at the hearing before the Single Family Design Board.
33 Exhibit C
Single Family Streamlining Project
Proposed Title 22 Ordinance Amendments
D. The Planning Commission decision on the appeal shall be based upon findings required by this chapter and the guidelines adopted pursuant to subsection M of Section
22.69.020.
§ 22.69.090. Expiration of Project Design Approvals.
A. Project design approval.
1. Approval Valid for Three Years. A Project Design Approval issued by the Single Family Design Board or the Planning Commission on appeal shall expire if a building permit for the project is not issued within three years of the final decision approving or conditionally approving the Project Design Approval.
2. Extension of Project Design Approval. Upon a written request from the applicant submitted prior to the expiration of the Project Design Approval, the Community Development Director may grant one two-year extension of a Project Design Approval.
B. Exclusions of time. The time period specified in this chapter for the validity of a Project Design Approval shall not include any period of time during which either of the following applies:
1. A City moratorium ordinance on the issuance of building permits is in effect; or
2. A lawsuit challenging the validity of the project's approval by the City is pending in a court of competent jurisdiction.
Exhibit D
Single Family Streamlining Project
Description of Amendments to Chapters 22.22, 22.68, and 22.69, Title 25, and Title 30 1 TABLE OF PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS
The following list of proposed zoning ordinance amendments is organized in ascending order by code section number and categorized based on the significance/type of change occurring:
significant changes; minor changes; clean-ups and clarifying amendments; and clarifying amendments required by State law. Amendments considered to be “significant changes” have been indicated in bold text for quick reference. Most of the proposed amendments in this list are related to the Project goal of streamlining single family development, some are related to the design review process in general, and some are changes and updates required by State law or Housing Element updates.
Chapter/Section Amendment Description
Title 22
Chapter 22.22 Historic
Landmarks Commission
Adds back the previously removed Chapter 22.22 to create a cross reference to the updated Section 30.220.020 in Title 30. This ensures the City Charter reference is relevant and addresses any references in Title 28 or carryover references in Title 30.
Result: Minor Changes
Chapter 22.68 Architectural
Board of Review
Replaced with new SBMC §30.220.010 (see §30.220.010 below for details). Provides cross reference to the new section in Title 30 to address any remaining references in Title 28 or other City documents.
Result: Minor Changes
Chapter 22.69 Single Family
Design Board
Replaced with new SBMC §30.220.040. See 30.220.040 below for more details.
Result: Significant Changes
Title 25
25.03.040 Open Yards Corrected reference to open yard Section 30.140.140 Result: Minor Changes
Title 30
Chapter 30.15 Rules of Measurement
30.15.025 Calculating Density Amendment to clarify residential density calculations for lot mergers.
Result: Cleanup/Clarifying Amendments
EXHIBIT D Page 513 of 767
Exhibit D
Single Family Streamlining Project
Description of Amendments to Chapters 22.22, 22.68, and 22.69, Title 25, and Title 30 2 Chapter/Section Amendment Description
30.15.027 Calculating Unit
Size
Consolidates and relocates unit size calculation standards— previously found in multiple sections—into the Rules of Measurement Chapter to clarify how minimum, maximum, and average residential unit sizes are determined.
Result: Cleanup/ Clarifying Amendments
30.15.055 Grading Consolidates and defines how grading quantities are calculated— previously found in multiple sections—into the Rules of Measurement Chapter, identifies specific exclusions (such as recompacted soil and pool excavation), and establishes that “existing grade” is based on topography from five years prior to the grading application.
Result: Cleanup/ Clarifying Amendments
30.15.070 Measuring Floor
Area
Reformats for clarity, adds exemptions for yard buildings, uses objective standards where applicable.
Result: Minor Changes
30.15.075 Measuring Floor
Area Ratio
Adds instructions for calculating both nonresidential and residential FAR. Moves residential FAR calculation from §30.20.030.A into the more appropriate Rules of Measurement Chapter and consolidates residential and nonresidential FAR calculation into the same section.
Result: Cleanup/Clarifying Amendments
30.15.090 Measuring Height
and Stories
Minor clarifications. Provides new standards to clarify measurement of fence/retaining wall and fence/hedge
combinations.
Result: Cleanup/Clarifying Amendments
30.15.100 Measuring
Setbacks and Stepbacks
Adds reference to upper story “Stepback” consistent with newly adopted Objective Design and Development Standards (ODDS) Title 25. Clarifies that first-story building setbacks are measured to the building foundation.
Result: Cleanup/Clarifying Amendments
30.15.120 Screening Moved into section 30.140.155 because they are standards rather than direction on how to measure.
Result: Minor Changes
Chapter 30.20 Residential Zones
Exhibit D
Single Family Streamlining Project
Description of Amendments to Chapters 22.22, 22.68, and 22.69, Title 25, and Title 30 3 Chapter/Section Amendment Description
30.20.010 Purpose Clarification of purpose statement regarding residential classifications.
Result: Cleanup/Clarifying Amendments
30.20.020 Land Use
Regulations – Residential
Zones
Changes to implement Housing Element Program HE-3: Amend the Zoning Ordinance for Special Needs Housing, and other land use clean-ups as follows:
(See more detailed descriptions in Chapter 30.185 Standards for Specific Uses and Activities)
• Community Care Facilities, Residential Care Facilities for the Elderly, and Hospices: Eliminates requirement for a PSP in R-M and R-MH for 7-15 individuals and reduces
requirement from a CUP to PSP in all residential zones for more than 15 individuals.
• Large Family Day Care Homes: Eliminates requirements
for PSP in all residential zones.
• Group Residential: Removes outdated limitations that
restrict Group Residential uses to convents and
monasteries, to comply with California Fair Housing laws and promote inclusive housing opportunities for all
protected groups.
• Agriculture: Clarifies that agriculture is an accessory use in any zone; thus, clarifying that Health and Safety Code § 17021.8 related to farmworker housing is not applicable.
Result: Cleanup/Clarifying Amendments and Amendments
Required by State Law
30.20.030 Development
Standards
Clarifications and clean-ups to the Residential Zone Development Standards table. No substantial changes to setbacks, density, or other development standards that would result in an increase in the intensity or density of land use above what is currently allowed.
• Adds missing section references (Two-Unit Residential, Standards for Specific Uses and Activities,
Nonconforming, etc.)
• Relocates min/max unit size to §30.15.027
Exhibit D
Single Family Streamlining Project
Description of Amendments to Chapters 22.22, 22.68, and 22.69, Title 25, and Title 30 4 Chapter/Section Amendment Description
• Changes name of Maximum Floor Area
(Floor to Lot Area Ratio) to the simplified Maximum
Floor Area Ratio (FAR).
• Corrects typo for nonresidential interior setback in RS-10 Zone from 12 to 16 feet.
• Adds covered and uncovered parking setbacks to the table rather than a cross-reference to §30.175.060.
• Adds “stepback” terminology to align with Title 25 –
Objective Design and Development Standards (ODDS).
• Replaces the use of number of stories with building height to determine upper level stepbacks, simplifying
calculations for split-level structures.
• Adds reference to new Landscape standard in
§30.140.118.
• Moves FAR calculations to Chapter 30.15 Rules of
Measurement.
• Allows single-unit residential development to exceed the maximum Floor Area Ratio (FAR) through a waiver
process reviewed by the applicable design review body,
replacing the previous requirement for a Planning
Commission FAR Modification under Section 30.250.030.
• Relocates interior setback reductions for parking to the table
Result: Cleanup/Clarifying Amendments
Chapter 30.25 Commercial and Office Zones
30.25.010 Purpose Clarification of purpose statement regarding multi-unit and mixed-use classifications.
Result: Cleanup/Clarifying Amendments
30.25.020 Land Use
Regulations
Changes to implement Housing Element Program HE-3: Amend the Zoning Ordinance for Special Needs Housing, and other land use clean-ups as follows:
(See more detailed descriptions in Chapter 30.185 Standards for Specific Uses and Activities)
Exhibit D
Single Family Streamlining Project
Description of Amendments to Chapters 22.22, 22.68, and 22.69, Title 25, and Title 30 5 Chapter/Section Amendment Description
• Community Care Facilities, Residential Care Facilities for the Elderly, and Hospices: Changes requirement from a CUP to PSP in commercial and office zones for more
than 15 individuals.
• Large and Small Family Day Care Homes: Simplifies
table.
• Day Care Center: Adds a reference to use allowed by
right in certain multi-family developments per California Health and Safety Code 1597.22.
• Agriculture: Clarifies that agriculture is an accessory use in any zone; thus, clarifying that Health and Safety Code § 17021.8 related to farmworker housing is not applicable. • Neighborhood Markets: Removes conflicting references
to the PSP in the C-R and C-G zones because Food and
Beverage Retail Sales is already allowed by right in the zones.
Result: Cleanup/Clarifying Amendments and Amendments
Required by State Law
30.25.030 Development
Standards
Clarifications and clean-ups to the Commercial and Office Zones Development Standards table. No substantial changes to setbacks, density, or other development standards that would result in an increase in the intensity or density of land use above what is currently allowed.
• Adds missing section references (Standards for Specific Uses and Activities, Nonconforming, etc.)
• Relocates min/max unit size to §30.15.027
• Adds covered and uncovered parking setbacks to the table rather than a cross-reference to R-M zone or §30.175.060. • Adds “stepback” terminology to align with Title 25 –
Objective Design and Development Standards (ODDS).
• Replaces the use of number of stories with building height to determine upper level stepbacks, simplifying
calculations for split-level structures.
• Adds reference to new Landscape standard in
§30.140.118.
Exhibit D
Single Family Streamlining Project
Description of Amendments to Chapters 22.22, 22.68, and 22.69, Title 25, and Title 30 6 Chapter/Section Amendment Description
• Relocates interior setback reductions for parking to the table
Result: Cleanup/Clarifying Amendments
Chapter 30.30 Manufacturing Zones
30.30.020 Land Use
Regulations
Changes to implement Housing Element Program HE-3: Amend the Zoning Ordinance for Special Needs Housing, and other land use clean-ups as follows:
(See more detailed descriptions in Chapter 30.185 Standards for Specific Uses and Activities)
• Community Care Facilities, Residential Care Facilities for the Elderly, and Hospices: Changes requirement from a CUP to PSP in the manufacturing commercial (M-C)
zone for more than 15 individuals.
• Large and Small Family Day Care Homes: Simplifies
table.
• Agriculture: Clarifies that agriculture is an accessory use in any zone; thus, clarifying that Health and Safety Code § 17021.8 related to farmworker housing is not applicable. • Neighborhood Markets: Removes conflicting references
to the PSP in the M-C zone because Food and Beverage
Retail Sales is already allowed by right in the zone.
Result: Cleanup/Clarifying Amendments and Amendments
Required by State Law
30.30.030 Development
Standards
Clarifications and clean-ups to the Manufacturing Zones Development Standards table. No substantial changes to setbacks, density, or other development standards that would result in an increase in the intensity or density of land use above what is currently allowed.
• Adds missing section references (Standards for Specific Uses and Activities, Nonconforming, etc.)
• Relocates min/max unit size to §30.15.027
• Adds covered and uncovered parking setbacks to the table rather than a cross-reference to R-M zone or §30.175.060.
Exhibit D
Single Family Streamlining Project
Description of Amendments to Chapters 22.22, 22.68, and 22.69, Title 25, and Title 30 7 Chapter/Section Amendment Description
• Adds “stepback” terminology to align with Title 25 –
Objective Design and Development Standards (ODDS).
• Replaces the use of number of stories with building height to determine upper level stepbacks, simplifying
calculations for split-level structures.
• Adds reference to new Landscape standard in
§30.140.118.
• Relocates interior setback reductions for parking to the table
Result: Cleanup/Clarifying Amendments
Chapter 30.35 Coastal-Oriented Zones (Note that these changes will not go into effect until submitted to the Coastal Commission for certification)
30.35.010 Purpose Clarification that residential uses are appropriate in certain areas in the CO zone.
Result: Cleanup/Clarifying Amendments
30.35.030 Development
Standards
Clarifications and clean-ups to the Coastal-Oriented Zones Development Standards table. No substantial changes to setbacks, density, or other development standards that would result in an increase in the intensity or density of land use above what is currently allowed.
• Adds missing section references (Standards for Specific Uses and Activities, Nonconforming, etc.)
• Aligns minimum lot area and street frontage with other commercial/manufacturing zones.
• Adds covered and uncovered parking setbacks to the table rather than a cross-reference to R-M zone or §30.175.060. • Adds “stepback” terminology to align with Title 25 –
Objective Design and Development Standards (ODDS).
• Replaces the use of number of stories with building height to determine upper level stepbacks, simplifying
calculations for split-level structures.
• Adds reference to new Landscape standard in
§30.140.118.
Exhibit D
Single Family Streamlining Project
Description of Amendments to Chapters 22.22, 22.68, and 22.69, Title 25, and Title 30 8 Chapter/Section Amendment Description
• Relocates interior setback reductions for parking to the table
Result: Cleanup/Clarifying Amendments
Chapter 30.140 General Site Regulations
30.140.020 Accessory
Buildings
The updated standards clarify the purpose of accessory building regulations, improve readability, and align with new Guest House and Yard Building provisions. Key changes include reduced setbacks for small accessory structures, removal of outdated size limits and automatic design review triggers, and a new prohibition on rooftop decks unless approved through design review
Result: Significant changes
30.140.025 Balconies and
Upper Story Decks
This new section establishes new objective standards for balconies and upper-story decks to minimize privacy and visual impacts, including limits on size, placement, setbacks, and materials; prohibits rooftop decks without design review; and allows certain encroachments and open yard credit under specific conditions.
Result: Significant changes
30.140.030 Building
Attachment
Clarifications to standards for building attachment and separation.
Introduces a clear purpose for Building Attachment requirements.
Result: Cleanup/Clarifying Amendments
30.140.070 Development on
Substandard and Publicly
Reduced Lots
Adds headings to improve readability. Clarifies that FAR does not change due to dedication. Reference to new Section 30.165.050, Structures Made Nonconforming by Public Acquisition.
Result: Cleanup/Clarifying Amendments
30.140.090 Encroachments The updated Encroachments section clarifies that encroachments apply to setbacks, stepbacks, landscape areas, and open yards, and reorganizes the section with tables and updated diagrams and subsections for improved readability. The standards are aligned with the new provisions of Title 25 – Objective Design and Development Standards (ODDS), ensuring consistency across zoning and design regulations. No substantial changes to setbacks or other development standards that would result in an increase in the intensity or density of land use above what is currently allowed.
Key changes include:
Exhibit D
Single Family Streamlining Project
Description of Amendments to Chapters 22.22, 22.68, and 22.69, Title 25, and Title 30 9 Chapter/Section Amendment Description
• Mechanical Equipment: Wall-mounted units may now
project into front setbacks, but interior setback
encroachments are reduced from 3 feet to 18 inches to
minimize visual and noise impacts. Ground-mounted
equipment is now allowed up to 3 feet from the property line (previously 5 feet), balancing flexibility with access needs.
• Trash Enclosures: Standards relocated from §30.140.240 to §30.140.090, and the Minor Zoning Exception (MZE)
requirement was removed.
• Accessibility Improvements: Now allowed to encroach
for both existing and new development.
• Front Porches: Maximum size increased from 16 ft x 6 ft to 16 ft x 10 ft, with subjective design review triggers replaced by objective design criteria.
• Yard Buildings and Balconies: Align with new standards • Driveways and Gates: Codifies existing policy standards Result: Significant Changes
30.140.100 Exceptions to
Height Limitations
Removes reference to Title 22 for design review.
Result: Cleanup/Clarifying Amendments
30.140.110 Fences and
Hedges
The updated standards clarify the purpose of fence and hedge regulations, establish objective design and height standards, and reorganize the section with tables, diagrams, and subsections for improved usability.
Key changes include:
• Extending fence height limits to all lots (not just
residential).
• Allowing front yard fences up to 5 feet in height
(previously 3.5 feet) without design review if they meet new design criteria.
• Limiting front yard retaining walls to 3 feet in height without design review (previously 6 feet).
• Replacing subjective review with objective material and design requirements to ensure neighborhood
compatibility. Prohibited materials include chain-link (in
Exhibit D
Single Family Streamlining Project
Description of Amendments to Chapters 22.22, 22.68, and 22.69, Title 25, and Title 30 Chapter/Section Amendment Description
front yards), barbed wire, unfinished cinder block, and hazardous elements.
• Codifying temporary fencing policies.
Result: Significant Changes
30.140.112 Garage
Conversions
Together with elimination of the covered parking requirement for single-unit homes and condominiums in Chapter 30.175, the new Garage Conversion standards now allow homeowners to convert existing private garages into other uses—such as workshops, storage rooms, or home offices—provided replacement parking is accommodated off-street. This change increases flexibility and expands development options for residential properties without increasing parking burdens.
Result: Significant Changes
30.140.115 Guest Houses This new section establishes standards for Guest Houses— sleeping facilities with a full bathroom and/or a bar sink that are separated from, and accessory to, the main residential building and are intended for limited sleeping and living purposes. These structures provide homeowners with greater flexibility to create spaces like guest rooms, studios, or home offices without being required to install a full kitchen or convert the space into an Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU). This change reflects a shift in policy: while the City previously discouraged such uses to prevent illegal units, the availability of legal ADU pathways has reduced that concern, allowing for more practical and
homeowner-friendly development options.
Result: Significant Changes
30.140.118 Landscape This new section establishes objective landscape standards to promote water efficiency, support fire safety, and improve neighborhood aesthetics. For residential uses, front setbacks must be landscaped with a mix of living plant materials and limited hardscape (up to 50%). In nonresidential and mixed-use zones, a front landscape buffer is required where no setback exists; however, this does not create a new standard—it replicates the existing Average Unit-Size Density (AUD) Program’s variable setback approach. Landscape areas must remain open and
unobstructed, and waivers may be granted by Design Review under specific conditions such as site constraints.
Result: Significant Changes
Exhibit D
Single Family Streamlining Project
Description of Amendments to Chapters 22.22, 22.68, and 22.69, Title 25, and Title 30 Chapter/Section Amendment Description
30.140.120 Location of Lot
Lines
Clarifications regarding development standards for lot line adjustments and lot creation.
Result: Minor Changes
30.140.130 Mechanical and
Utility Equipment
Minor clean-ups to Mechanical and Utility Equipment section.
Moved description of encroachments to §30.140.090
(Encroachments).
Result: Minor Changes
30.140.140 Open Yards Updates to open yard standards to simplify requirements and increase flexibility for both single-unit and multi-unit residential development, including the amount and type of required open yard. Moves most requirements into a table format for ease of review.
Key changes include:
• Single-Unit and Two-Unit: Reduces minimum
dimensions of single-unit open yard areas from 20 ft x 20 ft to 20 ft x 15 ft, but total required area remains at 1,250 sf. Expands small lot open yard reduction from lots less than 5,000 sf to lots less than 6,000 sf.
• Multi-Unit and Mixed-Use: Open yard requirements are
no longer based on bedroom count; instead, applicants
may meet the 15% lot area requirement through a mix of
private and common open spaces. Reduces minimum
dimensions of ground floor private area from 10 ft x 10 ft to 10 ft x 8 ft; minimum total area on ground floor is 100 sf regardless of bedroom count or unit size. For upper
level balconies, minimum area is reduced to 50 sf
regardless of bedroom count or unit size.
• The discretionary Alternative Open Yard Design waiver is removed, as the new standards offer this flexibility by right.
Result: Significant Changes
30.140.141 Patio Covers,
Sunshades, and Similar
Structures
This new section sets objective standards for patio covers, sunshades, and similar structures on single- and two-unit residential lots to ensure compatibility with neighborhood character. Maximum height for detached covers is 12 feet unless approved through design review. Materials must be consistent with the main building and avoid prohibited finishes like chain link, plastic, or reflective metal. Rooftop patio covers are
Exhibit D
Single Family Streamlining Project
Description of Amendments to Chapters 22.22, 22.68, and 22.69, Title 25, and Title 30 12 Chapter/Section Amendment Description
generally not allowed unless tied to solar systems or approved through design review. Flexibility in design may be granted by the Design Review body.
Result: Significant Changes
30.140.142 Privacy Standards
for Residential Structures
This new section codifies privacy-related design and development standards consistent with the Single Family Residence Design Guidelines’ “Good Neighbor Guidelines.” It regulates upper-story windows, balconies, and exterior lighting near interior lot lines to protect neighbor privacy. Openings within 15 feet of a side or rear property line must either have a sill height of at least 42 inches or face the front yard. Outdoor lighting must be fully shielded and downward-directed to prevent light trespass. Variations from these standards may be considered by the applicable Design Review body.
Result: Significant Changes
30.140.150 Residential Unit Minor clarifications include moving the minimum unit sizes from development tables, added flexibility for dining rooms and other rooms that are not classified as a “bedroom” for density, parking, or other purposes. Adds reference to new Guest House. Reformats section on efficiency units for clarity (no change to standards).
Result: Minor Changes
30.140.155 Screening Moved from Chapter 30.15. Adds objective development standards for screening elements including fences, walls, hedges, and mechanical equipment screening. Updates diagram. Allows exceptions to screening standards to be reviewed by the applicable Design Review body. Result: Minor Changes
30.140.160 Setbacks and
Stepbacks
Adds stepbacks to the existing section on setbacks for consistency with Title 25. Clarifies that recessed areas on interior upper story stepbacks may be used as a balcony, deck, terrace, or other usable space.
Result: Cleanup/Clarifying Amendments
30.140.170 Solar Access
Height Limitations
Adds purpose statement and clarifies height limitation calculation.
Updated diagrams.
Result: Cleanup/Clarifying Amendments
30.140.172 Solar Energy
Systems
This section consolidates existing and new standards for solar energy systems into a new section. Solar carports are allowed over parking spaces and may exceed 12 feet in height (up to 15
Exhibit D
Single Family Streamlining Project
Description of Amendments to Chapters 22.22, 22.68, and 22.69, Title 25, and Title 30 13 Chapter/Section Amendment Description
feet) if needed for larger vehicles. Roof-mounted systems may project modestly above rooflines and can serve as rooftop shade structures if setback and height-limited. Design review is not required if all objective standards are met, and small residential systems benefit from expedited review. Exceptions may be granted if strict compliance would significantly reduce performance or increase costs, as defined by the California Solar Rights Act.
Result: Cleanup/Clarifying Amendments
30.140.190 Street Widening
Setback Lines
Clarifies that temporary structures/uses are allowed in the street widening setback area.
Result: Cleanup/Clarifying Amendments
30.140.200 Substantial
Redevelopment
Updates for ordinance consistency related to historic resources.
Result: Cleanup/Clarifying Amendments
30.140.210 Swimming Pools
or Water Features
Clarifications on types of water features subject to existing setback standards; creates new standard for above-ground features; and adds cross-references for ordinance consistency.
