EXHIBIT F - SFDB Survey Report Page 644 of 767
Anonymous
2/14/2023 03:06 PM
The hillside overlay automatic kicker seems a bit harsh, should be comiserate with the project scope, not location
Anonymous
2/14/2023 03:48 PM
Small 2 story additions that comply with zoning codes
Anonymous
2/14/2023 03:46 PM
Yes, minor improvements, architectural enrichment
Anonymous
2/14/2023 05:01 PM
One Story less than 2,500 sf and less than 20' and top of plate less than 12' from finish floor.
Anonymous
2/15/2023 06:39 AM
Projects like ours that are small and in our private back yard hidden from neighbors and the street, As ling as they meet height requirements and fall within the setback.
Anonymous
2/15/2023 06:58 AM
If a project meets certain design criteria determined by the city that fit with the goals of our city, place the burden of the homeowner to check off those items and have the approval process be quick and easy
Anonymous
2/15/2023 09:44 AM
No
Anonymous
2/15/2023 02:02 PM
unsure
Anonymous
2/15/2023 02:51 PM
SB9 lot splits. As long as a lot meets the minimum state law requirements it is not legally up for debate or require a public hearing.
Anonymous
2/15/2023 04:52 PM
No. I believe in the hearing process so long as the board can understand the zoning and have a clear reference for when good design is presented, or not, Avoiding efforts to make neighbors happy at the cost of the prop. owner, and understanding guidelines Anonymous
2/15/2023 06:22 PM
Desks. Any project that is in substernal confirming with existing.
Anonymous Many homeowners would like to make minor upgrades on their SFDB Survey : Survey Report for 07 February 2023 to 23 February 2023
EXHIBIT F - SFDB Survey Report Page 645 of 767
2/15/2023 06:35 PM homes incrementally so as to make it more affordable. There is currently no pathway for homeowners to do this themselves. If permits were easier to obtain, more people would get them.
Anonymous
2/16/2023 08:02 AM
Yes, if the FAR is conforming (<85%), I think all residential projects should be exempt. Maybe there's a mechanism of noticing neighbors - and if neighbors want SFDB, then it goes to the full board.
Anonymous
2/16/2023 09:15 AM
Breezeway removal in between a detached garage and a residence.
The existing breezeway was converted into a laundry room with access from (e) residence. A very straight forward project with no additional changes, and aesthetics matching like-for-like.
Anonymous
2/16/2023 03:19 PM
I think the requirements for a public hearing are currently fair and make sense from a design review standpoint. I do not feel that DART is needed in the way it is currently mandated on the MESA as an example.
Anonymous
2/16/2023 07:27 PM
A site wall greater than 42" in the front yard nor a lot line adjustment.
Both of those can be handled by staff.
Anonymous
2/19/2023 09:54 AM
no comment
Anonymous
2/19/2023 10:29 AM
No, fine with current requirements but consider a less costly update process in course of construction-- or a less costly "common sense" appeal process when 1 expert consulting on the project has a myopic perspective based on assigned requirements..
Anonymous
2/19/2023 12:55 PM
small projects which could be reviewed by two member consent, not full board
Anonymous
2/19/2023 04:02 PM
minor modifications
Anonymous
2/19/2023 04:27 PM
ADUs that remain within size/ height limits should not trigger SFDB when in hillside areas, roof changes, if all structures exceed 4000sf, modular construction is proposed, etc... - we should end all SFDB review except for projects seeking modifications.
SFDB Survey : Survey Report for 07 February 2023 to 23 February 2023
EXHIBIT F - SFDB Survey Report Page 646 of 767
Anonymous
2/20/2023 10:35 AM
I believe in the SFDB review but the review parameters need to be fixed and not left up to personal opinion. The board yields power over FAR and minor design decisions and that shouldn't happen.
Anonymous
2/20/2023 09:36 AM
We should decide to reduce the number of projects going to SFDB by 75% and reduce any requirements necessary to meet that goal. Only use it for the most impactful projects.
Anonymous
2/20/2023 10:35 AM
Smaller projects not visible from the public street, door and window replacement, change of exterior materials and colors. Some homes in hill side district that the site is mostly flat.
Anonymous
2/20/2023 11:27 AM
Small projects like fencing, material changes, and even small projects that push FAR over guidelines if single story.
Anonymous
2/20/2023 12:42 PM
all projects should be spared the subjective design review process. it is inherently flawed and treats property owners, design professionals and communities unfairly by definition.
Anonymous
2/20/2023 12:38 PM
Small projects that do not add to second story and are under 14' height would seem reasonable to go through the process without review.
Anonymous
2/20/2023 02:07 PM
Multi-family housing that follows a 'form-based' code. Often these projects get torpedoed by NIMBYs just because they have more than one living unit; and their design 'criticism' is merely a cover for opposition to the project for adding more housing.
Anonymous
2/20/2023 02:04 PM
Solar project on coastlines. The solar modules do not weight that much and it should require a specific study to prove that the extra weight will make the cliff collapse
Anonymous
2/20/2023 05:22 PM
Many of the smaller "Walls and Balconies" triggers could be handled administratively
Anonymous
2/20/2023 10:58 PM
Remodels should be allowed up to 85% of FAR without review.
Notices should be sent to neighbors but if there is no overwhelming negative feedback, board approval should not be required.
SFDB Survey : Survey Report for 07 February 2023 to 23 February 2023
EXHIBIT F - SFDB Survey Report Page 647 of 767
Anonymous
2/20/2023 08:35 PM
Any project that meets building or zoning codes should not require a hearing.
Anonymous
2/20/2023 10:46 PM
Simple projects should be able to be streamlined.
Anonymous
2/21/2023 08:16 AM
parking exceptions should be removed from design review, quantify an amount of grading associated on a vacant lot in a single-family zone (how the Hillside Design District is listed). quantify the amount of vegetation removed which triggers design review
Anonymous
2/21/2023 09:08 AM
How about projects that are not asking for any discretionary approval, that meet all planning requirements for height, setback, FAR, etc. are exempt from design review.
Anonymous
2/21/2023 01:04 PM
ADUs
Anonymous
2/21/2023 12:00 PM
Project improvements that are not within view from public, landscape renovations
Anonymous
2/21/2023 11:46 AM
Renovations that don't alter the home in a significant way Anonymous
2/21/2023 12:28 PM
Any projects would comply with planning regulations
Anonymous
2/21/2023 01:39 PM
The SFDB should not be regulating window size and modern architecture. The Mesa should not be regulated by the SFDB and public hearing. We submitted twenty letters of support in our public here and a member said he didn't care" what the neighbors said.
Anonymous
2/21/2023 01:20 PM
In general, less projects should be required to go through this process.
Anonymous
2/21/2023 02:22 PM
No one likes change . No one wants the space to be altered . But anyone has the write to do what they wish in there space within reason . So I guess the question is what’s within reason . Each city has to define there pentameters but they need to be clea SFDB Survey : Survey Report for 07 February 2023 to 23 February 2023
EXHIBIT F - SFDB Survey Report Page 648 of 767
Anonymous
2/21/2023 02:04 PM
minor remodels
Anonymous
2/21/2023 02:29 PM
For in kind replacements with similar style, evidence of meetings with affected neighbors MAY be enough
Anonymous
2/21/2023 04:54 PM
One story residences, additions less than 40% of the original home, ADU's, projects that comply with objective zoning standards and general design guidelines.
Anonymous
2/21/2023 05:27 PM
No! Santa Barbara is beautiful & architecture should be too! Anonymous
2/22/2023 05:42 AM
Reroofing in general. I think the staff review should be sufficient.
Anonymous
2/22/2023 09:45 AM
minor remodel work
Anonymous
2/22/2023 11:19 AM
Yes, remodels and minor additions for homes outside the HDD. There are too many minor improvements that trigger SFDB, wall height, grading for a pool and therefore outside the main building footprint, a window change for an existing two-story element.
Anonymous
2/22/2023 10:57 AM
I believe all residential projects below 4 units should be exempt from review. Design professionals should have the freedom with the hoeowner to develop the property how they see fit. Most of the time design review board is less qualified than the arch
Anonymous
2/23/2023 12:30 PM
Small additions with no modifications may be exempted. Projects that directly impact neighbors should not.
Optional question (153 response(s), 284 skipped)
Question type: Single Line Question
Q22 If you could change one thing related to the SFDB design review process what would it be? Please answer in a sentence or two, 255 character max.
SFDB Survey : Survey Report for 07 February 2023 to 23 February 2023
EXHIBIT F - SFDB Survey Report Page 649 of 767
Anonymous
2/08/2023 05:18 PM
Allow maximum freedom of design, as long as the project meets minimum standards. Do not ask for "the highest level of design".
Anonymous
2/08/2023 05:38 PM
The single biggest improvement might be for the city to have a city architect, who understands what issues a design review board might have and vets projects before the applicant it too far along.
Anonymous
2/08/2023 05:49 PM
Dramatically reduce the preview of the SFDB and limit the number of board members
Anonymous
2/08/2023 07:14 PM
Minimize the triggers for review.
Anonymous
2/09/2023 04:39 AM
Staff needs more training; board members need orientation to their roles and training, chair person is critical and should know how to run a meeting and what the ordinance and guidelines state so that they can organize and guide discussion for applicant
Anonymous
2/09/2023 09:42 AM
To limit the SFDB to comments strictly within their purview.
Anonymous
2/09/2023 11:26 AM
The PLN process should be removed for Single Family Projects. It is not needed there. SFDB should have the ability to provide PDA approval whenever they want. If land use is lagging, so what. Keep the project moving through the process faster.
Anonymous
2/09/2023 02:27 PM
change the boards negative attitude towards development, less emphasis on neighbors negative public comments who just dont want any change
Anonymous
2/09/2023 02:21 PM
For it to take 2 months or less, not 2 years. Not sending families to historical review, not caring about the color of gravel or exactly which shade of white
Anonymous
2/09/2023 02:40 PM
Speed
Anonymous
2/09/2023 02:22 PM
only review large houses.
SFDB Survey : Survey Report for 07 February 2023 to 23 February 2023
EXHIBIT F - SFDB Survey Report Page 650 of 767
Anonymous
2/09/2023 02:31 PM
Include in checklist that the building permit application can be started at the same time as LUP process.
Anonymous
2/09/2023 02:46 PM
shorter wait times to get on an agenda, clearer directions to applicants, allow deferrals to staff for ministerial review Anonymous
2/09/2023 02:45 PM
Courtesy Inspections to begin work before Permit Card is issued.
Anonymous
2/09/2023 02:53 PM
Remove it all together -this didn't make the project 'better' it just created extra work, time and money to make them feel important Anonymous
2/09/2023 03:07 PM
SFSB staff to clearly describe there comment and not add new comments at every hearing.
Anonymous
2/09/2023 03:02 PM
No comment
Anonymous
2/10/2023 10:33 AM
NA
Anonymous
2/09/2023 03:04 PM
Process should just be size bulk and scale not personal taste. It should not be about the minutia of the design. Board members have arbitrarily redefined neighborhood at times to be the property adjacent to the subject. That's not fair.
Anonymous
2/09/2023 03:02 PM
It seems mama making big decisions don’t even live in our area yet they have very strong opinions. It would be nice to hire people that own homes and live in the area.
Anonymous
2/09/2023 03:11 PM
I believe the system although original set in place to benefit the local community and homeowners has become a burden on homeowners to develop or improve their homes. Only to further create increased home cost and increased home values that are too high.
Anonymous
2/09/2023 03:23 PM
Remove individual who do not fallow the SB guidelines and who are subjective egotists who are on a power trip.
SFDB Survey : Survey Report for 07 February 2023 to 23 February 2023
EXHIBIT F - SFDB Survey Report Page 651 of 767
Anonymous
2/09/2023 03:25 PM
Collaboration. would not listen to the reasons for
the choice of materials. She was never available, gone for weeks at a time and uncooperative. I will never permit any project again bc of my horrible experience.
Anonymous
2/09/2023 03:37 PM
Have the board regulate construction quality and really bad design only. Style should not be a factor. What this City needs is high quality design and construction, not regulation of style.
Anonymous
2/09/2023 03:20 PM
The review process seemed to be consistent with the deadlines given on accela other than when someone was sick - totally
understandable, and did not affect the timeline much. All staff was very responsive and supportive.
Anonymous
2/09/2023 03:33 PM
Other than exempt projects, two hearing max. per project and actionable determinations at each hearing. Concept is first, then PDA.
No final. Building Dept. sends plans to planner for conformance with PDA approval. Remove barries = less architectural fee
Anonymous
2/09/2023 03:32 PM
Make sure that all the members of the board are qualified to participate in the review process. In my experience many were not.
Anonymous
2/09/2023 03:42 PM
SFBD members should not pretend they are the project architect.
Saying things like, "I feel like it should be..." should be verbotten.
Projects either meet te standards or they don't. As for interpretation of guildelines, ties go to the appilcant.
Anonymous
2/09/2023 03:40 PM
Increased competence and experience of examiner
Anonymous
2/09/2023 03:38 PM
Leave out personal design preferences and give clear directions for approvable concepts
Anonymous
2/09/2023 03:45 PM
Require that Board members serve the interests of both the applicants and the community.
Anonymous
2/09/2023 03:40 PM
Take personal opinions out of the process. Stick to code specific modifications
SFDB Survey : Survey Report for 07 February 2023 to 23 February 2023
EXHIBIT F - SFDB Survey Report Page 652 of 767
Anonymous
2/09/2023 03:42 PM
See previous comments, look for places to substract and look how to change the orientation of the SFDB to be very encouraging, solution oriented and extremely time sensitive, the carry cost for homeowners, builders etc is a lot.
Anonymous
2/09/2023 03:39 PM
Increased professionalism of board members, a limit to the number of years that board members are allowed to serve, increased training of board members on their actual purview
Anonymous
2/09/2023 04:41 PM
The city should revise their design guidelines to be what will actually pass. ie) current guidelines allow a building to be 30' tall, but we all know that SFDB will not let you build anything that tall.
Anonymous
2/09/2023 04:19 PM
Change thresholds of requiring a SFDB design review. Some board members and chairs seem unqualified and/or have conflicts of interest.
Anonymous
2/09/2023 04:05 PM
The process needs to be simple and helpful more of a guide. Owners should not be forced to make changes they do not want.
Anonymous
2/09/2023 05:10 PM
Reduce delays due to landscape reiews.
Anonymous
2/09/2023 05:11 PM
Give permits over the counter!!!
Anonymous
2/09/2023 05:17 PM
Learn from SLO county . Not so homogeneous
Anonymous
2/09/2023 05:56 PM
I would revert to utilization of an objective design criteria. The SFDB should only be utilized if the design is outside of those standards.
Each iteration costs the client and architect time and money to the point of projects not being feasible.
Anonymous
2/09/2023 05:48 PM
Too many extra regulations/concessions added to project (storm water upgrades and similar)
Anonymous
2/09/2023 06:00 PM
too much egocentric and subjective discussion
SFDB Survey : Survey Report for 07 February 2023 to 23 February 2023
EXHIBIT F - SFDB Survey Report Page 653 of 767
Anonymous
2/09/2023 07:01 PM
SIMPLIFY. In the 90s design review was useful; now it is just a complex expensive bureaucratic nightmare that scares clients off and terminates good basic projects due to cost and capricious jud Anonymous
2/09/2023 07:14 PM
all projects and adu should go thh
Anonymous
2/09/2023 07:18 PM
Change guidelines to rules
Anonymous
2/09/2023 08:46 PM
Remove public hearings
Anonymous
2/09/2023 09:15 PM
Board made up of members versed in landscape and architecture professions and capable of accurately reading drawings.
Anonymous
2/09/2023 09:51 PM
The rules need to be easier to understand. Staff needs to be informed. More staff needed.
Anonymous
2/09/2023 09:51 PM
Get rid of it when it's clearly unnecessary.
Anonymous
2/09/2023 10:10 PM
Discontinue and implement design review guidelines that staff can administer.
Anonymous
2/09/2023 10:15 PM
It should have a limit, let see 30 days since presented to the planning department, 45 days sounds reasonable
Anonymous
2/09/2023 10:19 PM
Shorter time frames, less restructions
Anonymous
2/09/2023 10:34 PM
Ensure that everyone including myself have the same guidelines and rules in order to create certainty. Have a process and you will not have so many builders, developers, families upset with the process.
Anonymous
2/09/2023 10:55 PM
If a Project meets guidelines no public hearing is needed.
SFDB Survey : Survey Report for 07 February 2023 to 23 February 2023
EXHIBIT F - SFDB Survey Report Page 654 of 767
Anonymous
2/10/2023 03:42 AM
We can’t all have luxury homes and those who live in lower income neighborhoods are trying to improve their homes for health, safety, environmental, and livability reasons. Some homes in the city just need updating and it is difficult to do that legally.
Anonymous
2/10/2023 04:36 AM
Eliminate the opinions
Anonymous
2/10/2023 07:31 AM
hard time limits on the process
Anonymous
2/10/2023 07:38 AM
I am not convinced SFDB enhances the quality of projects. Maybe eliminate SFDB.
Anonymous
2/10/2023 07:45 AM
That they stick to the process of determining if the plans conform to the guidelines. They should not be re-designing the projects as they want
Anonymous
2/10/2023 08:09 AM
Remove projects from SFDB agendas that do not need architectural scrutiny. Revise triggers to catch less projects and incentivize property owners to design projects in positive or less impactful ways to avoid design review process.
Anonymous
2/10/2023 07:59 AM
maintain the integrity of the neighborhood, i.e. size/style of homes, culture and peacefulness of neighborhood and protection of existing neighbors views
Anonymous
2/10/2023 08:09 AM
abolish it
Anonymous
2/10/2023 08:18 AM
Two year term limits on board members and more recruitment of new faces for the board. It's frustrating that the same people dominate the board for too long.
Anonymous
2/10/2023 08:42 AM
More open and focused on the design intent.
Anonymous
2/10/2023 08:55 AM
Dissolve it entirely
SFDB Survey : Survey Report for 07 February 2023 to 23 February 2023
EXHIBIT F - SFDB Survey Report Page 655 of 767
Anonymous
2/10/2023 09:23 AM
We need a "yes" mentality and generally a "let's move this project forward" mentality. It's the opposite.
Anonymous
2/10/2023 09:17 AM
First meeting should lay out all changes required and document them in minutes, then subsequent meetings should work through the minutes and check them off as resolved. This avoids new items added to avoid never ending review cycles.
Anonymous
2/10/2023 09:34 AM
The committee should be made up of nonpolitical professionals that are focused on architectural aspects with an open mind to our changing world architectural design.
Anonymous
2/10/2023 09:25 AM
I am a neighbor, not an applicant. The SFDB process is largely skewed in favor of the developers. The fact that there is no way to enter comments as a person attending without a project underscores that fact.
Anonymous
2/10/2023 09:51 AM
Discipline or removal of board members that are demeaning and rude to the applicants, ignore meeting protocol, and step outside of the guidelines and deny or sway members due to personal bias.
Anonymous
2/10/2023 09:49 AM
Having less required to get in front of the board for initial review and being able to meet with planners in person.
Anonymous
2/10/2023 09:57 AM
Arbitrary opinions of the board on project design.
Anonymous
2/10/2023 10:17 AM
When we applied for approval, five copies of our plans were required (costly at $100 per set.)
Anonymous
2/10/2023 10:21 AM
It is always intimidating. You work hard and spend money to design an improvement for your house and it always feels like your tastes are being judged by the SFDB. You don't really get a chance to interact in a meaningful way.
Anonymous
2/10/2023 10:18 AM
Clear handouts on what is approved and not going to be approved.
Anonymous The checklist I was asked to complete is written in industry terms and SFDB Survey : Survey Report for 07 February 2023 to 23 February 2023
EXHIBIT F - SFDB Survey Report Page 656 of 767
2/10/2023 10:20 AM not easily understandable by a homeowner, even a short layman explanation of the requirements as part of the checklist would be super helpful.
Anonymous
2/10/2023 10:29 AM
give options
Anonymous
2/10/2023 10:57 AM
streamline and reduce oversight. Create objective design standards Anonymous
2/10/2023 11:23 AM
The review process should stick to size bulk and scale. The board should not ask for a complete structural, mechanical and electrical to get SFDB Final.
Anonymous
2/10/2023 11:57 AM
Make it lightning fast.
Anonymous
2/10/2023 12:50 PM
That it get better respect, a better understanding of the historical nature of why it exists at all. Santa Barbara is not a normal city. If people don't want to play by its rule there are PLENTY of communities without design review!
Anonymous
2/10/2023 01:16 PM
Replace managment, improve lead time of review
Anonymous
2/10/2023 02:37 PM
Change their mentality, they think they are gods. We all have our opinions. If you ask me to critique the Arlington Theater, there are things that I would have done differently, but it was built and it's still beautiful. SFDB needs to calm down
Anonymous
2/10/2023 03:06 PM
The Board’s discretion should be constrained to items that would otherwise require a permit and discretion/findings clearly delineated for the Board and Public.
Anonymous
2/10/2023 03:09 PM
Do away with neighborhood compatibility
Anonymous
2/10/2023 03:43 PM
I would eliminate it for everything except Modifications SFDB Survey : Survey Report for 07 February 2023 to 23 February 2023
EXHIBIT F - SFDB Survey Report Page 657 of 767
Anonymous
2/10/2023 06:29 PM
Disband the SFDR as it regularly intrudes on private property rights and serves no function other than to make housing prohibitively expensive to buy, rent, or remodel.
Anonymous
2/10/2023 07:48 PM
When obtaining permits, even for simple projects, that are measured in months rather than days or weeks is unacceptable. Such avoidable delays in projects negatively affect homeowners, builders, and suppliers, and gives Santa Barbara a terrible reputation Anonymous
2/10/2023 06:43 PM
Not having to do the review for replacing exisiting materials. And Use common sense on the issue of living on a
hill!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Anonymous
2/10/2023 08:13 PM
Allow home owners to be more creative in improving their property appearance. Remove from oversight any individual item, such as paint color, which a homeowner could change without a permit Anonymous
2/11/2023 09:32 AM
requiring approximately equal time for each board member to speak so that one person doesn't monopolize the discussion and impose their ideas on the others
Anonymous
2/11/2023 11:39 AM
Increase the frequency of meetings to avoid long scheduling delays.
Anonymous
2/11/2023 06:20 PM
SFDB review process is a joke. We own our homes and should be able to do what we want with them as long as it does not encroach upon our neighbor's property.
Anonymous
2/12/2023 05:55 AM
SFDB should be a commentary body as oppose to an approval body.
Staff approve. Those who don't feel the approval was appropriate can appeal staff decision to SFDB (and then to PC/CC) for review.
Anonymous
2/12/2023 09:21 AM
I will focus on the design Int self of the existing residence and not do much of the neighbor after all all residential areas are not exactly similar or the same
Anonymous
2/12/2023 09:15 AM
Reduce quantity of projects subject to its review. Term limits for Board members, 4 yrs.
SFDB Survey : Survey Report for 07 February 2023 to 23 February 2023
EXHIBIT F - SFDB Survey Report Page 658 of 767
Anonymous
2/12/2023 12:11 PM
Allow email responses to the accounting form in re project costs; have expanded hours for form drop off at Garden street
Anonymous
2/13/2023 11:51 AM
I don't agree that every house on the block should look the same.
Good architecture speaks for itself.
Anonymous
2/13/2023 10:00 AM
The city has no right to decide a homeowners design. If I want black window frames and the design review says they should be rubbed bronze that's crazy. They are close enough the homeowner should be able to pick their own materials within reason.
Anonymous
2/13/2023 10:46 AM
Have staff that can and will make simple decision instead of funneling everything to the review board. Seems to be a catch-all or money maker.
Anonymous
2/13/2023 10:59 AM
Eliminate the Hillside review portion, most of SB is on a hillside! Anonymous
2/13/2023 11:45 AM
Need to re-evaluate Summerland input! Ortega Ranch HOA
Architecture Committee does not support restricting beige color! should NOT be dictating, bullying, threatening all
neighbors! Chair of architecture committee, willing to focus group Anonymous
2/13/2023 11:52 AM
having members that are architectural trained. removing the bias toward architectural style of members. Application of the hard FAR 85% bias
Anonymous
2/13/2023 12:11 PM
Speed up the process significantly and only require changes that are clear in the guidlines, not personal design choices
Anonymous
2/13/2023 12:39 PM
A universally accepted standard in writing that SFDB must adhere to.
Anonymous
2/13/2023 12:51 PM
Abolish the whole board. Any design review should be purely objective, completed by city employees who can be held accountable for their decisions.
Anonymous Time it takes to get on an agenda.
SFDB Survey : Survey Report for 07 February 2023 to 23 February 2023
EXHIBIT F - SFDB Survey Report Page 659 of 767
2/13/2023 01:02 PM
Anonymous
2/13/2023 01:16 PM
Board members should be REASONABLE. Multiple reviews are damaging to the timeline and budget of every Project. Board members must be thorough in the very first review and not be allowed to add additional concerns in subsequent reviews.
Anonymous
2/13/2023 01:19 PM
Most of the board members were not very nice, had strong personal opinions that we felt were out of the scope of the boards jurisdiction.
The whole process was frustrating, expensive, stressful and traumatic. It was a HORRIBLE process.
Anonymous
2/13/2023 01:28 PM
Too slow and too inconsistent. Some projects just green light right through and others are tied up for years. Just trust property owners, make the process easy. Go look at cities that do it right -- copy them.
Anonymous
2/13/2023 02:56 PM
Process needs streamlining. Board members need to be reminded of what they are and aren’t legally allowed to influence.
Anonymous
2/13/2023 04:26 PM
Your staff were needlessly slow with all aspects of the review process. This is unacceptable--my taxes pay your salaries.
Anonymous
2/13/2023 05:01 PM
they should only be reviewing projects in regards their mass, bulk, and scale from the public view. not in relation to protecting neighbor views or catering to neighbor desires. Additionally, the SFDB should put preference of one arch style above others
Anonymous
2/13/2023 05:15 PM
No new comments after prior comments have been addressed.
Moreover, 100% FAR should be allowed all the time.
Anonymous
2/13/2023 06:16 PM
Santa Barbara has to approve residential and commercial properties in a timely manner. People go broke trying to get their projects through to beautify this town. Businesses go out of business waiting for their permits. Downtown is a ghost town!
Anonymous
2/13/2023 08:31 PM
Rational fee schedule and timeline. The process left me thinking that maybe selling and buying a house that fit my current needs better would have been more cost effective and less stressful
SFDB Survey : Survey Report for 07 February 2023 to 23 February 2023
EXHIBIT F - SFDB Survey Report Page 660 of 767
Anonymous
2/13/2023 10:32 PM
Be prepared, concise, and if want a chsnge then state what it will approve instead of making architect owner guess so it doesn’t create a 3-4th meeting. Focus on large projects not a simple house improvement project
Anonymous
2/14/2023 08:54 AM
The projects should be reviewed for mass, bulk and scale. The reviews have gotten well beyond that. Too much personal design opinion. And too much information is being asked for at an early design stage
Anonymous
2/14/2023 09:25 AM
make it faster
Anonymous
2/14/2023 10:29 AM
The staff that slow walks everything, multiple times, before handing it off to the design board
Anonymous
2/14/2023 01:22 PM
Fear that personal bias will form the outcome. There should be an easy appeals process.
Anonymous
2/14/2023 02:39 PM
Planner and agenda timelines are too long- more staff should be hired as needed to accommodate the workload. More projects can be reviewed administratively or on the consent calendar. Average time for approval should be reduced to 4 months.
Anonymous
2/14/2023 02:54 PM
Would love to be allowed to submit (even at owner's/applicant's risk) to the building department prior to receiveing Final SFDB approval.
Anonymous
2/14/2023 03:06 PM
The lead up, being the inhouse staff review. I think the benchmark for an application to be determined complete is too in depth Anonymous
2/14/2023 03:46 PM
Make it less arduous, eliminate the small pedantic comments. Most people are just trying to make their house a home, and lot of the rules and comments are unnecessary, and actually a little mean.
Anonymous
2/14/2023 05:10 PM
Better trained staff and timely responsive. Total 9 months to deliver 20 letters to neighbors, then told to send via registered mail to 20 homeowners including drawing and workshop at my home to explain project. Only person that showed up was my architect
SFDB Survey : Survey Report for 07 February 2023 to 23 February 2023
EXHIBIT F - SFDB Survey Report Page 661 of 767
Anonymous
2/14/2023 05:01 PM
One or two members shouldn't sway the board to their position. was worthless naysayer. was a continued mistake as an
opinioned Professor who only knew his way. was opinioned but was OK with it not being his style.
