COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA

Save this PDF as:
 WORD  PNG  TXT  JPG

Size: px
Start display at page:

Download "COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA"

Transcription

1 COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA SOUTH BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW AGENDA Santa Barbara County Planning Commission Hearing Room Engineering Building, Room East Anapamu Street Meeting Date: March 3, :00 A.M. Santa Barbara, CA (805) NOTICE: All revised plan sets will be due to Planning and Development the Monday prior to the scheduled SBAR meeting by noon. The planner s memo providing comments to the SBAR will be posted with the SBAR agenda on the website by noon the Wednesday prior to the SBAR meeting. Laurie Romano Alex Pujo Valerie Froscher John Vrtiak Josh Blumer Douglas Keep Chris Gilliland Ann Almy Lia Marie Graham Vice-Chair Chair Supervising Planner SBAR Secretary All approvals made by this Board of Architectural Review are based upon the findings required by the provisions of Chapter 35 of the Santa Barbara County Code. If you cannot appear for an agenda item, you must notify Planning and Development by Thursday, 12:00 (noon), one day prior to the meeting date. If you do not contact Planning and Development by this time, you will not be eligible to appear on the subsequent agenda. Two subsequent continuances are allowed. Projects continued to a future meeting will be agendized by Hearing Support staff per the direction of the planner. It is not guaranteed that projects will be placed on the next meeting s agenda. Applicants must work with their planner to have projects placed on a future agenda. Requests for change of scheduling should be made to Planning and Development, 123 East Anapamu Street, Santa Barbara, California 93101; Telephone (805) If your case appears on the Consent Agenda, it is recommended, but not required, that you or your representative appear at the Consent Review (8:45 AM) to answer questions if needed, and to observe the announcement regarding your item at 9:00 AM. In compliance with the Americans Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the Hearing Support Staff (805) Notification at least 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the Hearing Support Staff to make reasonable arrangements. Board of Architectural Review approvals do not constitute Land Use Clearances. The square footage calculations and the cut and fill cubic yardage listed in this agenda are taken from the Board of Architectural Review application submitted to our department by the project owner/applicant or architect. These figures are only an approximation and are subject to change throughout the review process. Please consult the final set of BAR approved plans for accurate figures. The public has the opportunity to comment on any item on today s Administrative, Consent or Standard Agenda. Speaker slips are available by the door and should be filled in and handed to the Secretary before the hearing begins. Please indicate which item you would like to address on the speaker slip and, in your testimony, which portion of the project you will be addressing in your comments. For items on the Standard Agenda, the Board of Architectural Review Chairperson will announce when public testimony can be given. o The order of presentation after the Chairman introduces the item is as follows: 1. Presentation by the applicant. 2. Questions by the Board. 3. Public Comment. 4. Additional response by applicant/staff. 5. Board consideration of Findings and Conditions of Approval. 6. Motion, discussion of motion, decision, and vote by the Board. Writings that are a public record under Government Code (a) and that relate to an agenda item for an open session of a regular meeting of the South Board of Architectural Review and that are distributed to a majority of all of the members of the South Board of Architectural Review prior to the a meeting but less than 72 hours prior to that meeting shall be available for public inspection at Santa Barbara County Planning and Development, 123 E. Anapamu Street, Santa Barbara, CA. Writings that are a public record under Government Code (a) and that relate to an agenda item for an open session of a regular meeting of the South Board of Architectural Review and that are distributed to a majority of all of the members of the South Board of Architectural Review during the meeting shall be available for public inspection at the back of the hearing room, at Room 17, 123 E. Anapamu Street, Santa Barbara, CA.