Result: Cleanup/Clarifying Amendments
30.140.220 Trash, Recycling,
and Personal Outdoor
Storage
Replaces former Section 30.140.240 for waste and outdoor storage and compiles all related requirements. Formatting edits for clarity. Eliminates requirement for Minor Zoning Exception (MZE) for trash enclosures in the front setback and now is an allowed encroachment in § 30.140.090 (Encroachments).
Clarifies standards for personal outdoor storage are distinct from commercial outdoor storage regulated in other sections of the code. Clarifications on uncovered parking.
Result: Significant Changes
30.140.230 Visibility at
Driveways and Intersections
Minor wording changes for clarity to development standards.
Result: Cleanup/Clarifying Amendments
30.140.240 Waste, Trash,
Recycling, and Outdoor
Storage
Standards moved into new Section 30.140.220.
Result: Minor Changes
30.140.240 Yard Buildings This new section allows up to two small, detached, non-habitable structures—such as sheds, bike lockers, or playhouses— to be located in interior setbacks and open yards if under 8 feet tall.
Each structure may be up to 120 square feet, with a combined
Exhibit D
Single Family Streamlining Project
Description of Amendments to Chapters 22.22, 22.68, and 22.69, Title 25, and Title 30 14 Chapter/Section Amendment Description
total not exceeding 200 square feet. Yard buildings are not allowed in front yards. Taller structures must meet accessory building standards. Rooftop decks are prohibited, and screening is required when placed in setbacks. These structures are exempt from design review, FAR limits, and building permits if they meet Building Code exemptions.
Result: Significant Changes
Chapter 30.150 Average Unit-Size Density Incentive Program
30.150.090 Additional
Development Incentives.
References to specific open yard requirements have been removed, as those sections no longer exist under the revised standards in Section 30.140.140. The previously used variable front setback has been replaced with the new Average-Depth Front Landscape Buffer in accordance with Section 30.140.118.
The flexibility in open yard design, which was previously limited to projects within the Average Unit-Size Density (AUD)
Incentive Program, has been expanded to apply citywide.
Additional incentives specific to AUD projects will be considered during implementation of Housing Element Program HE-10:
Multi-Unit Housing Program.
Result: Minor Amendments
Chapter 30.165 Nonconforming Structures, Site Development, and Uses
30.165.020 Applicability Clarification that the section’s provisions do not apply to features granted a Minor Zoning Exception.
Result: Minor Amendments
30.165.030 Right to Continue,
Repair, and Maintain
Clarification that nonconforming structures, sites, and uses may be continued provided there is no increase in nonconformity.
Result: Cleanup/Clarifying Amendments
30.165.035 Structures Made
Nonconforming by Public
Acquisition
New section that clarifies that existing development does not require modifications as a result of land dedication/public acquisition.
Result: Cleanup/clarifying Amendments
30.165.040 Alterations to
Nonconforming Development
Makes several clarifications and revised standards for alterations within nonconforming setbacks.
Key changes include:
Page
526 of 767
Exhibit D
Single Family Streamlining Project
Description of Amendments to Chapters 22.22, 22.68, and 22.69, Title 25, and Title 30 Chapter/Section Amendment Description
• Building Height: Removes Minor Zoning Exception
(MZE) for additional building height or volume in
setbacks if the project meets objective standards. Updated max roof pitch in setback from 4:12 to also allow
matching the existing building. Updated graphic.
• Windows: Removes Minor Zoning Exception (MZE) for
windows, doors or other openings in the setback if the
alterations conform to the privacy standards in
§30.140.145, (Privacy Standards for Upper-Story
Openings)
• Conversions: Eliminates the prohibition on conversion from nonresidential uses to residential uses in the setback and eliminates the prohibition on increasing the number of units in the setback. This facilitate new housing in existing buildings and the adaptive reuse of existing buildings to housing.
Result: Significant Changes
30.165.050 Additions to
Nonconforming Development
Clarifications to the development standards for additions to nonconforming buildings.
Key changes include:
• Allows first floor expansion of nonconforming main or accessory buildings within interior setbacks if the
minimum distance from property line is 4 feet (previously 5 feet) to align with ADUs.
• Increases allowance from 100 to 150 SF for additions to structures that are nonconforming to Maximum FAR to
align with ADUs.
Result: Significant Changes
30.165.060 Nonconforming
Garages and Carports
Clarifications to the existing development standards that allow nonconforming garages and carports to be modified, expanded, demolished, or rebuilt. This now allows an increase in the number of parking spaces in the setback—up to the minimum number of spaces required in Chapter 30.175. It also removes the prohibition on converting garages in the setback to other accessory uses, consistent with new Garage Conversion standards.
Result: Cleanup/Clarifying Amendments
Exhibit D
Single Family Streamlining Project
Description of Amendments to Chapters 22.22, 22.68, and 22.69, Title 25, and Title 30 16 Chapter/Section Amendment Description
30.165.070 Nonconforming
Uses
Clarifies standards for conforming alterations on lots with both conforming and nonconforming uses.
Result: Cleanup/Clarifying Amendments
30.165.080 Substantial
Redevelopment and
Replacement of
Nonconforming Structures
Clarifies standards for demolition and reconstruction of nonconforming buildings as follows:
• Accessory buildings may be demolished and reconstructed to a different type of accessory use (e.g., garage to
workshop) consistent with new standards for Garage
Conversions.
• Eliminates design review as the review body for
replacement of nonconforming buildings.
• Increases allowed additions from 100 sf to 150 sf
consistent with ADUs.
Result: Minor Changes
30.165.090 Nonconforming
Fences and Hedges
Updates for ordinance consistency.
Result: Cleanup/Clarifying Amendments
30.165.100 Nonconforming
Open Yard
Clarifications to the procedures for how nonconforming open yard is calculated. Eliminates prohibition on increasing number of units or bedrooms on sites with nonconforming open yard.
Result: Cleanup/Clarifying Amendments
Chapter 30.175 Parking Regulations
30.175.020 Applicability Simplifies how minimum parking requirements apply to existing buildings by clarifying that most changes in use do not trigger new parking requirements if there is no increase in floor area and no reduction in existing on-site parking. It establishes strict parking compliance for specific conversions—such as from industrial to other uses or from residential to hotel—while allowing greater flexibility for all other changes in use. The update supports adaptive reuse of existing buildings, encouraging revitalization and reinvestment while protecting sensitive land uses and maintaining consistency with City goals and policies.
Result: Significant Changes
30.175.030 General
Provisions
Eliminates the requirement for covered parking spaces for singleunit residential, two-unit residential, and condominium developments. While the total number of required parking spaces
Exhibit D
Single Family Streamlining Project
Description of Amendments to Chapters 22.22, 22.68, and 22.69, Title 25, and Title 30 17 Chapter/Section Amendment Description
remains unchanged, those spaces may now be provided as either covered or uncovered, in accordance with §30.175.040. Covered parking construction is often a significant cost barrier to housing flexibility and reinvestment. Removing this requirement enables property owners to convert existing private garages to other allowed residential uses—such as storage, workshops, or guest houses—under the City’s new Garage Conversion and Guest House ordinances, while still meeting parking requirements and supporting adaptive reuse of existing structures.
Result: Significant Changes
30.175.040 Required
Automobile and Bicycle
Parking Spaces
Eliminates references to covered parking from the table, as described above.
Result: Cleanup/Clarifying Amendments
30.175.060 Location of
Required Automobile and
Bicycle Parking
Minor wording changes related to applicability and allowed locations for parking spaces. Changes include references to new or updated standards in other sections such as Personal Outdoor Storage §30.140.220, Yard Buildings §30.140.240, and Screening §30.140.220. It also allows residential parking to be in an off-site location with a recorded agreement.
Result: Minor Change
30.175.080 Parking Area
Landscape and Fence
Standards
This update clarifies the applicability of parking setback standards and eliminates the requirement for a different perimeter planter width when parking abuts a residential use. Setbacks for parking are now consistently located in the applicable development standards tables by zone, and the removal of the planter requirement resolves conflicts between overlapping or competing standards. Updated graphic.
Result: Minor Changes
30.175.090 Parking Area
Design and Development
Standards
Minor clarifications to terminology.
Result: Cleanup/Clarifying Amendments
Chapter 30.185 Standards for Specific Uses and Activities
30.185.050 Additional
Residential Unit
Removes reference to covered parking and updates FAR
terminology.
Result: Cleanup/Clarifying Amendments
30.185.070 Agriculture Health and Safety Code § 17021.8 requires streamlined approval for farmworker housing on land zoned primarily for agricultural
Exhibit D
Single Family Streamlining Project
Description of Amendments to Chapters 22.22, 22.68, and 22.69, Title 25, and Title 30 Chapter/Section Amendment Description
use. However, the City of Santa Barbara does not have any zoning districts where agriculture is a principally permitted use.
Instead, agriculture is allowed as an accessory use in residential, commercial, office, and manufacturing zones, subject to the standards in Section 30.185.070 of the Municipal Code.
Consistent with Housing Element Program HE-3, amendments clarify that agriculture is considered an accessory use in all zones, thereby confirming that the streamlined provisions of § 17021.8 do not apply within city limits.
Result: Clarifying Amendments Required by State Law
30.185.150 Day Care Centers Implements Assembly Bill 752 (2025), which requires that a Day Care Center, when located within, or on the same lot as, a multiunit or mixed-use development containing five or more residential units or legally established community amenities, be considered a residential use of property and a use by right under all local ordinances, including zoning regulations.
Result: Clarifying Amendments Required by State Law
30.185.140 Community Care
Facilities, Residential Care
Facilities for the Elderly, and
Hospices
Consistent with Housing Element Program HE-3, this amendment revises the permit requirements for Community Care Facilities, Residential Facilities for the Elderly, and Hospices to clarify that they are treated as residential uses under the Santa Barbara Municipal Code. Facilities serving six or fewer residents are considered single-unit residences and do not require a
Performance Standard Permit unless proposing non-permitted accessory uses. Facilities serving 7–15 residents are permitted by right in most residential zones, but require a Performance Standard Permit in RS and R-2 zones. Facilities with 16 or more residents require a Performance Standard Permit. Facilities may include kitchens in individual units or congregate dining areas, with different zoning standards applied depending on the configuration. Accessory uses such as recreational or skilled nursing facilities may be allowed by right or with a permit, depending on the zone.
Result: Clarifying Amendments Required by State Law
30.185.170 Emergency
Shelter
Adds development standards for Emergency Shelter outdoor areas and simplifies the parking requirement. Changes required per Gov’t code 65583(a)(4)
Result: Clarifying Amendments Required by State Law
Exhibit D
Single Family Streamlining Project
Description of Amendments to Chapters 22.22, 22.68, and 22.69, Title 25, and Title 30 Chapter/Section Amendment Description
30.185.175 Emergency Permit Adds new section that authorizes issuance of emergency permits to protect public health, safety, and welfare in response to conditions resulting from natural disasters, accidents, or other unforeseen events that require immediate action.
Result: Minor Changes
30.185.230 Large and Small
Family Day Care Homes
Removes location-specific and operational standards for Large and Small Family Day Care Homes to align with Senate Bill 234 (2019). Under this provision, the City may only enforce standards that are identical to those applied to all other residential properties within the same zoning district.
Result: Clarifying Amendments Required by State Law
30.185.245 Low Barrier
Navigation Center
Adds a new section to ensure compliance with Assembly Bill 101 (2019), which mandates that Low Barrier Navigation Centers be treated as a use by right in areas zoned for mixed-use or nonresidential uses permitting multifamily housing, provided they meet specified criteria. This amendment supports implementation of Housing Element Program HE-3.
Result: Clarifying Amendments Required by State Law
30.185.415 Temporary
Housing Units
This new section allows temporary housing on residential lots for occupants displaced by demolition or damage to a home on the same property. A Performance Standard Permit is required.
Eligible structures include trailers or existing permitted accessory buildings including ADUs. Units must meet basic living and utility standards, provide two on-site parking spaces, and may remain for up to 36 months, with extensions allowed up to six years. Once expired, the temporary use must end, and the site restored unless otherwise approved.
Result: Significant Changes
30.185.430 Transitional and
Supportive Housing
Updates made to align with Assembly Bill 2162 (2018), which requires Supportive Housing to be treated as a use by right in zones permitting multifamily and mixed uses, including
nonresidential zones that allow multifamily housing. The bill mandates streamlined local approval processes for qualifying developments and prohibits minimum parking requirements for supportive housing located within one-half mile of public transit.
Result: Clarifying Amendments Required by State Law
Chapter 30.200 Planning Authorities
Exhibit D
Single Family Streamlining Project
Description of Amendments to Chapters 22.22, 22.68, and 22.69, Title 25, and Title 30 20 Chapter/Section Amendment Description
30.200.030 Planning
Commission
Minor clarifications for ordinance consistency.
Result: Cleanup/Clarifying Amendments
30.200.050 Community
Development Director
Makes Community Development Director the Review Authority for Minor Zoning Exceptions as assigned. Clarifies Director authority to act on Administrative Applications including Administrative Design Review. Adds authority to act on
Emergency Permits.
Result: Minor Changes
30.200.070 Architectural
Board of Review
New section that moves review authority description of
Architectural Board of Review from Chapter 22.68 to Title 30, and includes information from the City Charter.
Result: Minor Changes
30.200.080 Historic
Landmarks Commission
Minor cleanups; adds information from the City Charter; formatting changes to align with ABR and SFDB.
Result: Minor Changes
30.200.090 Single Family
Design Board
New section that moves review authority description of Single Family Design Board from Chapter 22.69 to Title 30.
Result: Minor Changes
Chapter 30.205 Common Procedures
30.205.020 Application Forms
and Fees
Adds clarification on method of submittal and application received date.
Result: Cleanup/Clarifying Amendments
30.205.030 Pre-Application
Review
Adds description of Optional Pre-Application Design
Consultation and noticing requirements. Minor clarifications on Pre-application Review Team.
Result: Minor Changes
30.205.040 Concept Review Clarification regarding public noticing.
Result: Cleanup/Clarifying Amendments
30.205.050 Review of
Discretionary Applications
New subsection authorizing the designated Review Authority— such as the Community Development Director or Staff Hearing Officer—to refer a project to the next highest Review Authority.
This may occur due to policy implications, unusual
circumstances, project scale, community interest, or the need for a more definitive decision.
Exhibit D
Single Family Streamlining Project
Description of Amendments to Chapters 22.22, 22.68, and 22.69, Title 25, and Title 30 21 Chapter/Section Amendment Description
Result: Minor Changes
30.205.070 Public Notice Clarifies noticing requirements for projects requiring design review and land use decisions.
Result: Cleanup/Clarifying Amendments
30.205.080 Conduct of
Hearings
Minor cleanups, as “public hearing” has a specific connotation and associated requirements in state law.
Result: Cleanup/Clarifying Amendments
30.205.150 Appeals Minor clarifying language for appeals of Staff Hearing Officer and Planning Commission decisions. New section on appeals of Design Review decisions. It specifies:
• Design review decisions on Project Design Review may
be appealed by the applicant or any interested person.
• Appeals of decisions by the Architectural Board of
Review and Historic Landmarks Commission go to the
City Council; appeals of Single Family Design Board
decisions go to the Planning Commission.
• Only applicants may appeal post-approval actions, such as Final Approval.
Result: Significant Changes
30.205.155 Review of
Administrative Applications
Adds new section that outlines the administrative review process for permits and approvals handled by the Community
Development Director.
• The Director is the designated Review Authority unless a related application requires action by a higher body, in which case the entire project is reviewed by the higher authority.
• The Director may also refer design changes to a Design Review body if there are potential impacts.
• Administrative decisions are ministerial, not subject to CEQA, do not require a public hearing, and are final
unless otherwise specified.
Result: Significant Changes
Chapter 30.220 Design Review
Exhibit D
Single Family Streamlining Project
Description of Amendments to Chapters 22.22, 22.68, and 22.69, Title 25, and Title 30 22 Chapter/Section Amendment Description
30.220.005 Discretionary
Design Review Procedures
This section establishes procedures for discretionary Design Review in Santa Barbara which applies to most development projects unless exempt or opting into the Objective Design Review process. It defines the roles of Design Review bodies, application requirements, and the need for mailed notice and public hearings for certain project types.
Key changes include:
• Changes to mailed notice triggers—aligned across all
three review bodies.
• Previously, notice was required for additions over 500 sq. ft. to the first story and over 150 sq. ft. to an existing upper story; now, notice is triggered at 800 sq. ft. for firststory additions and 250 sq. ft. for upper-story additions to any residential building.
• Allows applicants to submit, at-risk, for a building permit after Project Design Approval, prior to receiving Final Design Approval.
Result: Significant Changes
30.220.010 Architectural
Board of Review
Moves Architectural Board of Review purpose, applicability, and findings from Chapter 22.68 to Title 30. Includes content clarifications and clean-ups. For increased consistency with state law, removes requirement for concept review when Planning Commission is decision-maker, and removes potential for referral to Planning Commission. Removes descriptions of obsolete Special Design Districts. Description of Highway 101 Coastal Parkway Special Design District moved to §30.220.060.
Result: Minor Changes
30.220.020 Historic
Landmarks Commission
Cleanups for ordinance consistency. Changes and clarifications to Historic Landmarks Commission procedures, including:
• Allowance for administrative review of projects in El Pueblo Viejo Landmark District to by performed by the
Community Development Director.
• Removal of requirement for concept review when
Planning Commission is decision-maker, and removes
potential for referral to Planning Commission.
• Reorganization to match format of ABR and SFDB
sections.
Exhibit D
Single Family Streamlining Project
Description of Amendments to Chapters 22.22, 22.68, and 22.69, Title 25, and Title 30 23 Chapter/Section Amendment Description
Allows HLC to approve Maximum FAR exceptions (rather than Planning Commission Modification requirement).
Result: Minor Changes
30.220.040 Single Family
Design Board
Moves Single Family Design Board from Chapter 22.69 to Title
30. SFDB review is required for most exterior changes, new construction, grading, and landscape modifications on lots with single-unit residences, unless exempt.
Key changes include:
• Increased the exemptions from SFDB review to include
small-scale additions, certain accessory buildings,
architecturally consistent alterations, minor site features, limited grading or landscaping, and other low-impact
changes.
• Makes Final Approval a ministerial action by the
Community Development Director (this is specified in the guidelines, not in the ordinance).
• Revises procedures for changes to approved plans (this is specified in the guidelines, not in the ordinance).
• Simplified the required findings and adds Maximum FAR findings.
Result: Significant Changes
30.220.050 Objective Design
Review
Minor cleanups.
Result: Cleanup/Clarifying Amendments
30.220.060 Special Design
Districts
Adds new section that describes Hillside Design District and Highway 101 Santa Barbara Coastal Parkway Special Design District. Eliminates Mission Area Design District and Lower Riviera Special Design District. When they were created, the purpose of the Mission Area and Lower Riviera Special Design Districts was to facilitate historic resource surveys that would result in the designation of historic resources and the creation of historic districts. Those surveys have since been completed and the contributing historic resources identified, therefore reference to the Mission Area and Lower Riviera Special Design Districts is proposed to be removed.
Result: Minor Changes.
Chapter 30.235 General Plan and Zoning Amendments
Exhibit D
Single Family Streamlining Project
Description of Amendments to Chapters 22.22, 22.68, and 22.69, Title 25, and Title 30 24 Chapter/Section Amendment Description
30.235.070 Public Notice Adds language to reference Government Code §65854 for additional noticing required on land use changes.
Result: Cleanup/Clarifying Amendments
30.235.085 Ordinance
Committee Action
Adds new section to reference procedures for Ordinance
Committee review of zoning amendments.
Result: Cleanup/Clarifying Amendments
30.235.090 City Council
Action
Adds procedures for City Council introduction and adoption of ordinance amendments; adds subsection to explain the effective date of an ordinance.
Result: Cleanup/Clarifying Amendments
30.235.100 General Plan and
Local Coastal Plan
Consistency Required for
Zoning Amendments
Clarifies that consistency with the Local Coastal Plan is required for zoning amendments, if applicable.
Result: Cleanup/Clarifying Amendments
Chapter 30.250 Modifications
30.250.020 Applicability Adds modification for accessory building standards.
Eliminates Maximum FAR Modification for single-unit
residential projects and replaces with Design Review FAR Exception in Chapter 30.220.
Result: Significant Changes
30.250.030 Review Authority Changes review authority and process for Maximum FAR Modifications from Planning Commission to a Design Review Exception and SFDB or HLC.
Result: Significant Changes
30.250.060 Required Findings Amends and relocates findings for FAR Modifications for singleunit residential projects to 30.220.040.H as a Design Review Exception.
Result: Significant Changes
Chapter 30.290 Zoning Upon Annexation
30.290.030 Procedure Clarifies that the entirety of any annexation shall become a part of the Hillside Design District upon annexation, unless otherwise determined as part of the annexation. Relocates from Title 22.
Result: Cleanup/Clarifying Amendments
Exhibit D
Single Family Streamlining Project
Description of Amendments to Chapters 22.22, 22.68, and 22.69, Title 25, and Title 30 25 Chapter/Section Amendment Description
Chapter 30.295 Use Classifications
30.295.020 Residential Use
Classifications
Amendments to the Single-Unit Residential Use classification to align with state law changes, recognizing Employee Housing Units, Community Care Facilities, and similar living
arrangements with six or fewer residents—each under separate rental agreements—as consistent with single-unit residential use, provided the dwelling otherwise meets the definition of a singleunit residence..
Result: Clarifying Amendments Required by State Law
Chapter 30.300 Definitions
30.300.005 Added section to explain purpose, applicability, and interpretation of definitions.
Result: Cleanup/Clarifying Amendments
30.300.010 “A” Adds definitions for “Administrative Design Review” and “Architectural Feature.” Corrects alphabetization.
Result: Cleanup/Clarifying Amendments
30.300.020 “B” Updates “Basement” definition to identify when it counts as a story. Updates “Bedroom” definition to state that a dining room is not a bedroom.
Result: Cleanup/Clarifying Amendments
30.300.030 “C” Corrects alphabetization. Elaborates on “Cellar” definition. Adds definition for “Concept Design Review.”
Result: Cleanup/Clarifying Amendments
30.300.040 “D” Corrects alphabetization. Adds definitions for “Design Review,” “Dining Room,” and “Discretionary Review.”
Result: Cleanup/Clarifying Amendments
30.300.050 “E” Adds definitions for “Efficiency Unit” and “Enclosure, Trash and Recycling.” Clarifies definition of “Enclosed.” Corrects alphabetization.
Result: Cleanup/ Consistency
30.300.060 “F” Adds definitions for “Final Design Review,” “Finished Surface Level,” “Floor Area, Non-Livable,” and “Frontages.” Revises definition of “Floor Area, Net.”
Exhibit D
Single Family Streamlining Project
Description of Amendments to Chapters 22.22, 22.68, and 22.69, Title 25, and Title 30 26 Chapter/Section Amendment Description
Result: Cleanup/ Consistency
30.300.070 “G” Adds references to §30.15.055, Grading. Clarifies that “Guestroom” refers to a room in a temporary lodging
establishment. Adds definition of “Guest House.”