Anonymous
2/15/2023 06:39 AM
Time and high cost of it takes to get things through. It seems the costs are arbitrary especially in relation to size of projects. We need a more efficient process. Please approve and permit my project please.
Its 2+ years.We have done all asked.
Anonymous
2/15/2023 06:58 AM
With better defined guidelines for approval,
homeowners/architects/etc. can receive approval in 3 months or less.
Anonymous
2/15/2023 09:44 AM
Expedite the process
Anonymous
2/15/2023 12:48 PM
Reduce the triggers for requiring SFDB review
Anonymous
2/15/2023 02:02 PM
Compensate board members for their time. That's one reason is been hard to get qualified canidates.
Anonymous
2/15/2023 02:51 PM
fast track SB9 lot split permits if they meet the minimum state law requirements.
Anonymous
2/15/2023 04:52 PM
filter neighbor comments to those that truely are within the zoning pervue. Stop letting neighbors rule the meeting comments. The board exercise its knowledge of good design to allow things that people are fighting against because they dont want change
Anonymous
2/15/2023 03:05 PM
Make is easier to get conceptual review with concept level plans.
Detailed compliance should come later.
Anonymous
2/15/2023 06:22 PM
Eliminate the 30 review letter for initial reviews. We wouldn't need everything figured out for conceptual or preliminary review. We can have more of a dialogues with the board if we get their feedback early, now we need it ready for permit before review.
Anonymous Fewer triggers for SFDB review. It should only be for new homes, or SFDB Survey : Survey Report for 07 February 2023 to 23 February 2023
EXHIBIT F - SFDB Survey Report Page 662 of 767
2/15/2023 06:35 PM remodels where the size of the home is increasing by 50% or exceeding the max FAR.
Anonymous
2/16/2023 08:02 AM
Turnaround time, more combined approvals. More approvals on consent.
Anonymous
2/16/2023 09:15 AM
Change the process to a more rational and common sense process.
Anonymous
2/16/2023 12:54 PM
Mandatory response times from planning staff and additional presentation time for applicant teams to respond to public comment Anonymous
2/16/2023 03:19 PM
There cannot be subjective opinions based on "preference" from the board. Their single task should be to qualify whether a project complies with the desing regulations of the City of SB. Anything else conflicts with personal right and is an over reach. .
Anonymous
2/16/2023 07:27 PM
The board can't distinguish between objective and subjective comments. You can dislike a project that doesn't meet your style preferences but still deem it appropriate. Too much weight on compatibility of style. Most neighborhoods have an eclectic mix Anonymous
2/17/2023 03:23 PM
Have simple criteria. Meet it and move on. The subjective bs is ridiculous
Anonymous
2/18/2023 05:41 PM
Clear guidelines that the board adheres to. Rulings based on meeting guidelines, not board arbitrary opinions. Quicker turnaround of minor issues like ours.
Anonymous
2/19/2023 08:48 AM
Experienced members with training of what their role is.
Anonymous
2/19/2023 10:10 AM
Consider updating planning documents with more decision trees (flow charts) to help user to navigate the plan submittal requirements based on the scope of the project
Anonymous
2/19/2023 09:54 AM
more professionals on Board
SFDB Survey : Survey Report for 07 February 2023 to 23 February 2023
EXHIBIT F - SFDB Survey Report Page 663 of 767
Anonymous
2/19/2023 10:29 AM
Feedback/reviews process for the "experts" required to be involved on projects so the SFDB is aware of those experts actual capability, not just their license.
Anonymous
2/19/2023 12:55 PM
Board members that understand how to make motions, minutes that reflect specific issues discussed by board members. Board members and staff who actually go out and visit projects sites. Explanation to public the boards purview.
Anonymous
2/19/2023 04:02 PM
less personal design opinions from individual board members Anonymous
2/19/2023 04:27 PM
provide clear guidelines to SFDB board members, minimize their power by having planning staff be the only ones to determine which additional materials are required at the hearings, have 30-day review only at the beginning of the project, not ongoing
Anonymous
2/20/2023 10:35 AM
Create clear guidelines of what the board is reviewing and create accountability from the board to adhere to this. The atmosphere should be encouraging and supportive of homeowners and designers and find ways to work to support them.
Anonymous
2/20/2023 09:36 AM
See Above
Anonymous
2/20/2023 10:35 AM
sensitive to the need of property owner interms of cost and questionable requirements
Anonymous
2/20/2023 11:27 AM
I'd appreciate board members who understand good design. Who realize that forcing 8-foot plate heights across the board is poor design. They have to understand the cost implications of comments and recognize unique solutions.
Anonymous
2/20/2023 12:42 PM
abolish all design review altogether, or comment only on a project's conformance with zoning.
Anonymous
2/20/2023 12:38 PM
Board members should all be professionals. The citizen neighbor members always come with a political agenda and do not impartially consider the project. There should be encouragement from elected officials to appoint leaders in the field that have a pro SFDB Survey : Survey Report for 07 February 2023 to 23 February 2023
EXHIBIT F - SFDB Survey Report Page 664 of 767
Anonymous
2/20/2023 02:07 PM
Wait times to get in front of the board - more hearings and faster processing
Anonymous
2/20/2023 02:31 PM
Objectively apply design standards
Anonymous
2/20/2023 04:03 PM
Not have personal opinions on architecture or usefulness or “what a homeowner should be ok with”
Anonymous
2/20/2023 05:22 PM
Look for ways to have things approved administratively, look to speed up completeness review process, many resubmittals shouldn't need the full 30 days. The time and delays are the biggest issue we're having. Provide more objective standards.
Anonymous
2/20/2023 10:58 PM
The process is inequitable and exacerbating the housing crisis in Santa Barbara. As a result, people either go around the system or make no improvements which does not benefit our neighborhoods. I would do away with the board entirely.
Anonymous
2/20/2023 05:51 PM
More professional board members
Anonymous
2/20/2023 08:35 PM
Eliminate hearings for any project that meets building codes and zoning regulations. If hearings are required, public speakers should be limited to neighbors on lots directly adjacent. Speakers should be required to provide evidence of proximity
Anonymous
2/20/2023 09:02 PM
This process should take no more than 1-2 hours working with professionals. Stop with the theatrics and be professional.
Anonymous
2/20/2023 10:46 PM
When staff makes a mistake, the homeowner should not be the one to suffer the consequences.
Anonymous
2/21/2023 08:16 AM
add more projects to the consent agenda and look at what projects could be removed from the full board and/or what could be a staff level administrative design review pproval
Anonymous I would change that the SFDB cannot comment on architectural style.
SFDB Survey : Survey Report for 07 February 2023 to 23 February 2023
EXHIBIT F - SFDB Survey Report Page 665 of 767
2/21/2023 09:08 AM
Anonymous
2/21/2023 01:04 PM
The process of SFDB is draining to the creativity of the designer and architects. It limits the creativity and also reducing the chances of people completing project that would benefit the community.
Anonymous
2/21/2023 12:13 PM
The SFDB should focus on neighborhood/community compatibility, encourage good design, and be objectively open-minded to its many architectural styles and forms, whether or not a particular style is their personal preference.
Anonymous
2/21/2023 12:00 PM
Board's strict adherence to their purview (design guidelines), and staff correcting the board as required to help guide them back to their purview (not personal tangents straying from the guidelines).
Anonymous
2/21/2023 11:46 AM
Length of time
Anonymous
2/21/2023 12:28 PM
Faster processing
Anonymous
2/21/2023 01:39 PM
I'd eliminate it completely or make sure there is someone on there from SCiARC. And a lawyer.
Anonymous
2/21/2023 01:20 PM
Do not let opinions of others (neighbors) alter the requirements by the board. Hold everyone to the same standard no matter what a neighbor(s) think(s). Do not give power to the NIMBY's.
Anonymous
2/21/2023 02:22 PM
I would go directly to city council and not waist my time. I Anonymous
2/21/2023 02:04 PM
create a streamlined priority service for applicants who rank high in making complete quality applications to the City.
Anonymous
2/21/2023 02:29 PM
Pre-meetings with staff or members before project design completion, meeting prep.
Anonymous
2/21/2023 04:54 PM
Require staff planner to attend the hearing and do a staff report setting out the purview of the board and and encourage the board to SFDB Survey : Survey Report for 07 February 2023 to 23 February 2023
EXHIBIT F - SFDB Survey Report Page 666 of 767
stick to objective comments based on regulations rather than personal preference. Maintain decorum.
Anonymous
2/21/2023 05:27 PM
Require professional architects to be on the board who understand good design for all types of architecture that is appropriate for the site.
Anonymous
2/21/2023 07:10 PM
Clarity and specificity
Anonymous
2/21/2023 10:39 PM
The length of time and nitpicky comments associated with the process
Anonymous
2/22/2023 05:42 AM
Tell me the parameters on what will be an acceptable type of material to be used on roofs in Santa Barbara and we will attempt to adhere to this, but metal roofs are a viable eco friendly product that should not be outlawed.
Anonymous
2/22/2023 09:45 AM
SFDB should not hold the opinion that it is their job to make all projects better. The board should approve well designed projects without feeling that it is their obligation to suggest changes.
Anonymous
2/22/2023 11:19 AM
Fewer triggers to require SFDB
Anonymous
2/22/2023 10:57 AM
not have it
Anonymous
2/22/2023 12:36 PM
Reduce the submittal requirements, shorten & simplify the staff review process. The City has made this WAY too hard.
Anonymous
2/23/2023 12:30 PM
Number of meetings - limit to 2 or 3.
Optional question (189 response(s), 248 skipped)
Question type: Single Line Question
Q23 This survey is confidential. However, if you wish to be involved in future focus groups about SFDB process improvements, please provide your email address below.
SFDB Survey : Survey Report for 07 February 2023 to 23 February 2023
EXHIBIT F - SFDB Survey Report Page 667 of 767
Anonymous
2/08/2023 05:38 PM
Anonymous
2/09/2023 11:26 AM
Anonymous
2/09/2023 02:21 PM
Anonymous
2/09/2023 02:22 PM
Anonymous
2/09/2023 03:23 PM
Anonymous
2/09/2023 03:33 PM
Anonymous
2/09/2023 03:32 PM
Anonymous
2/09/2023 03:38 PM
Anonymous
2/09/2023 03:40 PM
Anonymous
2/09/2023 06:00 PM
Anonymous
2/09/2023 07:14 PM
Anonymous
2/09/2023 08:46 PM
Anonymous
2/09/2023 10:15 PM
Anonymous
SFDB Survey : Survey Report for 07 February 2023 to 23 February 2023
EXHIBIT F - SFDB Survey Report Page 668 of 767
2/10/2023 07:45 AM
Anonymous
2/10/2023 08:18 AM
Anonymous
2/10/2023 09:23 AM
Anonymous
2/10/2023 09:51 AM
Anonymous
2/10/2023 12:50 PM
Anonymous
2/10/2023 01:16 PM
Anonymous
2/10/2023 03:06 PM
Anonymous
2/10/2023 03:09 PM
Anonymous
2/10/2023 03:38 PM
Anonymous
2/10/2023 08:13 PM
Anonymous
2/12/2023 09:21 AM
Anonymous
2/12/2023 10:54 PM
Anonymous
2/13/2023 10:46 AM
Anonymous
2/13/2023 11:45 AM
SFDB Survey : Survey Report for 07 February 2023 to 23 February 2023
EXHIBIT F - SFDB Survey Report Page 669 of 767
Anonymous
2/13/2023 11:52 AM
Anonymous
2/13/2023 12:39 PM
Anonymous
2/13/2023 01:19 PM
Anonymous
2/13/2023 02:56 PM
Anonymous
2/13/2023 06:16 PM
Anonymous
2/15/2023 06:39 AM
Anonymous
2/15/2023 02:02 PM
Anonymous
2/15/2023 04:52 PM
Anonymous
2/15/2023 03:05 PM
Anonymous
2/15/2023 06:22 PM
Anonymous
2/16/2023 03:19 PM
Anonymous
2/16/2023 07:27 PM
Anonymous
2/19/2023 10:10 AM
Anonymous
2/19/2023 04:02 PM
SFDB Survey : Survey Report for 07 February 2023 to 23 February 2023
EXHIBIT F - SFDB Survey Report Page 670 of 767
Anonymous
2/19/2023 04:27 PM
Anonymous
2/20/2023 09:36 AM
Anonymous
2/20/2023 11:27 AM
Anonymous
2/20/2023 05:22 PM
Anonymous
2/21/2023 08:16 AM
Anonymous
2/21/2023 11:05 AM
Anonymous
2/21/2023 12:28 PM
Anonymous
2/21/2023 01:39 PM
Anonymous
2/21/2023 02:22 PM
Anonymous
2/21/2023 02:04 PM
Anonymous
2/21/2023 02:26 PM
Anonymous
2/21/2023 02:29 PM
Anonymous
2/21/2023 04:54 PM
Anonymous
2/21/2023 07:10 PM
SFDB Survey : Survey Report for 07 February 2023 to 23 February 2023
EXHIBIT F - SFDB Survey Report Page 671 of 767
Anonymous
2/22/2023 05:42 AM
Anonymous
2/22/2023 11:19 AM
Anonymous
2/22/2023 12:36 PM
Optional question (58 response(s), 379 skipped)
Question type: Email Question
SFDB Survey : Survey Report for 07 February 2023 to 23 February 2023
EXHIBIT F - SFDB Survey Report Page 672 of 767
Exhibit G
Single Family Streamlining Project
Proposed SFDB Guidelines
CITY OF SANTA BARBARA | SFDB Guidelines Page 1
SINGLE FAMILY DESIGN BOARD
GUIDELINES
January 2026 DRAFT
Prepared By
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
CITY OF SANTA BARBARA
CALIFORNIA
Originally Adopted in 2007
EXHIBIT G Page 673 of 767
Single Family Design Board Guidelines
CITY OF SANTA BARBARA | SFDB Guidelines Page 2
Revised 2025
Table of Contents
SINGLE FAMILY DESIGN BOARD GUIDELINES............................................................................................... 1 INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................................................... 10 Purpose of the SFDB Guidelines.................................................................................................... 10 Single Family Design Board Purpose ............................................................................................ 10 Single Family Design Board Background...................................................................................... 10 The SFDB is composed of five members.......................................................................... 10 Single Family Design Board Goals................................................................................................. 11 Relationship to Other Documents ................................................................................................ 11
1. General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan............................................................ 11
2. Municipal Code .................................................................................................... 12
3. Relationship to the Single Family Residence Design Guidelines....................... 12 Relationship to Other Guidelines.................................................................................................. 12
1. Related Guidelines............................................................................................... 12 SECTION 1: General Information................................................................................................................ 14
1.1 SFDB Jurisdiction .......................................................................................................................... 14
1.2 Levels of SFDB Review................................................................................................................... 15
1.2.1 Full Board Review............................................................................................................. 15
1.2.2 Consent Review ................................................................................................................ 15 Projects eligible for Consent Review include: ................................................................. 15
1.2.3 Administrative Design Review.......................................................................................... 16
1.3 Stages of Design Review................................................................................................................ 16
Exhibit G
Single Family Streamlining Project
Proposed SFDB Guidelines
Single Family Design Board Guidelines
CITY OF SANTA BARBARA | SFDB Guidelines Page 3
1.3.1 Pre-Application Consultation (One-Time, Optional)....................................................... 16 Purpose ............................................................................................................................. 16 When it Occurs .................................................................................................................. 16 Scope of Review................................................................................................................ 17 Submittal Requirements and Procedures ....................................................................... 17 Noticing and Appeals........................................................................................................ 17
1.3.2 Concept Design Review (Optional) .................................................................................. 17 Purpose ............................................................................................................................. 17 When it Occurs .................................................................................................................. 17 Recommended Project Types .......................................................................................... 17 Scope of Review................................................................................................................ 18 Submittal Requirements and Procedures ....................................................................... 18 Noticing and Appeals........................................................................................................ 18 Forwarding of Comments................................................................................................. 18
1.3.3 Project Design Review (Discretionary Action) ................................................................. 18 Purpose ............................................................................................................................. 18 When it Occurs .................................................................................................................. 18 Level of Plan Detail Required ........................................................................................... 19 Submittal Requirements and Procedures ....................................................................... 19 Noticing and Appeals........................................................................................................ 19 Next Steps After Approval ................................................................................................ 19
1.3.4 Post-Approval Actions, Generally .................................................................................... 19
1. Purpose ......................................................................................................................... 19
2. Major Changes............................................................................................................... 19
3. Minor Changes .............................................................................................................. 20
4. Noticing and Appeals.................................................................................................... 20
1.3.5 Final Design Review.......................................................................................................... 20
1. Purpose ......................................................................................................................... 20
Exhibit G
Single Family Streamlining Project
Proposed SFDB Guidelines
Single Family Design Board Guidelines
CITY OF SANTA BARBARA | SFDB Guidelines Page 4
2. When it Occurs .............................................................................................................. 20
3. Scope of Review............................................................................................................ 20
4. Submittal Requirements and Procedures ................................................................... 20
5. Noticing and Appeals.................................................................................................... 21
1.3.6 Review After Final ............................................................................................................. 21
1. Purpose ........................................................................................................................ 21
2. Scope of Review............................................................................................................ 21
3. Submittal Requirements .............................................................................................. 21
4. Procedures .................................................................................................................... 21
5. Noticing and Appeals.................................................................................................... 21
1.3 7 Determining Substantial Conformance .......................................................................... 21 SECTION 2: Meeting Procedures ................................................................................................................ 23
2.1 General Information and Procedures.................................................................................................. 23
2.1.1 Meeting Dates and Location............................................................................................. 23
2.1.2 Notice and Posting ........................................................................................................... 24
2.1.3 Staff Contact..................................................................................................................... 24
2.2 Agenda Organization ........................................................................................................................ 24
2.3 Public Notice.................................................................................................................................. 25
2.3.1 Consent and Full Board Items.......................................................................................... 25
2.4 Project Presentation and Plan Substitution................................................................................. 25
2.4.1 Project Presentation by the Applicant............................................................................. 25
2.4.2 Plan Substitution.............................................................................................................. 25
2.5 Public Meeting and Public Comment............................................................................................ 26
Exhibit G
Single Family Streamlining Project
Proposed SFDB Guidelines
Single Family Design Board Guidelines
CITY OF SANTA BARBARA | SFDB Guidelines Page 5
2.5.1 Procedure.......................................................................................................................... 26
2.5.2 Public Comment Topics ................................................................................................... 26
2.6 Scope of Project Review ............................................................................................................... 27
2.6.1 Standard Review............................................................................................................... 27
2.6.2 Focused Review – Fences and Walls ................................................................................ 27 Construction Without Permit (“As-Built”) ....................................................................... 27
2.6.3 California Government Code Provisions Regarding Manufactured Homes ................... 27
2.7 SFDB Role in Commenting on Zoning Modifications ................................................................... 28
2.7.1 Modifications, Generally................................................................................................... 28
2.7.2 Zoning Modifications of Open Yard.................................................................................. 28
2.8 Subdivision Grading Plan Considerations .................................................................................... 28
2.9 Historic Significance Evaluation – All Structures ......................................................................... 29
2.10 Procedure for Continuances, Postponements, Referrals, and Absences.................................... 30
2.10.1 Continuances ................................................................................................................... 30
2.10.2 Postponements ................................................................................................................ 30
2.10.3 Referral from Consent Calendar to Full Board. ............................................................... 30
2.11 Decisions ........................................................................................................................................... 31
2.11.1 Project Approvals............................................................................................................. 31
2.11.2 Project Denials.................................................................................................................. 31
2.12 Appeals, Extensions, and Expiration of Approval......................................................................... 31
2.12.1 Time Limits & Extensions on Approvals........................................................................... 31
2.12.2 Appeal of SFDB Decision .................................................................................................. 31
Exhibit G
Single Family Streamlining Project
Proposed SFDB Guidelines
Single Family Design Board Guidelines
CITY OF SANTA BARBARA | SFDB Guidelines Page 6
2.12.3 Re-Filing a Denied Project Design .................................................................................... 31 Section 3: Meeting Conduct for SFDB Members ........................................................................................ 32
3.1 Officer Election .............................................................................................................................. 32
3.2 Subcommittees/Advisory Committees......................................................................................... 32
3.3 General Meeting Conduct.............................................................................................................. 32 SECTION 4: Submittal Requirements and Visual Aids ............................................................................. 35
4.1 Application Submittal Requirements ........................................................................................... 35
4.1.1 Standard Submittal Requirements.................................................................................. 35
4.1.2 Additional Submittal Requirements Related to FAR Maximum...................................... 36
4.1.3 Additional Submittal Requirements for Projects over 250 Cubic Yards of Grading....... 37
4.2 Visual Aids: Purpose & Definitions ................................................................................................ 37
4.2.1 Purpose ............................................................................................................................. 37
4.2.2 Definitions ......................................................................................................................... 37
4.3 Types of Visual Aids. ...................................................................................................................... 37
4.3.1 Photo Simulations ............................................................................................................ 37
4.3.2 Panoramic Streetscape Elevations .................................................................................. 38
4.3.3 Three-Dimensional Massing Model.................................................................................. 38
4.3.4 Perspective Drawings ....................................................................................................... 39
4.3.5 Comparative Building Study ............................................................................................ 39
4.3.6 Story Poles ........................................................................................................................ 39
4.3.7 Waiving Story Pole Requirements.................................................................................... 39
Exhibit G
Single Family Streamlining Project
Proposed SFDB Guidelines
Single Family Design Board Guidelines
CITY OF SANTA BARBARA | SFDB Guidelines Page 7
4.4 Levels of Story Pole Installations .................................................................................................. 40
4.4.1 Full Level ........................................................................................................................... 40
4.4.2 Standard Level.................................................................................................................. 40
4.4.3 Basic Level ........................................................................................................................ 40 SECTION 5: Landscape Design Guidelines ................................................................................................. 41
5.1 Purpose .......................................................................................................................................... 41
5.2 Landscape Plan Applicability and Requirements......................................................................... 42
5.2.1 Applicability ...................................................................................................................... 42 Landscape Plan Contents................................................................................................. 42
5.2.3 Landscape Plan Preparation Licensing Requirements ................................................... 42
1. License Required ................................................................................................. 42
2. No License Required............................................................................................ 43
5.3 General Landscape Design Guidelines.......................................................................................... 43
5.3.1 Site Layout and Massing................................................................................................... 44
5.3.2 Plant Selection.................................................................................................................. 44
5.3.3 Sustainability Principles................................................................................................... 45
5.3.4 Street and Driveway Design ............................................................................................ 46
5.4 Tree Preservation .......................................................................................................................... 47
5.4.1 General Tree Replacement Standards ................................................................................ 47
5.4.2 Tree Protection and Replacement Standards................................................................... 48
5.5 Definitions ...................................................................................................................................... 49
5.5.1 Original Planting Purpose: ............................................................................................... 49
5.5.2 Substantially Similar Tree or Landscaping Replacement:.............................................. 49
Exhibit G
Single Family Streamlining Project
Proposed SFDB Guidelines
Single Family Design Board Guidelines
CITY OF SANTA BARBARA | SFDB Guidelines Page 8
5.6 Special Areas.................................................................................................................................. 50
5.6.1 Hillside Residential Landscape Design ............................................................................ 50
5.6.2 Creeks and Wetlands ........................................................................................................ 51
5.6.3 High Fire Hazard Area Landscape Design ........................................................................ 51 SECTION 6: Administrative Approval Standards ....................................................................................... 52
6.1 Administrative Approval Procedures............................................................................................ 52
6.1.1 Procedure.......................................................................................................................... 52
6.2 General Administrative Approval Standards ................................................................................ 53
6.3 Project-Specific Administrative Approval Standards................................................................... 55
6.3.1 Accessory Buildings (Excluding accessory dwelling units) ............................................. 55
6.3.2 Additions: First Story ........................................................................................................ 56
6.3.3 Additions: Second or Higher Story ....................................................................................... 56
6.3.4 Awnings ............................................................................................................................. 57
6.3.5 Chimneys .......................................................................................................................... 57
6.3.6 Color Changes: Exterior.................................................................................................... 57
6.3.7 Decks ................................................................................................................................. 57
6.3.8 Doors ................................................................................................................................. 58
6.3.9 Fences and Site Walls (Excluding Retaining Walls) ......................................................... 58
6.3.10 Hardscape and Landscape Alterations, Including Grading ............................................ 59
6.3.11 Lighting: Exterior .............................................................................................................. 59
6.3.12 Mechanical Equipment: General...................................................................................... 59
6.3.13 Mechanical Equipment: Rooftop ..................................................................................... 60
6.3.14 Pools and Spas.................................................................................................................. 60
6.3.15 Porches ............................................................................................................................. 60
6.3.16 Retaining Walls ................................................................................................................. 61
Exhibit G
Single Family Streamlining Project
Proposed SFDB Guidelines
Single Family Design Board Guidelines
CITY OF SANTA BARBARA | SFDB Guidelines Page 9
6.3.17 Roofs and Reroofs............................................................................................................. 61
6.3.17 Screening and Screening Waivers.................................................................................... 62
6.3.18 Skylights............................................................................................................................ 62
6.3.19 Tree Removal.................................................................................................................... 62
6.3.20 Tree Removal, Emergency/Hazardous ............................................................................ 63
6.3.21 Trellises, Pergolas, Patio Covers, and Sunshades ........................................................... 64
6.3.22 Windows ............................................................................................................................ 64
6.4 Definitions ...................................................................................................................................... 65
6.4.1 Publicly Visible.................................................................................................................. 65
6.4.2 Special Design Window .................................................................................................... 65
6.4.3 Skyline Tree ...................................................................................................................... 65
Exhibit G
Single Family Streamlining Project
Proposed SFDB Guidelines
Single Family Design Board Guidelines
CITY OF SANTA BARBARA | SFDB Guidelines Page 10
INTRODUCTION
Purpose of the SFDB Guidelines
The Single Family Design Board (SFDB) Guidelines are established to uphold high design standards for singleunit residential development in the City of Santa Barbara. They clarify the SFDB’s goals and policies for applicants, design professionals, and the public, and guide the application review process.
These Guidelines are intended to provide direction for SFDB members, City staff, and the public. While they are not legally binding, they serve as an important tool in the design review process. Failure to meet the Guidelines may form a basis for denial of the design of a project; however, noncompliance does not invalidate SFDB actions or constitute grounds for legal claims against the City or its representatives.
Per City Council Resolution No. 07-032, the Community Development Director may make minor or clarifying edits to the Single Family Residence Design Guidelines or the Single Family Design Board Guidelines—such as correcting formatting, updating references, or clarifying language—in consultation with the City Attorney.
These amendments do not require City Council adoption.
Nothing in these Guidelines shall be interpreted in a manner contrary to State law or the Santa Barbara Municipal Code. In the event of a conflict, State law or the Municipal Code shall prevail.
Single Family Design Board Purpose
Single-family homes have long contributed to the character of Santa Barbara’s neighborhoods. The SFDB is charged with ensuring new and remodeled homes are completed with high-quality designs that are compatible with the surrounding neighborhood, preserve the City’s visual resources, promote long-term sustainability, and contribute to a desirable living environment.
For more on the SFDB’s goals related to infill development, hillside neighborhoods, neighborhood compatibility, and sustainability, see the “Introduction” section of the Single Family Residence Design Guidelines.
Single Family Design Board Background
The SFDB was established by ordinance on June 8, 2007, following the Neighborhood Preservation Ordinance (NPO) and Single Family Residence Design Guidelines Update, which began in 2004. The SFDB is responsible for reviewing single-unit residential projects to ensure they are compatible with neighborhood character and design standards.
The SFDB is composed of five members.
• At least one member shall be a licensed architect.
• Up to three members of the public at large may be appointed who do not possess professional qualifications in fields related to architecture.
Exhibit G
Single Family Streamlining Project
Proposed SFDB Guidelines
Single Family Design Board Guidelines
CITY OF SANTA BARBARA | SFDB Guidelines Page 11
• The 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.