2 SOUTH BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMITTEE AGENDA Meeting of March 3, 2017 Page 2 ADMINISTRATIVE AGENDA: I. PUBLIC COMMENT II. AGENDA STATUS REPORT III. MINUTES: Minutes of February 17, 2017 IV. CONSENT AGENDA: Hahs Residence First and Second Floor Additions, 1. 16BAR Conversion of Carport to Garage and Exterior Renovations Hope Ranch 16LUP (Mark Friedlander, Planner) Jurisdiction: Ridgeline - Urban Request of Dave Stetson, architect for the owners, Chris and Angela Hahs, to consider Case No. 16BAR for Final Approval on consent of a residence first floor addition of approximately 373 square feet, second floor addition of approximately 1,546 square feet, conversion of carport to garage of approximately 209 square feet and exterior renovations. The following structures currently exist on the parcel: a residence of approximately 1,435 square feet, attached garage of approximately 190 square feet, carport of approximately 209 square feet and porch of approximately 114 square feet. The proposed project will not require grading. The property is a 1.22 acre parcel zoned 1.5-EX- 1 and shown as Assessor s Parcel Number , located at 734 Monte Drive in the Hope Ranch area, Second Supervisorial District. (Continued from 11/04/16, 12/02/16, 1/6/17 & 2/17/17) V. SBAR MEMBERS INFORMATIONAL BRIEFINGS VI. STAFF UPDATE VII. STANDARD AGENDA: 1. Discussion Item Sign Guidelines (Anne Almy, Planner) Present an overview of the Overall Sign Plan review process for the County of Santa Barbara. Jurisdiction: Sign 2. 17BAR Salomon Pool Cabana & Pool Toro Canyon 17CDP (Mark Friedlander, Planner) Jurisdiction: Rural Request of R. Deming Isaacson, architect for the owners, Mr. and Mrs. Robert Salomon, to consider Case No. 17BAR for Conceptual Review of a 800 square foot cabana and pool. The following structures currently exist on the parcel: a main residence, carport and guest house. The proposed project will require approximately 44.0 cubic yards of cut and approximately 32.5 cubic yards of fill. The property is a 6.34 acre parcel zoned AG-I-10 and shown as Assessor s Parcel Number located at 1840 Cravens Lane in the Carpinteria area, First Supervisorial District BAR Riley/Rutherford Residence Addition and New Garage Toro Canyon 16CDP (J. Ritterbeck, Planner) Jurisdiction: Toro Request of Bildsten Architecture, Ellen Bildsten, architect for the owners, Tamara Riley and Jeff Rutherford, to consider Case No. 16BAR for Further Conceptual review of a residence addition of approximately 2,200 square feet, attached garage of 770 square feet. The following structures currently exist on the parcel: a residence of approximately 1,570 square feet and detached garage of 550 square feet. The proposed project will require 35 cubic yards of cut and fill. The property is a 1.1