Result: Cleanup/Clarifying Amendments
30.300.080 “H” Revises definition of “Hearing.” Updates to Historic Resources Related Definitions.
Result: Cleanup/Clarifying Amendments
30.300.090 “I” Corrects alphabetization.
Result: Cleanup/Clarifying Amendments
30.300.110 “K” Elaborates on “Kitchen” definition, including adding definition of “Full Kitchen.”
Result: Cleanup/Clarifying Amendments
30.300.120 “L” Adds definitions for “Landscape Accessories.” Re-alphabetizes and adds clarification to “Landscape Plan.”
Result: Cleanup/Clarifying Amendments
30.300.130 “M” Adds definitions for “Meeting” and “Ministerial Review.” Corrects alphabetization.
Result: Cleanup/Clarifying Amendments
30.300.150 “O” Adds definitions for “Open Yard” and “Open Yard Amenities.” Corrects alphabetization.
Result: Cleanup/Clarifying Amendments
30.300.160 “P” Adds definition for “Principal Place of Residence” and “Public Scenic View.” Minor changes to “Patio,” “Patio Cover,” and “Porch.” Corrects alphabetization.
Result: Cleanup/Clarifying Amendments
30.300.180 “R” Adds definition for “Replacement In Kind” of architectural elements for clarification. Adds “Residential Use of the Same Type.”
Result: Cleanup/Clarifying Amendments
30.300.190 “S” Adds definition for “Sink” and sub-definitions. Adds subdefinitions for “Structure.” Corrects alphabetization.
Exhibit D
Single Family Streamlining Project
Description of Amendments to Chapters 22.22, 22.68, and 22.69, Title 25, and Title 30 27 Chapter/Section Amendment Description
Result: Cleanup/Clarifying Amendments
30.300.200 “T”
Moves figure for Trellis.
Result: Cleanup/Clarifying Amendments
30.300.210 “U” Clarifications to definition of “Unenclosed.” Result: Cleanup/Clarifying Amendments
30.300.250 “Y” Moves “Yard, Open” under “Yard” and adds sub-definitions.
Result: Cleanup/Clarifying Amendments
Appendix Sectional Maps Minor zone edits from rezones and legend updates to include Title 28 and Title 30 zone codes
Exhibit E
Single Family Streamlining Project
Project Background and Public Outreach Summary
Project Background and Public Outreach Summary
A. PROJECT BACKGROUND
SFDB Background and Regulatory Context
The Single Family Design Board (SFDB) is a five-member design review board that includes at least one licensed architect and up to three members of the public who reside in the City of Santa Barbara. Established to curb the development of excessively large homes, the SFDB reviews proposals for additions, alterations, and new single family homes in the Hillside Design District and above 17 feet in height.
Prior to 1992, the only single family development projects subject to design review were historic homes reviewed by the Historic Landmarks Commission.Review of single family homes by the Architectural Board of Review (ABR) started with adoption of the Neighborhood Preservation Ordinance and Single Family Design Guidelines in 1992, with specific focus on hillside projects due to their visibility. In the years following, there was a proliferation of homes in single family neighborhoods that the public considered excessively large, and an overwhelming number of projects on ABR agendas. As a result, City Council directed staff to create a new design review board for single family projects.
In 2007, City Council established the Single Family Design Board and adopted zoning limits on Floor Area Ratio (FAR)1 in Santa Barbara’s residential neighborhoods.
Streamlining Project Background
This project began in August 2022 following a thorough review of City policies and procedures by the Novak Consulting Group. The Novak report identified significant concerns that the SFDB process had become overloaded with too many projects and process steps, resulting in delayed projects and frustration among those involved in the design review process. City staff launched an applicant survey in early 2023 to gain a better understanding of these issues and identify opportunities for improvement. The 220 survey respondents indicated that the SFDB process adds significant time, money, and frustration in getting approvals for home projects, especially when those projects require public hearings.
Since establishment of the SFDB in 2007, updates to City ordinances have increased the number of SFDB design review triggers, which has added to the review process for single family projects. In particular, the 2017 adoption of Title 30 shifted the review responsibility from Staff Hearing Officer or Planning Commission for requests for exceptions to certain zoning standards to the SFDB (or other applicable design review board) as a way to streamline review of those items. However, updates to the SFDB review process have not kept pace, despite local ordinance changes and the State legislature continuing to pass housing streamlining laws that reduce local control over discretionary review and land use.
Comparing the City’s two other design review boards, the SFDB reviewed twice as many 1 Floor Area Ratio (FAR) is the relationship between the amount of building floor area and the area of the lot.
EXHIBIT E Page 540 of 767
Exhibit E
Single Family Streamlining Project
Project Background and Public Outreach Summary
applications as HLC and one and a half times as many as ABR in 2024. This project aims to reduce the number of SFDB projects to similar levels as ABR and HLC while streamlining the review process for single family projects.
The goals of the Single Family Development Streamlining Project (Project) are as follows:
1. Reduce the number of single family development projects subject to design review.
2. Streamline the public hearing process for single family projects.
3. Create more flexibility to address common homeowner interests.
Achieving the three project goals is expected to will result in faster processing times and reduced complexity while still upholding the SFDB’s primary objective of ensuring residential projects are compatible with the surrounding neighborhood in size and design.
B. PUBLIC OUTREACH SUMMARY
Meetings, surveys, and other public engagement efforts have occurred since this project was initiated in 2023 as follows:
• February 2023 – April 2023: Online Survey of SFDB Applicants. In collaboration with American Institute of Architects (AIA) Santa Barbara, this online survey, emailed to Land Development Team customers who have had a project at SFDB in the last 3 years, asked respondents 22 questions about their experience with the SFDB process.
Questions focused on the length of time spent in the discretionary review process, project permitting costs, and experiences with SFDB public hearings. Over 220 responses were received from residents, architects, design professionals, and others.
Most respondents indicated that the SFDB design review process took longer than expected, cost more than anticipated, and resulted in frustration and heartache.
Respondents were asked to offer their thoughts on how the process could be improved, and their answers informed the draft ordinance amendments. • February 2023 – March 2023: Meetings with Current & Former SFDB Members. Staff solicited feedback from current and former SFDB members and discussed initial ideas for process improvements. Board members provided valuable input about the board’s goals, guidelines, design review triggers, and challenges they encountered with the design review process.
• March 2023 – April 2023: Focus Group Meetings with SFDB Applicants. Staff requested feedback from architects, design professionals, and land use planning consultants who frequently present projects at SFDB during a series of three focus group meetings. During these meetings, focus group members shared the challenges they encountered during the SFDB design review process, as well as suggestions for streamlining the process.
• April 19, 2023: Land Development Team Oversight Subcommittee Meeting. City Staff introduced the Single Family Design Board Process Improvement Project and received feedback from the Subcommittee on the Project’s goals and direction.
Exhibit E
Single Family Streamlining Project
Project Background and Public Outreach Summary
• June 2023 – August 2023: AIA & SFDB Subcommittee Working Group Meetings.
Members of the American Institute of Architects (AIA) Advocacy Group and two SFDB members met with City Staff to discuss specific code amendment concepts related to design review triggers and administrative approval standards for minor projects.
• June 2023 – August 2023: Single Family Design Board Trainings. City Staff facilitated three formal training sessions for the SFDB to enhance Board members’ understanding of their purview and City policies and processes. Topics included an overview of the Planning Application process and SFDB’s jurisdiction in the Municipal Code; how to use design guidelines to make required findings to approve a project; and special considerations for projects proposing a high floor area ratio (FAR). • October 26, 2023: Land Development Team Oversight Subcommittee Meeting. City Staff presented findings from project data analysis and public outreach and sought feedback on the general approach and scope of the Project. The Subcommittee supported Staff’s proposal.
• March 11, 2024: Single Family Design Board Discussion #1. City Staff presented a conceptual-level discussion of the proposed ordinance amendments. The Board provided comments and general support for the concepts presented. • March 21, 2024: Planning Commission Discussion. City Staff presented ordinance amendment concepts for design review triggers, mailed noticing thresholds, and required findings to approve projects. The Commission provided comments and direction to staff.
• November 13, 2024: Single Family Design Board Discussion #2. City Staff presented refined ordinance amendment concepts for design review triggers to the Single Family Design Board for comments and feedback.
• February 10, 2025: Single Family Design Board Discussion #3. City Staff presented proposed updates to the Single Family Design Board General Design Guidelines & Meeting Procedures for comments and feedback, focusing on changes to administrative review.
• June 10, 2025: Meeting with Santa Barbara Association of Realtors (SBAOR). City Staff met with representatives of SBAOR to inform them of the proposed amendments.
SBAOR representatives were generally supportive of the proposed amendments, particularly the Title 30 amendments to introduce flexibility in how people develop their property.
• June 17, 2025: City Council Briefing Session. City staff presented an overview of the proposed project, including the zoning streamlining amendments to Title 30, and requested general feedback regarding the proposed amendment concepts. City Council provided positive feedback on the proposed concepts.
• August 11, 2025: Focus Group with Project Appellants. City Staff met with and received written comments from three individuals who had participated in appeals of
Exhibit E
Single Family Streamlining Project
Project Background and Public Outreach Summary
SFDB decisions at City Council and Planning Commission. Participants provided feedback about the appeal process and identified opportunities for improvement. • November 2025: Design Review Body Discussions. City Staff presented highlights of the proposed changes at ABR, HLC, and SFDB in preparation for the release of the full amendments package.
• December 4, 2025: Planning Commission Discussion. City Staff presented the full amendments package to the Planning Commission and public for review and comment.
SFDB Survey
SURVEY RESPONSE REPORT
07 February 2023 - 23 February 2023
PROJECT NAME:
Single Family Design Board (SFDB) Survey
EXHIBIT F
Single Family Streamlining Project
SFDB Applicant Survey Responses Report
EXHIBIT F
SURVEY QUESTIONS
SFDB Survey : Survey Report for 07 February 2023 to 23 February 2023
EXHIBIT F - SFDB Survey Report Page 545 of 767
Q1 Have you ever had a project before the Single Family Design Board (Consent or Full Board)?
231 (52.9%)
231 (52.9%)
206 (47.1%)
206 (47.1%)
Yes No
Question options
Mandatory Question (436 response(s))
Question type: Radio Button Question
SFDB Survey : Survey Report for 07 February 2023 to 23 February 2023
EXHIBIT F - SFDB Survey Report Page 546 of 767
Q2 Approximately how many projects have you presented to SFDB? 86 (36.9%)
86 (36.9%)
113 (48.5%)
113 (48.5%)
34 (14.6%)
34 (14.6%)
1 project 2-10 projects 11+ projects
Question options
Mandatory Question (232 response(s))
Question type: Radio Button Question
SFDB Survey : Survey Report for 07 February 2023 to 23 February 2023
EXHIBIT F - SFDB Survey Report Page 547 of 767
Q3 Which of the following best describes your primary role with respect to SFDB? 98 (42.2%)
98 (42.2%)
105 (45.3%)
105 (45.3%)
13 (5.6%)
13 (5.6%) 9 (3.9%)
9 (3.9%) 4 (1.7%)
4 (1.7%) 3 (1.3%)
3 (1.3%) 0 (0.0%)
0 (0.0%)
Homeowner Architect / Design Professional Agent for applicant (land use planner, permit expediter) Contractor Developer Other (please specify) Realtor / Broker
Question options
Mandatory Question (231 response(s))
Question type: Radio Button Question
SFDB Survey : Survey Report for 07 February 2023 to 23 February 2023
EXHIBIT F - SFDB Survey Report Page 548 of 767
Q4 In your experience, do you believe the SFDB design review process resulted in a better project design outcome?
13 (5.6%)
13 (5.6%)
80 (34.5%)
80 (34.5%)
69 (29.7%)
69 (29.7%)
70 (30.2%)
70 (30.2%)
Strongly agree Somewhat agree Somewhat disagree Strongly disagree Question options
Mandatory Question (231 response(s))
Question type: Radio Button Question
SFDB Survey : Survey Report for 07 February 2023 to 23 February 2023
EXHIBIT F - SFDB Survey Report Page 549 of 767
Q5 Please share any types of comments made by SFDB you found helpful. Check all that apply
Site planning/site considerations Architectural style Livability/function Neighborhood compatibility of style and size Project's relationship to immediate neighbor No opinion Other (please specify)
Question options
10 20
30 40
50 60
70 80
53 32
16 53
46 74
32 Optional question (205 response(s), 232 skipped)
Question type: Checkbox Question
SFDB Survey : Survey Report for 07 February 2023 to 23 February 2023
EXHIBIT F - SFDB Survey Report Page 550 of 767
Q6 Please share any types of comments made by SFDB you found to be not helpful. Check all that apply
Site planning/site considerations Architectural style Livability/function Neighborhood compatibility of style and size Project's relationship to immediate neighbor No opinion Other (please specify)
Question options
20 40
60 80
100
120
140
160
84 134
97 100
80 33
36 Optional question (227 response(s), 210 skipped)
Question type: Checkbox Question
SFDB Survey : Survey Report for 07 February 2023 to 23 February 2023
EXHIBIT F - SFDB Survey Report Page 551 of 767
Anonymous
2/08/2023 05:18 PM
Rejection of color scheme by Consent, overturned by Full Board Anonymous
2/08/2023 05:38 PM
I found the SFDB to be thoughtful and diligent in their consideration of our FAR.
Anonymous
2/09/2023 04:39 AM
when an existing house is relatively pedestrian, requiring a homeowner to add more detail or stylistic upgrades to remodel when not proposed by owner/agent as part of program is not helpful but rather upsets owner regarding cost of design and construction Anonymous
2/09/2023 11:26 AM
Over the years, board members have been biased against
architecture styles. In particular MODERN styles. For some reason this board is against Glass Garage doors and Glass Railing. This bias is ridiculous and unfounded and not helpful
Anonymous
2/09/2023 02:27 PM
Making decisions based on personal beliefs rather than what the guidelines state. Overreaching and including comments on areas of a project not visible to the public
Anonymous
2/09/2023 02:21 PM
The entire process was awful - the City sent us to SFDB, then historical review, then said we were not historical, so sent us back to SFDB, all of which took nearly 2 years and tens of thousands of dollars in new plans.
Anonymous
2/09/2023 02:22 PM
neighbors run the show, not the review boards. this is a crapshoot, i tell owners hang on for the ride. also, people making small additions should get a break
Anonymous
2/09/2023 02:46 PM
The format is such thatthe applicant cannot rebut the comments made. Sometimes the comments do not reflect the questions raised during the Q&A portion of the process and the applicant is left wondering why it wasn't brought up as a concern prior to final Anonymous The time it takes to get comments and approvals is long.
Q7 If you would like to elaborate, please share any other suggestions or comments made by SFDB that were helpful or not so helpful?
SFDB Survey : Survey Report for 07 February 2023 to 23 February 2023
EXHIBIT F - SFDB Survey Report Page 552 of 767
2/09/2023 02:45 PM
Anonymous
2/09/2023 02:53 PM
The entire process was frustrating, lengthy and expensive. I was improving a home and the value for the neighborhood yet I was expected to jump through hoops - even as far as deciding years in advance exactly what my landscaping plan would be.
Anonymous
2/09/2023 03:07 PM
less over sight. provide a hardcopy of clearly defined comments right after the meeting. waiting weeks only hurts the home owners.
Anonymous
2/10/2023 10:33 AM
HELPFUL: building massing, window placement, cohesion with community NOT HELPFUL: going against clients intent when those intentions comply with city req's, requesting 3D modeling/renderings, members should be able to visualize plans or it should be a req Anonymous
2/09/2023 03:11 PM
With so many regulations and red tape, designs are often very limited and seem like an extreme jig saw puzzle to navigate for often simple improvements
Anonymous
2/09/2023 03:23 PM
The comments were extremely subjective and did not fallow the SB building guidelines.
Anonymous
2/09/2023 03:25 PM
Horrific experience. Despite living in a high fire zone, they would only permit me to use wood for my railing on a deck. I spent thousands of dollars on an architect fighting them on it to no avail. I will NEVER submit anything again for a permit.
Anonymous
2/09/2023 03:37 PM
I believe that the purpose of a Design Review Board should be to improve the quallity of construction. Especially to see beyond renderings that purport to show a good looking building when in fact the materials and the construction are poor.
Anonymous
2/09/2023 03:26 PM
Board members have been rude about style selection based on their personal preferences.
Anonymous
2/09/2023 03:33 PM
Board members have not been helpful in solving complex constraints of client program needs, budget, site constraints, code constraints, and most importantly, they have been a barrier to perceived architectural style.
SFDB Survey : Survey Report for 07 February 2023 to 23 February 2023
EXHIBIT F - SFDB Survey Report Page 553 of 767
Anonymous
2/09/2023 03:42 PM
SFBD should be there to help designers/applicants. They do not. It's nearly impossible to coral architectural opinions just between 2 architects, let alone 5 or 6. Whether they individually 'like' the design is not a standard, but that's The Standard.
Anonymous
2/09/2023 03:40 PM
My architects said City was very. Difficult to work with Anonymous
2/09/2023 03:45 PM
The SFDB had no substantive comments on our project and yet required us to return for a second review because they insisted we needed to included a colored elevation (despite already having full elevations with a keyed color palette). A waste of time.
Anonymous
2/09/2023 03:40 PM
Our design was what we chose, the board tried to change the design to what they personally liked. Nothing was code related, just their personal opinions
Anonymous
2/09/2023 03:42 PM
SFDB should give all their feedback at once. It is EXTREMELY costly for homeowners and frustrating for builders, having to wait many weeks or months in between meetings and getting additional feedback along the way that drags the process out. Speed needed Anonymous
2/09/2023 03:39 PM
Should not micromanage design
Anonymous
2/09/2023 04:41 PM
They are inconsistent from meeting to meeting, and they get hung up on the smallest things. I wish the board would realize that their decisions/actions/comments have serious cost implications as they effectively drag out projects to longer timelines.
Anonymous
2/09/2023 04:19 PM
The board is so unhelpful, most of the members aren't even architects. They cause so much stress and anxiety and their opinions seem to depend on the day and their mood.
Anonymous
2/09/2023 07:01 PM
Worked on a project with a family for a 2 years, thoughtfully considering impact on neighbors , storm water collection, aesthetic, structural and material improvements, etc. and was insulted by the chair who claimed we hadn't give the project any thought SFDB Survey : Survey Report for 07 February 2023 to 23 February 2023
EXHIBIT F - SFDB Survey Report Page 554 of 767
Anonymous
2/09/2023 09:51 PM
No useful comments were provided. Just delays to simple projects.
Anonymous
2/09/2023 10:10 PM
Projects of this nature should be handled administratively. Property rights of owners held in the balance by unqualified laypeople is morally wrong.
Anonymous
2/09/2023 10:15 PM
Process should be more executive rather than bureaucratic Anonymous
2/09/2023 10:19 PM
I believe they go to far and the city doesn't have the time or resources. Permitting takes forever and that's why most people don't even bother getting a permit. Should be much faster and easier and less red tape
Anonymous
2/10/2023 03:42 AM
They slowed down the process significantly by not taking the whole house and project into consideration and not visiting the site but making decisions based off of paper files.
Anonymous
2/10/2023 04:36 AM
The comments were very opinion oriented on very minute details that resulted in additional costs with no real gain to the final outcome.
Anonymous
2/10/2023 07:38 AM
A board member made condescending comments that were simply a difference of taste, not of design. The next time the same project was presented (with no changes), that member was absent and all the comments were positive. There was no objectivity, just s Anonymous
2/10/2023 07:59 AM
Department was difficult to work with overall. Plans were approved, but were too easily interrupted by anonomous neighbor complaints Anonymous
2/10/2023 08:18 AM
SFDB is fine... But MBAR is WAY TOO OLD and they need term limits.
Anonymous
2/10/2023 08:55 AM
The SFDB prevented our family from realizing our dream home design by insisting on so many arbitrary changes we were left with a generic design with no character. They take your vision and change it to theirs. High on power trip
Anonymous Generally, they don't understand their purview and they insert their SFDB Survey : Survey Report for 07 February 2023 to 23 February 2023
EXHIBIT F - SFDB Survey Report Page 555 of 767
2/10/2023 09:23 AM personal agendas and opinions inappropriately. They have been insulting to applicants and property owners. They do not know rules of conduct. Some are not qualified on any level.
Anonymous
2/10/2023 09:17 AM
First time we presented we had a "wainscoat" (bricks) on the outside below the windows. We were told to take it off. At a later design meeting we were told that some brickwork on the facade would look nice. Arbitrary advice and decisions.
Anonymous
2/10/2023 09:16 AM
The SFDB's sanctions on reasonable design and development and associated fees throughout the entire design/permit/build process can only be afforded by wealthy/elite homeowners. Lower income homeowners are hamstrung to try to improve our properties.
Anonymous
2/10/2023 09:25 AM
The SFDB would often levy actions, but often would not make the applicants follow through in correcting the action. For example lighting plans, views to determine privacy, etc. were issued as actions but the projects were approved even without closure.
Anonymous
2/10/2023 09:51 AM
I have found the suggestions to be based on personal bias and sometimes impractical or unrealistic in terms of build-ability and costs.
Anonymous
2/10/2023 09:52 AM
SFDB required a condition to use Santa Barbara Sandstone on a project, where no other development on the street has used Santa Barbara Sandstone
Anonymous
2/10/2023 10:21 AM
We were replacing a balcony railing with a decorative metal railing with panels. The steps we had to take to submit our design to the review board seemed excessive and while the review board liked our design, they proposed things that weren't necessary.
Anonymous
2/10/2023 10:57 AM
Failed to consider HO's budget when providing architectural style comments.
Anonymous
2/10/2023 11:23 AM
SFDB should review size, bulk and scale. Basically they should review a project in the big picture. Sometimes SFDB review turn into a discussion of minute details & personal taste which is not helpful to the client.
SFDB Survey : Survey Report for 07 February 2023 to 23 February 2023
EXHIBIT F - SFDB Survey Report Page 556 of 767
Anonymous
2/10/2023 12:50 PM
The design review board has its detractors, but looking at the big picture it serves a very important role in the future development of the city.
Anonymous
2/10/2023 01:16 PM
Archictural inpiut add only cost to the project, without and archtecural improvement or any neighrhood copabilityre improsemed
Anonymous
2/10/2023 02:37 PM
For one meeting they will specify something and then in the next meeting they may change their minds and ask for something else. All of these changes cost thousands of dollars in architects fees. They seem to like wielding their power at our expense
Anonymous
2/10/2023 03:06 PM
The City should strongly reevaluate the need and discretion that a SFDB has over SFR projects. Applicants are not developers and do not have the financial capacity to bear additional costs and delays with unnecessary discretionary review.
Anonymous
2/10/2023 06:29 PM
The board should not subjectively interject their costly revisions that are not legal like “I’d like your roof pitched”. A complete change of roof style on their whim cannot be legal.