Single Family Design Board Goals
The SFDB is guided by a set of general goals that define the major concerns and objectives of its review process. These goals are:
• Ensure development is compatible with the site and the neighborhood; • Enhance neighborhood character by fostering quality and diversity in architectural styles; • Promote high standards in architectural and landscape design and the construction of aesthetically pleasing structures;
• Ensure new development does not significantly impact adjacent historic resources; • Ensure new development does not significantly impact the beauty of Santa Barbara’s natural and built resources; and
• Preserve public scenic views of the ocean and mountains.
The SFDB reviews single-unit residential projects to ensure they are compatible in size and design with their surrounding neighborhoods. In Santa Barbara―where topography, architectural variety, and zoning regulations vary widely― compatibility doesn’t mean uniformity. A home may differ in size or style and still be appropriate if it respects neighborhood patterns and character.
The SFDB evaluates each project holistically, considering massing, scale, materials, site planning, and architectural consistency. While no specific architectural style is required, proposed designs must be highquality and well-executed examples of their chosen styles. Common styles include Craftsman, Spanish Colonial Revival, Mediterranean, Victorian, Cottage, and Contemporary.
Applicants are encouraged to consult the Neighborhood Compatibility Guidelines (starting on page 15-C of the Single Family Residence Design Guidelines) and consider the Neighborhood Compatibility Findings in SBMC §30.220.040.E.
Relationship to Other Documents
1. General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan
The Santa Barbara General Plan provides policies related to visual quality, neighborhood compatibility, and protection of historic resources. It describes the character of individual neighborhoods and sets a vision for promoting sustainable community design. The Coastal Land Use Plan governs land use within the Coastal Zone including policies on coastal access, coastal resource protection, scenic resources, and
Exhibit G
Single Family Streamlining Project
Proposed SFDB Guidelines
Single Family Design Board Guidelines
CITY OF SANTA BARBARA | SFDB Guidelines Page 12
public scenic views. The Zoning Ordinance and SFDB Guidelines help implement the goals of the General Plan and Coastal Plan.
2. Municipal Code
The Municipal Code established mandatory development standards. These Guidelines are intended to supplement the Municipal Code by offering additional detail and design direction.
Refer to SBMC Chapter 30.220, Design Review, for the SFDB ordinance, including:
• Projects requiring SFDB review,
• Required findings for approval,
• Projects requiring a mailed notice
Procedures for the processing of all planning applications, including noticing procedures, can be found in SBMC Chapter 30.205, Common Procedures.
3. Relationship to the Single Family Residence Design Guidelines While the SFDB Guidelines focus on Board operations and procedures, the separate Single Family Residence Design Guidelines provide and the primary design criteria for appropriate single-unit residential development throughout the City. The Single Family Residence Design Guidelines are instructive rather than obligatory but should inform the SFDB’s required findings to approve or disapprove projects. The Single Family Residence Design Guidelines include illustrative examples and cover topics such as architectural style, massing, and site planning.
Some design topics―such as historic building information and landscape design―are addressed in these SFDB Guidelines but not in the Single Family Residence Design Guidelines.
Relationship to Other Guidelines
Several other city-adopted guidelines provide additional direction regarding architectural appearance, site design, and landscape. These SFDB Guidelines are generally consistent with those documents but may offer more detail on certain topics. If a conflict arises, the guidelines specific to the area or subject matter prevails.
1. Related Guidelines
Fence, Screen, Wall, and Hedge Guidelines: Explains Coastal Zone standards for exceptions to height standards for fences, screens, walls and hedges.
Historic Resource Design Guidelines: Guides design near historic resources to avoid negative impacts.
Lower Riviera Special Design District Guidelines: Ensures compatibility with the existing pattern of pedestrian-friendly bungalow character of the district.
Exhibit G
Single Family Streamlining Project
Proposed SFDB Guidelines
Single Family Design Board Guidelines
CITY OF SANTA BARBARA | SFDB Guidelines Page 13
Outdoor Lighting & Streetlight Design Guidelines: Outdoor lighting standards to minimize glare and light trespass.
Upper State Street Area Design Guidelines: Describes the different Upper State Street area neighborhoods and assists the public in designing projects to be compatible with those neighborhoods.
Urban Design Guidelines: Promotes traditional design principles and pedestrian-friendly development in the urban grid.
Exhibit G
Single Family Streamlining Project
Proposed SFDB Guidelines
Single Family Design Board Guidelines
CITY OF SANTA BARBARA | SFDB Guidelines Page 14
SECTION 1: General Information
1.1 SFDB Jurisdiction
Projects on a lot with one single-family residential unit or related accessory structures in any zone are subject to SFDB review pursuant to SBMC §30.220.040.
Projects involving designated and potentially historic homes and homes in Historic District Overlay Zones that would otherwise be subject to review by the SFDB are referred to the Historic Landmarks Commission pursuant to SBMC §30.220.020.
SFDB’s purview includes building and site design and does not include land use issues. Building design includes building size, bulk, height, massing, scale, architectural style, and exterior finish materials. Site design includes the placement of buildings on a lot, public views, vehicle access and circulation, pedestrian circulation, parking placement and design, landscaping, and other similar issues, including any topic in these guidelines and other applicable design guidelines.
Topics that are not within SFDB’s purview and should not be discussed at public meetings include private views; residential density; the number of bedrooms per residence; the number of parking spaces; traffic and congestion impacts; and construction impacts. See Section 2.5 of these guidelines for information on providing public comment on topics within SFDB’s purview.
Exhibit G
Single Family Streamlining Project
Proposed SFDB Guidelines
Single Family Design Board Guidelines
CITY OF SANTA BARBARA | SFDB Guidelines Page 15
1.2 Levels of SFDB Review
To ensure an efficient and effective design review process, the Single Family Design Board (SFDB) uses different levels of review based on the scale, complexity, and potential neighborhood impact of a project. This tiered approach allows the Board to focus its time and resources on projects that warrant more detailed scrutiny, while allowing simpler or lower-impact proposals to be reviewed more quickly through streamlined procedures.
1.2.1 Full Board Review
Full Board is the standard level of SFDB review and is conducted by a quorum of at least 3 members, with up to 5 members participating. The Full Board reviews larger or more complex single-unit residential projects including:
• Subdivision grading plans subject to Planning Commission or Public Works review. • Construction of a new single unit residence.
• Upper-story additions that exceed 500 square feet or result in a second or higher story where one does not currently exist.
• Projects that exceed the maximum allowable floor area ratio (FAR) for the lot size as defined in SBMC §30.20.030.
• Significant site work and grading more than 250 cubic yards of cut or fill or grading on slopes exceeding 20%.
The Full Board may refer a project to Consent Review or Administrative Design Review when appropriate.
1.2.2 Consent Review Consent Review is intended for minor projects that do not meet the criteria for Administrative Approval but are unlikely to result in significant visual or neighborhood impacts. One SFDB member, assisted by Staff, conducts the review. Decisions are subject to ratification by the Full Board. The SFDB Consent reviewer may refer an item from the Consent Calendar to the Full Board for consideration, or to the Director for an Administrative Design Review decision, when appropriate.
Projects eligible for Consent Review include:
• Additions of 500 square feet or less to existing single-unit residences that do not result in a new story or exceed the maximum floor area ratio (FAR). • Minor exterior alterations, such as window or door changes, new roof materials, or façade modifications.
• Accessory structures (e.g., garages, carports, sheds) 500 square feet or less.
Exhibit G
Single Family Streamlining Project
Proposed SFDB Guidelines
Single Family Design Board Guidelines
CITY OF SANTA BARBARA | SFDB Guidelines Page 16
• Site work involving less than 250 cubic yards of grading and not located on slopes exceeding 20%;
• Landscape changes.
• Any request for a design or development standards waiver, Minor Zoning Exception, or similar allowance, whenever a Design Review body is specified as the Review Authority.
1.2.3 Administrative Design Review
Some minor projects may be approved ministerially by the Community Development Director or their designee without SFDB review. The Community Development Director has the authority to refer any project to the SFDB Consent or Full Board agenda if:
• The project has the potential to have an adverse effect on the architectural integrity of the building, structure or surrounding property, or
• The project does not appear to comply with the Single Family Residence Design Guidelines. • Projects eligible for Administrative Staff review are listed in Section 6 of these Guidelines.
1.3 Stages of Design Review.
The City of Santa Barbara’s design review process is organized into stages that follow the natural life cycle of a project. This structure encourages early feedback, allows for coordination with land use decision-makers, and verifies design consistency at key points in the process—from initial concepts through final construction details.
For detailed submittal requirements at each stage, visit the City’s website at SantaBarbaraCA.gov.
1.3.1 Pre-Application Consultation (One-Time, Optional) Purpose
The Pre-Application Consultation provides an informal opportunity for applicants to receive early, non-binding advisement prior to submitting a Planning Application. Unlike Concept Review, which involves more developed plans, this consultation is intended to guide applicants at the earliest stage of project planning.
When it Occurs
This consultation is scheduled on the next available agenda and takes place prior to a full Planning Application submittal. Only one hearing will be scheduled per pre-application submittal.
Exhibit G
Single Family Streamlining Project
Proposed SFDB Guidelines
Single Family Design Board Guidelines
CITY OF SANTA BARBARA | SFDB Guidelines Page 17
Scope of Review
The SFDB provides broad, preliminary feedback on overall site planning, building placement, massing, scale, and general architectural character. Comments may also highlight potential neighborhood compatibility issues such as privacy, views, or streetscape presence.
Submittal Requirements and Procedures
Applicants must submit a separate pre-application prior to filing a full Planning Application. Sketches or conceptual plans are encouraged. Applications will be processed in accordance with SBMC §30.205.030, Pre-Application Review. Plans submitted for a Pre-Application Consultation are not reviewed for completeness or consistency with the Municipal Code.
Noticing and Appeals
Although mailed noticing is required, Pre-Application Consultation is not a discretionary action. No formal action is taken, and the review is not appealable.
1.3.2 Concept Design Review (Optional)
Purpose
Concept Design Review provides applicants and the community with an early opportunity to evaluate the fundamental design approach of a project before significant resources are invested in detailed plans. The intent is to identify potential issues, provide constructive guidance, and reduce the likelihood of costly redesigns later in the process.
When it Occurs
Concept Review is an optional review stage available after a full Planning Application is submitted but before the application is reviewed for completeness or consistency with the Municipal Code. Unlike the Pre-Application Consultation, which occurs prior to application submittal, Concept Review allows for a more detailed evaluation of the proposed project against applicable City standards and design guidelines.
Recommended Project Types
Concept Review is encouraged for:
• New single unit residences.
• Additions exceeding 500 sq. ft. or 50% of the existing structure. • Projects involving height or massing changes, such as second‑story additions. • Projects with potential impacts on privacy, views, or neighborhood character.
Exhibit G
Single Family Streamlining Project
Proposed SFDB Guidelines
Single Family Design Board Guidelines
CITY OF SANTA BARBARA | SFDB Guidelines Page 18
• Projects requiring discretionary land use approvals by the Staff Hearing Officer, Planning Commission, or City Council.
Scope of Review
The SFDB considers site layout, building orientation, architectural style, compatibility with surrounding development, and consistency with the Single Family Residence Design Guidelines.
Unlike the one‑time Pre‑Application Consultation, Concept Review can occur more than once if needed. However, applicants are encouraged to incorporate feedback received during this stage to support a more efficient review process and avoid more than two Concept Review hearings.
Submittal Requirements and Procedures
To request Concept Review, applicants submit a Planning Application and indicate that a Concept Review hearing is requested. Applications will be processed in accordance with SBMC §30.205.040, Concept Review. Projects with unresolved major zoning issues or policy inconsistencies that require a redesign will not be scheduled for a Concept Review until those issues have been addressed.
Noticing and Appeals
Although mailed noticing is required, Concept Review is not a discretionary action. No formal action is taken, and the review is not appealable.
Forwarding of Comments
If a project requires discretionary land use approval, Concept Review comments are included in the minutes forwarded to the appropriate decision‑making body.
1.3.3 Project Design Review (Discretionary Action)
Purpose
Project Design Review is the primary stage of the Design Review process, in which the design of a project is evaluated for compatibility with its surroundings, massing, proportion, siting, and compliance with applicable design guidelines. Project Design Review constitutes the City’s discretionary Design Review decision under the State Permit Streamlining Act (Government Code Section 65950 et seq.). Approval at this stage is referred to as Project Design Approval.
When it Occurs
This stage occurs once the application is deemed complete, consistent with development standards, and environmental review has been completed. For projects requiring discretionary land use approval, Project Design Review will only be scheduled after the final land use decision has been made, and plans must reflect all applicable conditions of approval.
Exhibit G
Single Family Streamlining Project
Proposed SFDB Guidelines
Single Family Design Board Guidelines
CITY OF SANTA BARBARA | SFDB Guidelines Page 19
Level of Plan Detail Required
Plans must include sufficient detail for the SFDB to evaluate design quality and consistency with applicable guidelines. Required components include site plan and orientation, architectural elevations and materials, landscape plans, exterior lighting, window and door specifications, and roofing and finish materials. Construction‑level drawings are not required unless they affect exterior design or are specifically requested.
Submittal Requirements and Procedures
To request Project Design Review, applicants submit a Planning Application and indicate that a Project Design Review hearing is requested. If Concept Review was requested, applicants may resubmit on the same application for Project Design Review after positive Concept Review comments are received. Applications shall be processed in accordance with SBMC §30.205.050, Review of Discretionary Applications.
Noticing and Appeals
Mailed noticing is required for certain projects pursuant to the Santa Barbara Municipal Code. The SFDB’s Project Design Review decision is a discretionary action and is appealable to the Planning Commission.
Next Steps After Approval
Following Project Design Approval, applicants may submit for a building permit.
1.3.4 Post-Approval Actions, Generally
1. Purpose
Post-approval actions are decisions or reviews that occur after Project Design Approval has been granted, as described below. The purpose of Post-Approval Actions is to confirm that the final construction documents and any subsequent changes remain consistent with the design approved by the SFDB. This stage ensures that the details of colors, materials, lighting, landscaping, and grading faithfully reflect the approved design intent, and that any revisions are evaluated for substantial conformance.
2. Major Changes
Major changes to an approved project, as determined by the Director not to be in substantial conformance with the Project Design Approval, will be referred to the Design Review body for a revised Project Design Approval, consistent with SBMC §30.205.130, Changes to Approved Plans.
Exhibit G
Single Family Streamlining Project
Proposed SFDB Guidelines
Single Family Design Board Guidelines
CITY OF SANTA BARBARA | SFDB Guidelines Page 20
3. Minor Changes
Minor changes to an approved project will either be acted on by the Director or referred to the Design Review body for a decision.
4. Noticing and Appeals
No mailed noticing is required. Decisions of the SFDB on any post-approval hearing may only be appealed by the applicant to the Planning Commission. Decisions of the Director are final and not appealable.
1.3.5 Final Design Review
1. Purpose
Final Design Review is the formal confirmation that completed working construction drawings are in substantial conformance with the plans granted Project Design Approval. This stage ensures that all final details are consistent with the approved design intent and that all conditions of approval have been incorporated prior to issuance of a building permit. Approval at this stage is referred to as Final Approval.
2. When it Occurs
This stage occurs after Project Design Approval and concurrently with building permit plan check. The Director may refer an application to SFDB for Final Design Review if the Director determines it necessary to ensure substantial conformance to the Project Design Approval or to verify final details.
3. Scope of Review
The SFDB or Community Development Director reviews the completed construction drawings to verify:
• Substantial conformance with Project Design Approval. • Inclusion of all conditions of approval (if applicable). • Completeness of final details such as colors, materials, door hardware, and exterior lighting fixtures.
4. Submittal Requirements and Procedures
Applicants must submit completed working drawings with all details, color and material samples, exterior door hardware, fenestration, exterior light fixtures, final site grading and drainage, and final landscape and irrigation plans. All applicable Conditions of Approval shall be included on the plans.
Designated Planning staff review all building permit applications subject to Design Review for compliance with the approved plans and conditions, in accordance with SBMC Chapter 30.280, Zoning Clearance.
Exhibit G
Single Family Streamlining Project
Proposed SFDB Guidelines
Single Family Design Board Guidelines
CITY OF SANTA BARBARA | SFDB Guidelines Page 21
5. Noticing and Appeals
No mailed noticing is required. Decisions of the SFDB on any Final Design Review hearing may only be appealed by the applicant to the Planning Commission.
1.3.6 Review After Final
1. Purpose
Review After Final Approval provides a formal process for evaluating proposed changes to a project after Final Approval has been granted. The intent is to ensure that any modifications remain consistent with the approved design intent and are clearly documented for the record.
2. Scope of Review
The review is limited to the proposed changes. The SFDB or Community Development Director evaluates whether the revisions are in substantial conformance with the Project Design Approval and Final Approval. If the changes are not clearly shown on the submitted drawings, they cannot be construed as approved.
3. Submittal Requirements
Applicants must submit revised plans that clearly delineate all proposed changes. Plans must include sufficient information to demonstrate how the changes affect the approved design. A Review After Final Approval submittal is subject to additional fees.
4. Procedures
Applications are processed in accordance with Chapter 30.205.155, Review of Administrative Applications. Minor changes may be acted on by the Director; more significant changes may be referred to the SFDB for action.
5. Noticing and Appeals
Review After Final Approval is not a new discretionary action. No mailed noticing is required.
Decisions are final and not appealable, except where referral to the SFDB results in a new discretionary action.
1.3.7 Determining Substantial Conformance In determining whether a change to an approved project is in substantial conformance with the approved project, the Community Development Director considers broad issues such as whether the project was subject to controversy, whether the scope of the proposed changes are separate from the original approval and constitutes a new project, and whether the proposed changes would alter the public’s perception of the project. In addition to these broad considerations, all of the following criteria must be
Exhibit G
Single Family Streamlining Project
Proposed SFDB Guidelines
Single Family Design Board Guidelines
CITY OF SANTA BARBARA | SFDB Guidelines Page 22
met in order to determine that the revised project is in substantial conformance with the approved project.
Table 1.3.H7 – Determining Substantial Conformance to Approved Plans Issue Substantial Conformance Criteria
Conditions of
Approval
Does not conflict with findings or conditions of approval made by the SFDB or Planning Commission on appeal.
Height For residences less than 25 feet in height, does not result in an overall height which is greater than one foot above the approved height and does not exceed a maximum of 25 feet. For residences between 25 and 30 feet in height, the revised project does not increase the height by more than 4 inches above the approved height. Projects that exceed the height approved by SFDB or Planning Commission on appeal where height was identified as an issue by the appellant or decision maker are not eligible for substantial conformance. In no case shall the building height exceed the maximum building height allowed by the zoning ordinance.
Floor Area Does not add more than 150 50 square feet to the approved net floor area.
Grading Does not result in an increase in grading outside the building footprint greater than 25 cubic yards more than the quantities shown on the approved plans.
Environmental
Studies
Alterations do not occur in any biologically sensitive area as identified in the City’s MAPS database, unless a technical study prepared by a qualified consultant indicates that the alterations will not have an adverse environmental impact. Does not result in environmental effects not analyzed or discussed at the approval process and does not result in new mitigation measures.
Trees Any proposed tree removal is consistent with the Administrative Approval Standards for tree removals in Section 6.3.T of these guidelines.
Privacy Alterations do not result in new or enlarged window or door openings within interior setbacks. Any new or expanded decks or patios are located outside the setbacks.
Exhibit G
Single Family Streamlining Project
Proposed SFDB Guidelines
Single Family Design Board Guidelines
CITY OF SANTA BARBARA | SFDB Guidelines Page 23
SECTION 2: Meeting Procedures
2.1 General Information and Procedures
2.1.1 Meeting Dates and Location
Full Board SFDB meetings occur every other Monday at 3:00 P.M. in the David Gebhard Public Meeting Room, 630 Garden Street, Santa Barbara, California. Full Board SFDB meetings are televised live on the local Government Access channel and on YouTube.com. Full Board agenda items are scheduled as time-certain with the final item usually scheduled for no later than 8:00 P.M. Please note that changes may occur to the meeting agendas due to postponement of items as described in Section 2.10.
The SFDB Consent Calendar review occurs at 11:00 A.M. every Monday and it is held in the David Gebhard Public Meeting Room, 630 Garden Street, Santa Barbara, California. SFDB Consent meetings are not televised.
If a holiday falls on a Monday, meetings will be held on the following Tuesday or at the discretion of the Board. Occasionally there is a need to cancel a regular meeting or to hold a special meeting.
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if special assistance is needed to participate in an SFDB meeting, the Planning Division should be contacted at (805) 564-5470. Notification at least 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements.
Exhibit G
Single Family Streamlining Project
Proposed SFDB Guidelines
Single Family Design Board Guidelines
CITY OF SANTA BARBARA | SFDB Guidelines Page 24
2.1.2 Notice and Posting
Both the Full Board agenda and Consent Calendar are posted for public review at 630 Garden Street adjacent to the David Gebhard Public Meeting Room. Agendas and minutes are also available on the Community Development Department’s website at www.santabarbaraca.gov/sfdb.
2.1.3 Staff Contact
Community Development Department
Planning Division
630 Garden Street
Phone: (805) 564-5470
Website: www.santabarbaraca.gov
Email: [email protected]
2.2 Agenda Organization
Full Board meeting agendas are organized on an approximate "time certain" basis. An item cannot be heard more than 15 minutes before its scheduled time on the agenda. The following agenda order usually applies.
A. General Business
1. General Public Comment.
2. Approval of minutes.
3. Ratification of Consent Calendar Actions.
4. Announcements: Announcements such as requests by applicants for continuances and withdrawals, and future agenda items.
B. Discussion Items
C. Appeals Referred Back to SFDB from Planning Commission D. One-Time Pre-Application Consultation
E. Concept Review (continued items first, followed by new items) F. Project Design Approval (continued items first, followed by new items) G. Revised Project Design Approval
H. Items Referred from the Community Development Director I. Items Referred from Consent
J. Subcommittee Reports: Standing and Ad Hoc Subcommittees. (These reports are brief announcements and do not involve general SFDB discussion or actions. If members wish to discuss
Exhibit G
Single Family Streamlining Project
Proposed SFDB Guidelines
Single Family Design Board Guidelines
CITY OF SANTA BARBARA | SFDB Guidelines Page 25
the substance of a subcommittee report, members must request that staff properly agendize the topic under “Discussion Items” at a future meeting of the SFDB.) Note that the agenda order and item times are subject to change in that an item may be heard either earlier or later than noted in the approximate schedule. It is recommended that people arrive at least 15 minutes before the approximate time for their item of interest because the actual timing of items is subject to change based on the length of other agenda items. Applicants who arrive late for their scheduled agenda item may have their project postponed indefinitely unless the SFDB agrees to hear the item and if time permits. It is the applicant’s responsibility to request that staff reschedule the item for consideration.
2.3 Public Notice
2.3.1 Consent and Full Board Items
Some projects require a public mailed notice for the meeting at SFDB. The purpose of this notice is to provide an opportunity for adjacent property owners and occupants to comment on development proposals that may impact their property. When a noticed hearing is required, written notice of the hearing is mailed to the applicant, the owners and occupants of any lot within 300 feet of the project site and interested parties in the City database. In addition to the required mailed notice, the City may request a “Notice of Development” sign to be posted on the site of the proposed project. If a project requires another land use decision by the City Council, Planning Commission, or Staff Hearing Officer, the notice for the first Design Review hearing shall comply with the notice requirements for that hearing body. (See Santa Barbara Municipal Code §30.220.005.D for the types of applications that require a noticed hearing and the specific noticing requirements.) If the Community Development Director determines that plan substitutions constitute a substantial change from the previously noticed plan (including, but not limited to, changes to the project’s, size, bulk, scale, form, or design), the Community Development Director may require the project to be renoticed for another hearing. The Community Development Director will also require an additional noticing fee to be paid by the applicant in these cases.
2.4 Project Presentation and Plan Substitution
2.4.1 Project Presentation by the Applicant
Consent and Full Board projects require applicant presentation of the project. If no one is available to present an item on behalf of the applicant, the agenda item shall be continued to a date certain.
2.4.2 Plan Substitution
Plans originally submitted and filed for a particular meeting or review are not allowed to be substituted by applicants at the time of the scheduled meeting date. Plan substitutions (also known as “slip sheets”) must be submitted at least one week in advance of the hearing date and are subject
Exhibit G
Single Family Streamlining Project
Proposed SFDB Guidelines
Single Family Design Board Guidelines
CITY OF SANTA BARBARA | SFDB Guidelines Page 26
to Community Development Director acceptance for review. This policy is intended to ensure that approvals are not obtained without proper Staff oversight and to ensure an adequate opportunity for public review prior to the meeting.
2.5 Public Meeting and Public Comment
2.5.1 Procedure Each regular meeting of the SFDB includes an opportunity for general public comment, which is limited to items not on the meeting agenda, and an opportunity for item-specific public comment for each agenda item. The Chair will announce the opportunity for item-specific public comment prior to SFDB questions and comments on the project. The SFDB Secretary will call on members of the public who have submitted requests to speak or who have indicated they wish to speak on the virtual meeting platform (for Full Board only). Speakers who wish to comment on a project are limited to no more than two minutes. The SFDB Chair may reduce the two minute public comment time based on the number of people who wish to speak and the length of the agenda.
2.5.2 Public Comment Topics
The City recommends that interested neighbors work together either to organize their comments or to select one person to represent the neighborhood and speak on the group’s behalf. The following examples of public comment types are appropriate:
• aesthetic issues
• project design and size issues
• neighborhood compatibility
• compliance with the “Good Neighbor Guidelines”
• public views
Comments on topics that are not within the SFDB’s purview, such as the following, should not be discussed:
• site land use or zone designation
• project affordability
• private views
• parking/traffic
• residential density
The SFDB shall consider public comments directly related to aesthetic issues involving neighborhood compatibility, architecture, and landscape. The Board may also consider neighborhood input
Exhibit G
Single Family Streamlining Project
Proposed SFDB Guidelines
Single Family Design Board Guidelines
CITY OF SANTA BARBARA | SFDB Guidelines Page 27
regarding Neighborhood Compatibility Findings, such as grading, tree removal, and mass, bulk, and scale of the development.
2.6 Scope of Project Review
For projects within its jurisdiction, the SFDB has authority to approve, conditionally approve, or deny projects as follows:
2.6.1 Standard Review
If a single-family residential project requires Design Review per the City’s Municipal Code, then the SFDB has purview to review all exterior aspects of the project. For example, if a project requires SFDB review due to a second story addition and site work unrelated to the addition is proposed, then both the addition and the site work are under SFDB’s purview. The scope of review is the project’s consistency with the Single Family Residence Design Guidelines topics of site planning and structure placement, neighborhood compatibility, two-story design concepts, Hillside Housing Guidelines, and Good Neighbor Guidelines, as well as consistency with these SFDB Guidelines and the SFDB findings in the Municipal Code.
2.6.2 Focused Review – Fences and Walls
When construction of a fence, wall, or gate is the only project component that triggers Design Review, then only the fence, wall, or gate will be reviewed.
Construction Without Permit (“As-Built”)
The SFDB shall review unpermitted (“as-built”) projects with the same degree of scrutiny and consideration afforded other proposed new projects using the following criteria:
• As-built work should comply with all adopted design guidelines or be made to comply. • As-built work is subject to denial if the work is deemed unacceptable. • Materials used and architectural quality shall be evaluated by the SFDB when determining if the as-built work is acceptable as constructed.
2.6.3 California Government Code Provisions Regarding
Manufactured Homes
According to Govt. Code §65852.3, the SFDB’s purview is limited when reviewing a manufactured home certified under the National Manufactured Housing Construction and Safety Standards Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. Secs. 5401 et seq.) .When SFDB review is triggered for such homes, requests for building design changes are limited to its roof overhang, roofing material, and siding material. In addition, such homes are subject to the same zoning standards that a conventional single-family home on the same lot would be subject to.
Exhibit G
Single Family Streamlining Project
Proposed SFDB Guidelines
Single Family Design Board Guidelines
CITY OF SANTA BARBARA | SFDB Guidelines Page 28
2.7 SFDB Role in Commenting on Zoning Modifications
2.7.1 Modifications, Generally
Requests for modifications to the Zoning Ordinance for individual projects are approved by either the Staff Hearing Officer or the Planning Commission in accordance with SBMC §28.92.110 or Chapter
30.250. When a project requires both a Zoning Modification and SFDB review, SFDB comment on the Zoning Modification typically occurs at an SFDB Concept Review hearing prior to the request being heard by the Staff Hearing Officer or Planning Commission. The SFDB’s role in commenting on the Modification is limited to whether the proposed Modification poses aesthetic issues, such as inconsistency with neighborhood development patterns, or presents conflicts with the Single Family Residence Design Guidelines. General support or lack of support of a Modification is a land use decision and is not the purview of the SFDB. The following is an example of an appropriate SFDB comment on a Modification request:
“The proposed Modification is/is not aesthetically appropriate. The proposed Modification poses/does not pose consistency issues with Single Family Residence Design Guidelines (if applicable, include guideline reference number or numbers for reference).”