3 SOUTH BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMITTEE AGENDA Meeting of March 3, 2017 Page 3 acre parcel zoned 1-E-1 and shown as Assessor s Parcel Number , located at 2800 Torito Road in the Toro Canyon area, First Supervisorial District. (Continued from 12/16/16) 4. 17BAR Carone SFD Addition Santa Barbara (Planner not yet assigned) Jurisdiction: Urban Request of Rex Ruskauff, agent for the owners, Rick and Kris Carone, to consider Case No. 17BAR for Conceptual Review of an addition and remodel to an existing residence of approximately 2,414 square feet of habitable space and a 562 square foot garage. The following structures currently exist on the parcel: 7,089 square foot two-story residence with attached garage. The proposed project will require 634 cubic yards of cut and no fill. The property is a 1.03 acre parcel zoned 1-E-1 and shown as Assessor Parcel Number located at 1002 La Senda in the Santa Barbara area, Second Supervisorial District. The Representatives of the following item should be in attendance at this SBAR Site Visit by 11:00 A.M BAR Chachakos Single Family Dwelling and Guesthouse Santa Barbara 15BAR (Sean Herron, Planner) Jurisdiction: Toro Canyon Request of June Pujo, agent for the owner, Dena Chachakos, to consider Case No. 17BAR for a Site Visit for a new 1,850 square foot residence with an attached 432 square foot garage and the conversion of the existing 787 square foot residence to a guest house. The following structures currently exist on the parcel: 787 square foot residence, 67 square foot mechanical shed, and a 1,450 square foot artist studio (to be demolished). The proposed project will require 218 cubic yards of cut and no fill. The property is a 1.12 acre parcel zoned 1-E-1 and shown as Assessor s Parcel Number , located at 2825 Hidden Valley Lane in the Toro Canyon area, First Supervisorial District (Continued from 2/3/17). The Representatives of the following item should be in attendance at this SBAR Meeting by 1:00 P.M BAR Chachakos Single Family Dwelling and Guesthouse Santa Barbara 15BAR (Sean Herron, Planner) Jurisdiction: Toro Canyon Request of June Pujo, agent for the owner, Dena Chachakos, to consider Case No. 17BAR for Further Conceptual Review of a new 1,850 square foot residence with an attached 432 square foot garage and the conversion of the existing 787 square foot residence to a guest house. The following structures currently exist on the parcel: 787 square foot residence, 67 square foot mechanical shed, and a 1,450 square foot artist studio (to be demolished). The proposed project will require 218 cubic yards of cut and no fill. The property is a 1.12 acre parcel zoned 1-E-1 and shown as Assessor s Parcel Number , located at 2825 Hidden Valley Lane in the Toro Canyon area, First Supervisorial District (Continued from 2/3/17) BAR Knapp New Residence and Attached Garage Santa Barbara 16LUP (Mark Friedlander, Planner) Jurisdiction: Goleta Request of Tom Ochsner, architect and Ray Ames, agent for the owner, Harvey Knapp, to consider Case No. 16BAR for Final Approval of a new residence of approximately 1,840 square feet and attached garage of approximately 576 square feet. No structures currently exist on the parcel. The proposed project will require 440 cubic yards of cut and 280 cubic yards of fill. The property is a 2.12 acre parcel zoned 15-R-1 and shown as Assessor s Parcel Number , located at (no street number) Winther Way in the Santa Barbara area, Second Supervisorial District. (Continued from 7/08/16, 9/16/16 & ) 8. 17BAR Hespanha Residential Additions Goleta 17LUP (Kimberley McCarthy, Planner) Jurisdiction: Urban Request of Wade Davis Design, architect for the owners, Joad and Stacy Hespanha, to consider Case No. 17BAR for Conceptual Review and Preliminary Approval of an addition to an existing residence of approximately 228 square feet (first floor) and 584 square feet (second floor). The following structures currently exist on the parcel: a 1,492 square foot single family residence with a 584