Anonymous
2/10/2023 07:48 PM
I suggest that they review the designs more closely before insisting on changes.
Anonymous
2/10/2023 06:43 PM
I wanted to replace 1972 Al slider windows with new energy efficient vinyl windows. I was told I could do a counter permit. I could NOT!!! I was told to do a design review. It was a time consuming, expensive, HORRIBLE experience!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Anonymous
2/10/2023 08:04 PM
waiting for two years
Anonymous
2/11/2023 09:32 AM
at least one suggestion made that was extraordinarily detrimental to the historic design of the house. We did NOT follow it, but were appalled that a registered architect could make such a suggestion (slicing off sections of the roof).
Anonymous
2/11/2023 11:39 AM
SFDB is not consistently applying the same standards to projects.
Some strongly opinionated Board members sway other more passive Board members, which results in random, not genuinely unified SFDB Survey : Survey Report for 07 February 2023 to 23 February 2023
EXHIBIT F - SFDB Survey Report Page 557 of 767
recommendations, making the process unpredictable and arbitrary Anonymous
2/11/2023 03:18 PM
Didn't like having to design entire garden before anything existed of the new house. Hardscape, trees> 10ft and commitment to water/irrigation standards better than every single individual plant.
Anonymous
2/11/2023 06:20 PM
Having the house addition plans reviewed by the SFDB felt like I was on trial. They expressed opinions (this window should be square and not rectangular) etc. Their feedback was purely stylistic and frivolous and wasted my time and money to comply
Anonymous
2/12/2023 05:55 AM
SFDB is a waste of city resources and is simply a platform for board members to have their non professional opinions impact projects.
Anonymous
2/12/2023 09:15 AM
One rejection leading to project delay based on landscaping within a private courtyard not visible to public and designed by licensed landscape architect
Anonymous
2/13/2023 10:00 AM
Telling a homeowner that they should have rubbed bronze window frames instead of black is insane. That is one person opinion, why in the world does one persons opinion get to decide what a homeowner does with their house. INSANE!
Anonymous
2/13/2023 10:46 AM
If find the review boards to be just fine overall in their work and review comments and guidance, it is the City internal processes that leave a great deal to be desired an indeed. They create situations where design review should not be necessary.
Anonymous
2/13/2023 10:59 AM
DRB told us how to do our windowsills, trim color, and roofing surface, despite our house not being visible to any but 1 neighbor.
Anonymous
2/13/2023 11:45 AM
We found it amazing that there was negative comments about architectural style that perfectly fits the historical prototype of a Santa Barbara house...beige stucco, red tile roof, and black trim.
Anonymous
2/13/2023 12:11 PM
The process is egregious and riddled with pure personal opinion that doesn't improve results at all - it simply delays projects and costs homowners $$$
SFDB Survey : Survey Report for 07 February 2023 to 23 February 2023
EXHIBIT F - SFDB Survey Report Page 558 of 767
Anonymous
2/13/2023 12:39 PM
Some of the comments and direction of the SFDB are extremely personal and do not reflect the standards or design of the neighborhood. The personal "feelings" of the SFDB should never overstep bounds.
Anonymous
2/13/2023 12:51 PM
The vast majority of the comments/suggestions were highly subjective and were not followed up by any recommendations to appease the whims of the board. The board has caused the cost of design for my project to increase substantially.
Anonymous
2/13/2023 01:19 PM
Overall the response from SFDB was excessively negative for our small single story home in a very eclectic and mixed style neighborhood
Anonymous
2/13/2023 01:28 PM
There was no concern for the additional costs and time during the process. While there were lots of changes I'm unconvinced that the process effected anything in a meaningful way, I just spent more money on revising plans.
Anonymous
2/13/2023 02:56 PM
Though our house is a CA Ranch style home built in 1947, like the majority of homes on our street, we were told by the chair that he would prefer that we remodel to make the house a Spanish style.
Anonymous
2/13/2023 05:15 PM
SFDB board members make decisions based on emotions and architectural style biases. They also immediately capitulate to every neighbor concern.
Anonymous
2/13/2023 06:16 PM
I don't think the SFDB should be weighing in on materials (like metal vs. composite roofing), paint colors and stylistic choices.
Anonymous
2/13/2023 10:32 PM
Completely biased opinions for a simple project
Anonymous
2/14/2023 08:54 AM
I feel that many times this board and other seem to project a personal design opinion. The Boards needs to see a project for what it is and recognize when a project is good and when a project needs help. It should not be about a personal design opinion
Anonymous
2/14/2023 09:25 AM
Be more user friendly and positive
SFDB Survey : Survey Report for 07 February 2023 to 23 February 2023
EXHIBIT F - SFDB Survey Report Page 559 of 767
Anonymous
2/14/2023 01:22 PM
Q4: Answer should be N/A because the projects were acceptable as is.
Anonymous
2/14/2023 02:21 PM
Each member felt it was their duty to redesign the project Anonymous
2/14/2023 05:10 PM
City planning ahead of Design Review. Letters explaining proposed project delivered to closest 20 neighbors. Then letters delivered to registered home owners of 20 closest neighbors including site location workshop. Took near a year to get clarity.
Anonymous
2/14/2023 05:01 PM
Too narrow minded board members. This is not THEIR design. It is my design AND what my client wants.
Anonymous
2/15/2023 06:39 AM
We just need our tiny project permitted. We have done everything asked and spent a fortune on the changes your dept has requested.
Then the project we spent a fortune changing on your request only to find out need not be changed..
Anonymous
2/15/2023 12:48 PM
Comments seem subjective, not based on ordinance
Anonymous
2/15/2023 02:51 PM
SB9 state law does not allow city officals to be subjective when evaluating whether or not splitting a homeowner lot using SB9 would benefit neighbors, neighborhood, etc. As long is a lot meets SB9's minimum requirements it should not be debateable.
Anonymous
2/15/2023 04:52 PM
I typically have favor with whatever design aesthetic we are presenting. We often get unfair and costly comments when the board is trying to balance neighbor pushback. We always conform to zoning; SFDB becomes a forum for neighbors rights before owners Anonymous
2/15/2023 03:05 PM
Generally the professionals on SFDB are ok, there have been instances where they assert subjective opinions on style or massing that exceed their authority. The problem is staff's extensive checklists.
Conceptual reviews should not have to be so detailed.
Anonymous
2/15/2023 06:22 PM
I find the talk about architecture style not helpful as it distills for a style we up turn our nose at in Santa Barbara and "Livability/function" SFDB Survey : Survey Report for 07 February 2023 to 23 February 2023
EXHIBIT F - SFDB Survey Report Page 560 of 767
is code for will this resell well. Projects should be compatible with the area, not style
Anonymous
2/15/2023 06:35 PM
It is not helpful to get opposite views from Board showing that varying opinions are valid, but being at the mercy of the number of Biard members who show up that day. There is inconsistency and no ability to clarify findings after they are made.
Anonymous
2/16/2023 08:02 AM
Disparaging comments about the design or drawings undermine architect/client relations. The duration of the process (minimum 30- business day review by staff, then months of SFDB reviews) is incompatible with the timelines of families needing space.
Anonymous
2/16/2023 09:15 AM
It is not helpful when they focus in small and irrelevant things, such as a gate entry keypad design.
Anonymous
2/16/2023 10:23 AM
Zoning Ordinance provides all the necessary regulations (and more) for SFDB to review.
Anonymous
2/16/2023 12:54 PM
Board repeatedly proclaimed their distaste for the architectural style of the house and exhibited a clear bias based on this.
Anonymous
2/16/2023 03:19 PM
Overall comment is that the SFDB board is often times untrained in what it means to review a project. There are many subjective comments that are not tied back to City of SB Design Regulations.
This translates to untrained individuals affecting projects Anonymous
2/16/2023 07:27 PM
The purpose of SFDB is to avoid unattractive projects that are designed by unqualified professionals. Unfortunately, the board now believes every project needs to be a masterpiece and goes completely overboard on the design requirements.
Anonymous
2/17/2023 03:23 PM
The board has added years onto my project. They infringe upon me building more housing. They basically function as an HOA. Disband it Anonymous
2/18/2023 05:41 PM
Review board rejected a design change we requested because, in their view, it was not compatible with the neighborhood. The proposed installation is invisible to surrounding neighbors. Moreover, neighboring properties had not been renovated in decadess SFDB Survey : Survey Report for 07 February 2023 to 23 February 2023
EXHIBIT F - SFDB Survey Report Page 561 of 767
Anonymous
2/19/2023 10:10 AM
Regarding scale, for the non-architect, asking the plan submitter to simply draw a person inside the interior may not be enough to clarify what the SFDB is thinking.
Anonymous
2/19/2023 09:54 AM
Neighboring comments were very supportive.
Anonymous
2/19/2023 10:29 AM
Have spent thousands extra dollars on reviews because the cityrequired arborist is unrealistic and the original surveyor botched the job; my proactive attempt to find solution with SFDB results in multiple costly review meetings.
Anonymous
2/19/2023 04:27 PM
insistence on certain historic style when the owner wanted contemporary
Anonymous
2/20/2023 10:35 AM
Their comments have been inconsistent, arbitrary and of personal in nature of crossing boundaries and not taking the high costs of continual resubmittals. The level of stress I have seen to brought to myself and homeowner is very high.
Anonymous
2/20/2023 09:36 AM
There are both good and bad. However the qeustion must be asked, for a 3% imporvement in the look of a project is it worth the delay or exspense taht the SFDB, or any design review adds to the project.
Would it be better j to just use a check list.
Anonymous
2/20/2023 10:35 AM
Streamline the review process is needed.
Anonymous
2/20/2023 11:27 AM
It's not necessary for materials to match adjacent neighbors - this promotes homogeneity and detracts from
neighborhoods/communities.
Anonymous
2/20/2023 12:42 PM
true objective design review by a random group of individuals is simply not possible. there should be no room for a subjective review full of personal biases and preferences. design review comments create "design by committee" solutions..
Anonymous
2/20/2023 12:38 PM
There was a bias against a particular style in both cases a modern aesthetic even though the architecture has a vernacular form and SFDB Survey : Survey Report for 07 February 2023 to 23 February 2023
EXHIBIT F - SFDB Survey Report Page 562 of 767
elements to it that made it very appropriate with its context and fit in to the size, bulk & scale of the context.
Anonymous
2/20/2023 05:22 PM
Several projects were put through the ringer based on compatibility "issues" and neighbor complaints even after we demonstrated it fit with the context and that we had made efforts to alleviate neighbor concerns. Another project was not allowed to modern.
Anonymous
2/20/2023 05:11 PM
Single Family Zoning and Traffic Planning is destroying the city. Reevaluate setbacks, zoning, and height limits at once.
Anonymous
2/20/2023 10:58 PM
The SFDB repeatedly went beyond their scope by commenting on an already approved ADU. When reminded of this by city staff, they continued to reference it as part of their argument against aspects of the main house. They don't answer to anyone.
Anonymous
2/20/2023 08:35 PM
boardmember suggested that our house was not appropriate for our lifestyle. boardmember suggested it was incompatible with neighborhood but a neighborhood study proved otherwise. boardmember suggested we make changes which increased the cost Anonymous
2/20/2023 09:02 PM
Limiting the FAR mat be illegal and should be challenged. The subjective nature of the review board leads you to believe that you must do an under the table deal to get through. Discriminates against smaller lots.
Anonymous
2/21/2023 01:04 PM
A project that relates to its surrounding does not mean that it has to look similar or resemble the houses around it. As long as it adds value and improves the architectural dialog within the city it should not be an issue.
Anonymous
2/21/2023 11:05 AM
I’m an electrical engineer. I don’t think that I’ve ever had a comment on my electrical plans by the SFDB.
Anonymous
2/21/2023 12:13 PM
My main concern with the board is that members' comments regarding architectural style are often not objective, well-informed, or professional. Members should be open-minded to architectural styles whether or not they fit their own personal preferences.
SFDB Survey : Survey Report for 07 February 2023 to 23 February 2023
EXHIBIT F - SFDB Survey Report Page 563 of 767
Anonymous
2/21/2023 12:28 PM
My main criticism would be how time consuming and expensive the bureaucratic process is.
Anonymous
2/21/2023 01:39 PM
Stop this campaign against new architecture and new, better, more expensive and sustainable material. Preserving track homes should not be your goal or mandate. Materials have changed in the last 70 years. Allow for large windows!
Anonymous
2/21/2023 01:20 PM
I felt the comments were "nit-picky" and opinionated. My architect designed the project within the required parameters. The review board just wanted "their pound of flesh."
Anonymous
2/21/2023 02:22 PM
They continued to not further the design review because we wanted to build 3 stories. We are within the building code height limits and BS has a published recommendation for 3 story design .
Anonymous
2/21/2023 02:29 PM
Otherwise ok
Anonymous
2/21/2023 04:54 PM
Single family residences are deeply personal for the owners. We already have detailed zoning standards and requirements along with design guidelines sufficient to ensure good or reasonably good design.
Anonymous
2/21/2023 05:27 PM
SFDB should follow the guidelines on all projects...not just some.
Anonymous
2/22/2023 05:42 AM
See above
Anonymous
2/22/2023 04:26 PM
Overall, most of the architects in front of the SFDB are trained and thoughtful. The purview of the SFDB should be LIMITED to broad mass/bulk/scale appropriateness and not devolve into protracted discourse of materials, details, and minutia.
Anonymous
2/22/2023 11:19 AM
In some cases, Board members do not seem to be qualified to evaluate design and/or read plans. For example, too much emphasis is placed on the FAR calculation, or a particular guideline as compared to providing the applicant with useful design feedback.
SFDB Survey : Survey Report for 07 February 2023 to 23 February 2023
EXHIBIT F - SFDB Survey Report Page 564 of 767
Anonymous
2/22/2023 12:36 PM
Two main things. 1) They go too far. They should make sure projects should meet a minimum standard, not be perfect. 2) They are sometimes not polite/respectful.
Optional question (123 response(s), 314 skipped)
Question type: Single Line Question
SFDB Survey : Survey Report for 07 February 2023 to 23 February 2023
EXHIBIT F - SFDB Survey Report Page 565 of 767
Q8 The City’s design guidelines checklists are easy to understand and help me prepare me for SFDB design review hearings.
32 (13.9%)
32 (13.9%)
94 (40.7%)
94 (40.7%)
26 (11.3%)
26 (11.3%)
36 (15.6%)
36 (15.6%)
43 (18.6%)
43 (18.6%)
Strongly agree Somewhat agree I don't know about the design review checklists Somewhat disagree Strongly disagree
Question options
Mandatory Question (230 response(s))
Question type: Radio Button Question
SFDB Survey : Survey Report for 07 February 2023 to 23 February 2023
EXHIBIT F - SFDB Survey Report Page 566 of 767
Q9 During application completeness review, staff input on compliance with design guidelines would be helpful feedback prior to my scheduled SFDB hearing. 75 (32.5%)
75 (32.5%)
67 (29.0%)
67 (29.0%)
31 (13.4%)
31 (13.4%)
25 (10.8%)
25 (10.8%)
33 (14.3%)
33 (14.3%)
Strongly agree Somewhat agree No opinion Somewhat disagree Strongly disagree Question options
Mandatory Question (230 response(s))
Question type: Radio Button Question
SFDB Survey : Survey Report for 07 February 2023 to 23 February 2023
EXHIBIT F - SFDB Survey Report Page 567 of 767
Q10 At a public hearing, the SFDB requested materials not listed on the City's initial submittal requirement checklists (e.g. sections, neighborhood context studies, perspective drawings, streetscape renderings, photo simulations, 20 closest lots surve... 101 (43.9%)
101 (43.9%)
67 (29.1%)
67 (29.1%)
62 (27.0%)
62 (27.0%)
Yes No N/A
Question options
Optional question (230 response(s), 207 skipped)
Question type: Radio Button Question
SFDB Survey : Survey Report for 07 February 2023 to 23 February 2023
EXHIBIT F - SFDB Survey Report Page 568 of 767
Q11 If yes, what additional materials were required by the SFDB? Sections Neighborhood context studies Perspective drawings Streetscape renderings Photo simulations 20 Closest lots survey Other (please specify) Question options
5 10
15 20
25 30
35 40
45 50
55 60
65 35
61 42
45 40
37 23
Optional question (106 response(s), 331 skipped)
Question type: Checkbox Question
SFDB Survey : Survey Report for 07 February 2023 to 23 February 2023
EXHIBIT F - SFDB Survey Report Page 569 of 767
Q12 In your opinion, should any additional materials be required as part of the initial application submittal? Check all that apply.
Sections Neighborhood context studies Perspective drawings Streetscape renderings Photo simulations 20 Closest lots survey N/A Other (please specify) Question options
10 20
30 40
50 60
70 80
90 100
24 19
22 14
12 6
95 32
Optional question (177 response(s), 260 skipped)
Question type: Checkbox Question
SFDB Survey : Survey Report for 07 February 2023 to 23 February 2023
EXHIBIT F - SFDB Survey Report Page 570 of 767
ekokinda
2/07/2023 12:01 PM
ndfskdjf
Anonymous
2/08/2023 05:38 PM
N/A
Anonymous
2/09/2023 04:39 AM
I think if an applicant (agent,owner,architect) reads provided material they are adequately prepared. The only way to prepare for individual board members pet peeves would be to watch previous meeting videos. Chairperson needs to be a real guide and chair
Anonymous
2/09/2023 11:26 AM
Hard to answer this. I guess, I would have liked to know that Board Member A or B had a bad day and was going to discredit any project brought before them.
Anonymous
2/09/2023 02:21 PM
That they would dictate everything from which color white we chose to the color of our gravel, and that each time we would get sent back, it would take months and thousands of dollars in new plans, then go back and they would not like changes they wanted
Anonymous
2/09/2023 02:40 PM
Design board personal preferences can be imposed as to style over function for such things as number of lites/pains in windows. Process was long. While going thru engineer/plan check, new members impose new conditions when only color was to be finalized.
Anonymous
2/09/2023 02:22 PM
that the review board only listens to the neighbors, and the planning rules and ordinances really dont matter.
Anonymous
2/09/2023 02:46 PM
who will be present among the board members since many are not design professionals or practiced in design principals
Anonymous
2/09/2023 02:45 PM
Expected durations not to exceed.
Anonymous How ridiculous the process would be. It is almost like they have to Q13 What, if anything, would you have liked to have known beforehand to feel better prepared during your SFDB hearing?
SFDB Survey : Survey Report for 07 February 2023 to 23 February 2023
EXHIBIT F - SFDB Survey Report Page 571 of 767
2/09/2023 02:53 PM thing of 'something' to push back on to make themselves feel important.
Anonymous
2/09/2023 03:07 PM
If an approval is likley and I would LOVE to have my planner present.
Unfortunately 99% of the time they are MIA.
Anonymous
2/10/2023 10:33 AM
That the schedule is not accurate. That depending on the community involvement you could be waiting for a long time. Is there a better way to address neighbor comments before hearings? A way to make the hearings run smoother and more timely?
Anonymous
2/09/2023 03:11 PM
Better example available for designers to reference. Maybe classes offered to local designers to explain expectations
Anonymous
2/09/2023 03:07 PM
I find the Board often asks for items at a conceptual hearing taht are not listed as submittal requirements until preliminary or final.
Anonymous
2/09/2023 03:23 PM
That the review process was going to be subjective and not necessarily fallow the SB guidelines.
Anonymous
2/09/2023 03:25 PM
That getting a permit was a complete waste of time and money. None of my neighbors got one bc the city is so difficult.
Anonymous
2/09/2023 03:37 PM
If there is anything missing in my submittal.
Anonymous
2/09/2023 03:33 PM
I feel I am well seasoned.
Anonymous
2/09/2023 03:42 PM
That the SFBD is here to help applicants, not set them through impossible standards, or standards that don't exist. Also, a full board w/o any potential for loss of quorum would also be helpful.
Anonymous
2/09/2023 03:40 PM
Have more competent inspectors
Anonymous
2/09/2023 03:45 PM
A correct inventory of all material actual required and my rights when other materials are “required” by a single board member.
SFDB Survey : Survey Report for 07 February 2023 to 23 February 2023
EXHIBIT F - SFDB Survey Report Page 572 of 767
Anonymous
2/09/2023 03:40 PM
Nothing
Anonymous
2/09/2023 03:39 PM
N/A
Anonymous
2/09/2023 04:41 PM
n/a
Anonymous
2/09/2023 04:19 PM
Has the board eaten recently (are they hangry). Are they going to ask questions out of scope (ADU etc)?
Anonymous
2/09/2023 04:05 PM
I did not attend
Anonymous
2/09/2023 05:10 PM
Board members (some) were not well prepared and / or had personal agends to push.
Anonymous
2/09/2023 07:01 PM
I did not realize that being in the Good Ol' Boy network was more important than actual quality design work.
Anonymous
2/09/2023 07:14 PM
it was very clear
Anonymous
2/09/2023 09:51 PM
City Hall is closed on fridays. For many people Friday is the only day they can go to City Hall. Live persons never pick up the phone. Long wait times from staff. Inconsistent information and answers provided by staff. Time delays are unacceptable.
Anonymous
2/09/2023 10:10 PM
All the CA cities do zoom, even post-pandemic. But SB is the only one that required applicant to be present in person.
Anonymous
2/09/2023 10:15 PM
That the hearing take a lifetime l, hearing should disappear and make the department more technical and more architectural oriented Anonymous
2/09/2023 10:19 PM
how picky they can be
SFDB Survey : Survey Report for 07 February 2023 to 23 February 2023
EXHIBIT F - SFDB Survey Report Page 573 of 767
Anonymous
2/09/2023 10:34 PM
A fair set of guidelines that all abide by.
Anonymous
2/10/2023 03:42 AM
It was difficult for even my architect to keep up with the latest rules and I’m unsure the city staff interpreted them the same. The design doesn’t talk to building department which is extremely frustrating. We go back and forth as homeowners.
Anonymous
2/10/2023 04:36 AM
Nothing. The issue is that’s it’s a roll of the dice on if the board will like what you propose. It seems like they almost feel that they HAVE to comment, and are creating work. The question is how many projects pass the first time?
Anonymous
2/10/2023 07:38 AM
What the board member requested was something a planner had me previously remove from the plan set. Fortunately, it was a zoom meeting, so I could retrieve the missing images.
Anonymous
2/10/2023 08:09 AM
If a landscape plan is required when minor landscaping is involved.
Anonymous
2/10/2023 08:09 AM
Board members are just busybodies.
Anonymous
2/10/2023 08:18 AM
I don't really have any issues with SFDB
Anonymous
2/10/2023 08:42 AM
Let's see what the new code cycle brings, I'm confident any changes will be as straightforward and concise as previous requirements.
Anonymous
2/10/2023 09:23 AM
Whether or not the board members are going to derail a project, insert bias, had a bad day, be rude and disrespectful...because this is what I prepare my clients for.
Anonymous
2/10/2023 09:16 AM
The SFDB needs to cut down to allow lower income homeowners to properly develop their properties.