2.7.2 Zoning Modifications of Open Yard
For Modifications of open yard regulations, the SFDB’s role is to comment to the Staff Hearing Officer or Planning Commission on whether the Modification is consistent with existing patterns of development in the neighborhood, and ensures adequate light, air, and open space for each residence, enhancing livability and developing and sustaining a suitable residential environment.
2.8 Subdivision Grading Plan Considerations
Subdivision grading plans involving cut or fill on lots in single-family zones must be referred to the Single Family Design Board (SFDB) for review, as required by SBMC Section 30.220.040. Following any applicable PreApplication Review Team (PRT) review, the SFDB evaluates the following key aspects of the project.
1. Site design considerations include consistency with the Single Family Residence Design Guidelines (SFRDG), specifically Guidelines 1 (Environmental Setting and Landscaping), 2 (Site Planning and Structure Placement), and 33 (Neighborhood Compatibility). The Board reviews the layout and suitability of lots for future development, including building pads and envelopes, and assesses the preservation of natural topography per hillside protection findings. Additional elements include proposed roadway improvements, pedestrian sidewalks, and parkways; driveway alignment and pavement extent; entryway and front door pathways; site access for visitors; pedestrian connectivity to adjacent neighborhoods; and the preservation of public scenic views. The SFDB also examines compatibility with surrounding neighborhoods in terms of lot sizes, building heights, massing, and overall design. Additional information may be requested to complete this analysis.
Exhibit G
Single Family Streamlining Project
Proposed SFDB Guidelines
Single Family Design Board Guidelines
CITY OF SANTA BARBARA | SFDB Guidelines Page 29
2. Grading is reviewed for consistency with grading findings and SFRDG Guidelines 30 and 31. This includes evaluating the appropriateness of grading quantities, and the location of cut and fill to avoid visible scarring.
3. Retaining walls, fencing, and entry gates must align with SFRDG Guideline 35 in terms of height, length, materials, and placement. The lot configuration should follow natural terrain to avoid excessive retaining walls or unusual fencing on steep slopes. The neighborhood compatibility of any proposed security gates is also considered.
4. Site landscaping, evaluated through a conceptual landscape plan, must be consistent with SFRDG Guideline 1. This includes the selection and placement of street trees, preservation of existing trees, mitigation of any removals, and appropriate site screening where needed.
5. Site drainage facilities are reviewed for consistency with SFRDG Guideline 4, focusing on maximizing permeability. The design and suitability of drainage conveyance and retention systems, including fencing, and compliance with the Storm Water Management Program are also reviewed.
6. Site utilities such as electrical equipment, transformers, gas meters, fire backflow prevention devices, and central mailbox locations (if applicable) are also evaluated for appropriate placement.
7. Parking design is assessed for both on-street and off-street configurations, ensuring alignment with SFRDG Guideline 5 on parking aesthetics.
8. Privacy design is reviewed to ensure lot layouts provide adequate setbacks between structures, preserving privacy and supporting consistency with the Good Neighbor Guidelines.
9. Solar access is examined for consistency with SFRDG Guideline 3, ensuring homes are oriented to support passive and active solar energy use. The impact of existing trees on solar potential is also considered.
Lastly, several elements fall outside the purview of the SFDB and are instead under the authority of the Staff Hearing Officer or Planning Commission. These include compliance with the State Subdivision Map Act, the City’s General Plan, Municipal Code Title 27, appropriate residential density and lot sizes, street design, traffic impacts, public improvements, placement of building envelopes, and the protection of public view corridors from streets, trails, parks, and beaches.
2.9 Historic Significance Evaluation – All Structures
Prior to submittal of a development application, the potential historic significance of existing structures should be researched, and plans must show consideration for these elements if they exist on the property.
Evaluation and protection of archaeological or historic resources is governed by policies, laws, and regulations of the City Charter and Municipal Code, and state and federal laws.
Exhibit G
Single Family Streamlining Project
Proposed SFDB Guidelines
Single Family Design Board Guidelines
CITY OF SANTA BARBARA | SFDB Guidelines Page 30
• Existing historic sandstone walls and stairways, and wrought iron gates should be preserved and included as a part of an overall plan where feasible.
• Consultation with the City's Architectural Historian is required for structures over 50 years of age. If the Architectural Historian determines that the structure is eligible to be included on this Historic Resources Inventory, then the development application will be reviewed by the Historic Landmarks Commission instead of the Single Family Design Board.
• In cases where the Architectural Historian has determined that a structure adjacent to a proposed SFDB project is included or eligible for inclusion on the Historic Resources Inventory, the SFDB may evaluate the project for consistency with Chapter 3.2 of the Historic Resource Design Guidelines for new construction adjacent to historic resources.
2.10 Procedure for Continuances, Postponements, Referrals, and Absences
2.10.1 Continuances
A continuance is the carrying forward of an item under discussion to a future meeting. To be considered for a continuance, the applicant must attend the meeting and make a presentation. An application may be continued at the request of the applicant or by action of the SFDB. Unless a continuance is necessary for the SFDB to receive reports or other information, the SFDB Chair should offer the applicant the option of agreeing to the continuance or requesting that the SFDB approve or deny the project at the present meeting.
2.10.2 Postponements
A postponement is deferral of the consideration of an agenda item to a future meeting. A postponement must be indefinite and cannot be to a date certain. No discussion or presentation takes place on the date a postponement occurs. If an application has been postponed more than twice, the SFDB may deny the application “without prejudice” to a future application. “Without prejudice” means the SFDB will have no reservations or pre-formed opinions in reviewing a resubmitted project.
To request a postponement, a project applicant must contact SFDB staff as early as possible prior to the scheduled hearing date and state the justification for the request.
To allow for timely agenda processing, requests for postponement must be made prior to 4:30 p.m. on the Tuesday prior to the meeting date. Items subject to a postponement will be postponed indefinitely. It is the applicant's responsibility to contact staff in order to reschedule the item for consideration. Re-noticing and postponement fees apply to postponed projects.
2.10.3 Referral from Consent Calendar to Full Board.
All actions on Consent Calendar items are subject to ratification by the Full Board. SFDB members may request that a Consent Calendar item be referred for Full Board review. SFDB must state the
Exhibit G
Single Family Streamlining Project
Proposed SFDB Guidelines
Single Family Design Board Guidelines
CITY OF SANTA BARBARA | SFDB Guidelines Page 31
reasons for the referral request. Referrals from Consent may be scheduled for Full Board on the same day or on a later hearing date. If a motion to refer an item from Consent to Full Board on the same hearing date carries, the item will be heard after the last item on the Full Board agenda.
2.11 Decisions
2.11.1 Project Approvals
In order to grant Project Design Approval for a project heard by the SFDB pursuant to SBMC §30.220.040.B, the SFDB shall make the applicable findings in SBMC §30.220.040.E. If a project is approved administratively by staff per provisions in these SFDB Guidelines, then findings are not required.
2.11.2 Project Denials
The SFDB may deny a project that is inconsistent with any applicable finding. The SFDB shall state the reason for a project denial in the motion for denial, referencing the specific findings that could not be made.
2.12 Appeals, Extensions, and Expiration of Approval
2.12.1 Time Limits & Extensions on Approvals
Conceptual comments are generally valid for one year from the date of the hearing, at the Community Development Director’s discretion and in compliance with SBMC §30.205.040.F. An SFDB Project Design Approval is valid for three years from the date of the approval unless a time extension has been granted in accordance with SBMC §30.205.120 or a building permit has been issued.
2.12.2 Appeal of SFDB Decision
Any action of the SFDB on an application for Project Design Review may be appealed to the Planning Commission in accordance with SBMC §30.220.005 and Chapter 1.30 of the Municipal Code. If an appeal of an SFDB decision is filed, the letter of appeal stating the reasons for the appeal must be filed with the Planning Division within ten (10) calendar days of the contested action together with the appropriate appeal fee.
To appeal an SFDB decision, a letter outlining the reasons for the appeal must be filed with the Planning Division, along with the appropriate fee, within ten (10) calendar days of the contested action.
2.12.3 Re-Filing a Denied Project Design
Changes to a denied project design re-filed within one year must mitigate the reason for denial of the project design. A new application and new application fees are required.
Exhibit G
Single Family Streamlining Project
Proposed SFDB Guidelines
Single Family Design Board Guidelines
CITY OF SANTA BARBARA | SFDB Guidelines Page 32
Section 3: Meeting Conduct for SFDB
Members
3.1 Officer Election
1. Chair. The SFDB shall annually elect a Chair from its membership, with elections held as soon as practical after January 1st or upon any Chair vacancy.
2. Vice-Chair. Following the election of the Chair, the SFDB shall elect a Vice-Chair who will conduct meetings in the absence of the Chair.
3.2 Subcommittees/Advisory Committees.
The SFDB shall not establish a subcommittee without the approval of the Community Development Director and City Attorney.
3.3 General Meeting Conduct
1. Rosenberg’s Rules of Order. Rosenberg’s Rules of Order, a set of parliamentary procedures used to run meetings efficiently and fairly, shall govern the conduct of meetings unless otherwise provided by these Guidelines or as may be determined appropriate by the Chair of the SFDB.
Exhibit G
Single Family Streamlining Project
Proposed SFDB Guidelines
Single Family Design Board Guidelines
CITY OF SANTA BARBARA | SFDB Guidelines Page 33
2. Brown Act. Meetings of the SFDB and its standing subcommittees shall be governed by the Ralph M. Brown Act (Govt. Code §54950 et seq.), a California law that ensures transparency and public access to meetings of local government bodies. The Brown Act governs when, where, and how meetings are noticed and conducted, requiring agendas to be posted in advance and allowing the public to attend and participate.
3. Discussions Outside of Regularly Noticed Meetings (Ex-Parte Communication). Private discussions regarding particular projects between applicants and SFDB members, or groups of two or more SFDB members, shall not be initiated or encouraged by SFDB members. SFDB members shall inform the SFDB of such ex-parte communication at regularly scheduled meetings.
4. Quorum. Three members shall constitute a quorum of the SFDB. A member who remains present but abstains from voting counts as part of the quorum while a member who steps down (and is required to leave the room) does not count towards the quorum. Any member with a disqualifying conflict pursuant to the Political Reform Act shall step down and not be counted toward achieving a quorum.
5. Abstention on Continued Items. A board member who was absent from a previous review should only comment on a continued project if they have reviewed the previous plans, reviewed the video of the previous hearing, and read the minutes of the relevant portions of that meeting. If a board member is not fully informed of the prior SFDB review, the member should abstain from commenting or voting on the project. For Consent projects and minor projects which received a very brief review, a board member shall read the minutes and review the plans of the previous hearing since Consent meetings are not televised.
6. Reconsideration. A motion to reconsider any action taken by the SFDB may be made only at the meeting at which the original action was taken or at the next regular meeting of the SFDB. A motion to reconsider may be made only by a board member who voted with the prevailing side on the original action. In order to allow for compliance with Brown Act requirements, if a motion to reconsider is not made during the meeting at which the original action was taken, a board member who wishes to make such a motion must provide staff with a written request to place the motion to reconsider on the agenda of the next regular meeting of the SFDB before the end of the second business day following the day on which the original action was taken.
7. Conflict of Interest. Members must comply with all laws and regulations prohibiting participation by officials in making decisions for which they may have a conflict of interest under State law, in particular the Political Reform Act of 1974.
8. Staff Assistance. Staff shall assist the SFDB and the general public through the SFDB process.
Any Staff comments shall be stated at the beginning of each review.
Exhibit G
Single Family Streamlining Project
Proposed SFDB Guidelines
Single Family Design Board Guidelines
CITY OF SANTA BARBARA | SFDB Guidelines Page 34
9. SFDB Member Attendance. If a member cannot attend a meeting or must step down from a particular item due to conflict of interest, the member is asked to contact Staff at the earliest possible opportunity prior to the meeting date. The purpose for this staff notification is to ensure a minimum quorum of members is maintained for review of all items.
10. SFDB Member Compensation. SFDB members may receive compensation for attendance in accordance with the approved budget for the Community Development Department.
11. SFDB Member Site Visits. A site visit may be conducted to a proposed development site when additional site information is required prior to SFDB comment or action on a project. Staff shall notify SFDB members and the public of scheduled, organized, or drive-by site visits via notation on the meeting agenda.
12. Story Pole Site Visit Coordination. If the project requires a land use approval in addition to Design Review, coordination with the Planning Commission or Staff Hearing Officer for story pole placement and site visit is recommended. The installation shall follow the City’s adopted criteria for story pole placement and installation standards. See Section 4 (Visual Aids, including Story Poles) for more information about residential story pole requirements.
Exhibit G
Single Family Streamlining Project
Proposed SFDB Guidelines
Single Family Design Board Guidelines
CITY OF SANTA BARBARA | SFDB Guidelines Page 35
SECTION 4: Submittal Requirements and
Visual Aids
Rendering: Donaldson + Partners
4.1 Application Submittal Requirements
4.1.1 Standard Submittal Requirements
All project plans must meet standard submittal requirements as listed in the Project Plan Submittal Guide handout available at the Planning and Zoning Counter and on the City’s website (SantaBarbaraCA.gov) on the Planning Forms and Handouts page. SFDB application submittal requirements include: site plan, floor plan, elevations, site sections, site and neighborhood photographs, and application forms signed by the property owner.
Application materials should accurately and fully represent the proposed project. The applicant has the burden of demonstrating how the proposed project is consistent with the applicable design guidelines, municipal code, and City policies. The SFDB may request additional submittal items beyond those outlined in the submittal requirement handouts to determine project consistency with required findings for any project. Staff may make recommendations to both the SFDB and applicants regarding the potential applicability of submittal requirements for any project. The SFDB may also
Exhibit G
Single Family Streamlining Project
Proposed SFDB Guidelines
Single Family Design Board Guidelines
CITY OF SANTA BARBARA | SFDB Guidelines Page 36
waive additional submittal requirements listed in the handout if the submittals would not help the Board determine consistency with required findings for a project.
4.1.2 Additional Submittal Requirements Related to FAR Maximum
1. Projects over 85% FAR. Projects proposed to be over 85% of the maximum floor area ratio (FAR) are required to submit at least one of the following:
i. Street Silhouette Elevation. Street silhouette elevation showing adjacent building outline silhouettes (roof and exterior wall lines). All homes to be shown in same amount of detail.
ii. Panoramic Photo Simulations. Panoramic streetscape photographic presentation with a simulation of the proposed project superimposed on the streetscape panoramic photographs.
iii. 20-Closest Home Survey. Provide a map and a survey of FAR information for the 20 closest lots to the subject property. The map must show the 20 (or fewer, as determined by SFDB) closest lots and label the floor area of each building. The survey should be in a table, such as an Excel file, or you can use the City’s 20 Closest Lots Calculator, and must include the following information:
a. Address and APN. Include the addresses and APNs of the 20 closest lots.
Exclude any properties that are not single-unit residences, such as commercial properties or apartments.
b. Floor Area. Include the square feet of the buildings on each of the 20 lots. If possible, provide the garage floor area separately from the house floor area. c. Lot Area. Include the lot area in square feet of each of the 20 lots. (Assessor’s data is often shown in a decimal, multiply the acreage decimal by 43,560 to obtain lot size square feet.)
d. FAR. Provide the FAR for each lot (FAR = net floor area of the buildings on a lot divided by the net lot area).
e. Sort Parcels. Sort the lots from largest to smallest FAR. f. Calculate Average. Provide the average house size and the average FAR for all 20 lots. Information for properties in the City of Santa Barbara is available online through the City’s web-based mapping tool, MAPS. MAPS includes a link to the County Assessor Parcel Information with floor area and lot size. Or you can contact the County Assessor’s Office at 105 E. Anapamu St. 2nd floor at (805) 568-2550 and request property information worksheets.
Exhibit G
Single Family Streamlining Project
Proposed SFDB Guidelines
Single Family Design Board Guidelines
CITY OF SANTA BARBARA | SFDB Guidelines Page 37
2. Projects over 100% FAR. In addition to the above requirements, story poles are required for any project requesting a waiver to exceed one hundred percent (100%) of the maximum floor area ratio (FAR). The story poles must be installed 10 calendar days prior to the first Project Design Review hearing unless this requirement is waived by the SFDB at Concept Review prior to the application being deemed complete.
4.1.3 Additional Submittal Requirements for Projects over 250 Cubic Yards of Grading
Projects that propose grading outside the main or accessory building footprint must meet the following requirements for application completeness:
For projects over 250 cubic yards of grading, a licensed architect, civil or structural engineer must prepare the grading plans. For projects proposing more than 500 cubic yards of grading, a threedimensional model or three-dimensional topographic rendering of the project is required if grading is proposed to exceed 500 cubic yards outside of the main building footprint.
4.2 Visual Aids: Purpose & Definitions
4.2.1 Purpose
In addition to the submittal requirements listed above, all proposed new single family residential structures and additions/alterations to existing single family residential structures are encouraged to provide visual aids to assist interested neighbors, staff, and the SFDB (and, if the proposal is appealed, the Planning Commission) determine consistency with the required Neighborhood Compatibility Findings.
4.2.2 Definitions
“Visual aids” may include, but not be limited to, story poles, photo simulations, renderings, models, and/or other means to assist in understanding a project’s size, bulk, and scale in relation to the neighborhood and/or its effects on important public scenic views. See the Visual Aids & Story Poles supplemental application online at the City’s Planning Forms & Applications webpage (SantaBarbaraCA.gov).
4.3 Types of Visual Aids.
When used in conjunction with the building elevations, sections, and site and floor plans required for an SFDB application, supplemental visual aids can be extremely helpful. For larger projects such as a new two-story house, it is highly recommended to include at least one supplemental visual aid in the application.
The SFDB may request visual aids such as photo simulations, three-dimensional massing models, perspective drawings, rendered streetscape elevations, and/or comparative building massing studies, as well as story
Exhibit G
Single Family Streamlining Project
Proposed SFDB Guidelines
Single Family Design Board Guidelines
CITY OF SANTA BARBARA | SFDB Guidelines Page 38
poles. SFDB visual aid requests are made on a case-by-case basis based on the SFDB’s determination of what method will satisfy cost effectiveness and explanatory goals.
4.3.1 Photo Simulations
Photo simulations (also called visual simulations or 3D renderings) are images that combine realworld photography with digitally (or manually) added elements to simulate how a proposed change— such as a building, infrastructure, landscape feature, or other development—will look once completed. Photo simulations shall be completed using either panoramic photographs or several photographs put together. Search engine street view images are not acceptable as they may not be current.
Photo simulations should use accurate base photography taken from key viewpoints to best represent common or sensitive public perspectives. Base photography should be taken at eye level (typically about 5 feet above grade) so that it accurately represents the project from the perspective of a person standing in a public area such as a street or sidewalk. 3D models should be aligned correctly with base photographs, using the same focal length, height, angle, and GPS coordinates as base photos. 3D models should accurately depict building massing, building height, plate height, and roof pitch according to the architectural plans. Avoid over-editing renderings to maintain realism. Include reference elements like people, vehicles, trees, or other objects to provide a reference for scale. Label the image clearly as a photo simulation or 3D rendering and include the date and viewpoint location.
Include a map or plan showing the locations from which the base photos were taken and the direction of the photos (i.e., with an arrow), keyed to the photos.
4.3.2 Panoramic Streetscape Elevations
In some cases, a panoramic streetscape elevation may be requested, especially when new development is proposed adjacent to a historic resource or if new development will be considerably taller or larger than adjacent development. This is a comparatively simple, low-cost alternative that can provide a useful massing comparison of the project with the adjacent structures. The elevation should show the proposed new building and may need to show all of the buildings on the block. This elevation should be no less than 1/8” scale and should be in color. An additional plan sheet might include building elevations that are color-coordinated to show the setback from the street (0 to 5 feet, 5 to 10 feet, etc.).
4.3.3 Three-Dimensional Massing Model
In some cases, a massing model showing both the project and structures in the immediate neighborhood may be requested. Design details are not required; however, all roofing variations, wall articulation, and eave lines (including plate heights) must be shown. Major trees should also be included as part of the model. Changes in topography in the area covered by the model must be shown accurately.
Exhibit G
Single Family Streamlining Project
Proposed SFDB Guidelines
Single Family Design Board Guidelines
CITY OF SANTA BARBARA | SFDB Guidelines Page 39
4.3.4 Perspective Drawings
In some cases, perspective drawings from one or more prominent viewpoints may be requested. All roofing variations, wall articulation, and eave lines (including plate heights) must be shown. Major trees should also be shown. These drawings must be drawn from the viewpoint of a person (approximately 5 feet above grade).
4.3.5 Comparative Building Study
In some cases, a scaled comparison to existing buildings, typically either the existing residence or neighboring houses, may be requested. This will assist in visualizing the size of a proposed house in comparison to the existing house and adjacent houses.
4.3.6 Story Poles
Story poles are an expensive visual tool and should be used sparingly. Digital tools have come a long way in helping to more accurately depict proposed development and are generally preferred over story poles.
Story poles can be installed to show various levels of detail, from the basic size and bulk of a proposed building to the details of its massing, including rooflines. Subsection 4.3 below explains the three levels of detail in story pole installations. Other visual aids may be requested in addition to or as an alternative to story pole placement to avoid high cost and added time to single family projects. Story poles must be requested at the first SFDB hearing on projects that do not exceed 100% Maximum FAR or the right to require story poles is waived.
Story poles are required for projects requesting SFDB review of an FAR Exception waiver to exceed 100% Maximum FAR, unless SFDB waives this requirement using the considerations below.
4.3.7 Waiving Story Pole Requirements
The SFDB shall consider the following criteria to determine if an exception from the story pole requirement for projects exceeding 100% Maximum FAR will be granted: The SFDB’s determination, should they wish to require story poles, shall be included in the Board’s motion at the Concept Review.
Exhibit G
Single Family Streamlining Project
Proposed SFDB Guidelines
Single Family Design Board Guidelines
CITY OF SANTA BARBARA | SFDB Guidelines Page 40
1. Alternative visual aids have been submitted that provide adequate information.
2. The proposed structures are clearly consistent in terms of size, bulk, and scale with other buildings in the surrounding neighborhood.
3. The proposed structure is the same height or smaller than other existing buildings or homes in the immediate neighborhood.
4. The proposed structure will not obstruct scenic view corridors, including those of the ocean and mountains, and clearly comply with the Good Neighbor Guidelines.
5. The proposed structures will not be on or project above a topographic ridgeline.
6. The existing condition of the site (dense vegetation, existing buildings, etc.) does not allow for adequate story pole installation. If this is the case, one or more of the other types of visual aids will be required.
4.4 Levels of Story Pole Installations
If the SFDB requires story poles for a project, the SFDB shall specify the appropriate level of story pole installation using the descriptions below.
4.4.1 Full Level
All major building forms, corners, ridges, eaves, rakes, outer plate heights (not the outer edge of the eaves), and ridgelines shall be shown with vertical poles and string lines. In addition, stake and string or chalk the property lines where they are not clear and outline the building footprint(s) with stakes and strings or chalk lines. All roof planes shall be outlined to show the full body of the structure. Also, mark all trees proposed to be removed with bright tape or stakes. This level should be used sparingly due to cost and the more detailed digital options available.
4.4.2 Standard Level
Selected building forms as determined by the Board or Commission shall be shown with vertical poles and, where requested, string lines. Poles at all building corners at correct heights are to outline portions of selected roof forms. Show the location of any stakes or chalk/string lines used to outline the building footprint.
4.4.3 Basic Level
Selected locations at highest building elements as determined by the Board or Commission shall be shown with vertical poles only. Poles are to have colored flag/tape markers at specified heights and at the highest ridge roof point where there is the greatest view impact. Locate any stakes or chalk/string lines used to outline the building footprint.
Exhibit G
Single Family Streamlining Project
Proposed SFDB Guidelines
Single Family Design Board Guidelines
CITY OF SANTA BARBARA | SFDB Guidelines Page 41
4.5 Story Pole Timing and Documentation
Story pole installations shall be completed a minimum of 7 days prior to the public hearing and shall stay in place until the public hearing. Once the story poles are in place, the applicant shall photograph the story pole installation, including any angles from which it is visible to the public. Where the project has the potential to affect important public scenic views, additional photos from more distant points may be required. Include a plan or map showing the locations from which the photos were taken and the direction of the photos (i.e., with an arrow), keyed to the photos. The record shall be submitted to the Planning Division at least 1 day prior to removal of the story poles or earlier, if possible. It is recommended that at least one of the photos include a person next to a story pole to provide scale. In addition, prior to issuance of the Final Inspection/Certificate of Occupancy for the project, the applicant will be required to submit photographs of the completed building from the same locations as the photographs taken of the story pole installation for documentation purposes.
SECTION 5: Landscape Design Guidelines
5.1 Purpose
The purpose of the Landscape Design Guidelines is to provide general and specific guidelines for landscape plan design and installation throughout single-family neighborhoods in the City. Landscaping should be used as a unifying element within a project to enhance a building site and help achieve project compatibility with existing surroundings while complying with applicable policies and regulations.
Exhibit G
Single Family Streamlining Project
Proposed SFDB Guidelines
Single Family Design Board Guidelines
CITY OF SANTA BARBARA | SFDB Guidelines Page 42
5.2 Landscape Plan Applicability and Requirements
5.2.1 Applicability
A landscape plan is required for the following SFDB projects:
1. Subdivision Grading. All subdivision grading plans involving grading on a lot, or lots located in Residential Single Unit Zones.
2. Grading‑Only Permits. Any grading permit application for a vacant lot, or a lot subject to design review under this section, when not submitted in connection with a building permit for construction or alteration of a building or structure on the same lot.
3. Slope‑Sensitive Sites. Any grading permit application where the average slope of the lot or building site is 20 percent or more, as determined under Section 30.15.030, Determining Average Slope.
4. Vegetation Removal Permits. Applications for vegetation removal permits pursuant to Chapter
22.10. 5. Alterations to Approved Landscape Plans. Applications for a permit to alter an approved landscape plan pursuant to Chapter 22.11.
6. Alternative Landscape Designs requested pursuant to SBMC 30.140.118.I.
Notwithstanding the above requirements, the SFDB may request a landscape plan be prepared for projects when necessary to determine consistency with applicable findings.
Landscape Plan Contents
Landscape plans must be submitted prior to the SFDB Project Design Approval hearing. See the City’s website (SantaBarbaraCA.gov) Planning Forms and Handouts webpage for the Landscape Plan Submittal Guide.
5.2.3 Landscape Plan Preparation Licensing Requirements
1. License Required
Final Grading and Drainage Plans. Per Business and Professions Code §5641, only a licensed landscape architect, registered or licensed engineer, architect, land surveyor; or landscape contractor who is contracted to install the landscaping may prepare construction documents, details, or specifications for the tangible objects or landscape features, and alteration of site requiring grading and drainage plans. For example, drainage plans are sometimes required for Storm Water Management Plan compliance.
Exhibit G
Single Family Streamlining Project
Proposed SFDB Guidelines
Single Family Design Board Guidelines
CITY OF SANTA BARBARA | SFDB Guidelines Page 43
2. No License Required
In the following circumstances, landscape and/or irrigation plans may be prepared by an unlicensed person:
1. Property owners preparing plans for their own property are exempted from the licensing requirement by Business and Professions Code §5641.1.
2. Concept Review Plans. Per Business and Professions Code §5641, no license is required to prepare landscape plans for projects for conceptual design and placement of tangible objects and landscape features or plans, drawings and specifications for the selection, placement, or use of plants for a single family dwelling.
3. Project Design Review Plans - General. Per Business and Professions Code §5641, plans presented for Project Design Approval which do not require grading or drainage plans may be prepared by unlicensed persons.
4. Plans for Own Property. Per Business and Professions Code §5641, any person may prepare conceptual or Project Design Review plans for any landscape project on a property they own.