4 SOUTH BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMITTEE AGENDA Meeting of March 3, 2017 Page 4 square foot garage. The proposed project will not require grading. The property is a 0.20 acre parcel zoned 8-R-1 and shown as Assessor s Parcel Number , located at 5419 Parejo Drive in the Goleta area, Second Supervisorial District. Nicolais New Residence, Cabana/Accessory Structure, Guest House, Horse Pen and Horse Stable, 9. 15BAR Office, and Equipment Storage Santa Barbara 17LUP (Tess Harris, Planner) Jurisdiction: Goleta Request of Jennifer Siemens, agent for the owners, Nicolais Family Trust, to consider Case No. 15BAR for Further Conceptual Review of a demolition of an existing 1,543 square foot residence, 783 square foot attached garage and 811 square foot barn, and construction of a new residence of approximately 6,500 square feet, 1,222 square foot detached garage, 450 square foot cabana/office, 790 square foot guest house, 456 square foot detached garage/laundry room, 2,374 square foot round pen, 1,000 square foot pool, 2,671 square foot stable building, 945 square foot orchard workshop, 816 square foot orchard equipment storage, 162 square foot orchard office, 312 square foot three sided hay barn (three sided), and 240 square foot storage (three sided). The proposed project will require 7,500 cubic yards of cut and approximately 1,000 cubic yards of fill. The property is a acre parcel zoned AG-II-40 and shown as Assessor s Parcel Number located at 990 North Patterson Avenue in the Goleta area, Second Supervisorial District. (Continued from 1/22/16) BAR Oak Creek Company (Boulders Project) Lot 11 Santa Barbara (J. Ritterbeck, Planner) Jurisdiction: Goleta Request of Murray Duncan, architect for Jason Nelson, to consider Case No. 16BAR for Conceptual Review of one residential building of approximately 4,387 square feet. The lot is currently vacant. The property is a 1.24 acre parcel zoned 1-E-1 and shown as Assessor s Parcel Number , located at 4731 Boulder Ridge Road in the Goleta area, Second Supervisorial District. (Continued from 1/6/17) BAR Piasecki Residence Addition Santa Barbara 15LUP (Mark Friedlander, Planner) Jurisdiction: Goleta Request of Kevin Moore, architect for the owner, Derek Piasecki, to consider Case No. 15BAR for Further Conceptual Review and Preliminary Approval of a residence addition of approximately 1,020 square feet. The following structures currently exist on the parcel: a residence with an attached two car garage of approximately 2,305 square feet. The proposed project will require 50 cubic yards of cut and fill. The property is a 10,000 square foot parcel zoned 1-E-1 and shown as Assessor s Parcel Number , located at 4717 Sierra Madre Road in the Santa Barbara area, Second Supervisorial District (Continued from 4/3/15) BAR Conti Addition Santa Barbara (Planner not yet assigned) Jurisdiction: Goleta Request of Tomas Conti, owner, to consider Case No. 17BAR for Conceptual Review of a 1,020 square foot addition to an existing 1,395 square foot residence. The following structures exist on the parcel currently; a 1,395 square foot residence and a 560 square foot garage. The proposed project will require approximately 18 cubic yards of cut and approximately 11 cubic yards of fill. The property is a 7,840 square foot parcel zoned 8-R-1 and shown as Assessor s Parcel Number located at 3941 Foothill Rd in the Goleta area, Second Supervisorial District. G:\GROUP\PC_STAFF\WP\BAR\SBAR\AGENDAS\AGENDAS.2017\ SBAR AGENDA.DOC

5 COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: South County Board of Architectural Review Mark Friedlander, Planner DATE: February 28, 2017 RE: 16BAR ; Hahs Additions 734 Monte Drive; APN Preliminary review indicates that the project complies with all the requirements of the 1.5-EX-1 zone and is compatible with the requirements of the Land Use Development Code and the policies of the Comprehensive Plan, including the Eastern Goleta Valley Community Plan, subject to certain conditions Fences, walls, gateposts/gates to be included as part of the overall architectural review of the project. This project may proceed for: X CONCEPTUAL PRELIMINARY REVISED PRELIMINARY PRELIMINARY/FINAL FINAL APPROVAL by your board. PLANNER COMMENTS: No planner comments at this time PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The project is for a Land Use Permit for new additions to an existing 1,435 square foot single family residence. Additions would include 1 st floor additions of 373 square feet and new 80 square foot porch entry cover, and a 1,546 square foot second story addition. Earthwork would be less than 50 cubic yard. No native trees or vegetation are proposed for removal. The parcel would be served by the La Cumbre Mutual Water Company, a private septic system, and the Santa Barbara County Fire District. Access would continue to be provided off of Monte Drive. The property is a 1.3-acre parcel zoned 1.5-EX-1 and shown as Assessor's Parcel Number , located at 734 Monte Drive in Hope Ranch, in the Eastern Goleta Valley Community Plan Area, Second Supervisorial District. Any revisions to the project plans and any additional information regarding this project should be directed to my attention for further review of project consistency. An amendment to this notice will then be returned

6 to your Board. Additional conditions may be applied to the project at the Land Use Permit phase if additional information indicates a need to condition the project to achieve consistency with policies. Final approval of the Land Use Permit is subject to my review. cc: Case File (to Mark Friedlander) G:\GROUP\PERMITTING\Case Files\LUP\16 Cases\16LUP Hahs Additions\SBAR\SBAR memo_hahs_ doc