Anonymous
2/10/2023 09:49 AM
There is too much that is being required for simple projects. The process for simple project takes too long
SFDB Survey : Survey Report for 07 February 2023 to 23 February 2023
EXHIBIT F - SFDB Survey Report Page 574 of 767
Anonymous
2/10/2023 09:52 AM
What items to give focus to during the hearing/presentation Anonymous
2/10/2023 10:17 AM
A more defined approach of SFDB to design theory of the reviewing panel would be helpful.
Anonymous
2/10/2023 10:18 AM
How much time this adds to the permit process.
Anonymous
2/10/2023 10:57 AM
Simpler design guidelines and policies
Anonymous
2/10/2023 12:50 PM
This is a loaded question. If the design is good, that it fits under the parameters of the design guidelines, there is no problem.
Anonymous
2/10/2023 01:16 PM
Process review is too slow. Not enogh employees. Every end Friday department closed. Terrable customers service. No one answer the phone
Anonymous
2/10/2023 02:37 PM
It seems different rules apply to different applicants. SFDB is NOT consistent. Be consistent!
Anonymous
2/10/2023 03:06 PM
That the Board actually had the authority to consider the project and make design changes re items that it had discretion over. The city should develop objective design standards or better yet eliminate the Board
Anonymous
2/10/2023 06:29 PM
Everything then I would not have built.
Anonymous
2/10/2023 06:43 PM
I would have liked to get a counter permit as I was told at the beginning!! The design review was totally unnecessary for the replacement of existing windows!!!!!!!
Anonymous
2/11/2023 09:32 AM
that our architect's explanations and responses would be accounted for
Anonymous
2/11/2023 11:39 AM
I would feel better knowing that since the Design Guideline checklists exists, that Board members use them for each project during the SFDB Survey : Survey Report for 07 February 2023 to 23 February 2023
EXHIBIT F - SFDB Survey Report Page 575 of 767
hearings. I feel that they exist but are unused by SFDB, making the whole process inefficient.
Anonymous
2/11/2023 06:20 PM
Nothing, the whole thing was a complete power trip. These people should not have a say on what we do with our homes. This is completely an overstep.
Anonymous
2/12/2023 05:55 AM
That board members use their personal opinions to impact decisions affecting the others' properties.
Anonymous
2/12/2023 09:21 AM
Yes in any type of project is important to be prepared more giddiness in regards to the project will help.
Anonymous
2/12/2023 09:15 AM
Decision making process of the Board
Anonymous
2/13/2023 07:52 AM
Maybe a sample video of säa typical meeting. Ad a homeowner you can get scared of the expectations.
Anonymous
2/13/2023 11:51 AM
The fact that on larger lots they will still hold to the 85% FAR when it is not required.
Anonymous
2/13/2023 10:46 AM
no
Anonymous
2/13/2023 11:45 AM
Falling w/i Summerland Community Plan, needs clear distinction of the process and jurisdiction of the Summerland SBAR...clear disconnect between what is requested by Summerland SBAR and what citizens really care want..controlled by self-designated few Anonymous
2/13/2023 11:52 AM
there focus of FAR for sites larger than 1/2 acre, we read it very differently than they interpret
Anonymous
2/13/2023 12:11 PM
I would have liked to know I was going to be held to a standard not followed by 90% of my neighborhood.
Anonymous
2/13/2023 12:39 PM
Clear direction on what is expected. Property owners should have relative fidelity with reasonable design and functional use of one SFDB Survey : Survey Report for 07 February 2023 to 23 February 2023
EXHIBIT F - SFDB Survey Report Page 576 of 767
owns' property.
Anonymous
2/13/2023 12:51 PM
That this board can unilaterally kill or change your project with little to no recourse.
Anonymous
2/13/2023 01:02 PM
They seem over concerned about glass railings and lantern effect.
Anonymous
2/13/2023 01:16 PM
Be more prepared to answer some of the Board Member's "personal" questions - ie; "how they FEEL about a project", some members assert their own opinions about the projects, not sticking to reviewing the project objectively on behalf of the city.
Anonymous
2/13/2023 01:19 PM
What the personal taste of each board member would be as they are very opinionated and, in general, really disliked our design as it wasn't Spanish Mediterraneann
Anonymous
2/13/2023 01:28 PM
How to avoid it.
Anonymous
2/13/2023 02:56 PM
I would like to have known that the board assumes authority over items such as the shade of off-white, roof materials, style of stone application to exterior siding, as well as the size of the home, even though we are on a 1/2 acre and under a 93% FAR.
Anonymous
2/13/2023 05:01 PM
How subjective things can be. It is frustrating to have guidelines be taken as maximums and board members make false, misinformed claims regarding what they think they can see when they walk by a property
Anonymous
2/13/2023 05:15 PM
They will make you change something and come back for further review, even if it's very minor. Just so they can make themselves relevant.
Anonymous
2/13/2023 06:16 PM
How long the entire process was going to take! Two years from application to permit. It was expensive and annoying!
Anonymous
2/13/2023 08:31 PM
As a homeowner, the process is so daunting that you often need to hire an architect/planner/agent to get through the process.
SFDB Survey : Survey Report for 07 February 2023 to 23 February 2023
EXHIBIT F - SFDB Survey Report Page 577 of 767
Anonymous
2/13/2023 10:32 PM
Rules of what they decline : materials they do not approve of etc Anonymous
2/14/2023 09:25 AM
background of committee and staff
Anonymous
2/14/2023 01:22 PM
Nothing. They balanced well objectivity with their subjective views.
Good people!
Anonymous
2/14/2023 05:10 PM
My architect and I put a ton of work into preparing the materials and process. City recommended to SFDB not to proceed b/c exceeded FAR and did not inform us. Also City planning coordinator was poorly trained. Took over a year of prep work wasted.
Anonymous
2/15/2023 06:58 AM
That building a home in santa barbara can take more than a year in planning before even breaking ground. The subjectivity and inconsistency of outcome at meetings is very frustrating, costly, and the end result is not improved a great deal in the process.
Anonymous
2/15/2023 02:02 PM
1 year approval/denial process by the California government.
Anonymous
2/15/2023 02:51 PM
If SFDB has requirements in addition to those in SB9 state law for lot split approvals.
Anonymous
2/15/2023 04:52 PM
Neighbor's comments. They get to see our drawings before hand, fairness dictates discovery of their comments; We become targets for neighbors to shoot down. Often the building elements we are presenting, are already present in neighboring context
Anonymous
2/15/2023 03:05 PM
A realistic time frame
Anonymous
2/15/2023 06:22 PM
I would like to get a hearing sooner. 30 day letter covers items that should be building. We have to spend 15K of our client's money just get a conceptual hearing, I don't mind more input if it is at the beginning and we don't just get staff full review.
Anonymous Which member might be absent/present. The Hearings occurred too SFDB Survey : Survey Report for 07 February 2023 to 23 February 2023
EXHIBIT F - SFDB Survey Report Page 578 of 767
2/15/2023 06:35 PM infrequently and hold up a project schedule and cost a lot of money to prepare. This is impractical for most homeowners.
Anonymous
2/15/2023 08:35 PM
How impossible it is to have anything approved in a timely or cost efficient manner by the city.
Anonymous
2/16/2023 09:15 AM
You never know, sometimes it is very unpredictable.
Anonymous
2/16/2023 12:54 PM
That quality of the work performed and abiding by design guidelines is far less important than appeasing SFDB board member's individual biases and neighborhood protectionism
Anonymous
2/16/2023 03:19 PM
The issue is with the lack of training of the current board. I do not feel that they are qualified to make impactful design comments that affect the outcome of an individulas private property and their right to develop
Anonymous
2/16/2023 07:27 PM
Its impossible to know anything beforehand given the random criteria the board uses to approve projects. Metal roofs, plate heights, style are all at the whim of the board and impossible to foresee.
Anonymous
2/17/2023 03:23 PM
What connects had been submitted
Anonymous
2/18/2023 05:41 PM
The review process felt arbitrary, subject to the architectural whims of the attending board members (only 2 attended). We met all requirements specified in our first hearing. No guideline violations were mentioned. Waste of time and money!t
Anonymous
2/19/2023 08:48 AM
If the committee is allowed to use subjective personal opinions of a project, there will be no way to be completely prepared for a public review. It is unfair for the professionals involved who will be returning to the committee for future client projects
Anonymous
2/19/2023 09:54 AM
I was prepared
Anonymous
2/19/2023 10:29 AM
More clearly what requires a full board review and is simply a plan update.
SFDB Survey : Survey Report for 07 February 2023 to 23 February 2023
EXHIBIT F - SFDB Survey Report Page 579 of 767
Anonymous
2/19/2023 12:55 PM
Zoning or other limitations for project site
Anonymous
2/19/2023 04:27 PM
the disposition and opinions of the board members, as SFDB is a very subjective process, not driven by any particular guidelines Anonymous
2/20/2023 10:35 AM
Specific neighborhood design criteria the board is going to consider that is not written in anywhere. I have received comments like "this doesn't fit with the quirky 50's tract home style of the neighborhood" or "your dormers are not whimsical enough"
Anonymous
2/20/2023 09:36 AM
..
Anonymous
2/20/2023 10:35 AM
if we received neighbor's complaints/ concerns before the meeting.
Also, time sensitive to the agenda schedule. Smaller and less controversial projects should get review first.
Anonymous
2/20/2023 11:27 AM
Often SFDB members have their own agendas - this should not be allowed. I've been told "I don't like modern architecture so I'm voting against your project." Ridiculous. Same goes for opinions of plate heights, roofing materials, etc...
Anonymous
2/20/2023 12:42 PM
nothing can prepare a design professional or property owner for a subjective review by numerous individuals. there is no continuity by nature. therefore, the process is intended to create purposeful obstruction to development.
Anonymous
2/20/2023 12:38 PM
Ideally board participants should not come with a predetermined agenda which h seemed apparent form our meeitings.
Anonymous
2/20/2023 02:31 PM
SFDB may be punitive, subjective, and gang up on applicants Anonymous
2/20/2023 05:22 PM
If additional materials are requested knowing ahead of time to come to the hearing with those materials would be helpful to avoid delays.
SFDB Survey : Survey Report for 07 February 2023 to 23 February 2023
EXHIBIT F - SFDB Survey Report Page 580 of 767
Anonymous
2/20/2023 10:58 PM
We were prepared with our materials, but not prepared for the frustration of dealing with a board with so much authority yet no oversight. We can't believe that the city hasn't had legal consequences based on decisions made at the board level.
Anonymous
2/20/2023 08:35 PM
have citizens speaking positively about the project, otherwise the board only hears the negatives and feels compelled to act upon the negative comments
Anonymous
2/20/2023 09:02 PM
Our review was very unpleasant. Comments made by members were unprofessional and lack of knowledge of current design elements. I was embarrassed for our architect. Should have been a fun 1 hour review. Instead a 6 month nightmare.
Anonymous
2/20/2023 10:46 PM
Our packet was complete
Anonymous
2/21/2023 08:16 AM
i would love a FAQ regarding the motions and what they mean.
Numerous times have i left with a motion that was not as easily understandable.
Anonymous
2/21/2023 01:04 PM
NA
Anonymous
2/21/2023 12:28 PM
See above; a more complete list of specific requirements by the design board
Anonymous
2/21/2023 01:39 PM
That the SFDB would be an objective body and wouldn't take the most conservative, limited view of architecture the neighborhood.
That they would stick to the guidelines in the book and not try to manipulate them to their own provincial aesthetics.
Anonymous
2/21/2023 01:20 PM
The things that they wanted to see that is not on the checklist. OR simply not require additional work which is cost to the owner.
Anonymous
2/21/2023 02:22 PM
Neighborhood compatibility seems to be very ambiguous. The building and zoning codes are very clear .
Anonymous I now put more detail into the material board and renderings to help SFDB Survey : Survey Report for 07 February 2023 to 23 February 2023
EXHIBIT F - SFDB Survey Report Page 581 of 767
2/21/2023 02:26 PM with my vision
Anonymous
2/21/2023 02:29 PM
What to expect at the hearing and the background of the members Anonymous
2/21/2023 04:54 PM
It would have been good to know that the submittal checklist might not be sufficient.
Anonymous
2/21/2023 05:27 PM
That some of members of the design board aren't really architects Anonymous
2/21/2023 07:10 PM
I would have liked to know that the board was so opposed to modern design or seemingly any design style outside of the local vernacular.
It would have saved a lot of time and money.
Anonymous
2/23/2023 12:30 PM
I think we went before the SFDB in 2007 when they were established.
I know we went to the PC.
Optional question (123 response(s), 314 skipped)
Question type: Single Line Question
SFDB Survey : Survey Report for 07 February 2023 to 23 February 2023
EXHIBIT F - SFDB Survey Report Page 582 of 767
Q14 The feedback that I received during SFDB hearings significantly altered my overall project costs.
85 (36.8%)
85 (36.8%)
50 (21.6%)
50 (21.6%)
64 (27.7%)
64 (27.7%)
16 (6.9%)
16 (6.9%)
16 (6.9%)
16 (6.9%)
Strongly agree Somewhat agree No opinion Somewhat disagree Strongly disagree Question options
Mandatory Question (230 response(s))
Question type: Radio Button Question
SFDB Survey : Survey Report for 07 February 2023 to 23 February 2023
EXHIBIT F - SFDB Survey Report Page 583 of 767
Anonymous
2/08/2023 07:14 PM
Significant revisions
Anonymous
2/09/2023 11:26 AM
Often the process is the thing that impacts the cost. Having to go through the PLN process multiple times is challenging for smaller projects, FAR Mods add costs, SFDB hearings add costs
Anonymous
2/09/2023 02:27 PM
requests to alter existing; rooflines, landscape and exterior materials Anonymous
2/09/2023 02:21 PM
Being sent from SFDB to historical to back to SFDB, all with new plans required each time, then making changes they wanted only to be told at next meeting they didn't like the changes. And, it all took over two years, which cost a signifcant amount
Anonymous
2/09/2023 02:40 PM
Windows? doors and Landscaping.
Anonymous
2/09/2023 02:22 PM
time, time time for the permit.
Anonymous
2/09/2023 02:31 PM
To disagree with their views means project delays. To comply requires redesign in many instances. On our project - going before the Review Board three times was very costly and took too much time.
Anonymous
2/09/2023 02:46 PM
customization of design costs homeowners lots of money to an already expensive industry. homeowners find it difficult to select offthe-shelf or pre-fab materials, because the SFDB demands overly custom features
Anonymous
2/09/2023 02:45 PM
Timing and changes to original design including foundations, site walls and drainage.
Anonymous
2/09/2023 02:53 PM
Having to redo plans- adding things like landscaping and paying someone to draw those.
Q15 What were the specific design changes that significantly altered your overall project costs?
SFDB Survey : Survey Report for 07 February 2023 to 23 February 2023
EXHIBIT F - SFDB Survey Report Page 584 of 767
Anonymous
2/09/2023 03:07 PM
1) letters from neighbors 2) tree/ arborist reports 3) exterior lighting studies 4) Drone photos 5) Requested a geologist to attend 6) Indian report 7) Multiple Letters from Montecito Trails Foundation Anonymous
2/10/2023 10:33 AM
As a landscape architect, the changes given to the architect can significantly change the landscape. Though the landscape is rarely addressed to the same level of detail as the architecture.
Anonymous
2/09/2023 02:59 PM
Red tag process. Lack of communication by and
Anonymous
2/09/2023 03:02 PM
A/C and roof line.
Anonymous
2/09/2023 03:11 PM
Flood zone elevations changes, historic review, Mbar review opinions Anonymous
2/09/2023 03:07 PM
More costly materials - ie: stone walls
Anonymous
2/09/2023 03:23 PM
The design was made significantly more complicated resulting in a substantial increase in cost.
Anonymous
2/09/2023 03:25 PM
Deck railing
Anonymous
2/09/2023 03:26 PM
Requiring a change in architectural style.
Anonymous
2/09/2023 03:29 PM
No design changes, but additional trips to jobsite that could have been handled a lot earlier in process if every one was on same page of what was needed in the beginning.
Anonymous
2/09/2023 03:42 PM
It's more about the project value. If plate heights are reduced, rooms elminated, roof decks eliminated, etc. then these thinsg can render a project ffinancially infeasible, or at least wrecked appilcant expecations for their dream home.
SFDB Survey : Survey Report for 07 February 2023 to 23 February 2023
EXHIBIT F - SFDB Survey Report Page 585 of 767
Anonymous
2/09/2023 03:45 PM
No design changes were required. Only a 6 week delay, added design fees to produce the colored elevations, and the cost of another trip down from SF to support our application.
Anonymous
2/09/2023 03:40 PM
Height, architectural design
Anonymous
2/09/2023 04:41 PM
Inconsistent comments regarding size/bulk/scale from one hearing to the next effect overall sentiment and fuel neighbors dislike for a project.
Anonymous
2/09/2023 04:19 PM
The additional time / stress were the biggest costs. Landscaping and materials requests. Ambiguity in the design process of what will be approved significantly impacts any property improvements Anonymous
2/09/2023 05:56 PM
redesign to reduce mass, bulk, scale and additional detailing Anonymous
2/09/2023 06:00 PM
subjective architectural style demands
Anonymous
2/09/2023 07:01 PM
Projects have been killed off by the sheer expense and complexity, aided by the adversarial nature of the process.
Anonymous
2/09/2023 08:46 PM
They made the project significantly more expensive
Anonymous
2/09/2023 10:10 PM
2nd floor offset from 1st costly in seismic country.
Anonymous
2/09/2023 10:15 PM
Redesign the project is a high cost and taking in consideration is what the owner wants, no what the neighbors want or the city officials think is right
Anonymous
2/09/2023 10:34 PM
Ceiling Height, Landscape, Material, the list goes on
Anonymous
2/09/2023 10:58 PM
Architect was POC - multiple iterations
SFDB Survey : Survey Report for 07 February 2023 to 23 February 2023
EXHIBIT F - SFDB Survey Report Page 586 of 767
Anonymous
2/10/2023 03:42 AM
House is within inches of setback (and has been for 98 years? But I was not allowed to alter the front for more curb appeal and to give architectural style. Historical does not mean it was built properly or with historical details.
Anonymous
2/10/2023 04:36 AM
Architectural time spent, and cost in rents from extending time frames.
Anonymous
2/10/2023 08:09 AM
Request to break up larger windows.
Anonymous
2/10/2023 08:09 AM
minutiae
Anonymous
2/10/2023 09:23 AM
Making me return for further review w/ no useful input. Just had a project approved after two years of review . Made no changes to the design in the entire two years. Board said design had to be "Spanish /didn't "like" metal roof. Not in design district.
Anonymous
2/10/2023 09:51 AM
It was the added time and additional studies that cost my clients, the designs remained mostly unchanged from first submittal. Only YEARS of billable hours were lost to defending them.
Anonymous
2/10/2023 09:49 AM
storm water design and alterations after design review altered the plans
Anonymous
2/10/2023 09:52 AM
Requirement of a specific sandstone
Anonymous
2/10/2023 09:57 AM
Fence requirements, material requirements.
Anonymous
2/10/2023 10:18 AM
Window/Door Type, Style, Function
Anonymous
2/10/2023 01:16 PM
City requiremnts "not like" vinal windows that as commonly available adding cost and lead timeble everything needs to be special order that increase cost of the project and l.
SFDB Survey : Survey Report for 07 February 2023 to 23 February 2023
EXHIBIT F - SFDB Survey Report Page 587 of 767
Anonymous
2/10/2023 02:37 PM
Too many architectural changes - move a door, make windows smaller, lower ceiling heights...etc
Anonymous
2/10/2023 03:06 PM
SFDB delayed the project by 6 months leading to an increase in material costs. Further it resulted in addition noticing and architectural fees as well as a threat of litigation.
Anonymous
2/10/2023 03:38 PM
Very strict on energy calculations which made our project much more expensive
Anonymous
2/10/2023 06:29 PM
Changing my roof design twice first dictating flat from pitched then back to pitched having forgotten they are the ones who made me change it to flat.
Anonymous
2/10/2023 06:43 PM
Having to do the design review and the cost of having to complete the required materials.
Anonymous
2/10/2023 08:13 PM
Small changes to the house’s outside shape and small changes to the deck design which triggered cascades of changes to other elements, including floor plans, driveway, etc. There were significant impacts on overall project value and scheduling.
Anonymous
2/11/2023 11:39 AM
redesign fees (architecture & engineering design costs), increased costs for materials
Anonymous
2/11/2023 06:20 PM
Changing window shapes, exterior facade panelling, rejection of new doorway/entryway, basically minutia that cost me more money with the draftswoman and having to go back and make "corrections." This also stalled the project.
Anonymous
2/12/2023 09:21 AM
When new colors , type materials and styles are been match to existing building there is no need to add more work of input from Board
Anonymous
2/12/2023 09:15 AM
Delay.
Anonymous
2/13/2023 10:59 AM
See previous answers
SFDB Survey : Survey Report for 07 February 2023 to 23 February 2023
EXHIBIT F - SFDB Survey Report Page 588 of 767
Anonymous
2/13/2023 11:45 AM
Need to go back for insignificant color change and within allowance landscape plans
Anonymous
2/13/2023 12:39 PM
Demand for less glazing. Personal design suggestions.
Anonymous
2/13/2023 12:51 PM
Complete redesign of the roofline, exterior materials, window layout Anonymous
2/13/2023 01:16 PM
Multiple reviews added costs to paying the architect more fees for the additional reviews.
Anonymous
2/13/2023 01:19 PM
Complete redesign of the exterior of the home, including changing the direction of the roof pitch. Feedback from SFDB was too convoluted and contradictory to see a clear path forward in improving our existing design. So we felt compelled to change it.
Anonymous
2/13/2023 01:28 PM
We had to redraw the plan, pay more for the money we borrowed for the project. The guidelines changed every time were submitted - it was just horrible.
Anonymous
2/13/2023 04:26 PM
Our project was approved around 2020 and I honestly don't remember these details.
Anonymous
2/13/2023 05:01 PM
overreaching comments and inconsistent illogical comments during review extended the project timeline and add unnecessary additional landscaping to screen a house that already was not visible from the street.
Anonymous
2/13/2023 05:15 PM
Requiring specific materials to be used. Over landscaping the projects for unnecessary screening.
Anonymous
2/13/2023 06:16 PM
Additional perspective drawings, additional (new) requirements like water runoff
Anonymous
2/13/2023 08:31 PM
Meaningless fees to the coastal commission and city
SFDB Survey : Survey Report for 07 February 2023 to 23 February 2023
EXHIBIT F - SFDB Survey Report Page 589 of 767
Anonymous
2/13/2023 10:32 PM
I had to pay to hear them arguing over their opinions
Anonymous
2/14/2023 09:25 AM
change for change sake
Anonymous
2/14/2023 05:10 PM
Irrigation drawing, backflow valve spec, controller spec, color of fascia boards and stucco, permeable driveway, perspective drawings, renderings, drainage detail, exterior lighting, etc. that required multiple rounds of iterations on drawings
Anonymous
2/15/2023 06:58 AM
Requirement of additional renderings not required by current code, subjective comments made my board members about how they feel about the home's design (not following code), requiring additional costly engineering reporting above and beyond current code Anonymous
2/15/2023 12:48 PM
Cost to redesign (architect fees)
Anonymous
2/15/2023 02:51 PM
i was told that my lot could not be split even though it meets all SB9 state law requirements.