5. Irrigation Plans. Property owners or irrigation consultants may prepare irrigation plans per Business and Professions Code §5641.6.
6. Advisories. The SFDB may recommend, but may not require, that an applicant hire a licensed landscape architect to prepare plans for projects in the following circumstances:
i. The plan submittals are determined inadequate or otherwise do not meet minimum review standards; or
ii. The proposed project involves extensive grading, revegetation, or improvements with unique or sensitive habitats or environments.
5.3 General Landscape Design Guidelines
Landscape is considered an integral part of a project’s design. Landscape can enhance the City’s natural beauty and can complement new development as well as provide neighborhood cohesiveness. Landscape embellishes and enhances new construction. Landscape plans should reflect consideration of overall site aesthetics and the environment. However, avoid using landscape to correct problems of project design or size. The architecture of a building should be of sufficient aesthetic quality to stand alone regardless of potential landscape changes over time. Landscape improvements should complement architecture, provide outdoor privacy areas, provide screening for undesirable views, provide usable and functional open space; and should incorporate trees, use appropriate water-wise or native plants, limited turf, and efficient irrigation design principles. The following general guidelines apply to all types of landscape proposals:
Exhibit G
Single Family Streamlining Project
Proposed SFDB Guidelines
Single Family Design Board Guidelines
CITY OF SANTA BARBARA | SFDB Guidelines Page 44
5.3.1 Site Layout and Massing
Landscape massing refers to plant material that creates an appearance of substantial vegetation. The landscape plan should balance plant material and hardscape site elements such as walkways and walls.
1. Landscape Coverage
Landscape massing shall provide for a generous overall percentage of plant landscaping in relation to the site and lot hardscape/impervious areas. Paved areas should be minimized and planting areas maximized.
2. Screening
Where appropriate, consider screening plants, such as hedges, to create privacy between neighbors. Special care should be taken to ensure that mature hedge heights and sizes will fit the space and ensure that only a minimal amount of pruning will be necessary for maintenance.
Hedges shall comply with applicable height standards in SBMC Titles 28 and 30.
3. Trees
Mature canopy trees shall be provided for shade and weather protection.
4. Limit Lawn Size
Use turf/lawn grass only in areas where appropriate for recreational uses. Consider natural lawn alternative species.
5.3.2 Plant Selection
Plant selection for the landscape plan should consider principles of sustainable landscaping and be sensitive to the elements described below.
1. Blend with Existing Vegetation: Blend the type, coloring, size, and height of proposed vegetation into existing vegetation.
2. Growth: Consider appropriate plant selection and location to:
• Reduce the potential for normal plant material growth to significantly block an adjacent property’s primary scenic view or sunlight (solar access). • Achieve privacy screening and produce a desired aesthetic result. Select plants that can grow to the necessary screening height without having to be pruned. • Ensure vegetation scale consistent with public view preservation called for in the Coastal Land Use Plan and General Plan.
Exhibit G
Single Family Streamlining Project
Proposed SFDB Guidelines
Single Family Design Board Guidelines
CITY OF SANTA BARBARA | SFDB Guidelines Page 45
3. Adaptability: Emphasis shall be placed on the concept of “Right Plant/Right Place.” Select plants that are naturally adapted to the growing conditions of the site such as soil type, slope, climate tolerance, space limitations, etc.
4. Native Plants: Use native plants whenever possible. Where non-native species are used, emphasize plants from other Mediterranean climate regions.
5. Fire Resistant Landscape: Use fire resistant landscaping where possible. See Section 3.6 for High Fire Hazard Area Landscape Design and the City Website (SantaBarbaraCA.gov) for information about High Fire Hazard Area landscaping requirements. A list of plants which are highly flammable and should not be planted in the High Fire Hazard Area is included in the High Fire Hazard Area Landscape Plan Requirements handout, available on the City website.
6. Invasive Plants: Avoid invasive plant use, especially in or adjacent to environmentally sensitive habitat areas. Carefully select plants to avoid species that might migrate from the landscape and become “weeds.” (Refer to the California Invasive Plant Council website (www.cal-ipc.org) for an up-to-date list of invasive plants.
7. Plant Spacing & Height: Space plants according to their mature size, allowing for plant maturation without crowding or root damage. Consider mature plant height to avoid unnecessary pruning and hedging, especially under windows and eaves of structures and along property lines.
8. Group by Plant Needs: Plants with similar cultivation, watering, and sun/shade requirements should be grouped together into hydrozones and designated to separate appropriate valve types.
9. Natural Plants: Plant landscaping should consist of real plants. Artificial plastic plants or the use of non-living ground cover including artificial turf is not allowed in parkways. The use of artificial turf may be approved at other less visible areas on private property but is generally discouraged
5.3.3 Sustainability Principles
Guidelines throughout this document support sustainability principles. Landscape and irrigation system design should reflect consideration of sustainable landscaping principles and be sensitive to elements described below. Also, see the sustainability concepts in Special Area Guidelines, Section 3.6.
1. Preserve Existing Vegetation: Preserve existing vegetation and significant trees as much as possible (See Section 5.4, Tree and Vegetation Preservation).
2. Protect Natural Features: Avoid unnecessary grading and removal of soil. Protect existing natural features and re-vegetate graded areas as soon as possible.
Exhibit G
Single Family Streamlining Project
Proposed SFDB Guidelines
Single Family Design Board Guidelines
CITY OF SANTA BARBARA | SFDB Guidelines Page 46
3. Passive Heating & Cooling: Use landscaping to control sun and wind. For example, the use of deciduous trees and/or vines on the south sides of buildings can provide passive heat in the winter and cooling in the summer.
4. Prevent Erosion: Consistent with the Safety Element, non-native species that add weight to a hillside or coastal bluff (such as ice plant) shall be avoided on steep hillsides or adjacent to bluff top areas susceptible to erosion. Deep-rooted species that assist in stabilizing slopes and control erosion are encouraged.
5. Water Efficiency: Water-efficient landscaping and irrigation is mandatory per SBMC Chapter 14.23. Landscape and irrigation shall be planned with consideration for water conservation through use of water-wise plant species, water-efficient irrigation systems, and other methods, including using drip irrigation, mulching, and designing irrigation to minimize runoff.
6. Minimize Waste: Sustainable landscape planning that protects the environment by using minimal resources and creating minimal waste is encouraged.
7. Stormwater Management Program (SWMP): Santa Barbara neighborhoods most commonly drain to local creeks, which then flow to the ocean. Urban runoff pollution such as pesticides and fertilizers from lawns, heavy metals from driveways, and pet waste, pose a significant threat to the quality of life on our beaches and streams. Use methods to retain water on the site to recharge groundwater and to use for future watering. Bioswales, infiltration areas, vegetated filter strips, porous paving, rainwater cisterns, and rainwater gardens should be incorporated into site design to allow biofiltration of sediment and pollutants, to slow down potentially damaging flows, and to increase the presence of nature within the community.
These measures are aesthetically attractive, low tech, low cost, low maintenance, and provide significant benefits to our environment. Appropriate choice of plantings and irrigation for the site helps reduce urban runoff and subsequent water pollution.
8. Permeability and Percolation: Use urban runoff/pollution control Best Management Practices to maximize the water permeability of sites and on-site percolation of runoff. For example, design projects to minimize paved areas, collect runoff on-site, or maximize hardscape area permeability with brick or pavers on sand.
9. Drainage Flow: Use natural watercourses, earth swales, v-ditches, drywells, and water dissipation devices to enhance drainage flow on and through the site.
5.3.4 Street and Driveway Design
Street and driveway designs should use the following design concepts.
Exhibit G
Single Family Streamlining Project
Proposed SFDB Guidelines
Single Family Design Board Guidelines
CITY OF SANTA BARBARA | SFDB Guidelines Page 47
1. Grading & Retaining Walls: Design streets or driveways to limit grading quantities of cut and fill. Avoid steep, exposed excavations and minimize or avoid the use of retaining walls where possible.
2. Limit Paving: Limit street and driveway widths to reduce paving quantity and encourage slower vehicle speeds, while providing adequate access. Consider the use of ribbon driveways, permeable pavers and other materials that decrease the amount of pavement and increase permeability. Please note: applicants must consult with the Fire Department and Transportation Division regarding alternative paving methods.
3. Garage Orientation: Where possible, orient driveways and garages to be street-friendly, so that garage or carport openings are not facing directly onto streets.
4. Sidewalk Widths: Provide street sidewalk widths that allow for landscaped parkways to buffer pedestrians from street traffic where feasible.
5. Street Trees: City street trees should be incorporated into a project when none exist and/or at locations recommended by the SFDB or City Arborist and the Street Tree Master Plan. Any street tree removal is subject to Parks & Recreation Commission approval. Consult with the Parks & Recreation Department for information on Street Trees.
6. Planting in Parkways: Water-wise plants are required and turf is prohibited in parkways. Drip irrigation or low precipitation rate sprinklers/ bubblers are encouraged and irrigation must be designed to minimize runoff. See the City’s list of recommended plants for parkways on the City website at SantaBarbaraCA.gov.
5.4 Tree Preservation
Preservation and protection of existing trees should be a primary goal of the landscape and site design.
Development should be sensitive to existing mature trees as they are a valued community resource. One of the Environmental Resources Element’s policies is to protect and maintain urban and native trees. Mature trees should be integrated into project design rather than removed. All feasible tree preservation and protection options should be exhausted prior to tree removal. The removal and replacement of trees may require Design Review, Street Tree Advisory Committee and Parks & Recreation Commission review and approval, and/or a building permit. The following standards apply to projects involving tree removal or replacement.
5.4.1 General Tree Replacement Standards
If preservation of existing trees is not possible, replacement trees may be required pursuant to the replacement ratios and size guidelines below.
Tree Replacement Ratios
Exhibit G
Single Family Streamlining Project
Proposed SFDB Guidelines
Single Family Design Board Guidelines
CITY OF SANTA BARBARA | SFDB Guidelines Page 48
Trees four inches in diameter or greater measured four feet, six inches above grade that are proposed to be removed shall be replaced on site on a minimum one-to-one basis, unless an alternative replacement ratio is deemed necessary as part of the environmental review process. The standard recommended mitigation for tree loss is a 3:1 ratio replacement. This standard can also be increased up to 10:1 depending on the type of tree removed, lot size, and size and expected survival rate of replacement trees.
Tree Replacement Size
The appropriate replacement size shall be determined through the environmental review process in conjunction with SFDB review depending on the size and biological value of the tree and on-site conditions. See Tree Protection and Replacement Standards, below.
5.4.2 Tree Protection and Replacement Standards
Consistent with Environmental Resources Element Biological Resources policies ER11 and ER12, 1979 Conservation Element Visual Resources Policies 1.0, 2.0 and 4.0 and 1979 Conservation Element Biological Resource policies 4.0 and 5.0; efforts shall be made to preserve trees, particularly native trees including oak trees. Projects involving work in the vicinity of trees are subject to the following standards.
Earth Disturbance Prohibitions
No earth disturbance is allowed within a radius as measured from the trunk equal to one-third the distance that the tree canopy extends from the trunk. For example, if the tree canopy extends 30 feet out from the trunk, no work can be done in the first 10 feet from the outside edge of the trunk in all directions. In the remaining area under the canopy/dripline, soils may only be disturbed with hand tools.
Arborist’s Report
Any work within the general vicinity of the dripline of a tree may require an Arborist’s Report. If an Arborist’s Report is required, the SFDB may defer to the report’s recommendations.
Paving
Paving and other non-permeable surface encroachment under native tree canopy/driplines should be minimized. For oak trees, minimal paving is allowed under the canopy due to the sensitivity of their shallow surface roots and their sensitivity to disturbance. If paving or other non-permeable surfaces encroach within a canopy, no more than 25% of the total area beneath the canopy/dripline can be covered and paving may only be placed by hand or with hand tools.
Distance from Structures
The edge of all new structures should be placed a minimum of five (5) feet from the expected mature native tree canopy/dripline at the time the structure is approved.
Exhibit G
Single Family Streamlining Project
Proposed SFDB Guidelines
Single Family Design Board Guidelines
CITY OF SANTA BARBARA | SFDB Guidelines Page 49
Protection Notes
Proposed projects which may impact existing native trees are required to submit Tree Protection notes as part of the final landscape submittal. Notes shall be located on all site and/or grading plans.
Replacement Dimensions
If it is determined that a native tree is to be removed, the diameter of the required replacement tree(s) will be equal to or greater than one-quarter the diameter of the existing tree trunk (e.g., a 16-inchdiameter oak will be replaced with one measuring no less than 4 inches). Smaller tree replacement sizes than this formula may be specified in some cases to ensure replacement tree availability.
Tree Root Barrier Guideline
The SFDB may suggest or condition that an applicant study or confer with a tree expert (landscape architect, the City arborist, or certified arborist) to offer recommendations as to whether a root barrier should be required to be installed. Root barriers may be suggested for a proposed tree location where the roots are within four feet of any hardscape, on-site or off-site, and may potentially affect buildings, sidewalks, paved pathways, curbs, etc. Palm trees do not need root barriers. Barrier placement is not recommended for tree installation when existing trees are in close proximity because installation may damage roots of those trees.
Condition of Approval for Specific Tree or Planting
The SFDB may conditionally approve projects to maintain specific plantings or trees. The specific planting or tree aspects of a plan to be maintained are noted on plans. Alterations to plantings or trees specifically noted to be maintained on an approved landscape plan require Design Review and/or a building permit.
5.5 Definitions
5.5.1 Original Planting Purpose:
The function or purpose of a tree or plant(s) on an approved landscape plan, sometimes explicitly stated, sometimes not. For example, tree or planting purposes can include: privacy protection, preservation of solar access, shade provision, visual framing of a building, style consistency, visual interest, historic preservation, erosion control, appropriate species near a biologically sensitive area, etc.
5.5.2 Substantially Similar Tree or Landscaping Replacement:
Replacement trees or landscape shall be considered “substantially similar” and therefore eligible for administrative design review if they meet either of the following sets of criteria:
1. Is the same species of tree or plant(s) as the tree or landscape being replaced; and
Exhibit G
Single Family Streamlining Project
Proposed SFDB Guidelines
Single Family Design Board Guidelines
CITY OF SANTA BARBARA | SFDB Guidelines Page 50
Can be replaced with a reasonably proportionate tree per Item 2.a., below; and Is at least as large as the approved landscape plan tree or plant(s) planting size, and a minimum of five-gallon planting containers for trees; OR
2. The replacement tree or landscape is a different species than the approved landscape species to be replaced and the proposed species meets the following criteria:
a. Measurement of trees proposed for removal are less than 12 inches in diameter at 4 feet, 6 inches above the ground and less than 20 feet tall; and b. The area of cumulative changes to conditionally approved plants is less than 1,000 square feet in the front yard and less than 20% of the total landscaped area; and c. A vegetation removal permit is not triggered per SBMC Chapter 22.10. d. Characteristics of the proposed replacement tree or plant(s) continue to achieve the original planting purpose as defined in Section 3.5.A.
5.6 Special Areas
5.6.1 Hillside Residential Landscape Design
Landscape in hillside areas should be sensitive to the community’s view of the new development, as well as the view from the subject property. Plantings should soften the appearance of a new home, major addition, and retaining wall project components. The following guidelines are specific to hillside areas of the City.
• Appearance. Landscaping should visually diminish the mass of structures as viewed from the community. Plantings should be selected from a palette of California native plants or Mediterranean plants that blend into the hillside and frame views. Plantings should not distract from the natural hillside profile. For example, palm tree installation would be discouraged, especially along ridgelines. Also, brightly colored flowers such as bougainvillea planted to cover large areas of publicly visible fences and walls would be discouraged because they contrast with the surrounding hillside when viewed from a distance. • Natural Surroundings. Oak woodlands, steep slopes, bluffs, creeks, watersheds, or other native habitats should be evaluated by a biologist, arborist, or landscape architect to determine the appropriate landscape plant selection and maintenance to minimize negative effects on natural areas.
• Grading. Grading should be minimized.
Exhibit G
Single Family Streamlining Project
Proposed SFDB Guidelines
Single Family Design Board Guidelines
CITY OF SANTA BARBARA | SFDB Guidelines Page 51
• Slope Failure Mitigation. In the event of slope failure, a soils engineer, geologist, or landscape architect may be required to recommend appropriate mitigation for plantings and/or irrigation installation as well as erosion control measures. • Erosion Control Measures. Erosion control measures should also be included on hillside landscape plans.
5.6.2 Creeks and Wetlands
Projects near creeks and wetlands are subject to the following guidelines. These projects should also be designed with special consideration for consistency with the Sustainability Principles outlined in Section 5.2.C.
• Degradation Prohibition. Development adjacent to creeks and wetlands shall not degrade the creeks, wetlands, or their riparian environments.
• Native Plant Species. Protect, maintain, enhance, and restore native plant species and vegetation in areas along creeks and wetlands.
• Immediately Adjacent Landscaping. Only native, non-invasive vegetation shall be planted immediately adjacent to creeks and wetlands. Consult a licensed landscape architect or biologist to provide recommendations and specifications to plant, protect, or revegetate a site adjacent to a creek or wetland. If there are impacts to the creek or wetland from development, a biologist will be required to prepare a restoration plan. • Buffer Landscaping. Vegetative buffers shall be provided between natural areas and developed or high-use areas. Buffer vegetation should be native to California.
5.6.3 High Fire Hazard Area Landscape Design
• Defensible Space. Meet defensible space requirements around structures as required by the Fire Code, consistent with Fire Department High Fire Hazard Area Landscape Requirements (Appendix B). The requirements specify drought-tolerant, fire-resistant plants and plant placement to reduce wildfire hazards. Please consult with the Fire Department’s Wildland Fire Specialist.
• Native and Fire Resistant Vegetation. Native and fire resistant vegetation must be used for major cut and fill slope landscaping where development occurs on hillsides. Within vegetation management areas as identified in the Community Wildfire Protection Plan (Vegetation Management Units) vegetation shall be designed to reduce the amount of flammable vegetation. Please consult with the Fire Department’s Wildland Fire Specialist.
Exhibit G
Single Family Streamlining Project
Proposed SFDB Guidelines
Single Family Design Board Guidelines
CITY OF SANTA BARBARA | SFDB Guidelines Page 52
SECTION 6: Administrative Approval
Standards
6.1 Administrative Approval Procedures
6.1.1 Procedure
Projects are eligible for administrative staff review and approval as a ministerial action by the Community Development Director without full review by the SFDB if the project complies with the applicable administrative approval standards in sections 6.2 and 6.3. The Administrative Approval Standards are comprised of standards that are based on a specific project’s scope (Section 6.2) and standards that apply to all projects (Section 6.3). Projects that may involve risk of an adverse environmental effect and projects that require public noticing per SBMC §30.220.040 are not eligible for administrative approval. The Community Development Director may approve, conditionally approve, or deny an application for administrative approval.
Evaluating Projects Using the Administrative Approval Standards The following procedure is used to determine whether a project application is eligible for administrative staff approval:
1. Review the project scope of work and plan sheets carefully to determine which ProjectSpecific Administrative Approval Standards apply.
Exhibit G
Single Family Streamlining Project
Proposed SFDB Guidelines
Single Family Design Board Guidelines
CITY OF SANTA BARBARA | SFDB Guidelines Page 53
2. Once the applicable Project-Specific Administrative Approval Standards have been identified, review each part of the scope of work for consistency with the criteria in the corresponding Project-specific standard.
3. Review each part of the scope of work for consistency with the General Administrative Approval Standards.
4. If the project is consistent with all applicable project-specific standards and the general standards, it may qualify for administrative approval.
Example: If the project scope includes a first-story addition, a new window, a pool, and new landscape, review the following project-specific standards in Section 6.2: First-Story Additions (B), Hardscape & Landscape Alterations (J), Pools and Spas (N), and Windows (W). It must also meet the applicable general standards in Section 6.3: Design Style (A), Alterations (B), Colors (C), Scale (D), Landscape (E), and Consideration of Neighbors (F). If the project meets all the criteria in each of the project-specific standards and is consistent with the applicable general standards, it may be eligible for administrative approval.
Note: Even if a project appears to meet all applicable project-specific and general administrative approval standards, Staff may refer any project application submitted for administrative approval consideration to the SFDB for review if the project poses neighborhood compatibility issues.
6.2 General Administrative Approval Standards
To be eligible for administrative staff review, a project must comply with the following general standards as well as the applicable project-specific standards listed in section 6.2 above. • Design Style. Style is expressed through architectural elements such as windows, doors, lighting, railings, trim, eaves, roof pitch, element proportions, and materials. The style of the proposed work should be stated on the project plans and should match the existing style or result in a cohesive new style. Wherever this document references a requirement for style compatibility, the following method is used to determine style compatibility. Staff will check for consistency of style of a structure’s proposed elements with the elements for the chosen style. Staff may reference A Field Guide to American Houses or similar reference materials to confirm the proposed style classification. Staff will also check that any patterns or materials created by the existing elements are repeated in the proposed work. Proposed exterior materials must either visually match the existing design style or be consistent with the new style that is proposed.
• Alterations. Alterations must match the current architectural style of the building or result in one architectural style. Projects proposing multiple alterations to the exterior that result in a different architectural style may be approved administratively if the design intent is clear and the project results in a cohesive style.
Exhibit G
Single Family Streamlining Project
Proposed SFDB Guidelines
Single Family Design Board Guidelines
CITY OF SANTA BARBARA | SFDB Guidelines Page 54
• Colors. Additions must match the existing colors of the building, house siding, or trim. Simple color changes can be approved administratively where original colors are substituted with colors from the Santa Barbara Colors Guide. Proposals for bright colors or colors that do not match the house may not qualify for administrative approval.
• Scale. The scale of all additions must be compatible with the scale of the house, style of the building, and neighborhood. The scale of a project must be consistent with the prevailing development patterns in the neighborhood. The review criteria used to determine correct scale shall include the degree of project visibility, plate heights, roof pitch, and maximum building heights. See SFRDG 17-C for additional guidance. Additions or alterations out of character with the neighborhood or incorrectly sited on the lot will be referred to the SFDB. • Landscape. Alterations to an approved landscape plan must be consistent with the original planting purpose. The original planting purpose is the function or purpose of a tree or plant on an approved landscape plan, sometimes explicitly stated, sometimes not. For example, tree or planting purposes may include: privacy protection, preservation of solar access, shade provision, visual framing of a building, style consistency, visual interest, historic preservation, erosion control, appropriate species near a biologically sensitive area, and more.
• Consideration of Neighbors. The project must be generally consistent with the Good Neighbor Guidelines in the Single Family Residence Design Guidelines. Development must be sited and oriented to minimize privacy issues, including adverse noise and lighting impacts. • Changes to Approved Plans. Minor changes to approved plans may be approved administratively if they meet the criteria in Section 1.3.F of these Guidelines, “Changes to Approved Plans – Determining Substantial Conformance.” Changes that the Community Development Director finds not in substantial conformance with the approved plans shall be referred back to SFDB for a revised Project Design Approval.
• Home Hardening (fire resistant construction). Generally, projects using Fire Marshall approved materials in High Fire Hazard Areas will be reviewed with greater flexibility regarding materials than projects outside High Fire Hazard Areas. Projects located in High Fire Hazard Areas are required to use construction materials that are on the State Fire Marshal Listed Wildland Urban Interface Products list or comply with Chapter 7A of the California Building Code. For example, proposed roofing systems must be Class A Fire Rated; windows must be dual pane, with at least one pane being tempered glass; and decking material within 10 feet of the building must be fire-retardant treated wood or fireretardant composite material.
Exhibit G
Single Family Streamlining Project
Proposed SFDB Guidelines
Single Family Design Board Guidelines
CITY OF SANTA BARBARA | SFDB Guidelines Page 55
6.3 Project-Specific Administrative Approval Standards
Projects requesting administrative approval must comply with each applicable set of project-specific standards identified in this Section 6.2 as well as the applicable general standards in section 6.3. The projectspecific standards are organized alphabetically by project element. See the table below to help navigate to the standards applicable to your project.
A. Accessory Buildings (Excl. ADUs)
B. Additions: First Story
C. Additions: Second or Higher Story
D. Awnings
E. Chimneys
F. Color Changes: Exterior
G. Decks
H. Doors
I. Fences and Site Walls
J. Hardscape and Landscape Alterations
K. Lighting: Exterior
L. Mechanical Equipment: General
M. Mechanical Equipment: Rooftop
N. Pools and Spas
O. Porches
P. Retaining Walls
Q. Roofs and Reroofs
R. Screening and Screening Waivers
S. Skylights
T. Tree Removal
U. Tree Removal, Emergency/Hazardous
V. Trellises, Pergolas, Patio Covers, & Sunshades
W. Windows
6.3.1 Accessory Buildings (Excluding accessory dwelling units) New, altered, and expanded accessory buildings may be reviewed and approved administratively if the following criteria are met. Note, these standards do not apply to accessory dwelling units.
1. The accessory building does not exceed 800 square feet.
2. The accessory building does not exceed one story or 17 feet in height.
3. Project does not exceed 85% of the Maximum FAR (floor area ratio; FAR only applies to twostory development on lots less than 15,000 square feet);
4. Any mechanical equipment meets the mechanical equipment administrative approval design standards listed below in subsections 6.2.L and 6.2.M.
5. The accessory building does not include a roof deck.
Exhibit G
Single Family Streamlining Project
Proposed SFDB Guidelines
Single Family Design Board Guidelines
CITY OF SANTA BARBARA | SFDB Guidelines Page 56
6. Carports must have supporting columns with a diameter of at least 4 inches (thin support poles are not eligible for administrative approval).
7. The accessory building is not proposed to be located in the front yard. Exception: Carports and garages, including garages converted to a residential accessory use pursuant to SBMC §30.140.112, located in the front yard that are not publicly visible due to site topography or existing or proposed screening may be administratively approved. This exception does not apply to sheds, workshops, and other accessory buildings not used for covered parking.
8. Accessory buildings such must match the architectural style of the main house if they are publicly visible. If an accessory building is not publicly visible, then it does not need to match the architectural style of the main house.
6.3.2 Additions: First Story
First-story additions may be reviewed and approved administratively if the following standards are met:
1. Additions and any alterations are less than 17 feet in height, measured from existing grade;
2. Addition does not exceed 800 square feet on lots developed with less than 4,000 net square feet of floor area;
3. Addition does not exceed 250 square feet on lots developed with more than 4,000 net square feet of floor area;
4. Project does not exceed 85% of the Maximum FAR (floor area ratio; FAR only applies to twostory development on lots less than 15,000 square feet);
5. Any retaining walls proposed in conjunction with the addition must meet the development standards for retaining walls in SBMC §30.140.110.G and the Administrative Approval criteria for retaining walls in subsection 6.2.P.
6. The project does not include a vegetated roof.
7. Additions must not significantly alter the front/street-facing façade in terms of massing, scale, and architectural style.
8. Additions in the Hillside Design District must not result in a taller apparent height than the existing structure (see Section 29, p. 53-H of the Single Family Residence Design Guidelines for information on apparent height).
6.3.3 Additions: Second or Higher Story
New second story additions on existing one-story residences are not eligible for administrative approval. Additions to existing second or higher stories may be reviewed and approved administratively if the following standards are met.
Exhibit G
Single Family Streamlining Project
Proposed SFDB Guidelines
Single Family Design Board Guidelines
CITY OF SANTA BARBARA | SFDB Guidelines Page 57
1. Addition does not exceed 250 square feet.
2. Project does not exceed 85% of the Maximum FAR (floor area ratio; FAR only applies to two-story development on lots less than 15,000 square feet);
3. Any retaining walls proposed in conjunction with the addition must meet the development standards for retaining walls in SBMC §30.140.110.G and the Administrative Approval criteria for retaining walls in subsection 6.2.P.
4. Additions must not significantly alter the front/street-facing façade in terms of massing, scale, and architectural style.
5. Additions in the Hillside Design District must not result in a taller apparent height than the existing structure (see Section 29, p. 53-H of the Single Family Residence Design Guidelines for information on apparent height).
6.3.4 Awnings
Awnings no larger than 9 square feet over window or door openings that are compatible with the style and the colors of the existing house may be approved administratively. Shiny or reflective awning materials are prohibited. See subsection 6.2.V below for standards on patio covers.