7 COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: South County Board of Architectural Review Mark Friedlander, Planner DATE: March 1, 2017 RE: 17BAR ; Salomon Pool Cabaña and Pool 1840 Cravens Lane; APN Preliminary review indicates that the project does comply with all zoning requirements for the AG-1-10 zone district. However, the project may be inconsistent with applicable Toro Canyon Community Plan policies. See planner comments. Fences, walls, gateposts/gates to be included as part of the overall architectural review of the project. X This project may proceed for: CONCEPTUAL REVIEW by your board. PLANNER COMMENTS: P&D concerned with proposed development s proximity to ESH. Applicant has provided arborist report that concludes impacts to oaks are not anticipated. However, P&D is requesting a biological report is prepared to determine edge of ESH and appropriate buffer to more accurately determine project s consistency with Toro Canyon Community Plan policies. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The project is for a Coastal Development Permit for the construction of a new 800 square foot (net) pool cabaña, new patio with trellis, installation of a 12 x 50 swimming pool and 5 x7 spa with equipment area and site and landscape improvements. Earthwork would include approximately 88.3 cubic yards of cut and 32.5 cubic yards of fill with the remaining export to be balanced on site. The parcel would be served by the Carpinteria Valley Water District, a private onsite wastewater treatment system, and the Carpinteria- Summerland Fire Protection District. Access will continue to be provided off of Cravens Lane. The property is a 6.33-acre parcel zoned AG-I-10 and shown as Assessor's Parcel Number , located at 1840 Craavens Lane in the Toro Canyon Community Plan Area, 1 st Supervisorial District. Any revisions to the project plans and any additional information regarding this project should be directed to my attention for further review of project consistency. An amendment to this notice will then be returned to your Board. Additional conditions may be applied to the project at the Coastal Development Permit phase if additional information indicates a need to condition the project to achieve consistency with policies. Final approval of the Coastal Development Permit is subject to my review. cc: Case File (to Mark Friedlander)

8 G:\GROUP\PERMITTING\Case Files\CDP\2010s\17 Cases\17CDP Salomon\SBAR memo_salomon_ doc

9 TO: FROM: Board of Architectural Review Attn: Supervising Planner J. Ritterbeck, Planner DATE: March 3, 2017 RE: COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT MEMORANDUM 16BAR Riley/Rutherford SFD Addition & New Garage 2800 Torito Road, Toro Canyon Plan, CA APN: Case No.: 16CDP Preliminary review indicates that the project would comply with the all zoning requirements for the 1-E-1 zone district and would be compatible with the requirements of the Coastal Zoning Ordinance requirements and the policies of the County Comprehensive Plan, including the Coastal Land Use Plan and the Toro Canyon Plan. X X Fences, walls, gateposts/gates are included as part of the overall architectural review of the project. This project may proceed for: CONCEPTUAL REVIEW ONLY by your board. PLANNER COMMENTS: Applicant/agent(s) have worked with P&D staff planner to address all zoning issues and concerns. Demonstration of natural grade accepted and overall height of structure meets applicable standards. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The project is for a Coastal Development Permit to allow the construction of a first floor addition of 971 [gross] / 898 [net] square feet to the existing 1,570 [gross] / 1,443 [net] square foot dwelling and to construct a second floor addition of 1,212 [gross] / 1,120 [net] square feet. The project also proposes the demolition of an existing approximately 100 square foot shed and an existing 550 [gross] / 500 [net] square foot detached garage that would be replaced by the construction of a new 770 [gross] / 695 [net] square foot attached two-car garage. Grading would require less than 50 cubic yards of balanced cut and fill. No protected oak trees would be removed or impacted by the proposed development, but a total of four eucalyptus trees, one acacia, and one juniper tree would be removed as part of the project. The parcel would continue to be served by the Montecito Water District, private onsite septic, the Santa Barbara County Sheriff s Department, and the Carpinteria-Summerland Fire Protection District. Access will continue to be provided off of Torito Road. The property is a 1.1-acre parcel, zoned 1-E-1, and shown as Assessor's Parcel No , located at 2800 Torito Road in the Toro Canyon Plan area, First Supervisorial District. Any revisions to the project plans and any additional information regarding this project should be directed to my attention for further review of project consistency. An amendment to this notice will then be returned to your Board. Additional conditions may be applied to the project at the Land Use Permit phase if additional information indicates a need to condition the project to achieve consistency with policies. Final approval of the permit is subject to P&D Planner review. c: Case File (to Planner) Lia Graham, P&D Hearing Support Staff G:\GROUP\PERMITTING\Case Files\CDP\2010s\16 cases\16cdp Riley\SBAR Memo.doc