Anonymous
2/15/2023 04:52 PM
Redoing design layouts so that they limit views into neighboring lots.
We don't live in such a beautiful area to look into neighbors lots, but to see the vistas beyond. The board gets caught trying to appease neighbors too much. Glass handrails.....
Anonymous
2/15/2023 06:22 PM
Door and window material.
Anonymous
2/15/2023 08:35 PM
Updated building codes, unrealistic setback standards
Anonymous
2/16/2023 12:54 PM
Would prefer not to mention to maintain anonymity
Anonymous
2/16/2023 07:27 PM
Window types, unnecessary detailing, complex roof structures, siding material
SFDB Survey : Survey Report for 07 February 2023 to 23 February 2023
EXHIBIT F - SFDB Survey Report Page 590 of 767
Anonymous
2/17/2023 03:23 PM
Had to redo entire 2nd floor
Anonymous
2/18/2023 05:41 PM
In the end, no improvements were approved. We could have simply reconstructed what we already had without review (repair and replace).
Anonymous
2/19/2023 10:10 AM
Project 1: Altering the front plate of the house was the most significant change -- this entailed adding a wide/deep front porch.
Project 2 (replacing knob & tube electrical in rental property) - review process didn't require 2 grounds but inspector did Anonymous
2/19/2023 10:29 AM
Unrealistic (3x) amount of additional oak trees required to mitigate lost trees. 400sq ft permeable patio next to foundation when site is engineered to shed water to nearby swale that returns to ground water
Anonymous
2/19/2023 04:27 PM
change of architectural style from contemporary to a historic style more closely matching the primary residence
Anonymous
2/20/2023 10:35 AM
Adjusting plans to address SFDB personal design issues, reducing FAR that have no real design implications, additional landscape plan requirements and a project that went toSFDB, had a hearing, got sent to HLC and then back to SFDB
Anonymous
2/20/2023 09:36 AM
almost everything mentioned. Has a design review ever lowered the cost permits or construction?
Anonymous
2/20/2023 10:35 AM
Grading, size of the project
Anonymous
2/20/2023 11:27 AM
Forcing material changes due to SDFB member preference. Homes should not match their neighbors - SDFB promotes homogeneity and in some cases creates neighborhoods will little interest and diversity.
Anonymous
2/20/2023 12:42 PM
the design review process costs money. receiving comments that cause additional design work costs money. property owners like to know a project's projected costs. people like predictability. design review by individuals can never be predictable.
SFDB Survey : Survey Report for 07 February 2023 to 23 February 2023
EXHIBIT F - SFDB Survey Report Page 591 of 767
Anonymous
2/20/2023 02:04 PM
Hiring a geologist to make sure the extra weight of the solar panels was not going to make the cliff fall!
Anonymous
2/20/2023 05:22 PM
n/a
Anonymous
2/20/2023 10:58 PM
Opinions for FAR on past and present boards are inconsistent and difficult to design to - especially on small lots. Most of our project costs were in an effort to comply with the board's opinion on FAR.
Anonymous
2/20/2023 05:51 PM
Time
Anonymous
2/20/2023 08:35 PM
all suggested design changes resulted in approval delay. All suggested costs included various professional fees and increases associated with inflation
Anonymous
2/20/2023 09:02 PM
Delays. Changes to windows, stone, fencing. We had to spend significant time going over the plans again and again.
Anonymous
2/21/2023 08:16 AM
primarily soft costs associated with additional design delays and City processing time
Anonymous
2/21/2023 01:04 PM
Having to redesign a project because it does not match the style of the surrounding area means that a project must altered and adds time has to be spent fixing the look of a project.
Anonymous
2/21/2023 12:28 PM
The addition of requirements that were not known prior to the presentation
Anonymous
2/21/2023 01:39 PM
More drawings and renderings and light studies and time! In the two years since we started dealing with SFDB, building costs have gone up fifty percent! By the time we are done, our building, will be larger and fit the neighborhood less than the original.
Anonymous
2/21/2023 01:20 PM
Additional consulting fees. Added site elements.
SFDB Survey : Survey Report for 07 February 2023 to 23 February 2023
EXHIBIT F - SFDB Survey Report Page 592 of 767
Anonymous
2/21/2023 02:22 PM
I was told a 3 story structure with a deck or viewing area was excepted but no habitable living area on the 3 elevation. Why it’s clear the elevation and architecture was not of concern.
Anonymous
2/21/2023 04:54 PM
Design style changes, redesign of the homes from two story to one story,
Anonymous
2/21/2023 05:27 PM
engineering pages - arborist study - extra time with architectural details.
Anonymous
2/22/2023 05:42 AM
The lack of approval in the initial phase of metal roof requests delayed work and just created more fees the homeowner had to pay for permit costs.
Anonymous
2/22/2023 12:36 PM
Any request that makes the project more complex. Also asking us to "study" other ideas and options without regard for how complex or time consuming that would be.
Anonymous
2/08/2023 07:14 PM
100K
Anonymous
2/09/2023 11:26 AM
$50,000 - $80,000
Anonymous
2/09/2023 02:27 PM
the requests had the potential to add $100k to a relatively small addition and remodel project
Anonymous
2/09/2023 02:21 PM
Over $150,000
Anonymous
2/09/2023 02:40 PM
$50,000
Optional question (103 response(s), 334 skipped)
Question type: Single Line Question
Q16 Approximately how much in dollars did your overall project costs change? SFDB Survey : Survey Report for 07 February 2023 to 23 February 2023
EXHIBIT F - SFDB Survey Report Page 593 of 767
Anonymous
2/09/2023 02:22 PM
$30,000
Anonymous
2/09/2023 02:31 PM
250,000
Anonymous
2/09/2023 02:46 PM
$10,000-$100,000
Anonymous
2/09/2023 02:45 PM
Unknown, but over $50K.
Anonymous
2/09/2023 02:53 PM
Thousands
Anonymous
2/09/2023 03:07 PM
1.5 million
Anonymous
2/09/2023 03:02 PM
$100000
Anonymous
2/10/2023 10:33 AM
DESIGN FEES: these increase due to requests of the board for elevations/sections of the street/site. CONSTRUCTION BUDGET: the changes to the arch mean that the client has run out of budget by the time they get to the landscape.
Anonymous
2/09/2023 02:59 PM
$200K
Anonymous
2/09/2023 03:02 PM
$50,000
Anonymous
2/09/2023 03:11 PM
50,000$ to several 100,000's in changes. Mostly in design cost for revision and many projects don't happen.
Anonymous
2/09/2023 03:07 PM
50,000
Anonymous
2/09/2023 03:23 PM
By nearly a million dollars.
SFDB Survey : Survey Report for 07 February 2023 to 23 February 2023
EXHIBIT F - SFDB Survey Report Page 594 of 767
Anonymous
2/09/2023 03:25 PM
10k
Anonymous
2/09/2023 03:26 PM
Thousands of dollars in redesign costs.
Anonymous
2/09/2023 03:29 PM
About $1000 in extra trips to job site and City to verify information wanted/supplied was sufficient.
Anonymous
2/09/2023 03:42 PM
Just on landsacpe and grading alone, easily $25K.
Anonymous
2/09/2023 03:45 PM
Unknown
Anonymous
2/09/2023 03:40 PM
Unknown
Anonymous
2/09/2023 04:41 PM
Depends on how long SFDB delays the project. On recent average, construction costs escalate at around 9% per year. Plus the additional soft costs design team fees necessary for all the additional hearings.
Anonymous
2/09/2023 04:19 PM
35,000-65,000
Anonymous
2/09/2023 05:11 PM
Hundreds of thousands
Anonymous
2/09/2023 05:17 PM
$10,000
Anonymous
2/09/2023 05:56 PM
15% - 20%
Anonymous
2/09/2023 06:00 PM
10% to 20% cost overages
Anonymous
2/09/2023 07:01 PM
I have watched "the process" (in the last 10 years) kill off 1/3 of my TOTAL PROJECTS which were good basic improvements to existing buildings. The "process" is overly complex and expensive, it is systematically killing off my practice.
SFDB Survey : Survey Report for 07 February 2023 to 23 February 2023
EXHIBIT F - SFDB Survey Report Page 595 of 767
Anonymous
2/09/2023 08:46 PM
15000
Anonymous
2/09/2023 10:10 PM
$80,000 +
Anonymous
2/09/2023 10:15 PM
25,000
Anonymous
2/09/2023 10:34 PM
$25,000 - $195,000 (Not accounting for lost time and future value) Anonymous
2/09/2023 10:58 PM
5,000+
Anonymous
2/10/2023 03:42 AM
$100,000 at least
Anonymous
2/10/2023 04:36 AM
$20,000
Anonymous
2/10/2023 08:09 AM
40,000
Anonymous
2/10/2023 08:09 AM
$100,000 plus totally wasted time and money for busybodies Anonymous
2/10/2023 09:23 AM
The he delay cost the client about $50,000 just in fees having to do extensive studies to prove compatibility, something they knew was compatible based on a simple drive-by. 2 years cost unknown costs in terms of delayed start.
Anonymous
2/10/2023 09:51 AM
A lot. Also, the stress (distress rather) that my clients have suffered cannot be valued in dollars and cents.
Anonymous
2/10/2023 09:49 AM
$60,000
Anonymous not sure yet
SFDB Survey : Survey Report for 07 February 2023 to 23 February 2023
EXHIBIT F - SFDB Survey Report Page 596 of 767
2/10/2023 09:52 AM
Anonymous
2/10/2023 09:57 AM
$100,000
Anonymous
2/10/2023 10:18 AM
300-1000
Anonymous
2/10/2023 10:57 AM
50,0000
Anonymous
2/10/2023 11:23 AM
$50000
Anonymous
2/10/2023 01:16 PM
25,000
Anonymous
2/10/2023 02:37 PM
$30k in architects fees, extending the process so I missed the good timing to refi, was not thrilled with my final project due to the constant compromises that the SFDB demanded
Anonymous
2/10/2023 03:06 PM
$30,000-50,000
Anonymous
2/10/2023 03:38 PM
350,000
Anonymous
2/10/2023 06:29 PM
$1,000,000+
Anonymous
2/10/2023 06:43 PM
$200
Anonymous
2/10/2023 08:13 PM
$25000
Anonymous
2/11/2023 11:39 AM
unknown
Anonymous
2/11/2023 06:20 PM
$5k
SFDB Survey : Survey Report for 07 February 2023 to 23 February 2023
EXHIBIT F - SFDB Survey Report Page 597 of 767
Anonymous
2/12/2023 09:21 AM
5 to 10 thousand
Anonymous
2/12/2023 09:15 AM
$20,000
Anonymous
2/13/2023 10:59 AM
Unknown as yet
Anonymous
2/13/2023 11:45 AM
2M+
Anonymous
2/13/2023 12:39 PM
$35,000
Anonymous
2/13/2023 12:51 PM
$20,000
Anonymous
2/13/2023 01:16 PM
not available
Anonymous
2/13/2023 01:19 PM
$40,000
Anonymous
2/13/2023 01:28 PM
$100,000
Anonymous
2/13/2023 04:26 PM
I would estimate that the delays associated with processing our building permit added $50-100k in additional costs for a simple home addition.
Anonymous
2/13/2023 05:01 PM
$100,000 in landscaping and additional invoices.
Anonymous
2/13/2023 05:15 PM
Depends on the project, but anywhere from 10%-20%
Anonymous
2/13/2023 06:16 PM
Whole project cost $10,000 which is ridiculous
SFDB Survey : Survey Report for 07 February 2023 to 23 February 2023
EXHIBIT F - SFDB Survey Report Page 598 of 767
Anonymous
2/13/2023 10:32 PM
20k… repay engineer and architect on a simple design tgat none of my neighbors fought
Anonymous
2/14/2023 09:25 AM
Too much
Anonymous
2/14/2023 05:10 PM
$35,000
Anonymous
2/15/2023 06:58 AM
$50-100k
Anonymous
2/15/2023 02:51 PM
$1.0 to $1.50 Million
Anonymous
2/15/2023 04:52 PM
On average, maybe $10k in design fees. Hard to estimate general construction cost changes from these experiences
Anonymous
2/15/2023 08:35 PM
I've had to pay over $100,000 in personal costs unassociated with actual building or modifications of my projects JUST to get to the point for the city to then deny my projects.
Anonymous
2/16/2023 12:54 PM
>$150k
Anonymous
2/16/2023 07:27 PM
15-20%
Anonymous
2/17/2023 03:23 PM
10k
Anonymous
2/18/2023 05:41 PM
Additional architect and structural engineering time. Probably several thousand dollars plus about 6 month delays in the project.
Anonymous
2/19/2023 10:10 AM
Project 1: I don't remember the $$, but required updating design + another structural engineering review/update. (I will state that this did enhance the outside looks of the house.) Project 2: Cost time & materials for union electrician to implement.
SFDB Survey : Survey Report for 07 February 2023 to 23 February 2023
EXHIBIT F - SFDB Survey Report Page 599 of 767
Anonymous
2/19/2023 10:29 AM
Trees cost, $4000 in architect and review costs already to date, $2500-$10k to come. Permeable paver patio, additional $5k quoted.
Anonymous
2/19/2023 04:27 PM
the project was ended by the owner, out of frustration - no dollar value can be assigned to not pursuing the project they had in mind Anonymous
2/20/2023 10:35 AM
on average costs of 15-30k in design fees and 30 to 50k + in carrying costs for owners
Anonymous
2/20/2023 09:36 AM
$20,000
Anonymous
2/20/2023 10:35 AM
Hard to say
Anonymous
2/20/2023 11:27 AM
n/a
Anonymous
2/20/2023 12:42 PM
from negligible to substantial. material costs, construction costs, architectural fees, engineering and consulting fees are all impacted.
Anonymous
2/20/2023 02:04 PM
$15,000
Anonymous
2/20/2023 05:22 PM
n/a
Anonymous
2/20/2023 10:58 PM
10,000.00
Anonymous
2/20/2023 05:51 PM
10k
Anonymous
2/20/2023 08:35 PM
$1.0-1.5 million.
Anonymous
2/20/2023 09:02 PM
Delays have cost $50,000 so far. Don't know yet what the costs for the changes mandated will run.
SFDB Survey : Survey Report for 07 February 2023 to 23 February 2023
EXHIBIT F - SFDB Survey Report Page 600 of 767
Anonymous
2/21/2023 08:16 AM
unknown, but upwards of $100,000
Anonymous
2/21/2023 01:04 PM
5,000
Anonymous
2/21/2023 12:28 PM
N/A
Anonymous
2/21/2023 01:39 PM
$750,000
Anonymous
2/21/2023 01:20 PM
$100,000
Anonymous
2/21/2023 02:22 PM
150k-200k
Anonymous
2/21/2023 04:54 PM
Most of the unexpected cost increases were design costs. Some increases were construction related.
Anonymous
2/21/2023 05:27 PM
$125,000
Anonymous
2/22/2023 05:42 AM
In the low thousands, however, it should not have been a necessity to increase the costs at all.
ekokinda
2/07/2023 12:01 PM
6 Anonymous
2/08/2023 05:18 PM
2 Optional question (104 response(s), 333 skipped)
Question type: Single Line Question
Q17 Approximately how long (in months) did it take your most recent project to receive SFDB Project Design Approval from initial submittal to Project Design Approval? Answer has to be a number, e.g. 1, 6, 12
SFDB Survey : Survey Report for 07 February 2023 to 23 February 2023
EXHIBIT F - SFDB Survey Report Page 601 of 767
Anonymous
2/08/2023 05:38 PM
3 Anonymous
2/08/2023 07:14 PM
4 Anonymous
2/09/2023 04:39 AM
1 Anonymous
2/09/2023 09:42 AM
12 Anonymous
2/09/2023 11:26 AM
8 Anonymous
2/09/2023 02:05 PM
2 Anonymous
2/09/2023 02:27 PM
9 Anonymous
2/09/2023 02:21 PM
24 Anonymous
2/09/2023 02:40 PM
24 Anonymous
2/09/2023 02:22 PM
12 Anonymous
2/09/2023 02:31 PM
24 Anonymous
2/09/2023 02:46 PM
9 Anonymous
2/09/2023 02:45 PM
10 Anonymous
2/09/2023 02:46 PM
3 SFDB Survey : Survey Report for 07 February 2023 to 23 February 2023
EXHIBIT F - SFDB Survey Report Page 602 of 767
Anonymous
2/09/2023 02:53 PM
36 Anonymous
2/09/2023 03:07 PM
25 Anonymous
2/09/2023 03:02 PM
0 Anonymous
2/10/2023 10:33 AM
6 Anonymous
2/09/2023 02:59 PM
6 Anonymous
2/09/2023 03:04 PM
6 Anonymous
2/09/2023 03:02 PM
10 Anonymous
2/09/2023 03:11 PM
0 Anonymous
2/09/2023 03:07 PM
5 Anonymous
2/09/2023 03:09 PM
6 Anonymous
2/09/2023 03:23 PM
10 Anonymous
2/09/2023 03:25 PM
15 Anonymous
2/09/2023 03:37 PM
3 Anonymous
2/09/2023 03:20 PM
7 SFDB Survey : Survey Report for 07 February 2023 to 23 February 2023
EXHIBIT F - SFDB Survey Report Page 603 of 767
Anonymous
2/09/2023 03:26 PM
10 Anonymous
2/09/2023 03:29 PM
1 Anonymous
2/09/2023 03:33 PM
5 Anonymous
2/09/2023 03:32 PM
3 Anonymous
2/09/2023 03:42 PM
12 Anonymous
2/09/2023 03:40 PM
24 Anonymous
2/09/2023 03:38 PM
3 Anonymous
2/09/2023 03:45 PM
3 Anonymous
2/09/2023 03:40 PM
18 Anonymous
2/09/2023 03:42 PM
12 Anonymous
2/09/2023 03:39 PM
12 Anonymous
2/09/2023 04:41 PM
3 Anonymous
2/09/2023 04:19 PM
8 Anonymous 6
SFDB Survey : Survey Report for 07 February 2023 to 23 February 2023
EXHIBIT F - SFDB Survey Report Page 604 of 767
2/09/2023 04:05 PM
Anonymous
2/09/2023 04:05 PM
2 Anonymous
2/09/2023 05:10 PM
8 Anonymous
2/09/2023 05:11 PM
8 Anonymous
2/09/2023 05:17 PM
2 Anonymous
2/09/2023 05:56 PM
12 Anonymous
2/09/2023 06:00 PM
6 Anonymous
2/09/2023 07:01 PM
6 Anonymous
2/09/2023 07:14 PM
6 Anonymous
2/09/2023 07:18 PM
3 Anonymous
2/09/2023 07:21 PM
12 Anonymous
2/09/2023 08:46 PM
0 Anonymous
2/09/2023 09:51 PM
8 Anonymous
2/09/2023 10:10 PM
0 SFDB Survey : Survey Report for 07 February 2023 to 23 February 2023
EXHIBIT F - SFDB Survey Report Page 605 of 767
Anonymous
2/09/2023 10:15 PM
24 Anonymous
2/09/2023 10:19 PM
3 Anonymous
2/09/2023 10:34 PM
4 Anonymous
2/09/2023 10:55 PM
6 Anonymous
2/09/2023 10:58 PM
6 Anonymous
2/10/2023 03:42 AM
0 Anonymous
2/10/2023 04:36 AM
4 Anonymous
2/10/2023 05:58 AM
3 Anonymous
2/10/2023 07:31 AM
12 Anonymous
2/10/2023 07:38 AM
2 Anonymous
2/10/2023 07:45 AM
5 Anonymous
2/10/2023 08:09 AM
2 Anonymous
2/10/2023 07:59 AM
6 Anonymous
2/10/2023 08:09 AM
8 SFDB Survey : Survey Report for 07 February 2023 to 23 February 2023
EXHIBIT F - SFDB Survey Report Page 606 of 767
Anonymous
2/10/2023 08:18 AM
1 Anonymous
2/10/2023 08:42 AM
2 Anonymous
2/10/2023 08:55 AM
0 Anonymous
2/10/2023 09:23 AM
24 Anonymous
2/10/2023 09:17 AM
3 Anonymous
2/10/2023 09:34 AM
9 Anonymous
2/10/2023 09:51 AM
25 Anonymous
2/10/2023 09:49 AM
0 Anonymous
2/10/2023 09:52 AM
0 Anonymous
2/10/2023 09:57 AM
9 Anonymous
2/10/2023 10:21 AM
3 Anonymous
2/10/2023 10:18 AM
6 Anonymous
2/10/2023 10:20 AM
2 Anonymous
2/10/2023 10:29 AM
2 SFDB Survey : Survey Report for 07 February 2023 to 23 February 2023
EXHIBIT F - SFDB Survey Report Page 607 of 767
Anonymous
2/10/2023 10:57 AM
10 Anonymous
2/10/2023 11:23 AM
6 Anonymous
2/10/2023 11:57 AM
0 Anonymous
2/10/2023 12:50 PM
1 Anonymous
2/10/2023 01:16 PM
3 Anonymous
2/10/2023 01:50 PM
10 Anonymous
2/10/2023 02:37 PM
8 Anonymous
2/10/2023 03:06 PM
6 Anonymous
2/10/2023 03:09 PM
1 Anonymous
2/10/2023 03:38 PM
6 Anonymous
2/10/2023 03:43 PM
3 Anonymous
2/10/2023 05:17 PM
12 Anonymous
2/10/2023 06:29 PM
3 Anonymous 6
SFDB Survey : Survey Report for 07 February 2023 to 23 February 2023
EXHIBIT F - SFDB Survey Report Page 608 of 767
2/10/2023 07:48 PM
Anonymous
2/10/2023 06:43 PM
2 Anonymous
2/10/2023 08:13 PM
1 Anonymous
2/11/2023 09:32 AM
8 Anonymous
2/11/2023 10:47 AM
6 Anonymous
2/11/2023 11:39 AM
24 Anonymous
2/11/2023 03:18 PM
8 Anonymous
2/11/2023 06:20 PM
8 Anonymous
2/12/2023 05:55 AM
12 Anonymous
2/12/2023 08:15 AM
2 Anonymous
2/12/2023 09:21 AM
3 Anonymous
2/12/2023 09:15 AM
7 Anonymous
2/12/2023 10:54 PM
1 Anonymous
2/13/2023 07:52 AM
1 SFDB Survey : Survey Report for 07 February 2023 to 23 February 2023
EXHIBIT F - SFDB Survey Report Page 609 of 767
Anonymous
2/13/2023 11:51 AM
6 Anonymous
2/13/2023 10:00 AM
18 Anonymous
2/13/2023 10:46 AM
3 Anonymous
2/13/2023 10:59 AM
0 Anonymous
2/13/2023 11:45 AM
0 Anonymous
2/13/2023 11:52 AM
6 Anonymous
2/13/2023 12:11 PM
24 Anonymous
2/13/2023 12:39 PM
12 Anonymous
2/13/2023 12:51 PM
14 Anonymous
2/13/2023 01:16 PM
0 Anonymous
2/13/2023 01:19 PM
20 Anonymous
2/13/2023 01:28 PM
16 Anonymous
2/13/2023 02:56 PM
12 Anonymous
2/13/2023 04:26 PM
3 SFDB Survey : Survey Report for 07 February 2023 to 23 February 2023
EXHIBIT F - SFDB Survey Report Page 610 of 767
Anonymous
2/13/2023 05:01 PM
12 Anonymous
2/13/2023 05:15 PM
21 Anonymous
2/13/2023 06:16 PM
24 Anonymous
2/13/2023 08:31 PM
18 Anonymous
2/13/2023 10:32 PM
8 Anonymous
2/14/2023 08:54 AM
6 Anonymous
2/14/2023 09:25 AM
3 Anonymous
2/14/2023 10:29 AM
6 Anonymous
2/14/2023 01:22 PM
1.5 Anonymous
2/14/2023 02:39 PM
12 Anonymous
2/14/2023 02:38 PM
8 Anonymous
2/14/2023 02:39 PM
0 Anonymous
2/14/2023 02:54 PM
8 Anonymous
2/14/2023 03:06 PM
10 SFDB Survey : Survey Report for 07 February 2023 to 23 February 2023
EXHIBIT F - SFDB Survey Report Page 611 of 767
Anonymous
2/14/2023 03:48 PM
7.5 Anonymous
2/14/2023 03:46 PM