6.3.5 Chimneys
The following standards must be met for administrative approval:
1. Chimneys are consistent with the style of the existing structure and use masonry, stone, stucco, or metal pipe.
2. Wood material is not used on chimneys.
3. Metal flues are of traditional design and are painted to match the roof color.
4. Exposed pipe beyond the top of the chimney shall be limited to the minimum required by Building & Safety.
6.3.6 Color Changes: Exterior
The project is consistent with 6.3.C “General Administrative Approval Standards, Colors”.
6.3.7 Decks
Decks are defined pursuant to SBMC §30.300.040 “D”. Rooftop decks are not eligible for administrative approval. The following standards must be met for administrative approval of other decks.
1. If the proposed deck is a first story deck, it is no larger than 400 square feet.
2. If the proposed deck is an elevated deck, it is no larger than 250 square feet.
3. If the proposed deck is an elevated deck, it is located at least 15 feet from any interior lot line.
Exhibit G
Single Family Streamlining Project
Proposed SFDB Guidelines
Single Family Design Board Guidelines
CITY OF SANTA BARBARA | SFDB Guidelines Page 58
4. Proposed deck railings are no higher than the minimum required by Building & Safety.
5. Deck wood is proposed to be left in a natural condition to weather or is proposed to be treated with a neutral or wood color stain or sealer or painted to match the color of the house or trim. Decks not made of wood are constructed of a quality material such as a woodsimulating composite and are neutral or earth tone in color.
6. Shiny or reflective decking and railing materials are prohibited. Glass railing treated to eliminate glare may be approved administratively.
6.3.8Doors
The following standards must be met for administrative approval:
1. In door pairs, both doors and any sidelights have the same width.
2. Doors and sidelights are placed symmetrically within architectural elements if appropriate for the architectural style.
6.3.9 Fences and Site Walls (Excluding Retaining Walls) Chicken wire, sheet metal (except quality COR TEN/weathering steel), corrugated metal, plastic, vinyl, and wire mesh fence materials are not eligible for administrative approval. Gabion wall (rock and wire mesh) and unfaced cement block site wall materials are not eligible for administrative approval.
Fence and site wall materials not identified in the preceding sentences may be approved administratively if the following criteria are met.
1. If a fence is proposed, it is 8 feet or less in height, and if a site wall is proposed, it is less than 5 feet in height.
2. Height added to existing fences must match existing fence materials and contribute to a cohesive fence design.
3. If the fence is constructed of wood, it is constructed of smooth cedar, redwood, high-quality pressure-treated pine, or comparable material and left in a natural condition to weather or is treated with a neutral or wood color stain or sealer, or painted as described in number 4 below.
4. If the fence is proposed to be painted, the paint color either matches the predominant color of the siding or trim of the main building or is painted a neutral/earth tone color to blend with the surroundings.
5. If the fence is constructed of chain link, it is dark colored or hot dip galvanized chain link fencing located outside of any front yard. Chain link fences that are publicly visible must be screened with vegetation such as vines or shrubs to soften the appearance of the fence.
Exhibit G
Single Family Streamlining Project
Proposed SFDB Guidelines
Single Family Design Board Guidelines
CITY OF SANTA BARBARA | SFDB Guidelines Page 59
6.3.10 Hardscape and Landscape Alterations, Including Grading Alterations including walkways, on-grade patios, driveways, planters, barbecues, firepits, fountains, and other yard amenities may be approved administratively provided they meet the following criteria:
1. Grading does not exceed 50 cubic yards outside the building footprint.
2. Grading does not occur on portions of the lot with an average slope of 15 percent or greater.
3. Grading does not occur within setbacks.
4. Paving for driveways is minimized to the extent required for ingress and egress per the Access & Parking Design Standards.
5. Paving materials are concrete, asphalt, pavers, flagstone, or similar hard surface and are neutral or earth tone in color.
6. New paved parking areas are screened from public viewing areas through fencing, landscaping, or other structures that also qualify for administrative approval.
7. Alterations do not occur on slopes of 30% slope or greater;
8. The landscape planting alteration generally meets the original planting purpose;
9. The landscape planting alteration does not alter or amend a condition of approval;
10. Alterations do not occur within 50 feet from the top of creek bank or within a designated creek buffer as established on an approved plan and section drawing;
11. A vegetation removal permit is not triggered pursuant to SBMC Chapter 22.10;
12. Any proposed retaining walls must meet the standards for retaining walls in SBMC §30.140.110.G and the Administrative Approval criteria for retaining walls in subsection 6.2.P.
13. Alterations do not occur in any environmentally sensitive habitat area as identified in the City’s MAPS database, unless a technical study prepared by a qualified consultant indicates that the alterations will not have an adverse environmental impact.
6.3.11 Lighting: Exterior
The following criteria must be met for administrative approval:
1. Lighting fixtures and placement meet the standards in the Outdoor Lighting Ordinance (SBMC Chapter 22.75), including that the fixtures must generally be shielded to prevent sky glow and light trespass onto adjacent residential properties.
6.3.12 Mechanical Equipment: General
The following criteria must be met for administrative approval:
Exhibit G
Single Family Streamlining Project
Proposed SFDB Guidelines
Single Family Design Board Guidelines
CITY OF SANTA BARBARA | SFDB Guidelines Page 60
1. The equipment’s property line decibel level must be consistent with the Noise Ordinance (SBMC Chapter 9.16).
2. New equipment is screened from view consistent with SBMC §30.15.120. Landscape screening is indicated on project plans to be maintained.
3. New equipment attached to a structure is not publicly visible, as defined in Section 6.4.
Attached mechanical equipment that is publicly visible is not eligible for administrative approval.
6.3.13 Mechanical Equipment: Rooftop
Telecommunications facilities and antennas are not eligible for administrative approvals. Other rooftop equipment must meet the following criteria for administrative approval:
1. Equipment is screened pursuant to SBMC §30.15.120. The screening proposal must present an integrated appearance with the overall building.
2. If equipment will be visible from off-site locations despite screening, or in cases where only vegetative screening is used, the equipment must be painted the same color as the roof or adjacent background, as specified by staff.
6.3.14 Pools and Spas
Soil excavated for a below-grade swimming pool, or soil located within five feet of an exterior wall of a building that is excavated and recompacted, shall not be included in the calculation of the volume of grading outside the building footprint. Above-ground pools are not eligible for administrative approval unless they are not publicly visible. Pools and spas may be approved administratively if the following criteria are met:
1. The pool or spa is screened or not publicly visible as defined in Section 6.4.
2. Site grading outside the footprint of the pool or spa does not exceed 50 cubic yards.
3. Any proposed retaining walls associated with the pool or spa must meet the administrative approval standards for retaining walls in subsection 6.2.P.
4. Any proposed mechanical equipment meets the mechanical equipment administrative approval criteria listed in subsection 6.2.L and 6.2.M.
6.3.15 Porches
Residential porches may be approved administratively if the following criteria are met:
1. If the porch is publicly visible as defined in Section 6.4, the porch roof is not higher than 12 feet.
Exhibit G
Single Family Streamlining Project
Proposed SFDB Guidelines
Single Family Design Board Guidelines
CITY OF SANTA BARBARA | SFDB Guidelines Page 61
6.3.16 Retaining Walls
Retaining walls may be approved administratively if the following criteria are met:
1. Less than 5 feet tall. Exception: If the project involves reconstruction of an existing, permitted retaining wall, then the retaining wall may be rebuilt at the same height and length using the same materials that were permitted or replaced with cut sandstone or stucco.
2. Similar in character in terms of height, length, and materials with other retaining walls visible in the neighborhood from public viewing locations.
3. Hillside Design District retaining walls must be screened with vegetation or finished in neutral colors to blend with the natural surroundings.
4. Retaining walls must meet the development standards for retaining walls in SBMC
30.140.110.G.
5. Any grading or landscape alteration associated with retaining wall construction complies with the administrative approval standards for hardscape and landscape alterations in subsection
6.2.J.
6.3.17 Roofs and Reroofs
Reroofs and projects proposing to replace existing two-piece clay Mission-Style tile with a different material are not eligible for administrative approvals. S-tile (one-piece) roofing material is not eligible for administrative approval unless it is replacing existing, permitted S-tile. Vegetated roofs are prohibited in High Fire Hazard Areas. In order to be approved administratively, new roofs and re-roofs must comply with the following criteria:
1. Shiny or reflective roofing materials are not used.
2. The type of roofing material and color is compatible with the architectural style of the structure. Neutral colors and earth tones are generally acceptable for administrative approval.
See the Santa Barbara Colors Guide for examples.
3. Vegetated roofing is prohibited in High Fire Hazard Areas.
Exhibit G
Single Family Streamlining Project
Proposed SFDB Guidelines
Single Family Design Board Guidelines
CITY OF SANTA BARBARA | SFDB Guidelines Page 62
Roofing Materials Guidance. Roof materials generally eligible for administrative approval are listed in the table below by architectural style. Note: the table below is not an exhaustive list; roofing materials not listed below may be considered for administrative approval on a case-by-case basis. Additional guidance on appropriate roof materials can be found in A Field Guide To American Houses.
6.3.17 Screening and Screening Waivers
Screening elements such as fences, hedges, walls, and landscape planting may be administratively approved provided that they are no higher than necessary to fully screen the mechanical equipment, automobile parking spaces, or other item they are intended to screen. The requirement for screening may be waived if the item being screened is not publicly visible or is already screened by existing screening elements, location on the lot, or topography. Refer to the Administrative Approval Standards for fences for approvable materials.
6.3.18 Skylights
Skylights may be approved administratively if the following criteria are met:
1. Skylights are flat and made of non-reflective materials; or
2. Are screened by the building form, landscaping, or a parapet.
6.3.19 Tree Removal
Tree removal or replacement may be approved administratively if the following criteria are met:
1. The tree removal or replacement meets the original planting purpose as defined in Section 6.4 of these Guidelines.
2. The tree removal or replacement does not alter or amend a condition of approval.
Architectural Style of Main House Roofing Materials
Any Style Match Existing Material
Contemporary (Ranch, Midcentury, American
Vernacular, tract homes)
Composition Shingle, Standing Seam Metal
Craftsman Composition Shingle
Mission Clay Two-Piece Terra Cotta Mission Tile
Spanish Revival Clay Two-Piece Terra Cotta Mission Tile Victorian (Queen Anne, Stick, Folk Victorian) Composition Shingle
Exhibit G
Single Family Streamlining Project
Proposed SFDB Guidelines
Single Family Design Board Guidelines
CITY OF SANTA BARBARA | SFDB Guidelines Page 63
3. No more than three trees are proposed to be removed or replaced.
4. No historic tree or specimen tree is proposed for removal. (Historic and specimen trees are specially designated and are reviewed by the Parks and Recreation Department.).
5. No setback tree shall be administratively approved for removal unless it has received required approvals at Street Tree Advisory Committee and Parks & Recreation Commission.
6. No skyline or mature native tree (such as a Coast Live Oak/Quercus agrifolia) is proposed for removal.
7. Replacement does not occur within 50 feet from the top of creek bank as established on an approved plan or section drawing.
8. A vegetation removal permit is not triggered pursuant to SBMC Chapter 22.10.
9. If tree removal does not include replacement trees, it may still be approved administratively if it meets any of the following criteria:
a. An appropriate number and size of other trees would remain on the project site after the requested removal, in keeping with the original planting purpose; or; b. A sufficient number of adjacent trees exist on City Property (i.e. the Public Right of Way including parkway planters) to maintain desirable tree density in the area; or c. The tree or trees have been determined by a qualified arborist to be negatively affecting the structural integrity of real property including fences, structures, or paving; or
d. The tree or trees have been determined by a qualified arborist to be negatively affecting the structural integrity or health of other adjacent trees; or e. The tree or trees have been determined by a qualified arborist to be unable to survive or thrive in its current location.
6.3.20 Tree Removal, Emergency/Hazardous
Removal of a tree that presents an apparent hazard to life or property, as verified in writing by a certified arborist, may be approved administratively if any of the following criteria are met:
1. The main trunk of the tree is less than four inches in diameter at a point four feet, six inches above the highest natural grade adjacent to the trunk; or
2. The tree is diseased, and the tree's condition is a source of present danger to healthy trees in the immediate vicinity; or
3. The tree is so weakened by age, disease, storm, fire, or any injury so as to cause imminent danger to persons or property; or
Exhibit G
Single Family Streamlining Project
Proposed SFDB Guidelines
Single Family Design Board Guidelines
CITY OF SANTA BARBARA | SFDB Guidelines Page 64
4. The tree is dead; or
5. The Fire Department has ordered the tree removed in order to maintain required defensible space on the lot or to comply with the City's Wildland Fire Plan.
6.3.21 Trellises, Pergolas, Patio Covers, and Sunshades Chain link, chicken wire, shiny or reflective material, corrugated metal, plastic, vinyl, wire-mesh, and unfaced cement block materials are not eligible for administrative approval. Trellises and pergolas are eligible for administrative approval if the following criteria are met:
1. The trellis or pergola covers less than 250 square feet and is less than 12 feet in height.
Exception: If the trellis or pergola is not publicly visible as defined in subsection 6.4, then it may be up to 500 square feet.
2. Constructed of smooth cedar, redwood, high-quality pressure-treated pine, or comparable material and left in a natural condition to weather or be treated with a neutral or wood color stain or sealer. Structures not made of wood must be constructed of a quality material such as a wood-like composite (e.g. Trex). Structures that are painted must match the paint color of the siding or trim of the main building.
6.3.22 Windows
Projects involving the replacement of original wood windows with vinyl windows are discouraged and may not be eligible for administrative approval, especially if the proposed vinyl windows are publicly visible. Repair of existing wood windows is preferred when feasible. Projects proposing to remove a publicly visible Special Design Window (as defined in Section 6.4) are not eligible for administrative approval. Projects involving the replacement or installation of windows may be administratively approved if the following criteria are met:
1. The type, color, size, and scale of proposed windows are compatible with the architectural style of the house.
2. Windows of additions visually match the predominant windows of the house.
3. The window location, size, and scale generally comply with Good Neighbor Guidelines for privacy.
4. Where adjacent windows are "divided light" type, the new windows are also divided light to match the existing windows.
5. Proposed divided light windows must use an external grid and not have faux mullions or an “internal grid” where the grid is sandwiched between the two pieces of glass.
Exhibit G
Single Family Streamlining Project
Proposed SFDB Guidelines
Single Family Design Board Guidelines
CITY OF SANTA BARBARA | SFDB Guidelines Page 65
6.4 Definitions
Any terms used in these Guidelines that are not specifically defined below shall be as defined in the Municipal Code.
6.4.1 Publicly Visible The condition when a building, structure, or land use is within the area between a front lot line and up to 35 feet behind any front lot line and is either (1) observable by the public along any abutting public area or (2) is observable by the public from a public area on the other side of an abutting street or right-of-way.
6.4.2 Special Design Window
A window that uses quality materials such as wood or steel and is constructed using a unique or artistic design style is considered a Special Design Window. Such windows are an important component of a building’s character and may be an enhancement to the entire neighborhood. Such windows include, but are not limited to, leaded glass windows, stained glass windows, multi-pane wood windows with elaborate muntin patterns, or non-rectangular accent windows.
6.4.3 Skyline Tree
A tree that is at least 50 feet tall that is publicly visible from multiple viewing locations and contributes to the character of a streetscape or neighborhood. Skyline trees are generally taller and more noticeable than adjacent trees and structures.
Exhibit G
Single Family Streamlining Project
Proposed SFDB Guidelines
Exhibit H
Single Family Streamlining Project
Summary of Changes to SFDB Guidelines
SUMMARY OF CHANGES TO SFDB GUIDELINES
The table below provides an outline of the changes to the SFDB General Design Guidelines and Meeting Procedures, proposed to be renamed as the SFDB Guidelines. Below the table is an explanation of key changes to the administrative approval standards.
EXHIBIT H Page 738 of 767
Exhibit H
Single Family Streamlining Project
Summary of Changes to SFDB Guidelines
Updated Guidelines Section
Name & Page Number
Summary of Changes
Table of Contents, pp. 2-3 Reformatted and shortened for easier navigation.
Introduction, pp. 4-7 Added consolidated SFDB Goals, a Statement on Neighborhood Compatibility, Character, and Architectural Style; added a reference to other applicable guidelines; removed reference to outdated guidelines.
Section 1 - General Information,
pp. 8-17
Review process information consolidated into one section.
Added information about SFDB jurisdiction and the design review process, including submittal requirements, levels of review, and steps in the process. Added a section on
determining substantial conformance to approved plans.
Reduced maximum allowable floor area increase from 150
square feet to 50 square feet.
Section 2 – Meeting Procedures,
pp. 18-26
General meeting procedures information consolidated into one section.
Section 3 – Meeting Conduct for
SFDB Members, pp. 27-29
Moved Board member-specific meeting conduct information to follow general meeting procedures.
Section 4 – Submittal
Requirements and Visual Aids,
pp. 30-35
Clarifications and updates regarding when visual aids are required, with explanations of commonly used visual aids.
Added procedure for waiving story pole requirements and included description of the levels of story pole installation.
Added timing and documentation requirements for story pole installations.
Section 5 – Landscape Design
Guidelines, pp. 36-46
Reorganized and reformatted. Minor updates and
clarifications. Replaced outdated Water Conservation
information with a reference to the City website for current Water Conservation best practices; relocated subdivision grading plan guidelines from the Meeting Procedures section.
Section 6 - Administrative
Approval Standards, pp. 50-61
Added procedures for administrative review. Added general administrative approval standards for landscape projects, designing projects in consideration of neighbors, changes to approved plans, and home hardening for fire resistance.
Expanded general standards for additions and alterations.
Added project-specific standards for screening and screening waivers. Expanded project-specific standards for accessory buildings, additions, decks, fences, hardscape & landscape,
Exhibit H
Single Family Streamlining Project
Summary of Changes to SFDB Guidelines
Key Changes to the Administrative Approval Standards
For brevity, only the key changes to the Administrative Approval Standards are discussed below.
Refer to Exhibit F (Draft SFDB Guidelines, Section 6.1-6.3) for the full text of the SFDB Administrative Approval Standards.
New Procedures Section
The current Administrative Approval Standards lack thorough instructions for use, which makes it difficult to train staff, applicants, and the public on how to use them. The proposed guidelines address this issue with a new Procedures section that outlines how to review projects using the General Administrative Approval Standards and the Project-Specific Administrative Approval Standards. The procedures include step-by-step instructions and an example.
Updated General Administrative Approval Standards
The General Standards assist with “big picture” considerations such as how to evaluate architectural style, designing projects in consideration of neighbors, how to review changes to approved plans, and how to evaluate a project’s scale in relation to the neighborhood. The General Standards have been expanded to include new standards for landscape, designing projects in consideration of neighbors, reviewing changes to approved plans, and home hardening for fire resistance. The existing General Standards have been updated for consistency with the proposed ordinance and to include additional guidance to assist Staff, applicants, and the public understand what the broad considerations are to grant an administrative approval.
General Standards: Home Hardening for Fire Resistance
The General Administrative Approval Standards are proposed to be expanded with new, more lenient standards for home hardening projects in High Fire Hazard Areas that are using Staterecognized fire-resistant materials. Fire preparedness is an increasingly important topic to homeowners in the City, particularly with the July 2025 expansion of the City’s mapped High Fire Hazard Areas. If a project is proposing new fire-resistant materials and site design, staff will be able to administratively approve those elements even if they do not explicitly meet the applicable project-specific administrative approval standards. This is not anticipated to result in undesirable design outcomes, since most common and approvable building materials, such as standing seam roofing, 2-piece clay tile, class A asphalt shingles, and dual pane tempered glass windows already meet State fire resistance requirements. However, if the decision is between a project being aesthetically superior or fire resistant, the proposed guidelines allow staff to approve the more fireresistant option.
Updated Project-Specific Administrative Approval Standards The Project-Specific Standards have been updated to include more types of projects that can be administratively approved. Along with increasing administrative approval size limits for accessory pools & spas, retaining walls, roofs, tree removal, trellises, and windows.
Exhibit H
Single Family Streamlining Project
Summary of Changes to SFDB Guidelines
buildings, additions, and decks, the Project-Specific standards include fewer restrictions on the types of exterior materials that are eligible for administrative approval, including windows, decks, fences, and roofing. To temper the increased allowances in the standards and maintain aesthetic oversight, new criteria have been added regarding elements such as project height, location on the lot, screening, and preservation of character-defining features. Examples include:
• Accessory buildings up to 800 square feet may be administratively approved, however they cannot exceed one story or 17 feet in height, cannot be located in the front yard, and must match the architectural style of the main house if the accessory building is publicly visible, and other standards.
• Additions of up to 800 square feet may be approved administratively, however existing development must be less than 4,000 square feet, the addition must not significantly alter the front façade, and the project must not exceed 85% of the maximum required floor area ratio (FAR), and other standards.
• Vinyl windows are no longer disqualified from administrative approval and may be administratively approved if they are a visual match to the existing windows, are not replacing original wood windows, and other standards.
The intent in adding these caveats to the more inclusive Project-Specific administrative approval standards is to introduce flexibility into the process while ensuring projects are compatible with the neighborhood. Adding this level of specificity to the standards also facilitates more straightforward review by staff by reducing confusion and adding objectivity. Key changes to specific standards are described in more detail below.
Project-Specific Standards: Accessory Buildings
The current Project-Specific Standards only allow administrative approval of accessory buildings of up to 250 square feet and 500 square feet if not publicly visible. The proposed standards increase the administrative approval limit to 800 square feet, consistent with State accessory dwelling unit regulations that allow ministerial approval of units up to 800 square feet. New standards that act as guardrails are proposed along with the increased size limit, including that accessory buildings not used for covered parking and located in the front yard are not eligible for administrative approval. These changes encourage accessory buildings to be located in the back yard and limited to one story, while allowing a larger size than the current standards.
Project-Specific Standards: Additions
In terms of impacts to the site and neighborhood, the most significant change proposed for the Project-Specific Administrative Approval Standards is to increase the size of additions that can be administratively approved by staff. The current SFDB Guidelines allow administrative approval of first-story additions up to 250 square feet and upper story additions up to 150 square feet. A first story addition of up to 500 square feet can be administratively approved if it is not publicly
Exhibit H
Single Family Streamlining Project
Summary of Changes to SFDB Guidelines
visible1
and is located in consideration of neighbors2. The proposed amendments increase the size of additions that can be approved administratively from 500 to 800 square feet on the first story (to align with the State law allowance for one 800 square foot ADU), and from 150 to 250 square feet on an upper story. This would keep these modest additions with little to no potential for negative neighborhood impacts out of a public hearing.
The proposed administrative approval standards include a caveat for large residential development, consistent with the design review trigger for additions on lots developed with more than 4,000 net square feet of floor area. The proposed administrative approval standards allow staff to approve additions of up to 800 square feet on lots developed with up to 4,000 square feet of floor area, but for lots developed with more than 4,000 square feet of floor area, only up to 250 square feet of additions can be approved administratively. This places more scrutiny on additions to homes that are already large by Santa Barbara’s standards and gives staff the flexibility to approve larger additions to smaller homes.
Project-Specific Standards: Decks
Currently, the SFDB Guidelines allow administrative approval of first-story decks up to 200 square feet, and do not allow administrative approval of balconies or upper-story decks. This project proposes to increase the allowable size for administrative approvals of decks to 400 square feet at the first story and 250 square feet for decks at the second and higher story. Upper story decks under 160 square feet would be exempt from design review provided that they meet the new zoning standards for balconies and upper story decks. Consistent with the Single-Family Residence Design Guidelines, an existing design standard is proposed to be added to the zoning ordinance requiring decks greater than 20 square feet to be located at least 15 feet from interior lot lines.
Planning Commission supported this concept at the March 21, 2024 discussion on this project.
Any project that does not comply with this standard may be approved by the applicable Design Review body, but would not be eligible for administrative approval.
Roof decks (decks on top of the roof of the highest story) would not be eligible for administrative approval. The SFDB/AIA subcommittee agreed that roof decks require more scrutiny due to their potential for privacy and noise nuisance issues.
Project-Specific Standards: Windows
The current Project-Specific Standards for windows are ambiguous about the eligibility of two of the most common window materials: aluminum and vinyl. This leads to confusion among staff and inefficient processing of applications, even for windows on the rear of the house that aren’t publicly visible. The proposed standards remedy this issue by changing the criteria to not exclude aluminum or vinyl and to encourage new and replaced windows to match the existing windows.
They also add a new standard, that the replacement of original wood windows or Special Design 1 A building, structure, or improvement is publicly visible if it may be typically, reasonably, and usually observed by an average person standing or traveling upon a public right-of-way (including streets and sidewalks) or visible from a public park, beach, or other area generally open for public use. If the building, structure, or improvement is only visible from a very distant viewing location where the building, structure, or improvement would not be readily discernable from the viewing location, then the building, structure, or improvement is not considered publicly visible for purposes of interpreting these Guidelines (SFDB Guidelines & Meeting Procedures p.15). 2 I.e., generally consistent with the Good Neighbor Guidelines (Single Family Residence Design Guidelines p. 67-N).
Exhibit H
Single Family Streamlining Project
Summary of Changes to SFDB Guidelines
Windows3 with another type of window is not administratively approvable. This places more scrutiny on projects that propose to remove character-defining features and less scrutiny on a homeowner replacing an aluminum rear bathroom window with vinyl. Although it seems minor, this change will allow staff to be more efficient with their review of home improvement projects. 3 A window that uses quality materials such as wood or steel and is constructed using a unique or artistic design style is considered a Special Design Window. Such windows are an important component of a building’s character and may be an enhancement to the entire neighborhood. Such windows include, but are not limited to, leaded glass windows, stained glass windows, multi-pane wood windows with elaborate muntin patterns, or non-rectangular accent windows.
Exhibit I
Single Family Streamlining Project
Summary of SFDB Project Data Analysis
Summary of SFDB Project Data Analysis
Overview
For the Single Family Design Board (SFDB) process improvement project, staff gathered and synthesized data using both quantitative and qualitative research methods. To begin, staff performed a comprehensive scan of relevant data from city permitting records on single-unit residential projects that triggered SFDB design review. This was followed by robust qualitative data gathering via one-on-one interviews with current and former SFDB board members; a survey of homeowners, architects, and land use professionals; and focus groups to discuss SFDB process improvements. Staff reviewed the project data and engagement results to understand applicants’ frustrations with the process and to identify potential improvements for better customer experience.
Methodology
Staff collected and analyzed data from 440 SFDB projects submitted between 2019 and 2022 to understand the type and scope of projects being reviewed and the frequency with which those project types are triggered for review. This period was chosen because it allowed for a reasonably sized sample of projects being processed under the current code and regulations. By comparing project data with the synthesized feedback from the survey, interviews, and focus groups, staff identified opportunities to amend the current design review triggers and procedures, which are anticipated to result in an approximate 21% reduction in the number of projects that trigger any level of SFDB review. See Figure 1 below for a breakdown of the percentage of projects per review level before and after the proposed amendments.
Figure 1: Pre- and Post- Streamlining SFDB Project Count by Review level Administrative
41%
Consent
31%
Full Board
28%
Current/Pre-Update
Administrative
35%
Consent
17%
Full Board
27%
Eliminated
Projects, 21%
Proposed/Post-Update
EXHIBIT I Page 744 of 767
Exhibit I
Single Family Streamlining Project
Summary of SFDB Project Data Analysis
Discussion
When a project is “triggered” for SFDB design review, it means that part of the project’s scope of work meets certain thresholds in the Municipal Code that require design review. Unlike other types of development such as commercial and multifamily, not all single family projects automatically trigger design review. If a project triggers SFDB design review per the code, staff first assess the level of review (Administrative, Consent, or Full Board) based on the extent of exterior changes to the building or site1. The flowchart in Figure 2 below explains how design review triggers work.
Figure 2: How design review triggers work
In the three-year dataset, the Hillside Design District trigger accounted for half of all SFDB projects and the upper-story triggers accounted for an additional twenty-five percent. The remaining 33 design review triggers were used less frequently. See Figure 3 below for a breakdown of the most frequently-used SFDB triggers.
1 General Guidance on the appropriate SFDB review level for various project types can be found in the SFDB General Design Guidelines and Meeting Procedures.