8 Anonymous
2/14/2023 05:10 PM
36 Anonymous
2/14/2023 05:01 PM
6 Anonymous
2/15/2023 06:39 AM
0 Anonymous
2/15/2023 06:58 AM
18 Anonymous
2/15/2023 09:44 AM
12 Anonymous
2/15/2023 10:38 AM
6 Anonymous
2/15/2023 12:48 PM
0 Anonymous
2/15/2023 02:02 PM
2 Anonymous
2/15/2023 04:52 PM
12 Anonymous
2/15/2023 06:22 PM
0 Anonymous
2/15/2023 06:35 PM
9 Anonymous 18
SFDB Survey : Survey Report for 07 February 2023 to 23 February 2023
EXHIBIT F - SFDB Survey Report Page 612 of 767
2/15/2023 07:34 PM
Anonymous
2/15/2023 08:35 PM
18 Anonymous
2/16/2023 08:02 AM
12 Anonymous
2/16/2023 09:15 AM
2 Anonymous
2/16/2023 10:23 AM
0 Anonymous
2/16/2023 12:54 PM
12 Anonymous
2/16/2023 03:19 PM
6 Anonymous
2/16/2023 07:27 PM
8 Anonymous
2/17/2023 03:23 PM
0 Anonymous
2/18/2023 05:41 PM
6 Anonymous
2/19/2023 08:48 AM
6 Anonymous
2/19/2023 10:10 AM
2 Anonymous
2/19/2023 09:54 AM
1 Anonymous
2/19/2023 10:29 AM
24 SFDB Survey : Survey Report for 07 February 2023 to 23 February 2023
EXHIBIT F - SFDB Survey Report Page 613 of 767
Anonymous
2/19/2023 12:55 PM
6 Anonymous
2/19/2023 04:02 PM
12 Anonymous
2/19/2023 04:27 PM
8 Anonymous
2/20/2023 10:35 AM
9 Anonymous
2/20/2023 09:36 AM
6 Anonymous
2/20/2023 10:35 AM
3 Anonymous
2/20/2023 11:27 AM
8.5 Anonymous
2/20/2023 12:26 PM
0 Anonymous
2/20/2023 12:42 PM
0 Anonymous
2/20/2023 12:38 PM
6 Anonymous
2/20/2023 02:07 PM
6 Anonymous
2/20/2023 02:04 PM
12 Anonymous
2/20/2023 02:31 PM
4 Anonymous
2/20/2023 04:03 PM
6 SFDB Survey : Survey Report for 07 February 2023 to 23 February 2023
EXHIBIT F - SFDB Survey Report Page 614 of 767
Anonymous
2/20/2023 05:22 PM
18 Anonymous
2/20/2023 10:58 PM
9 Anonymous
2/20/2023 05:51 PM
2 Anonymous
2/20/2023 08:35 PM
18 Anonymous
2/20/2023 09:02 PM
9 Anonymous
2/20/2023 10:46 PM
6 Anonymous
2/21/2023 08:16 AM
9 Anonymous
2/21/2023 09:08 AM
18 Anonymous
2/21/2023 01:04 PM
12 Anonymous
2/21/2023 11:05 AM
1 Anonymous
2/21/2023 12:00 PM
16 Anonymous
2/21/2023 11:46 AM
7 Anonymous
2/21/2023 12:28 PM
6 Anonymous
2/21/2023 01:39 PM
24 SFDB Survey : Survey Report for 07 February 2023 to 23 February 2023
EXHIBIT F - SFDB Survey Report Page 615 of 767
Anonymous
2/21/2023 01:20 PM
3 Anonymous
2/21/2023 02:22 PM
24 Anonymous
2/21/2023 02:04 PM
4 Anonymous
2/21/2023 02:26 PM
6 Anonymous
2/21/2023 02:29 PM
3 Anonymous
2/21/2023 04:54 PM
24 Anonymous
2/21/2023 05:27 PM
18 Anonymous
2/21/2023 07:10 PM
0 Anonymous
2/21/2023 10:39 PM
6 Anonymous
2/22/2023 05:42 AM
5 Anonymous
2/22/2023 04:26 PM
0 Anonymous
2/22/2023 09:45 AM
4 Anonymous
2/22/2023 11:19 AM
6 Anonymous 6
SFDB Survey : Survey Report for 07 February 2023 to 23 February 2023
EXHIBIT F - SFDB Survey Report Page 616 of 767
2/22/2023 10:57 AM
Anonymous
2/22/2023 12:36 PM
6 Optional question (209 response(s), 228 skipped)
Question type: Number Question
SFDB Survey : Survey Report for 07 February 2023 to 23 February 2023
EXHIBIT F - SFDB Survey Report Page 617 of 767
Q18 Overall, did the Project Design Approval timeframe meet your expectations? 2 (0.9%)
2 (0.9%)
11 (4.8%)
11 (4.8%)
40 (17.6%)
40 (17.6%)
39 (17.2%)
39 (17.2%)
117 (51.5%)
117 (51.5%)
18 (7.9%)
18 (7.9%)
Much faster than expected A little faster than expected About what I expected A little slower than expected Much slower than expected My project has not yet received Project Design Approval Question options
Optional question (226 response(s), 211 skipped)
Question type: Radio Button Question
SFDB Survey : Survey Report for 07 February 2023 to 23 February 2023
EXHIBIT F - SFDB Survey Report Page 618 of 767
Anonymous
2/08/2023 05:18 PM
Staff review
Anonymous
2/08/2023 05:38 PM
This was a unique case as I took over from another architect, so it's hard to put a useful number on how long it took
Anonymous
2/08/2023 07:14 PM
Case load - too many projects require revoew
Anonymous
2/09/2023 04:39 AM
figuring out how to explain why board member quirks do not apply to project at hand
Anonymous
2/09/2023 09:42 AM
For my most recent project, it had gone to SFDB, then was redesigned, so SFDB was looking at a somewhat different project at their second review. However, in order to achieve a very timely Final Approval, we worked closely with SFDB staff & staff planner Anonymous
2/09/2023 11:26 AM
THE PLN PROCESS!!! SFDB Process is slow enough, but the PLN process add 4-6 months for every project.
Anonymous
2/09/2023 02:05 PM
over reaching requirements and not enough staff
Anonymous
2/09/2023 02:27 PM
The board generally has a negative outlook on any project, they should be there to assist the public and approach projects in a lets see how we can get this done manner. Instead they look for ways to complicate and slow down approvals
Anonymous
2/09/2023 02:21 PM
The City's incompetence and complete lack of understanding of budget of a single family homeowner just trying to make their house nicer and safer. Not everyone has a million dollars to fix their house.
Anonymous
2/09/2023 02:40 PM
Condo project and adjacent to proposed historical district Anonymous neighbors
Q19 What factors do you believe affected the timeline to receive SFDB Project Design Approval?
SFDB Survey : Survey Report for 07 February 2023 to 23 February 2023
EXHIBIT F - SFDB Survey Report Page 619 of 767
2/09/2023 02:22 PM
Anonymous
2/09/2023 02:31 PM
The time for architect and landscape architect to re-do drawings took alot of itme and money.
Anonymous
2/09/2023 02:46 PM
The P&Z Dept has so many design demands that a homeowner can hardly change their mailbox color without triggering Design Review. More homeowner remodels should be done OTC
Anonymous
2/09/2023 02:45 PM
Extremely slow turnaround times by the County (due to personnel changes?).
Anonymous
2/09/2023 02:53 PM
Nit picking and requiring extensive detail around landscaping that we couldn't have possibly known at that stage
Anonymous
2/09/2023 03:07 PM
The dysfunction of the agency and board members not being on the same page as one and another.
Anonymous
2/09/2023 03:02 PM
Unnecessary requirements for approval of project
Anonymous
2/10/2023 10:33 AM
Every project is dependent on client decisions, board comments, and timing of consultants. It depends.
Anonymous
2/09/2023 02:59 PM
lack of communication and documentation
Anonymous
2/09/2023 03:02 PM
Lack of knowledge from staff
Anonymous
2/09/2023 03:11 PM
not knowing the process as a new designer to the area. A spider web of codes and regulatory boards
Anonymous
2/09/2023 03:09 PM
PERSONAL OPINIONS OF THE BOARD MEMBERS
Anonymous
2/09/2023 03:23 PM
Subjective and unqualified demands by a few board members.
SFDB Survey : Survey Report for 07 February 2023 to 23 February 2023
EXHIBIT F - SFDB Survey Report Page 620 of 767
Anonymous
2/09/2023 03:25 PM
Unavailability of staff - one in particular was never available Anonymous
2/09/2023 03:37 PM
Frankly the biggest timeline item is selling the client on revisions that they don't feel they need make.
Anonymous
2/09/2023 03:20 PM
Staff shortage due to illness
Anonymous
2/09/2023 03:29 PM
Was passed around
Anonymous
2/09/2023 03:33 PM
Long lead times for approval, needed completeness before actionable items. City staff can just push off completeness of project to stall approvals from SFDB. SFDB needs to be streamlined and projects under 4,000 SF and two stories should be exempt.
Anonymous
2/09/2023 03:32 PM
Quality of submissions.
Anonymous
2/09/2023 03:42 PM
Having to return 2 times for a total of 3 hearings. And at hearing 2 or 3, dealing with brand new comments, or reversal of previous comments.
Anonymous
2/09/2023 03:40 PM
Competence of City Personnel
Anonymous
2/09/2023 03:45 PM
One Arrogant Board member
Anonymous
2/09/2023 03:40 PM
Making different required changes at each hearing, instead of all at once
Anonymous
2/09/2023 03:42 PM
see prior notes. ive been at meetings and witness how resistance and difficult the SFDB is. the team should be much more agreeable and friendly, giving supportive solutions and examples. we should be encouraging this process, not make it feared or dislike Anonymous
2/09/2023 03:39 PM
Board difficulty in meeting quorum, large influx of project submittals, planners seem to be overbooked and taking a long time to get SFDB Survey : Survey Report for 07 February 2023 to 23 February 2023
EXHIBIT F - SFDB Survey Report Page 621 of 767
through completeness review (required to get on SFDB agenda waitlist)
Anonymous
2/09/2023 04:41 PM
Lag between submitting and being scheduled for a hearing. SFDB had no availability to be seen earlier.
Anonymous
2/09/2023 04:19 PM
Onerous requests from the board, scheduling delays.
Anonymous
2/09/2023 04:05 PM
Covid?
Anonymous
2/09/2023 05:10 PM
Lack of prep by members. Added new / previously discussed items to meetings.
Anonymous
2/09/2023 05:11 PM
Bureaucracy bullshit
Anonymous
2/09/2023 05:17 PM
Lack of communication within
Anonymous
2/09/2023 05:56 PM
redesign
Anonymous
2/09/2023 05:48 PM
Backlog of projects being handled by staff
Anonymous
2/09/2023 07:01 PM
Return visits for ridiculously unnecessary items, requiring thousands of dollars of client money for no improvement to the design or the project.
Anonymous
2/09/2023 07:14 PM
too much grading drainage info
Anonymous
2/09/2023 07:18 PM
Project documentation and neighborhood outreach
Anonymous
2/09/2023 07:21 PM
Submittal process submittals through accela, awaiting application completeness and generally not have access to planners in person.
SFDB Survey : Survey Report for 07 February 2023 to 23 February 2023
EXHIBIT F - SFDB Survey Report Page 622 of 767
Anonymous
2/09/2023 09:15 PM
Project was appealed.
Anonymous
2/09/2023 09:51 PM
Understaffed
Anonymous
2/09/2023 09:51 PM
No idea. Just lack of response despite repeated inquiries. It was absurd.
Anonymous
2/09/2023 10:10 PM
Over analysis and not understanding how to read plans.
Anonymous
2/09/2023 10:15 PM
Bureaucracy
Anonymous
2/09/2023 10:19 PM
Their schedule
Anonymous
2/09/2023 10:34 PM
Less bias and staff being helpful
Anonymous
2/09/2023 10:55 PM
Changes to the design
Anonymous
2/10/2023 03:42 AM
The city not understanding their own rules on R2 lots and historical restrictions. Also as-is drawings were inaccurate and had to be redrawn for an additional architectural cost.
Anonymous
2/10/2023 04:36 AM
Comments that were subjective
Anonymous
2/10/2023 05:58 AM
Show how you meet all requirements on the drawings solar, setbacks, etc.
Anonymous
2/10/2023 07:38 AM
My ability to find time to rework the project.
Anonymous
2/10/2023 07:45 AM
The board gave conditional approval subject to a setback review, upon unanimous approval of the set back, the board president decided he wanted a different design and sent us away to address SFDB Survey : Survey Report for 07 February 2023 to 23 February 2023
EXHIBIT F - SFDB Survey Report Page 623 of 767
his opinions (nothing was in conflict with the guidelines) Anonymous
2/10/2023 08:09 AM
Plan changes are expensive to accomplish if architects are busy and allot of changes are requested
Anonymous
2/10/2023 07:59 AM
lack of efficiency of department
Anonymous
2/10/2023 08:09 AM
incompetent busybodies. The whole idea of a design board is a farce.
Anonymous
2/10/2023 08:18 AM
They approved my last project, a large one, at our first meeting and they were very supportive.
Anonymous
2/10/2023 08:42 AM
Following directions.
Anonymous
2/10/2023 08:55 AM
Their decisions are completely arbitrary and want complete control of the project.
Anonymous
2/10/2023 09:23 AM
Board inability to focus on their job, which is not to "design" the project, but to filter out the big offenders. They "hyper" focus on minutia and although it's fine to make suggestions, this shouldn't hold up projects. Staff review is way too long.
Anonymous
2/10/2023 09:34 AM
Working with a local architect
Anonymous
2/10/2023 09:51 AM
Board members personal bias
Anonymous
2/10/2023 09:49 AM
too many regulations; city turn around time from submittal to incomplete letter; excessive comments on plans
Anonymous
2/10/2023 09:57 AM
Unwilling to approve at the first hearing.
Anonymous
2/10/2023 10:17 AM
We have been long time owners and then became renovation applicants.
SFDB Survey : Survey Report for 07 February 2023 to 23 February 2023
EXHIBIT F - SFDB Survey Report Page 624 of 767
Anonymous
2/10/2023 10:21 AM
Covid
Anonymous
2/10/2023 10:18 AM
Delay in the Process of the original permit application.
Anonymous
2/10/2023 10:29 AM
good architect who knew the process
Anonymous
2/10/2023 10:57 AM
Unrealistic expectations
Anonymous
2/10/2023 11:23 AM
the long 30 day completeness review. We have to provide so much information just to get on the agenda.
Anonymous
2/10/2023 12:50 PM
The city did everything in its power to accommodate my project. The fact they are under staffed, and under a great deal of pressure these days, with a very large staff turnover rate, it's amazing anything gets done!
Anonymous
2/10/2023 01:16 PM
lack of expierence employees that are reviewing project.
Anonymous
2/10/2023 02:37 PM
SFDB kept changing their minds and constantly asking for more. It was ridiculous!
Anonymous
2/10/2023 03:06 PM
Noticing and neighbor’s threat of a spurious lawsuit as well as the two meeting requirement
Anonymous
2/10/2023 03:38 PM
Covid
Anonymous
2/10/2023 05:17 PM
Not enough staff, people not checking or seeing that something had been submitted that they said they were still waiting to receive. This whole process was so incredibly slow and felt so counterintuitive.
Anonymous
2/10/2023 06:29 PM
Constant mercurial interjections with each review being scheduled far out in the future
SFDB Survey : Survey Report for 07 February 2023 to 23 February 2023
EXHIBIT F - SFDB Survey Report Page 625 of 767
Anonymous
2/10/2023 07:48 PM
Inefficiency
Anonymous
2/10/2023 06:43 PM
Not enough employees working at the building department.
Anonymous
2/10/2023 08:13 PM
We spent a huge amount of time and money to derisk our plans. The derisk effort largely succeeded, but with a sad loss to project quality and value.
Anonymous
2/11/2023 09:32 AM
since meetings were online, I don't see any reason that it should have taken so long
Anonymous
2/11/2023 11:39 AM
Again if the Board reviewed & completed the design guideline checklist (recommended design features) and project plans checklists (required items) during the hearings, they would be more consistent, thorough and provide more constructive feedback earlier.
Anonymous
2/11/2023 06:20 PM
They had me make frivolous design changes
Anonymous
2/12/2023 05:55 AM
SFDB members rambling on during meetings hence there being less meeting time available for projects to be scheduled. SFDB members going out of purview.
Anonymous
2/12/2023 09:21 AM
Construction permit final approval and fees
Anonymous
2/12/2023 09:15 AM
Arbitrariness of certain Board members. No reason for project to be reviewed at that level - also an arbitrary decision by Planning staff Anonymous
2/13/2023 07:52 AM
Time schedule and review
Anonymous
2/13/2023 11:51 AM
The board's opinions and storm water requirements.
Anonymous
2/13/2023 10:00 AM
The city has no idea what they are doing. Lot's of people involved in the process. Contractors that don't know the city requirements. Too SFDB Survey : Survey Report for 07 February 2023 to 23 February 2023
EXHIBIT F - SFDB Survey Report Page 626 of 767
many people with no clue as to what is going on. Someone tried to tell us we would have to move our entire driveway!
Anonymous
2/13/2023 10:46 AM
cumbersome paperwork the city likes to issue
Anonymous
2/13/2023 10:59 AM
Requiring too many plan details - design review should be only based on exterior appearance, and building /engineering review then adds on structural, soil reports, etc.
Anonymous
2/13/2023 11:45 AM
A few single persons in Summerland are causing so much trouble for the rest...will not live and let live...dictate own opinions as if from the community...need to reassess Summerland situation!!
Anonymous
2/13/2023 12:11 PM
Multiple submissions based on changing personal preference of board members
Anonymous
2/13/2023 12:39 PM
Certain staff bias. A lack of standards. Allowance of board personal opinions and tastes to be used as a standard.
Anonymous
2/13/2023 12:51 PM
The need to go back to the board multiple times to review the same items, turnover on the board, cancelations of meeting
Anonymous
2/13/2023 01:16 PM
Lack of quorum, Board members having to step down because of conflict of interest. The PERSONAL opinions of the Board Members that may be based on a bias toward the applicant and Owner - not looking at the project objectively but pushing their own agenda Anonymous
2/13/2023 01:19 PM
Problems scheduling during COVID, complete redesign due to unclear feedback from the SFDB, approval expected then not granted due to item (color) that was previously approved and then one member changed their mind and another new member didn't "like" it.
Anonymous
2/13/2023 01:28 PM
overreach, no one wanting to make a decision, untrust of homeowners, a culture of delay and make everything confusing Anonymous
2/13/2023 02:56 PM
A very full calendar and the fact that our Landscape Architect is on the board, recused herself for our project and when another board member was sick (which happened twice to us) a quorum could not SFDB Survey : Survey Report for 07 February 2023 to 23 February 2023
EXHIBIT F - SFDB Survey Report Page 627 of 767
be met. Our meetings were pushed back 2 months each time Anonymous
2/13/2023 04:26 PM
Delays on behalf of city staff with processing our application. Your process is needless slow and overly bureaucratic.
Anonymous
2/13/2023 05:01 PM
Lack of open agendas, board members inconsistent comments, not receiving approval with comments and being required to resubmit with very minor alterations. i.e.. Entry gates needed to be curved instead of squared off.
Anonymous
2/13/2023 05:15 PM
Minor nit-picking comments that required us to keep coming back.
New comments at every meeting after prior comments were addressed.
Anonymous
2/13/2023 06:16 PM
Staffing, response time, new staff that were uninformed. Santa Barbara is ridiculous with permitting both residential and commercial.
The poor owners of the that they can't get the
permit for the new restaurant. It's crazy!
Anonymous
2/13/2023 08:31 PM
Covid was the stated reason.
Anonymous
2/13/2023 10:32 PM
Petty opinions creating a guessing game of what board will approve when I have houses similar to mine that were approved
Anonymous
2/14/2023 08:54 AM
The completeness review letter. Also, the amount of work that is being asked for on the plans at such early stages in design drawings are costing clients money.
Anonymous
2/14/2023 09:25 AM
too much talk
Anonymous
2/14/2023 10:29 AM
No clue. Availability? Staff dragging their feet? Staff nitpicking things that the design board couldn't believe they brought to them for review? All of the above? The process is glacial and absurd.
Anonymous
2/14/2023 01:22 PM
Scheduling backlog.
SFDB Survey : Survey Report for 07 February 2023 to 23 February 2023
EXHIBIT F - SFDB Survey Report Page 628 of 767
Anonymous
2/14/2023 02:39 PM
agendas were full and it took too long to get scheduled.
Anonymous
2/14/2023 02:38 PM
Multiple hearings
Anonymous
2/14/2023 02:54 PM
Every submittal has a review, then a wait to get on the next avaiable agenda. Seems to be 2 to 3 months minimum between review hearings
Anonymous
2/14/2023 03:06 PM
Coastal project as well, but application review took far longer than expected, 30day review with a comment, another 30day review with another comment, another 30day review...