Exhibit I
Single Family Streamlining Project
Summary of SFDB Project Data Analysis
Figure 3: Frequently used SFDB triggers
Forty-five percent (199) of all SFDB projects analyzed in the three-year dataset were for exterior alterations only (see Figure 4 below), such as window changes, reroofs, new fences, and landscaping, with no change in square footage or the size and bulk of the house. These minor projects tended to be reviewed administratively without a public hearing; however, there were still a significant number of alterations-only projects (ranging from minor to major alterations) that were reviewed at SFDB Consent or Full Board. Fifty-three percent (107) of those alterations-only projects triggered SFDB review because of the property’s location in the Hillside Design District, and about 16% (18) of the alterations-only projects triggered SFDB review because they were on an upper story.
SFDB Project Types - 3 Year Data
Upper Story
Additions & Alterations:
125 Projects
28% of All Projects
Decks, Re-Roofs,
Fences, etc.:
88 Projects
22% of All Projects Hillside Design
District & 20% Slope
227 Projects
50% of All Projects
Exhibit I
Single Family Streamlining Project
Summary of SFDB Project Data Analysis
Figure 4: SFDB project categories
19 199
10 125
75 12
0 50
100
150
200
250
Additions
Only
Alterations
Only
New
Building(s)
Only
Additions
and
Alterations
New
Building(s)
and
Alterations
Additions,
Alterations,
and New
Buildings
Number of Projects
Project Category
SFDB Project Categories
City of Santa Barbara
PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES
MARCH 21, 2024
1:00 P.M.
City Hall, Council Chambers
735 Anacapa Street
SantaBarbaraCA.gov
COMMISSION MEMBERS:
John M. Baucke, Chair
Devon Wardlow, Vice Chair
Brian Barnwell
Lucille Boss
Donald DeLuccio
Sheila Lodge
Lesley Wiscomb
CITY COUNCIL LIAISON:
Mike Jordan
STAFF:
Tava Ostrenger, Assistant City Attorney
Megan Arciniega, Senior Planner
Mariah Johnson, Commission Secretary
CALL TO ORDER
Chair Baucke called the meeting to order at 1:00 p.m.
I. ROLL CALL
Chair John M. Baucke, Vice Chair Devon Wardlow, Commissioners Brian Barnwell, Lucille Boss, Donald DeLuccio, Sheila Lodge, and Lesley Wiscomb
Absent: None
STAFF PRESENT
Tava Ostrenger, Assistant City Attorney
Megan Arciniega, Senior Planner
Ellen Kokinda, Design Review Supervisor
Ted Hamilton-Rolle, Project Planner
Pilar Plummer, Associate Planner
Christopher Bell, City TV Production Supervisor
Janet Ahern, City TV Production Specialist
Mariah Johnson, Commission Secretary
II. PRELIMINARY MATTERS
A. Requests for continuances, withdrawals, postponements, or addition of ex-agenda items:
No requests.
B. Announcements and appeals:
No announcements.
Exhibit J - Planning Commission Minutes EXHIBIT J Page 748 of 767 C. Comments from members of the public pertaining to items not on this agenda:
Public comment opened at 1:01 p.m., and as no one wished to speak, it closed.
III. NEW ITEM
ACTUAL TIME: 1:02 P.M.
324 W MONTECITO ST
Assessor’s Parcel Number: 037-232-018
Zoning Designation: C-G (Commercial General)
Application Number: PLN2024-00027
Applicant: J.K. Mondol, Mondol Development Co.
Owner: Jonathan Modugno Revocable Trust
Thomas and Kim Modugno, Trustees
The proposed project involves a change in ownership of Santa Cruz Market, which results in the transfer of the associated ABC license (Type 20) to the new owner. The Type 20 license allows the market to sell alcohol for off-site consumption under the Alcoholic Beverage Control Act. No changes are proposed to the building or existing site.
The discretionary applications under the jurisdiction of the Planning Commission at this hearing are:
A. A Conditional Use Permit to allow for continued sale of alcoholic beverages for off-site consumption with a Type 20 license (SBMC §30.185.075 & SBMC §30.215) Confirm the Environmental Analyst’s determination that the project is exempt from further environmental review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15301, [Existing Facilities].
Pilar Plummer, Associate Planner, gave the Staff presentation.
J.K. Mondol, Mondol Development Co., Applicant, gave the Applicant presentation, and was joined by Thomas and Kim Modugno, Owners.
Public comment opened at 1:22 p.m., and as no one wished to speak, it closed.
Written correspondence from David Powdrell, Anonymous, Anonymous, Carter and Wendy Morgan, Kelley Baeza, Kimberly De Campos, Anonymous, Anonymous, Marina, Jess Frank, Anonymous, Mitchell Vance, Robert and Bonnie Moore, Tom Hoffman, Sarah, Michael B.
Malone, Peter Overgaag, Janean and Jim Daniels, and Anonymous was acknowledged.
MOTION: DeLuccio / Barnwell Assigned Resolution No. 006-24 Approve the project, making the findings for the Conditional Use Permit and confirm the Environmental Analyst’s determination of exemption as outlined in the Staff Report dated March 13, 2024, subject to the Conditions of Approval as outlined in the Staff Report, with the following revision to the Conditions of Approval:
Exhibit J - Planning Commission Minutes Page 749 of 767
1. Under General Conditions - Mandatory Training add, “either the Responsible Beverage Service (RBS) training or the Licensee Education on Alcohol and Drugs program (LEAD) Training.”
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: 7 Noes: 0 Abstain: 0 Absent: 0
IV. DISCUSSION ITEM
ACTUAL TIME: 1:36 P.M.
SINGLE FAMILY DESIGN BOARD PROCESS IMPROVEMENTS
Reference Number: PLN2024-00017
City Staff will be presenting a conceptual-level discussion of the proposed Single Family Design Board (SFDB) process improvements. The discussion will include proposed code amendment concepts to reduce the number of SFDB design review triggers and to expand opportunities for administrative (staff) review, which will help cut down on the number of SFDB projects that require a public hearing.
Ted Hamilton-Rolle, Project Planner, gave the Staff presentation. Ellen Kokinda, Design Review Supervisor, was available to answer questions.
Public comment opened at 2:56 p.m., and the following individuals spoke:
1. Leslie Colasse
2. Karen Lantz
Written correspondence from Fred L. Sweeney, AIA and Leslie M. Colasse was acknowledged.
Public comment closed at 3:04 p.m.
Commission Comments:
• Some Commissioners support eliminating SFDB design review triggers for small additions up to 250 square feet while some Commissioners do not.
• All Commissioners support eliminating SFDB design review triggers for minor alterations. • All Commissioners support maintaining a design review trigger for major alternations. • Some Commissioners recommend “major alterations” be quantified. • All Commissioners support rewriting the SFDB design review triggers to shift their locationbased focus from special design districts to a scope-based focus on a project’s potential for significant impacts on adjacent properties and the neighborhood. • All Commissioners support the design review exception for upper-story decks further than 15 feet from any interior lot line but do not support roof decks being included in this exception. • Some Commissioners suggest that the design review exception for upper-story decks further than 15 feet from the interior lot line changes to 120 square feet instead of the proposed 200 square feet.
• All Commissioners indicated that roof decks above the second story should not be included in this exception.
Exhibit J - Planning Commission Minutes Page 750 of 767 • All Commissioners support elimination of noticing requirements for minor projects. • All Commissioners support the proposed amendments to required findings with elimination of “erosion control” from the Grading Findings.
• In the proposed Neighborhood Preservation Findings most Commissioners support combining “Compatibility and Character” and “Quality Architecture and Materials.” • The Commission supports amending Title 30 to make the Community Development Director the default MZE review authority with the ability to refer MZEs to design review if needed.
They suggest including “or their designee” and defining the Community Development Director.
• The Commission agrees with SFDB becoming the review authority for project requests that exceed maximum FAR.
V. ADMINISTRATIVE AGENDA
ACTUAL TIME: 4:03 P.M.
A. Committee and Liaison Reports:
1. Staff Hearing Officer Liaison Report
No report.
2. Other Committee and Liaison Reports
a. Commissioner Lodge reported on the Architectural Board of Review meeting of March 18, 2024.
b. Chair Baucke reported on the State Street Advisory Committee meeting of March 18, 2024.
B. Discussion on Subcommittees and Workshops
No discussion held.
VI. ADJOURNMENT
Chair Baucke adjourned the meeting at 4:06 p.m.
Submitted by,
__________________________________________
Mariah Johnson, Commission Secretary
Exhibit J - Planning Commission Minutes Page 751 of 767 Exhibit K
Single Family Streamlining Project
Proposed and Current SFDB Findings
Proposed and Current SFDB Findings
Proposed Findings:
1. Neighborhood Compatibility Findings.
a. Compatibility and Character. The project is compatible with the site and neighborhood in its size, bulk, and scale; and contributes to the scenic character of the City.
b. Quality Architecture and Materials. The buildings and structures are designed with quality architectural details and enhance the appearance of the neighborhood. c. Good Neighbor Guidelines. The project complies with the Good Neighbor Guidelines regarding privacy, landscaping, noise and lighting. d. Trees. The proposed project does not remove or significantly impact mature trees and complies with the Tree Protection and Preservation Standards in the applicable design guidelines.
e. Public Views. The development, including proposed structures and grading, preserves significant public scenic views of and from the hillside.
2. Hillside Finding. The following finding shall be made on any project on a lot within the Hillside Design District (Section 30.220.060.B), with an average slope of 20% or more:
a. Hillside and Ridgeline Design Compatibility. The development, including structure scale, form, materials, and colors, blends with the natural appearance of the ridgeline or hillside and does not significantly alter the natural topography of the site.
3. Grading and Vegetation Removal Findings. The following findings shall be made on any project that requires design review for grading, or a Vegetation Removal Permit under Chapter 22.10:
a. Natural Topography Protection. The grading is appropriate to the site, is designed to avoid visible scarring, and does not significantly alter the natural topography or appearance of any ridgeline or hillside.
b. Vegetation Removal. The proposed vegetation removal will not cause a substantial loss of southern oak woodland habitat and will comply with all applicable provisions of Chapter 22.10, Vegetation Removal.
4. Maximum Floor Area Ratio (FAR) Exception Findings. Any project that exceeds 100% of the Maximum Floor Area Ratio (FAR) must be consistent with the findings in Section
30.20.030.A of this Title:
Required Findings for Maximum FAR Exception.
EXHIBIT K Page 752 of 767
Exhibit K
Single Family Streamlining Project
Proposed and Current SFDB Findings
The Design Review body shall make all of the following findings in order to approve a Maximum FAR Exception…:
a. The subject lot has a physical condition—such as location, surroundings, topography, or the size or dimensions of the lot relative to other lots in the neighborhood—that does not generally exist on other lots in the neighborhood; and
b. The physical condition of the lot allows the proposed project to be compatible with existing development within the neighborhood that complies with the applicable Maximum FAR standard.
Current Findings:
Neighborhood preservation findings.
Prior to approval of any project, the Single Family Design Board shall make each of the following findings:
1. Consistency and Appearance. The proposed development is consistent with the scenic character of the City and will enhance the appearance of the neighborhood.
2. Compatibility. The proposed development is compatible with the neighborhood, and its size, bulk, and scale are appropriate to the site and neighborhood.
3. Quality Architecture and Materials. The proposed buildings and structures are designed with quality architectural details. The proposed materials and colors maintain the natural appearance of the ridgeline or hillside.
4. Trees. The proposed project does not include the removal of or significantly impact any designated Specimen Tree, Historic Tree or Landmark Tree. The proposed project, to the maximum extent feasible, preserves and protects healthy, non-invasive trees with a trunk diameter of four inches or more measured four feet above natural grade. If the project includes the removal of any healthy, non-invasive tree with a diameter of four inches or more measured four feet above natural grade, the project includes a plan to mitigate the impact of such removal by planting replacement trees in accordance with applicable tree replacement ratios.
5. Health, Safety, and Welfare. The public health, safety, and welfare are appropriately protected and preserved.
6. Good Neighbor Guidelines. The project generally complies with the Good Neighbor Guidelines regarding privacy, landscaping, noise and lighting.
7. Public Views. The development, including proposed structures and grading, preserves significant public scenic views of and from the hillside.
Exhibit K
Single Family Streamlining Project
Proposed and Current SFDB Findings
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.
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.
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.
Maximum Floor Area (Floor to Lot Area Ratio).
A Modification to allow a development that would otherwise be precluded by operation of Subsection 30.20.030.A, Maximum Floor Area (Floor to Lot Area Ratio), may only be approved if the Planning Commission makes all of the following findings:
Exhibit K
Single Family Streamlining Project
Proposed and Current SFDB Findings
1. Not less than five members of the Single-Family Design Board or six members of the Historic Landmarks Commission (on projects referred to the Commission pursuant to Section
30.220.020) have voted in support of the Modification following a concept review of the project;
2. The subject lot has a physical condition (such as the location, surroundings, topography, or the size or dimensions of the lot relative to other lots in the neighborhood) that does not generally exist on other lots in the neighborhood; and
3. The physical condition of the lot allows the project to be compatible with existing development within the neighborhood that comply with the floor area standard.
Exhibit L
Single Family Streamlining Project
General Plan Policy Consistency Analysis
GENERAL PLAN POLICY CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS
Staff has determined that the Single Family Streamlining Project is consistent with General Plan policies and programs that encourage process improvements, reduction in constraints on housing development, sustainable neighborhood planning, protection of historic resources, and protection of visual resources.
Consistency Analysis General Plan Policies
The Single Family Streamlining Project is
consistent with General Plan policies that
encourage process improvements by
supporting the reduction of constraints to
housing development. It also implements
recommendations made by the Novak
Consulting Group to streamline the design
review process by reducing the number of
projects subject to SFDB review, expanding
administrative approvals, and creating more
flexibility in the zoning ordinance for home
improvement projects.
Housing Element HE-5: Process Improvements
Housing Element H1.4: Reduce Constraints
Housing Element HE-8: Innovative Housing
Types
The Single-Family Streamlining Project is
consistent with General Plan policies that
protect historic resources. It maintains
oversight of new development adjacent to
historic resources.
Historic Resources Element HR1: Protect
Historic and Archaeological Resources
Historic Resources Element HR2: Ensure
respectful and compatible development.
The Single-Family Streamlining Project is
consistent with General Plan policies that
support community benefit housing. It
eliminates the requirement for a Conditional
Use Permit or Performance Standard Permit
for Community Care Facilities.
Land Use element LG5: Community Benefit
Housing.
Land Use Element LG5.1: Affordable Housing
Housing Element Policy H1.4: Reduce
Constraints
Housing Element Program HE-3: Special Needs
Housing
EXHIBIT L Page 756 of 767
Exhibit L
Single Family Streamlining Project
General Plan Policy Consistency Analysis
Consistency Analysis General Plan Policies
The Single-Family Streamlining Project is
consistent with General Plan policies that
reduce the urban heat island effect through
landscape. The ordinance implements new
front setback landscape requirements for all
lots with the intent of preventing excessive
paving on any given site.
Environmental Resources Element ER1.3
Urban Heat Island Effect.
The Single-Family Streamlining Project is
consistent with General Plan policies that
support innovative design standards. The
ordinance eliminates the requirement that
vehicle parking spaces must be covered, i.e. in
a garage or carport. Adds flexibility to provide
bike lockers in setbacks.
Circulation Element CE7.4.1:Incorporate
innovative design standards, such as tandem
parking, stacked parking, and valet parking.
Circulation Element CE4.2.3: Encourage
facilities for bicycle travel and parking in any
future development, construction, or
reconstruction projects during the review of
new development and infrastructure
improvements.
Circulation Element CE4.2.6: The City shall
work to expand, enhance, and maintain the
system of bikeways to serve current community
needs and to develop increased ridership for
bicycle transportation and recreation.
The Single-Family Streamlining Project is
consistent with General Plan policies that
support sustainable community planning
principles such as providing onsite open
space, strengthening design standards within
single-unit residential zones, promoting
neighborhood character and enhancing the
community’s sense of place through the
design review process. The ordinance also
allows for innovative use of existing floor
area on single-unit lots, decreasing the need to
construct new structures, thereby decreasing
resource use.
Land Use Element LG5.2: Open Space
Land Use Element LG12: Community
Character
Land Use Element LG14: Low Density Single
Family Zoned Residential Areas
Land Use Element LG15: Sustainable
Neighborhood Planning.
Environmental Resources Element ER30:
Enhance Visual Quality
Environmental Resources Element ER3:
Decrease City’s Global Footprint
Exhibit L
Single Family Streamlining Project
General Plan Policy Consistency Analysis
Land Use Element
LG5 Community Benefit Housing. While acknowledging the need to balance the provision of affordable housing with market-rate housing, new residential development in multi-family and commercial zones, including mixed-use projects, should include affordable housing and open space benefits.
Possible Implementation Actions to be Considered
LG5.1 Affordable Housing. Develop standards and project level findings to encourage the development of Community Benefit Housing defined as:
Rental housing;
Housing affordable to low, moderate, or middle income households; Employer sponsored workforce housing;
Limited Equity Co-operative Housing;
Affordable Housing Downtown for Downtown Workers; and/or Transitional housing, single residential occupancy, and other housing for special needs populations including seniors, physically or mentally disabled, homeless, and children aging out of foster care.
LG5.2 Open Space. Develop on and off site open space standards for incorporation into the development review process to include:
Access to adequate public open space within a ½-mile radius; and/or Dedication of sufficient useable open space on-site; and/or A contribution made toward future parks through in-lieu fees.
LG12 Community Character. Strengthen and enhance design and development review standards and process to enhance community character, promote affordable housing, and further community sustainability principles.
LG14 Low Density Single Family Zoned Residential Areas. Maintain and protect the character and quality of life of single family zoned neighborhoods as a low density residential community.
LG15 Sustainable Neighborhood Planning. Neighborhoods shall be encouraged to preserve and enhance the sense of place, provide opportunities for healthy living and accessibility, while reducing the community’s carbon footprint.
Exhibit L
Single Family Streamlining Project
General Plan Policy Consistency Analysis
Housing Element
Goal 1 – Create New Housing. Create new, healthy, safe, and energy-efficient housing that meets community needs, within our resources.
Policy H1.4 Reduce Constraints. Reduce and, where feasible and practical, remove unnecessary City-imposed constraints that impede housing development.
Program HE‐3: Amend The Zoning Ordinance for Special Needs Housing The 2023 Housing Element identified potential governmental constraints to housing, including Zoning Ordinance amendments necessary to comply with changes in state law.
Persons and households with special needs, particularly extremely low-income households and persons experiencing homelessness or at risk of becoming homeless, have limited housing options. Housing types appropriate for these groups include emergency shelters, low barrier navigation centers, transitional housing, supportive housing, and single-room occupancy units. Special needs persons may also find housing opportunities in residential care facilities and group homes.
As part of the Governmental Constraints analysis, amendments were identified to the City’s Zoning Ordinances to better facilitate a variety of special needs housing types, as required by state law.
The City will draft and adopt the following Zoning Ordinance amendments in compliance with state law :
• Residential Facilities/Group Homes: Amend the permit requirements for Community Care Facilities, Residential Facilities for the Elderly, and Hospices and clarify that only projects that include a housing type not allowed by right in the base zone (e.g., multiple units in a single-unit zone) or includes nonresidential accessory uses, will trigger the Use Permit requirements. The required findings for facilities serving seven or more individuals in a residential zone will be revised to ensure they are objective with approval certainty similar to other residential uses.
• Low Barrier Navigation Centers: Amend to allow Low-Barrier Navigation Centers (as defined in Government Code § 65660 (a)) in mixed-use and nonresidential zones permitting multi-unit uses.
• Employee and Farmworker Housing: Amend to categorize agriculture as an accessory use where allowed by zoning; thus clarifying that California Health and Safety Code §17021.8 does not apply and to allow agricultural employee housing as “employee housing” (as defined in Health and Safety Code § 17008) for six or fewer persons to be permitted without a Conditional Use Permit in all zones where single-unit residences are allowed.
• Emergency Shelters: Amend parking standards to comply with new state law parking provisions for emergency shelters.
Exhibit L
Single Family Streamlining Project
General Plan Policy Consistency Analysis
Program HE-5: Process Improvements
Since 2020, the City has been implementing discretionary and ministerial permit process improvements recommended by the Novak Consulting Group, Inc., (Novak Report, August 2020) guided by the City Council Land Development Team (LDT) Oversight Committee. In addition to the Novak Report, the Governmental Constraints analysis also identified City processes that potentially constrain housing projects, including multiple concept reviews and appealable actions. Through the City’s LDT Oversight Subcommittee, the City will further study and if appropriate implement some of the process improvements recommended by the Novak Report as well as those identified in Governmental Constraints analysis including drafting Zoning Ordinance and other Municipal Code amendments for adoption to streamline the design review process, such as reducing the number of design review triggers and appealable actions for projects that require design review approval. Process improvements may be implemented in two phases starting with single unit residential, followed by multi-unit residential developments.
Program HE-8: Innovative Housing Types
The Housing Needs Assessment and demographic changes indicate a need for a variety of housing types to suit special needs households and different household compositions, changes in circumstances or incomes, and existing and future household needs. The City will conduct outreach to the American Institute of Architects, developers, and contractors for input on housing trends and review the Zoning Ordinance to determine if amendments are necessary to incentivize and facilitate innovative housing types, such as small units (single room occupancy/efficiency/micro units), multi-generational housing, universal designed housing (i.e., safe and accessible for everyone), live-work units, small and large family day care homes, shared housing, cooperative housing, and temporary housing (for use when the primary unit is destroyed or damaged). Based on the results of the outreach and review, the City will draft Zoning Ordinance amendments for adoption to increase the production of innovative housing types.
Historic Resources Element
Policy HR1: Protect Historic and Archaeological Resources. Protect the heritage of the City by preserving, protecting and enhancing historic resources and archaeological resources. Apply available governmental resources, devices and approaches, such as the measures enumerated in the Land Use Element of this Plan, to facilitate their preservation and protection.
Policy HR2: Ensure respectful and compatible development. Seek to ensure that all development within the City respects rather than detracts from individual historic and archaeological resources as well as the neighborhood and the overall historical character of the
Exhibit L
Single Family Streamlining Project
General Plan Policy Consistency Analysis
city. Assure compatibility of development, respect for the historical context of historical resources, and consideration of sustainable design alternatives where compatible.
Environmental Resources Element
Policy ER1: Climate Change. As applicable, private development and public facilities and services may be required to incorporate measures to minimize contributions to climate change and to adapt to climate changes anticipated to occur within the life of each project.
Policy ER1.3: Urban Heat Island Effect. Improve carbon sequestration and reduce the urban heat island effect by:
a. Amending the Zoning Ordinance to establish standards that decrease impermeable surfaces and building areas relative to lot size;
b. Providing incentives such as expedited permitting for building projects that incorporate green roofs; and
c. Exploring possibilities for reducing standards for impermeable surfacing required by the Transportation Division and Fire Department.
Policy ER3: Decrease City’s Global Footprint. In addition to promoting reduced unit size, building footprints and GHG emissions, and energy conservation, promote the use of more sustainable building and landscaping materials and methods.
Policy ER30: Enhance Visual Quality. Not only retain, but improve visual quality of the city wherever practicable.
Circulation Element
Goal 4: Increase Bicycling as a Transportation Mode. Develop a comprehensive system of bicycle routes which are integrated with other modes of transportation and which provide safe and efficient bikeways.
Policy CE4.2: The City shall work to expand, enhance, and maintain the system of bikeways to serve current community needs and to develop increased ridership for bicycle transportation and recreation.
Policy CE4.2.3: Encourage facilities for bicycle travel and parking in any future development, construction, or reconstruction projects during the review of new development and infrastructure improvements. Bicycle facilities can be achieved through methods such as:
• purchase, dedication, and other means of property acquisition, • conditions of approval,
Exhibit L
Single Family Streamlining Project
General Plan Policy Consistency Analysis
• expanding the scope of maintenance projects, and
• enforcement of the Santa Barbara Municipal Code, Parking Section.
Policy CE4.2.6: Increase attractive, convenient, and secure bike parking and storage facilities on public property and encourage the provision of the same on private property.
Continue to consider fully enclosed individual lockers and/or bicycle racks.
Goal 7: Increase Access by Optimizing Parking Citywide. Develop and implement innovative parking management strategies and a master parking plan that is consistent with the scale of surrounding neighborhood land uses, supports the land uses of the General Plan, and furthers the goals of the Circulation Element's Vision Statement.
Policy CE7.4 The City shall update its Parking Requirements and Design Standards to optimize its parking resources and to encourage increased use of alternative transportation.
Policy CE7.4.1 Incorporate innovative design standards, such as tandem parking, stacked parking, and valet parking.
Policy C7.6 Residential Off-site Parking. Amend the Zoning Ordinance to allow residential required parking off-site in commercial zones.
City of Santa Barbara
PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES
DECEMBER 4, 2025
1:00 P.M.
City Hall, Council Chambers
735 Anacapa Street
SantaBarbaraCA.gov
COMMISSION MEMBERS:
Devon Wardlow, Chair
Lucille Boss, Vice Chair
Brian Barnwell
John M. Baucke
Donald DeLuccio
Benjamin Peterson
Lesley Wiscomb
CITY COUNCIL LIAISON:
Mike Jordan
STAFF:
Tava Ostrenger, Assistant City Attorney
Megan Arciniega, Senior Planner
Jasper Carman, Commission Secretary
CALL TO ORDER
Chair Wardlow called the meeting to order at 1:03 p.m.
I. ROLL CALL
Chair Devon Wardlow, Vice Chair Lucille Boss, Commissioners Brian Barnwell, John M.
Baucke, Donald DeLuccio, Benjamin Peterson, and Lesley Wiscomb
Absent: None
STAFF PRESENT
Allison DeBusk, Community Development Director
Tava Ostrenger, Assistant City Attorney
Ellen Kokinda, City Planner
Jessica Grant, Supervising Transportation Planner
Megan Arciniega, Senior Planner
Ted Hamilton-Rolle, Acting Design Review Supervisor
Brenda Beltz, Planning Analyst
Christopher Bell, City TV Production Supervisor
Janet Ahern, City TV Production Specialist
Jasper Carman, Commission Secretary
II. PRELIMINARY MATTERS
A. Requests for continuances, withdrawals, postponements, or addition of ex-agenda items:
No requests.
EXHIBIT M Page 763 of 767
Exhibit M
Planning Commission Draft Minutes, December 4, 2025
Planning Commission Minutes December 4, 2025 DRAFT Page 2 of 5 B. Announcements and appeals:
Ms. Arciniega announced that Commissioners Baucke and Wardlow were reappointed to their positions by the City Council on December 2, 2025.
Commissioner Wiscomb announced that Tava Ostrenger was promoted to Chief Assistant City Attorney.
C. Review, consideration, and action on the following draft Planning Commission minutes and resolutions:
1. November 6, 2025 Planning Commission Minutes
2. November 13, 2025 Planning Commission Minutes
3. Planning Commission Resolution No. 010-25
Los Patos Underpass Removal Project
MOTION: DeLuccio / Wiscomb
Approve the November 6, 2025 minutes and Planning Commission Resolution No. 010- 25 as amended.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: 6 Noes: 0 Abstain: 1 (Wardlow) Absent: 0
MOTION: DeLuccio / Baucke
Approve the November 13, 2025 minutes as presented.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: 7 Noes: 0 Abstain: 0 Absent: 0
D. Comments from members of the public pertaining to items not on this agenda:
Public comment opened at 1:06 p.m., and as no one wished to speak, it closed.
Written correspondence from Cherie Mignon, Arnie Cooper, and Paul & Lyn Kreiger was acknowledged.
III. DISCUSSION ITEM
ACTUAL TIME: 1:07 P.M.
SINGLE FAMILY STREAMLINING PROJECT
Application Number: PLN2024-00467
Applicant: Ted Hamilton-Rolle / City of Santa Barbara
Review the proposed Single Family Streamlining Project, including amendments to the Single Family Design Board Ordinance and updates to the Single Family Design Board Guidelines,
Exhibit M
Planning Commission Draft Minutes, December 4, 2025
Planning Commission Minutes December 4, 2025 DRAFT Page 3 of 5 along with amendments to Titles 30 and 22 of the Municipal Code. This project aims to simplify the review and approval process for single-unit development projects while also providing much needed Zoning Ordinance clean-ups.
Staff will present an overview of the proposed amendments to Chapters 22.22, 22.68, 22.69,
25.03, and multiple chapters in Title 30 (inland Zoning Ordinance) prior to returning for a formal recommendation to City Council in early 2026.