Anonymous
2/14/2023 03:48 PM
Having to go 3 times
Anonymous
2/14/2023 05:10 PM
Pandemic - file lost due as well as new coordinator hired and my file was not assigned, poor communications overall, in preparing SFDB file for application the process was incredibly slow to review all materials sufficiently to put in front of sFDB
Anonymous
2/14/2023 05:01 PM
Color pretty sketches and drawings.
Anonymous
2/15/2023 06:39 AM
No one seems to care that we are regular middle class people just trying to get a small project through. It seems the big construction companies and residents with deep projects get stuff through very fast. Very frustrated.
Anonymous
2/15/2023 06:58 AM
Subjectivity and inefficiency all along the way
Anonymous
2/15/2023 09:44 AM
The overall level of disorganization in the entire building & development office
Anonymous
2/15/2023 02:02 PM
I'm a past SFDB member, so I know how to navigate the process. I think many architects/designer try to ramrod their project through the process. Board members should vote to deny certain applications early in the process instead of giving poor input.p
SFDB Survey : Survey Report for 07 February 2023 to 23 February 2023
EXHIBIT F - SFDB Survey Report Page 629 of 767
Anonymous
2/15/2023 02:51 PM
confusion, local resistance, and city bias toward SB9 project approvals
Anonymous
2/15/2023 04:52 PM
Additional environmental reports required from Zoning, not SFDB Anonymous
2/15/2023 03:05 PM
Too much review at the concept level
Anonymous
2/15/2023 06:22 PM
Staff reviews of submission. 6 or 7 year ago you walked up to the counter and they reviewed your application and drawings and they agenized you for the next available hearing (may have been 2 months out). Not it is 2 months to get a review letter.
Anonymous
2/15/2023 06:35 PM
Staff input/reports. Waiting to get on an agenda. Board members with opinions instead of factual, objective rationales for their findings.
Anonymous
2/15/2023 08:35 PM
Short staffing.
Anonymous
2/16/2023 08:02 AM
Staff review, unavailable agendas.
Anonymous
2/16/2023 09:15 AM
Have to go to hearing twice.
Anonymous
2/16/2023 12:54 PM
Incapable planning staff, board politics, open bias against the project Anonymous
2/16/2023 03:19 PM
Planning Comments are the harder things to navigate and take the longest time. DART reviews are brutal in terms of time. SFDB is failry straight forward but the comments need to be grounded in previous precedent and actual design regulations
Anonymous
2/16/2023 07:27 PM
The insane application review process. The majority of info you request is unnecessary and has no bearing on whether an application should be deemed complete. What is you criteria? The expense has doubled w/o even knowing the viability of the project.
SFDB Survey : Survey Report for 07 February 2023 to 23 February 2023
EXHIBIT F - SFDB Survey Report Page 630 of 767
Anonymous
2/17/2023 03:23 PM
Incorrect interpretation of state law. Slow evaluation
Anonymous
2/18/2023 05:41 PM
Inefficiency. Items at issue could have been quickly handled offline but had to wait for future meetings. No meetings held during December, which is absurd.
Anonymous
2/19/2023 08:48 AM
New requests by committee on follow up public reviews.
Anonymous
2/19/2023 10:10 AM
No hand-drawn plans seemed acceptable (for electrical
replacement/upgrade). Had to get the drawings done electronically.
Anonymous
2/19/2023 09:54 AM
no commentg
Anonymous
2/19/2023 10:29 AM
multi-site development with shared common area
Anonymous
2/19/2023 12:55 PM
Having consistent board comments from meeting. Clear
understanding of neighborhood compatability
Anonymous
2/19/2023 04:02 PM
slow response from planning staff
Anonymous
2/19/2023 04:27 PM
the need for repeated hearings and several months of completeness letters and agendizing, then cancelled hearings
Anonymous
2/20/2023 10:35 AM
Inconsistency in design review comments and feedback such as board members approving FAR in one meeting and then back tracking the next. SFDB board inserting personal design opinion into the project and unrealistic detail specificity
Anonymous
2/20/2023 09:36 AM
It takes time to do everything
Anonymous
2/20/2023 10:35 AM
Suggestion(s) from one board member can hold up the majority of the approval process
SFDB Survey : Survey Report for 07 February 2023 to 23 February 2023
EXHIBIT F - SFDB Survey Report Page 631 of 767
Anonymous
2/20/2023 11:27 AM
Planners don't return phone calls. The City is consistently understaffed. Disorganizaiton - deem applications complete and if incomplete be clear about requirements.
Anonymous
2/20/2023 12:42 PM
N/A
Anonymous
2/20/2023 12:38 PM
Bias against the project required extra meetings
Anonymous
2/20/2023 02:07 PM
Long wait times to get in front of the board. Actual review did not add much time to the project, it was just waiting to get in front of the board. If the board could have more hearings so projects could get feedback faster it would be appreciated
Anonymous
2/20/2023 02:31 PM
SFDB wanted to punish the property owner for making changes during construction
Anonymous
2/20/2023 04:03 PM
Design board requests for changes
Anonymous
2/20/2023 05:22 PM
30 day completeness review process, neighbor impact, hostility towards the project and design aesthetic desired by the client (contemporary)
Anonymous
2/20/2023 10:58 PM
Covid, staffing issues, communication difficulty.
Anonymous
2/20/2023 08:35 PM
personal opinions - boardmember opinions, public opinions Anonymous
2/20/2023 09:02 PM
Since there were no guidelines, we went in with a beautifully designed home. It started out with all members say how lovely it was.
Then it just got ripped for the next hour and half. Meetings kept get cancelled.
Anonymous
2/20/2023 10:46 PM
The staff did not notice the neighborhood because they said it was not necessary for our small scope of work. Later when a nosy neighbor asked why our project was not noticed, staff made us go back through the noticing process. This cost us two months.
SFDB Survey : Survey Report for 07 February 2023 to 23 February 2023
EXHIBIT F - SFDB Survey Report Page 632 of 767
Anonymous
2/21/2023 08:16 AM
lack of quorum / not able to get agendized, lack of staff to process applications, delays at intake, neighbor outreach / comments Anonymous
2/21/2023 01:04 PM
The SFDB is highly behind and it takes months to get on the calendar.
Anonymous
2/21/2023 12:13 PM
I experienced significant delays with the Planning review prior to SFDB.
Anonymous
2/21/2023 11:46 AM
No idea
Anonymous
2/21/2023 12:28 PM
A slow cumbersome bureaucratic process and inability to obtain an efficient review process
Anonymous
2/21/2023 01:39 PM
They hate modern architecture. The first comments we received was there "are no moderns on the Mesa." In our second hearing, they said "prove to us that there are moderns within five houses of either side of you." Not twenty per the guidelines.
Anonymous
2/21/2023 01:20 PM
Opinions of the board and neighbor comments that affected those opinons.
Anonymous
2/21/2023 02:22 PM
The design review board not having clear understanding of neighborhood compatibility building zoning design codes Anonymous
2/21/2023 02:04 PM
The current process lumps together high quality applicants and applications that are very complete with other applicants and applications that are often incomplete, poorly designed and poorly executed. City should adopt a "grading" system to rank applica Anonymous
2/21/2023 02:26 PM
3 SFDB reviews could be condensed down to 2 at max. I think we should be visiting planning and building as the first review and have them verify feasibility/ building perimeters are all acceptable.
Anonymous
2/21/2023 02:29 PM
Lack of enough staff to review and prepare items, room on the agenda
SFDB Survey : Survey Report for 07 February 2023 to 23 February 2023
EXHIBIT F - SFDB Survey Report Page 633 of 767
Anonymous
2/21/2023 04:54 PM
Subjective and inconsistent comments on design. Neighborhood opposition.
Anonymous
2/21/2023 05:27 PM
Arbitrary approval process
Anonymous
2/21/2023 07:10 PM
The boards objections were vague and so interpreting how to move forward is costly and time consuming
Anonymous
2/21/2023 10:39 PM
full agendas/unclear deadlines and unnecessary continuances Anonymous
2/22/2023 05:42 AM
The board not liking the look of a standing seam metal roof Anonymous
2/22/2023 09:45 AM
The board agreed with most of the proposed elements of the project Anonymous
2/22/2023 11:19 AM
Responding to the detailed 30-day completeness review and impacted agendas.
Anonymous
2/22/2023 10:57 AM
review time and waiting queue
Anonymous
2/22/2023 12:36 PM
Extremely excessive drawing requirements from staff. It's shocking how far the overreach has become.
Optional question (181 response(s), 256 skipped)
Question type: Single Line Question
SFDB Survey : Survey Report for 07 February 2023 to 23 February 2023
EXHIBIT F - SFDB Survey Report Page 634 of 767
Q20 It is common practice for me to share plans with neighbors before an initial hearing as part of my due diligence process?
116 (50.2%)
116 (50.2%)
82 (35.5%)
82 (35.5%)
33 (14.3%)
33 (14.3%)
Yes No N/A
Question options
Mandatory Question (230 response(s))
Question type: Radio Button Question
SFDB Survey : Survey Report for 07 February 2023 to 23 February 2023
EXHIBIT F - SFDB Survey Report Page 635 of 767
Anonymous
2/08/2023 05:18 PM
Existing houses over 17' tall with no changes to upper floor Anonymous
2/08/2023 05:38 PM
no opinion
Anonymous
2/08/2023 05:49 PM
There should be objective standards for SFR and only projects that don’t meet those standards should go in front of the board. This should be few and far between (like >85% FAR). It’s absurd that things like storage additions that are not even visible tri Anonymous
2/08/2023 07:14 PM
If a project complies with the appy zoning development standards , setbay, height, FAR, etc. SFDB shoul not be required - waste of time & money
Anonymous
2/09/2023 11:26 AM
Small Additions (for example, ADUs - in ALL zones, garages, decks, etc.), Modifications should not go to SFDB for any reason especially setback mods on projects that were built under a prior ordinance, door/window replacement, exterior material changes.
Anonymous
2/09/2023 02:05 PM
ADU's
Anonymous
2/09/2023 02:21 PM
Yes - single family homeowners simply trying to remodel their house without the enourmous time and expense of the City process Anonymous
2/09/2023 02:22 PM
yes. small projects, hillside or regular. let people add on and build one story houses within the guidelines. regular people dont have a lot of money
Anonymous
2/09/2023 02:31 PM
Projects that are less than or equal to 1000sf and do not alter setbacks or restrictions.
Anonymous Window/door changes (these are already dictated by new Q21 In your opinion, are there any types of residential projects that currently require SFDB review but you think should be exempt from a public hearing? Briefly describe the project scope and rationale for not needing a public hearing.
SFDB Survey : Survey Report for 07 February 2023 to 23 February 2023
EXHIBIT F - SFDB Survey Report Page 636 of 767
2/09/2023 02:46 PM building/energy codes), additions under 700 sf, single story additions Anonymous
2/09/2023 02:45 PM
Outdoor Kitchen that cannot be seen (or heard) by neighbors or from the street.
Anonymous
2/09/2023 02:53 PM
Residential neighborhoods should not be subjected to this process if it is a remodel or improvement. I understand needing that for additional dwelling or new builds but not on improvements of existing.
Anonymous
2/09/2023 03:07 PM
small storage buildings attached to main house, outdoor fire pit, drought tolerant landscaping.
Anonymous
2/09/2023 03:02 PM
Development of pre-existing structure
Anonymous
2/10/2023 10:33 AM
Pools. This should be a staff item. Needing to present a pool or accessory structure that is not visible from the street seems not necessary.
Anonymous
2/09/2023 03:04 PM
Technically I believe in the hillside area painting, garage door replacement, or pretty much anything exterior requires SFDB. No one gets approval so SFDB should accept that people are okay with that.
Anonymous
2/09/2023 03:23 PM
Fire loss home, which is what ours was. The delay in getting approval resulted in loss of valuable time and incurred increases in the construction costs.
Anonymous
2/09/2023 03:37 PM
I believe that any person who does not live very close or is not directly effected by the project should not be allowed to influence any board member just by being a squeeky wheel.
Anonymous
2/09/2023 03:20 PM
driveways
Anonymous
2/09/2023 03:26 PM
Work at the back of the house or in the backyard...who cares? Anonymous
2/09/2023 03:33 PM
4,000 Gross SF and/or 85% FAR, two stories, conforms to all zoning heights/setbacks, no mods/variances should be exempt from design SFDB Survey : Survey Report for 07 February 2023 to 23 February 2023
EXHIBIT F - SFDB Survey Report Page 637 of 767
review. A board of very few people should not dictate the design of a normal single family home.
Anonymous
2/09/2023 03:32 PM
Any single family dwelling that has similar footprint and profile as homes in the mmediate neighborhood.
Anonymous
2/09/2023 03:42 PM
Projects that meet the FAR guideline and that do not have any mods.
Anonymous
2/09/2023 03:40 PM
Don’t kniw
Anonymous
2/09/2023 03:38 PM
Projects with greater than 16% slope but not visible from nearest street.
Anonymous
2/09/2023 03:45 PM
The criteria remain a mystery to me
Anonymous
2/09/2023 03:40 PM
No
Anonymous
2/09/2023 03:42 PM
I'm not sure of all the things that require SFDB. I would recommend and encourage you to find 25% less things that need SFDB, then spend that extra bandwidth being supportive and fast with new projects that do require SFDB.
Anonymous
2/09/2023 04:00 PM
Hillside Design District 20% slope & Vegetation Removal Permit Anonymous
2/09/2023 04:41 PM
N/A
Anonymous
2/09/2023 04:19 PM
Design guidelines that can be complied to without needing a hearing.
Many houses are small in Santa Barbara and doing modest remodels shouldn't require SFDB meetings. Current guidelines are too restrictive.
Anonymous
2/09/2023 04:05 PM
Interior work or work not visible from the public street.
SFDB Survey : Survey Report for 07 February 2023 to 23 February 2023
EXHIBIT F - SFDB Survey Report Page 638 of 767
Anonymous
2/09/2023 04:05 PM
Adding solar or ADU
Anonymous
2/09/2023 05:11 PM
Home remodels, landscaping, hardscapes
Anonymous
2/09/2023 05:56 PM
projects that meet or exceed an objective design criteria. Architects should be given a much higher level of respect for their work.
Anonymous
2/09/2023 06:00 PM
small remodels should be exempt, as long as they adhere to design guidelines
Anonymous
2/09/2023 07:01 PM
We were required to get design review for rain barrels at a residence.
I don't even see where this is listed as something triggering design review, but WE had to go through SFDB for it. Those water saving improvements never happened as a result.
Anonymous
2/09/2023 07:14 PM
no
Anonymous
2/09/2023 08:46 PM
The public hearing process is deeply flawed. Feedback only comes from the residents who have the to time and money and who oppose the project
Anonymous
2/09/2023 09:15 PM
Pools that are not in setbacks, on grade, and screened at the property line.
Anonymous
2/09/2023 09:51 PM
Exterior siding, windows should be exempt from any hearing.
Anonymous
2/09/2023 09:51 PM
Hot tub / BBQ installation. Interior wall remodeling. Interior electrical circuits. None of these have any public effect.
Anonymous
2/09/2023 10:10 PM
All. Very counterproductive and patronizing to architects in the community. Some board members don't know the difference between planning ord. and building codes.
Anonymous
2/09/2023 10:15 PM
Any additions to an existing house should be considered at the planning office, any size of addition
SFDB Survey : Survey Report for 07 February 2023 to 23 February 2023
EXHIBIT F - SFDB Survey Report Page 639 of 767
Anonymous
2/09/2023 10:19 PM
If it's not affecting anyone's views, not encroaching or not in the ocean district
Anonymous
2/10/2023 03:42 AM
No
Anonymous
2/10/2023 04:36 AM
No. Just remove more of the opinions in the process
Anonymous
2/10/2023 07:31 AM
most sfr's
Anonymous
2/10/2023 07:45 AM
I am not familiar with the types of projects that require approvals of the SFDB - our project involved building outside improvements including a patio, BBQ area and pool
Anonymous
2/10/2023 08:09 AM
A project on a large lot where impacts are minimal or highly unlikely to adjoining properties.. More projects that can be approved by Planning staff that are clearly conforming with guidelines Anonymous
2/10/2023 08:09 AM
incompetent busybodies with a personal need for self
aggrandizement & self importance
Anonymous
2/10/2023 08:18 AM
There should be exemptions for projects under a certain size and cost of construction and of course if the improvements have no visual impacts to the neighborhood it should not require a design review.
Anonymous
2/10/2023 08:42 AM
Yes, adjacent properties not affected by line of sight issues. Addition to or new outbuilding (of a certain size) within a SFD property that poses no impacts to an adjacent property given a minimum property line distance.
Anonymous
2/10/2023 08:55 AM
If the project cannot be seen from the street, why should the SFDB be involved at all?
Anonymous
2/10/2023 09:23 AM
Small projects, material changes, non-visible projects from public. So many!
SFDB Survey : Survey Report for 07 February 2023 to 23 February 2023
EXHIBIT F - SFDB Survey Report Page 640 of 767
Anonymous
2/10/2023 09:17 AM
N/A
Anonymous
2/10/2023 09:34 AM
Depending on the size and scope of the project. There should be a fast-track for smaller simpler projects.
Anonymous
2/10/2023 09:51 AM
Homes not located in design significant neighborhoods should be able to have staff review the findings and receive approval through the planning process.
Anonymous
2/10/2023 09:49 AM
Yes, minor renovations / pool additions
Anonymous
2/10/2023 10:17 AM
Very small site or residential projects, perhaps under a stipulated cap, should be allowed without approvals.
Anonymous
2/10/2023 10:21 AM
It's hard to say . We were a little surprised that our railing design (not basic code requirements) would need approval and that the committee would be able to approve (or not) such things as color, etc.
Look at our neighborhood - nothing matches.
Anonymous
2/10/2023 10:18 AM
Window/Door Change Outs, This should be a decision of the homeowner not the neighbor.
Anonymous
2/10/2023 10:29 AM
none
Anonymous
2/10/2023 10:57 AM
New SFDs, remodels and additions - the process is too complicated and onerous
Anonymous
2/10/2023 11:57 AM
Most - unless it substantially changes the character or impedes someone else’s property.
Anonymous
2/10/2023 12:50 PM
The city site already accommodates this issue quite clearly Anonymous
2/10/2023 01:16 PM
depend of the project
SFDB Survey : Survey Report for 07 February 2023 to 23 February 2023
EXHIBIT F - SFDB Survey Report Page 641 of 767
Anonymous
2/10/2023 02:37 PM
I am fine with a REASONABLE review
Anonymous
2/10/2023 03:06 PM
All ADUs and JADUs given that the Board’s findings do not reflect state law requirements and may result in a lawsuit. SFDB should not be eliminated or at least not employed for any project adding residential units or bedrooms to streamline housing.
Anonymous
2/10/2023 03:43 PM
I don't believe that the City should be reviewing single family homes for design
Anonymous
2/10/2023 06:29 PM
Anything that is within the setbacks should not need review.
Anonymous
2/10/2023 06:43 PM
Replacing old materials already existing at location with new upgraded like materials should not require design review. Also, new windows have nothing to do with living on a
hill!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Anonymous
2/10/2023 08:13 PM
Anything which is not visible from the street. Only neighbors with compliant homes should be heard.
Anonymous
2/11/2023 11:39 AM
Projects that are not visible from the street and do not have the potential to impact views of neighbors.
Anonymous
2/11/2023 06:20 PM
Yes, people who live down private driveways (like us).
Anonymous
2/12/2023 05:55 AM
All projects. Design review bodies such as SFDB ultimately cost the city and its residents' time and money. Time and money that could be spent addressing the city's housing needs.
Anonymous
2/12/2023 09:21 AM
Projects that are not too visual from main road or streets , when neighborhood have the need to upgrade home for better residential value
Anonymous
2/12/2023 09:15 AM
Any project that does not increase the FAR and those that do not use "prohibited" material, i.e., vinyl windows etc.
SFDB Survey : Survey Report for 07 February 2023 to 23 February 2023
EXHIBIT F - SFDB Survey Report Page 642 of 767
Anonymous
2/12/2023 10:54 PM
No project should be exempt.
Anonymous
2/13/2023 11:51 AM
none
Anonymous
2/13/2023 10:46 AM
Yes, I had a reroof in a location where no one could see the roof, save for a hang glider or helicopter, A decently educated or experience staff member should have been able to label the project exempt.
Anonymous
2/13/2023 10:59 AM
ADUs on existing home that is to be exact same exterior as existing house.
Anonymous
2/13/2023 11:45 AM
Our plans were done and approved and built; additional landscaping done BEFORE new neighbors moved in...NEW neighbors should not be able to retroactively fight EXISTING plans or landscape Anonymous
2/13/2023 11:52 AM
i think this is working ok
Anonymous
2/13/2023 12:11 PM
Yes, most of them
Anonymous
2/13/2023 12:39 PM
Anything that is a minor upgrade and/or minor addition should be exempt.
Anonymous
2/13/2023 12:51 PM
Existing non-conforming. Small square footage updates.
Anonymous
2/13/2023 01:16 PM
If the proposed project is very small and applicant receives positive feedback from neighbors in written form, the applicant should be able to meet with the Chair and the project be reviewed under consent.
Anonymous
2/13/2023 01:28 PM
Anything lower than two stories and not in the setbacks. Why don't you trust property owners? We are treated like children. It's ridiculous.
Anonymous
2/13/2023 02:56 PM
I do not know how far reaching their authority goes with remodels.
SFDB Survey : Survey Report for 07 February 2023 to 23 February 2023
EXHIBIT F - SFDB Survey Report Page 643 of 767
Anonymous
2/13/2023 04:26 PM
Home additions.
Anonymous
2/13/2023 05:01 PM
Remodel Projects that meet all current zoning requirements. Projects should only be required to go to an SFDB hearing if they are appealed by neighbors or are ground up residential projects.
Anonymous
2/13/2023 05:15 PM
All single story homes, and two story homes with less than 20% of floor area on second floor.
Anonymous
2/13/2023 06:16 PM
Front porches, small enclosures, patios, hardscape
Anonymous
2/13/2023 08:31 PM
Projects not substantially changing characteristics or size and or style of building
Anonymous
2/13/2023 10:32 PM
Fencing
Anonymous
2/14/2023 08:54 AM
Projects that change the roof color or material and site walls in front yard setback
Anonymous
2/14/2023 09:25 AM
SFDB has a purpose, make it user friendly.
Anonymous
2/14/2023 10:29 AM
ADUs should be exempt from the process
Anonymous
2/14/2023 01:22 PM
Properties that are not visible from the street or neighbors.
Anonymous
2/14/2023 02:39 PM
Projects below 85% FAR that meet all solar and neighborhood compatibility findings could be reviewed administratively. Projects in hillside regions or other overlay zones would still need design review.
Anonymous
2/14/2023 02:54 PM
When a second story window is being moved as part of an interior remodel (was 6 sq ft in location A, will now be 6 or less sq ft in location B), without any additions to the footprint or exterior massing.
SFDB Survey : Survey Report for 07 February 2023 to 23 February 2023