Ted Hamilton-Rolle, Acting Design Review Supervisor, gave the Staff presentation. Allison DeBusk, Community Development Director; Ellen Kokinda, City Planner; Jessica Grant, Supervising Transportation Planner; and Brenda Beltz, Planning Analyst, were available to answer questions.
Public comment opened at 1:31 p.m., and the following individuals spoke:
1. Derek Booth
2. Ellen Bildsten
3. Cass Ensberg
Written correspondence from Derek Booth, Kevin Dumain, Matt Gries on behalf of the AIA Santa Barbara, and Cass Ensberg was acknowledged.
Public comment closed at 1:42 p.m.
Commissioner comments:
Commissioner DeLuccio:
• Commends staff for an amazing job well done and thinks it is almost perfect. • Agrees with the input and suggestions shared today and believes a training will make the ordinance successful.
• Would like to see an annual review to gauge impact and results. • Appreciates that some stages of design review will be condensed with the building permit process, but still maintain the option to bring a project in front of a design review board if needed.
• Understands that the streamlining is necessary due to changes in state law and 5 hearing limit in many cases.
• Great job segregating the Neighborhood Preservation Ordinance findings in regard to findings and streamlining.
• Staff should help design review boards feel more comfortable and confident in their decisions, it would be supportable to have a short staff report or memo if staff felt it would be helpful to the boards and commissions.
• Understands that regulating hedges is hard.
Commissioner Wiscomb:
• Compliments staff for their hard work on this challenging project. • Agrees with public comment encouraging elimination of vague or ambiguous references such as section 4 of the proposed guidelines stating “in some cases” “may be requested” or “may need to show”. Review to see if firmer language could be used in these scenarios.
Exhibit M
Planning Commission Draft Minutes, December 4, 2025
Planning Commission Minutes December 4, 2025 DRAFT Page 4 of 5 • Would appreciate at least an internal review process if not one that returns to the Commission.
• Provide a note on the admin guideline chart to indicate the code section that changes the retaining wall height.
• Define public view explicitly.
• Add explicit definition for story poles especially concerning duration. • Thanks staff and believes it will help people with projects both with and without permits going forward.
Vice Chair Boss:
• Thanks staff for the proposal as it was a long time coming. • Appreciates the thorough public outreach and consideration of comments and feedback from everyone.
• Thanks staff for the inclusion of Exhibit C.
• Appreciates the solution to provide options for creative use of home space and conversion. Believes many households will welcome it as household dynamics change and more shared housing is added going forward.
Commissioner Baucke:
• Concurs with fellow Commissioner’s comments.
• Commends staff for doing a great job on a continuing work effort. • Believes that a conversation or review is necessary of the substantial conformance determination in relation to the square footage at a threshold of 15 x 10 or 150 sq. ft as it is significant compared to the original 20 sq. ft. threshold. Staff should review what would be a reasonable number.
• If an applicant wants to change their plans after approval they should have to go back through the review process.
Commissioner Barnwell:
• Agrees with the numbers that the 650 sq. ft unit is not a two-bedroom unit, it is a one bedroom unit or a studio, where the use is restricted by its design. It is for people who are just looking to add a bedroom and a bathroom. It is what used to be referred to as a Granny Unit and previously had requirements so onerous that only 9 passed in 22 years.
Commissioner Peterson:
• Thanks and commends staff for all of their hard work. • Echoes other Commissioners’ comments.
• Supports adding anything else that could be switched from discretionary review to ministerial review as well.
Chair Wardlow:
• Echoes previous feedback from Commissioners.
• Believes this is a great effort towards streamlining and increased ministerial review, the Commission has seen a few projects that would have benefit from this ordinance change already.
• Addresses a lot of questions for the Single Family Design Board. • Commends staff for their presentation as all questions were answered thoughtfully. • The Commission is unanimously in support of every aspect of the proposal.
Exhibit M
Planning Commission Draft Minutes, December 4, 2025
Planning Commission Minutes December 4, 2025 DRAFT Page 5 of 5 • Reiterates Commissioner Wiscomb’s comment regarding the definition of public views. • Agrees with Commissioner Peterson that if there is anything else that could be included it would be supportable, open to reviewing that when it returns for its first review.
IV. ADMINISTRATIVE AGENDA
ACTUAL TIME: 3:42 P.M.
A. Committee and Liaison Reports:
1. Staff Hearing Officer Liaison Report
No report.
2. Other Committee and Liaison Reports
a. Commissioner Barnwell reported on the December 2, 2025 meeting of City Council.
B. Discussion on Subcommittees and Workshops
No discussion held.
V. ADJOURNMENT
Chair Wardlow adjourned the meeting at 3:45 p.m.
Submitted by,
__________________________________________
Jasper Carman, Commission Secretary
Exhibit M
Planning Commission Draft Minutes, December 4, 2025
CITY OF SANTA BARBARA
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
AGENDA DATE: March 17, 2026
TO: Mayor and Councilmembers
FROM: Public Works Department
SUBJECT: Introduction of Ordinance Authorizing a Utility Easement to Southern California Edison at 51 Crestview Lane [Ordinance Introduction] RECOMMENDATION:
That Council introduce and subsequently adopt, by reading of title only, an Ordinance of the Council of the City of Santa Barbara Approving and Authorizing the Public Works Director to Execute a Utility Easement to Southern California Edison and Related Maintenance Agreement for Property Located at 51 Crestview Lane.
DISCUSSION:
The property owners of 55 Crestview Lane, Assessor’s Parcel Number (APN) 013-167- 005, are making improvements to their home and need to upgrade their electrical service.
Southern California Edison (SCE) has determined that the upgraded electrical facilities are best delivered to 55 Crestview Lane via an easement over the City-owned 51 Crestview Lane (the East Reservoir property). The homeowners have therefore requested that the City grant SCE an easement over the East Reservoir property to allow SCE to install overhead electrical infrastructure necessary to upgrade electrical service to their residence.
The City owns and operates the East Reservoir site, located at 51 Crestview Lane, APN 013-210-048, which is accessed via an existing access easement across 55 Crestview Lane. The access road within this easement is used by City staff and contractors for reservoir operations and maintenance.
In consideration of the proposed SCE easement, the property owners have agreed to assume full responsibility for the maintenance and repair of the City’s existing access road that serves the East Reservoir at no cost to the City through execution of a related maintenance agreement.
Approval of the utility easement and related maintenance agreement will allow the requested electrical service improvements, protect the City’s operational interests, Agenda Item No. 1
Council Agenda Report
Introduction of Ordinance Authorizing a Utility Easement to Southern California Edison at 51 Crestview Lane [Ordinance Introduction]
March 17, 2026
preserve access to critical water infrastructure, and eliminate future City maintenance obligations for the access road.
RELATED AGREEMENTS AND ATTACHMENTS:
The proposed actions are supported by the related agreements that define the scope, conditions, and responsibilities associated with the requested utility easement. These documents are included as attachments to this report for Council consideration and recordkeeping.
The proposed utility easement (Attachment 1) is accompanied by a related maintenance agreement (Attachment 2), which collectively define the responsibilities associated with the easement area and access road maintenance on City-owned property.
BUDGET/FINANCIAL INFORMATION:
This action has no financial/budget impact on the City. All costs, including administrative costs associated with the electrical improvements and access road maintenance work, will be borne by the property owners of 55 Crestview Lane.
SUSTAINABILITY IMPACT:
The proposed agreements have a neutral to positive sustainability impact. No increase in City energy or resource consumption is anticipated.
A copy of the agreements may be requested from the Public Works Department for public review by contacting [email protected].
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
The Ordinance authorizing a utility easement would not have any direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change to the environment, therefore the administrative action does not meet the definition of a “Project” under California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15378 (b)(5) which states that administrative activities of governments that will not result in direct physical changes in the environment are not subject to CEQA environmental review. Future actions that meet the definition of a project as a result of the easement with SCE would be subject to CEQA.
ATTACHMENTS: 1. Grant of Easement to Southern California Edison
2. City Access Road Maintenance Agreement
PREPARED BY: Ashleigh A. Sizoo, P.E., City Engineer/CDM/sk/lu SUBMITTED BY: Brian D’Amour, P.E, Public Works Director APPROVED BY: Kelly McAdoo, City Administrator
RECORDING REQUESTED BY
[E:iE"D"fSO"N
An EDISON INTERNATIONAL Ct>m onv
WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY
3 INNOVATION WAY, 2nd FLOOR
POMONA, CA 91768
Attn: Title and Real Estate Services
SCE Doc. No.
GRANT OF
EASEMENT
DOQUMENTABY TRANSFER TAX j; NONE
VALUE AND QQN:;llDERATION LESS TH8� j;i00.00}
SCE Company
SIG, OF DECLARANT OR AGENT DETERMINING TAX FIRM NAME
SPACE ABOVE THIS LINE FOR RECORDER'S USE
v,o,�•� O�� OVLVOW�O OL�'"" NU 1v1nr �ILt::'
Santa Barbara TD2395281
GVM I\U-0414-rl ru ,,...,Vc:u; BY u"•�
APN 013-210-048 REAL SLS/BT 09/09/2025
PROPERTIES
THE CITY OF SANT A BARBARA, a municipal corporation (hereinafter referred to as "Gran tor"), hereby grants to SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY, a corporation, its successors and assigns (hereinafter referred to as "Grantee"), an easement and right of way to construct, use, maintain, operate, alter, add to, repair, replace, reconstruct, inspect and remove at any time and from time to time overhead and underground electrical supply systems and communication systems (hereinafter referred to as "systems"), consisting of poles, guys and anchors, crossarms, wires, underground conduits, cables, vaults, manholes, handholes, and including aboveground enclosures, markers and concrete pads and other appurtenant fixtures and equipment necessary or useful for distributing electrical energy and for transmitting intelligence, data and/or communications (eg. through fiber optic cable), in, on, over, along and across that certain real property in the County of Santa Barbara, State of California, described as follows:
FOR LEGAL DESCRIPTION, SEE EXHIBITS "A" AND "B", BOTH ATTACHED HERETO AND MADE A PART HEREOF.
Grantor agrees for himself, his heirs and assigns, not to erect, place or maintain, nor to permit the erection, placement or maintenance of any building, planter boxes, earth fill or other structures except walls and fences on the hereinbefore described easement area. The Grantee, and its contractors, agents and employees, shall have the right to trim or top such trees and to cut such roots as may endanger or interfere with said systems and shall have free access to said systems and every part thereof, at all times, for the purpose of exercising the rights herein granted; provided, however, that in making any excavation on said property of the Grantor, the Grantee shall make the same in such a manner as will cause the least injury to the surface of the ground around such excavation, and shall replace the earth so removed by it and restore the surface of the ground to as near the same condition as it was prior to such excavation as is practicable.
ATTACHMENT 1
EXECUTED this __ day of __________ , 20 __
GRANTOR
THE CITY OF SANT A BARBARA, a municipal
corporation
Signature
Print Name
Title
A Notary Public or other officer completing this certificate verifies only the identity of the individual who signed the document to which this certificate is attached, and not the truthfulness, accuracy, or validity of that document.
State of California
County of _____ _
On __________ before me,----------------� a Notary Public, personally appeared __________________ _______________ , who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s ), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument.
I certify under PENAL TY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
Signature ______________ (Seal)
2 802503943
TD2395281
EXECUTED this __ day of __________ . 20_.
GRANTEE
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY,
a corporation
Signature
Print Name
Title
A Notary Public or other officer completing this certificate verifies only the identity of the individual who signed the document to which this certificate is attached, and not the truthfulness, accuracy, or validity of that document.
State of California )
County of _____ _
On ___________ before me, ______________ _ _, a Notary Public, personally appeared ________________ _______ _______ __ . who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument.
I certify under PENAL TY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
Signature _________ ____ (Seal)
3 802503943
TD2395281
0 ERHEAD. ·oERGRO
EXHIBIT "A"
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
APN: 013-210-048
IN THE CITY OF SANTA BARBARA, COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
TWO STRIPS OF LAND LYING WITHIN THAT PORTION OF "W.B. METCALF TRACT LOT 6 OF SECT 12" AS SHOWN ON RECORD OF SURVEY OF THE JAMES L. BARK.ER TRACT, AS PER MAP FILED IN BOOK 30, PAGE 72 OF RECORD OF SURVEYS, IN THE OFFICE OF
THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY, THE CENTERLINES OF SAID STRIPS ARE DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
STRIP #1 (10.00 FEET WIDE) (OVERHEAD SYSTEMS)
COMMENCING AT THE MOST EASTERLY NORTHEAST CORNER OF PARCEL '·A" OF PARCEL MAP NO. 12759, AS PER MAP FILED IN BOOK 26, PAGES 82 AND 83 OF PARCEL
MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF SAID COUNTY RECORDER, SAID CORNER BEING THE
EASTERLY TERMINUS OF THAT CERTAIN COURSE IN THE NORTHERLY LINE OF SAID PARCEL ·'A", SHOWN AS "NORTH 89°
56' EAST 281.13 FEET" ON SAID PARCEL MAP NO.
12759;
THENCE ALONG THE NORTHERLY LINE OF SAID PARCEL "A", SOUTH 89°56'00" WEST
24.97 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING;
THENCE NORTH 05 ° 12'42" EAST 133.90 FEET TO A POINT HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS POINT "A";
THENCE CONTINUING NORTH 05 °12'42" EAST 20.00 FEET TO THE POINT OF TERMINUS.
THE SIDELINES OF SAID STRIP ARE TO BE PROLONGED OR SHORTENED TO TERMINATE SOUTHERLY IN SAID CERTAIN COURSE.
STRIP #2 (6.00 FEET WIDE) (UNDERGROUND SYSTEMS)
BEGINNING AT SAID POINT '·A";
THENCE NORTH 18° 16'24" WEST 38.04 FEET TO THE POINT OF TERJ\ilINUS lN THE NORTHERLY LINE OF SAID "W.B. METCALF TRACT LOT6 OF SECT. 12" Page I of 2
802503943 i TD:1395281
THE SIDELINES OF SAID STRIP ARE TO BE PROLONGED OR SHORTENED TO TERMINATE NORTHERLY IN THE NORTHERLY LINE OF SAID .. WB. METCALF TRACT LOT 6 OF SECT. 12 ''.
FOR SKETCH TO ACCOMPANY LEGAL DESCRIPTION, SEE EXHIBIT "B" ATTACHED HERETO AND MADE A PART HEREOF.
THIS DESCRIPTION IS NOT INTENDED FOR USE IN THE CONVEYANCE OF LAND IN VIOLATION OF THE SUBDIVISION MAP ACT OF THE ST A TE OF CALIFORNIA.
SUBJECT TO COVENANTS, CONDITIONS. RESERVATIONS, RIGHT OF WAY AND EASEMENTS OF RECORD. IF ANY.
Prepared by me or under my supervision:
No. C-18619
Exp �::3'2-
Dated: �- (-6" . 2025
Glenn M. Bakke R.C.E. #18619 Exp. 06-30-2027
802503943 I TD239528 I
EXHIBIT ''B''
S89"58'20"E (R1)
LEGEND
D DENOTES OVERHEAD
SCE EASEMENT AREA
r---, DENOTES UNDERGROUND L ___ J SCE EASEMENT AREA
P.0.C. = POINT OF COMMENCEMENT
T.P.0.8. = TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING
P.0.8. = POINT OF BEGINNING
P.0.T. = POINT OF TERMINUS
NO. = NUMBER
P.M.B. = PARCEL MAP BOOK
R.S.B. = RECORD OF SURVEY BOOK
APN = ASSESSOR PARCEL NUMBER
OH = OVERHEAD
UG = UNDERGROUND
NOTES:
(R1) = P.M.B. 26/82-83
(R2) = R.S.B. 30/72
No. C-18619
xp �-30·
Doted S.efl; IS', 2025
20 scale
0 1 11 = 20'
20 liJ
P.O.T.
STRIP #2
40 feet
T.P.O.B.
STRIP #1
5'
-- N89"56'oo"E (R1) PARCEL 'A" OF
PARCEL MAP NO. 12 759
P.M.B. 26/82-83
ssg·59•w (R2)
N
�
If)
0 z
5'
24.97'
281 1 3'
I
STRIP # 1
POINT "A"/
P.0.8. STRIP #2
PORTION OF
W.B. METCALF TRACT
LOT6, OFSEC.12
RECORD OF SURVEY
R.S.B 30/72
(APN: 013-210-048 )
STRIP #1
1 O' WIDE
(OH)
N22°49'00"E (R1)
314.78'
ATTACHMENT 2
ATTACHMENT 2
ATTACHMENT 2
ATTACHMENT 2
ATTACHMENT 2
ATTACHMENT 2
ATTACHMENT 2
ATTACHMENT 2
ATTACHMENT 2
ATTACHMENT 2
Joint Easement and Maintenance Agreement
River Glen
#131380756v1<US_ACTIVE> - Rist Maintenance Agreement (
131380756\V-1
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement as of the date first written above.
____________________________
Steven L. Rist
____________________________
Julie R. Rist
CITY OF SANTA BARBARA, CALIFORNIA, a municipal corporation:
By:______________________________
Signatures Must be Notarized
Brian D'Amour, P.E.
Public Works Director
ATTACHMENT 2
ATTACHMENT 2
1 ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
SANTA BARBARA APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING THE
PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR TO EXECUTE A UTILITY
EASEMENT TO SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON AND
RELATED MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT FOR PROPERTY
LOCATED AT 51 CRESTVIEW LANE
WHEREAS, the City of Santa Barbara owns and operates the East Reservoir located at 51 Crestview Lane, Assessor’s Parcel Number 013-210-048, which is accessed via an existing access easement across the adjacent property located at 55 Crestview Lane, Assessor’s Parcel Number 013-167-005; and WHEREAS, the property owners of 55 Crestview Lane have requested that the City grant an easement to Southern California Edison to allow the installation, operation, and maintenance of electrical facilities on City-owned property at 51 Crestview Lane to support an electrical service upgrade to the residence at 55 Crestview Lane; and WHEREAS, in consideration for the proposed easement to Southern California Edison, the property owners of 55 Crestview Lane have agreed to assume full responsibility for the maintenance and repair of the City’s access road serving the East Reservoir, thereby eliminating future maintenance obligations for the City; and WHEREAS, the Grant of Easement to Southern California Edison, the City Access Road Maintenance Agreement, and the Right of Entry Agreement have been reviewed and approved as to form by the City Attorney and are on file with the City Clerks; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that the actions authorized by this Ordinance are exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 (Existing Facilities).
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA BARBARA DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. The Public Works Director is authorized to execute a Grant of Easement to Southern California Edison to allow the installation, operation, and maintenance of electrical facilities on City-owned property located at 51 Crestview Lane, in a form approved by the City Attorney.
SECTION 2. The Public Works Director is authorized to execute a Maintenance Agreement with the property owners of 55 Crestview Lane requiring the property owners, and all future owners of the property, to assume full responsibility for the 2 maintenance and repair of the City’s access road serving the East Reservoir, in a form approved by the City Attorney.
SECTION 3. The Public Works Director is authorized to execute any additional documents, as approved by the City Attorney, necessary or convenient to carry out the intent of this Ordinance and to cause the easement and related agreements to be recorded in the official records of the County of Santa Barbara, as applicable.
SECTION 4. The Public Works Director may delegate the authority granted by this Ordinance to appropriate personnel within the Public Works Department or Water Resources Department.
CITY OF SANTA BARBARA
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
AGENDA DATE: March 17, 2026
TO: Mayor and Councilmembers
FROM: City Administrator’s Office
SUBJECT: Budget Appropriation for Fiscal Year 2026 to Support Program Operations at Daytime Navigation and Workforce Development Center at 621 Chapala Street [Resolution]
RECOMMENDATION:
That Council adopt, by reading of title only, a Resolution of the Council of the City of Santa Barbara Amending Resolution No. 25-066, Adopting the Budget for Fiscal Year 2026, to Approve an Increase in Expenditure Appropriations in the Flexible Housing and Homelessness Fund in the Amount of $145,972 Funded by Measure I Revenue and an Increase in Revenue and Expenditure Appropriations in the City Administrator’s Fiscal Year 2026 General Fund Budget in the Amount of $25,000 Funded by Sublease Revenue to Support an Agreement with the Service Provider for Referral-Based Navigation Center Services at 621 Chapala Street.
DISCUSSION:
General Background
In February 2024, the City Council unanimously approved a three-year Lease Agreement for 621 Chapala Street to establish a Daytime Navigation and Workforce Development Center (Navigation Center) to support people experiencing homelessness and housing insecurity in the City of Santa Barbara. Following approval of the Conditional Use Permit by the Planning Commission on April 4, 2024, the City entered into a Sublease Agreement and Funding Agreement with the Santa Barbara Alliance for Community Transformation (SB ACT) in support of Navigation Center operations. The FARO (Fostering Access Resilience and Opportunity) Center opened on June 25, 2024.
The primary objective of the Navigation Center is to provide a “one-stop-shop” for people experiencing homelessness and housing insecurity to access support and services with the goal of assisting them to become document ready and secure housing. Services Agenda Item No. 2
Council Agenda Report
Budget Appropriation for Fiscal Year 2026 to Support Program Operations at Daytime Navigation and Workforce Development Center at 621 Chapala Street [Resolution] March 17, 2026
include documentation readiness (e.g. acquiring birth certificate, driver’s license, Social Security card), case management, workforce development and life skills building, job search assistance, housing referrals, health care and mental health support. By providing these services in a safe and welcoming environment, the Navigation Center assists individuals in taking steps toward finding and successfully remaining in stable housing.
Last year (between June 25, 2024 and June 30, 2025), the FARO Center served 1,319 unduplicated persons of which 644 were assisted by supportive/case management. A total of 68 clients were placed into interim housing and 33 clients were placed into permanent housing through the Center’s service provider partners.
Despite these outcomes, the City received increasing concerns and complaints from nearby residents and businesses related to the Center’s operations. In response, the City evaluated potential adjustments to the service delivery model, including a transition to a more structured, referral-based navigation center model. Given this shift in the operating model, the City initiated a Request for Proposals (RFP) process to solicit new proposals from local service providers.
Sublease and Funding Agreements
On September 16, 2025, the City Council authorized the City Administrator to execute a new month-to-month Sublease Agreement and Funding Agreement with SB ACT to allow the Navigation Center to continue operations while the City conducted the RFP process.
In November, the City initiated the RFP process that included a comprehensive review and scoring of the proposals received along with an interview process. The staff recommendation for the identified service provider and agreement was included on the Consent Agenda for the City Council meeting on December 9, 2025. After the item was pulled for discussion, the Council made the decision to continue the matter into the following year. Consequently, the timeframe for completing the procurement process and implementing a new operator within the current fiscal year became limited with the end of the Lease Agreement for 621 Chapala Street in early 2027. As a result, the City decided to reject all proposals and discontinue the RFP process at this time.
Given this change, staff recommends continuing the existing month-to-month Sublease and Funding Agreements with SB ACT. The Sublease Agreement goes through the end of the City’s Lease Agreement at 621 Chapala Street, but the Funding Agreement is only authorized through June 30, 2026. A new Funding Agreement will need to be negotiated and approved by Council in Fiscal Year 2027 to continue operations through the end of the Lease Agreement.
BUDGET / FINANCIAL INFORMATION:
For Fiscal Year 2026, the City Administrator’s Office allocated $100,000 in Permanent Local Housing Allocation (PLHA) funds to support operations of the Navigation Center at Council Agenda Report
Budget Appropriation for Fiscal Year 2026 to Support Program Operations at Daytime Navigation and Workforce Development Center at 621 Chapala Street [Resolution] March 17, 2026
621 Chapala Street. These funds covered the costs associated with the month-to-month agreement through November 2025, at which time the RFP process would have been completed and new contract awarded.
At the September 2025 Council meeting, staff indicated that if the month-to-month agreement needed to extend beyond that timeframe, staff would return to Council to request additional funding through the Measure I Flexible Housing and Homelessness Fund. To continue the Sublease and Funding Agreements through the end of the fiscal year on June 30, 2026, staff is requesting an allocation not to exceed $145,972 from Measure I funds.
In addition, the City has entered into Sublease Agreements with City Net and Good Samaritan Shelter for the use of space at the facility. These agreements generate $3,750 per month in revenue from each subtenant, of which a total of $25,000 already accrued, will help offset shared operational costs including utilities, janitorial services, and security charged to the City by SB ACT, as well as common area charges assessed by the property owner.
Upon approval of this request, there will be $104,028 remaining in the Measure I Flexible Housing and Homelessness Fund.
A copy of the Sublease Agreements and Funding Agreement are available for public view; please contact Talhia Dorado at [email protected] to request a copy.
PREPARED AND
SUBMITTED BY: Barbara Andersen, Sr. Assistant to the City Administrator APPROVED BY: Kelly R. McAdoo, City Administrator
RESOLUTION NO. __________
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
SANTA BARBARA AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 25-066,
ADOPTING THE BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2026, TO
APPROVE AN INCREASE IN EXPENDITURE
APPROPRIATIONS IN THE FLEXIBLE HOUSING AND
HOMELESSNESS FUND IN THE AMOUNT OF $145,972
FUNDED BY MEASURE I REVENUE AND AN INCREASE IN
REVENUE AND EXPENDITURE APPROPRIATIONS IN THE
CITY ADMINISTRATOR’S FISCAL YEAR 2026 GENERAL
FUND BUDGET IN THE AMOUNT OF $25,000 FUNDED BY
SUBLEASE REVENUE TO SUPPORT AN AGREEMENT
WITH THE SERVICE PROVIDER FOR REFERRAL-BASED
NAVIGATION CENTER SERVICES AT 621 CHAPALA
STREET.
WHEREAS, in accordance with the City Charter, the City Administrator filed with the Council a proposed budget for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2025; WHEREAS, the City Council is required to adopt a budget before the beginning of the fiscal year on July 1, 2025;
WHEREAS, the City Charter provides that at any public meeting after the adoption of the budget, the City Council may amend or supplement the budget by motion adopted by the affirmative votes of at least a majority of the total members of the City Council; and WHEREAS, as authorized by Resolution No. 25-066, this Resolution approves the amendment to the budget as provided herein
NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved by the Council of the City of Santa Barbara that in accordance with the provisions of Section 1205 of the City Charter, the budget for the fiscal year 2026, as adopted by Resolution No. 25-066, is hereby amended as follows:
1. The Council approves of an increase in expenditure appropriations in the Flexible Housing and Homelessness Fund in the amount of $145,972 funded by Measure I revenue and an increase in revenue and expenditure appropriations in the City Administrator’s Fiscal Year 2026 General Fund budget in the amount of $25,000 funded by sublease revenue to support an agreement with the service provider for referral-based navigation center services at 621 Chapala Street.
CITY OF SANTA BARBARA
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
AGENDA DATE: March 17, 2026
TO: Mayor and Councilmembers
FROM: City Administrator’s Office
SUBJECT: Agreement with RSG, Inc. to Support the Development of a Rent Stabilization Ordinance and Program [Resolution; Agreement] RECOMMENDATION: That Council:
A. Authorize the City Administrator to execute an Agreement, subject to approval as to form by the City Attorney, with RSG, Inc. to assist in developing a rent stabilization ordinance and program; and
B. Adopt, by reading of title only, a Resolution of the Council of the City of Santa Barbara Amending Resolution No. 25-066, Adopting the Budget for Fiscal Year 2026, to Approve an Allocation in the Fiscal Year 2026 Expenditure Appropriations in the Flexible Housing and Homelessness Fund in the Amount of $65,105 to fund an Agreement with RSG, Inc.
DISCUSSION:
General Background
On December 16, 2025, City Council directed staff to develop a Rent Stabilization Ordinance and Program for implementation no later than January 1, 2027. The retention of a technical expert to assist the City in development of such a program was included as a key project milestone in the Work Plan.
A Request for Proposals (RFP) was distributed in December with a deadline for submission of January 9, 2026. After a proposal scoring and interview process conducted by a three-member Evaluation Committee, RSG, Inc. was selected as the preferred firm.
RSG, Inc. is a certified Small Business Enterprise headquartered in Vista, California with hubs in Los Angeles and Oakland. They provide full spectrum consulting services combined with technical expertise, hands-on project support and community-centered Agenda Item No. 3
Council Agenda Report
Agreement with RSG, Inc. to Support the Development of a Rent Stabilization Ordinance and Program [Resolution; Agreement]
March 17, 2026