10 Todd A. Anupoker Susan M. Barham Kristen M. R. Blabey Shannon D. Boyd Timothy M. Cary Melissa J. Fassett Ian M. Fisher Arthur R. Gaudi Cameron Goodman Ctuistopher E. Haskell James H. Hurley, Jr. Eric P. Hvolbmll Drew Maley Mark S. Manion Steven K. McGuire Our File Number: PRICE, POSTEL & PARMA LLP Counsellors atlaw Tunothy E. Metzinger Shereef Moharrdm Craig A. Parton 200 East Carrillo Street, Suite 400 Kenneth J. Pontifex Santa Barbara, CA Douglas D. Rossi J. Terry Schwartz Mailing Address: P.O. Box 99 Santa Barbara, CA wrwv.ppplaw.com Peter D. Slaughter David W. Van Horne C.E. Chip Wullbrandt Sam Zodeh Ph (805) Fax (805) CAMERON PARK OFFICE 3330 Cameron Park Drive, Swte Cameron Park, CA Ph (805) Fay (805) March 2, 2017 VIA DELIVERY Ms. Valerie Froscher, Chair and Members of South Board of Architectural Review County of Santa Barbara 123 East Anapamu Street Santa Barbara, CA Re: Chachakos Proposed New Single Family Dwelling and Guesthouse (17BAR ) March 3, 2017 A e~ nda Dear Chair Froscher and Board Members: As you know, we represent Ryan and Tamara Honey, owners of real property located at 848 Ladera Lane, which is immediately north of the Chachakos property at 2825 Hidden Valley Lane in the Toro Canyon Plan area. At your conceptual review hearing on February 3, 2017, your Board directed the applicant to install story poles to enable both your Board and the Honeys to visualize the height and the size and massing of the proposed structure on the Chackakos property. At the same time, we offered to provide you with photographs depicting the view from the Honeys' residence. The story poles have been installed and our clients' architect, AB Design Studio, has prepared photographic simulations that depict the structure as defined by the story poles. We enclose with this letter the following: 1. A site plan of the Honey property which shows the vantage points of four images that follow.

11 Chair Valerie Froscher and Members March 2, 2017 Page 2 2. Views 1 through 4 from the Honey residence, each in two versions: story poles only and massing of structure defined by story pole locations. 3. View 5, in two versions as above, illustrating the view of the proposed structure from the public right of way. The images taken from the Honey residence fully substantiate the concerns that the Honeys and members of your Board have raised repeatedly about the proposed placement of this structure unnecessarily close to the Honeys' residence. The northerly side of the bisected Chachakos property has accommodated only accessory structures for many years, but now the applicant wants to take advantage of that location to create a new home (regardless of how it is characterized legally) that will severely compromise the Honeys' enjoyment of their property and will effectively capture the Honeys' ocean view, thereby reducing their property value substantially. The image from the public right of way shows that your Board was correct in challenging the project's neighborhood compatibility. While the site itself has eclectic structural elements (including a wall that your Board criticized), the addition of the looming Italianate residence is entirely incompatible with a neighborhood predominated by modest, mid-century homes, which provide the neighborhood's overall aesthetic. Ms. Chachakos has other options for development on her property, but she has chosen to locate a proposed two-story structure where it will do the greatest harm to her neighbors. She could choose to design a structure that is reflective of the neighborhood aesthetic, but instead has chosen a garish design that has no place in this neighborhood. And of course, as your Board has observed, the proposed second residence is nothing more than a re-labeling of the previouslysubmitted RSU project, notwithstanding representations by the applicant's team to staff and to the Honeys that the project they proposed to submit for your review while their RSU project remains on appeal would be substantially different in design. As your Board acknowledged on February 3, you were constrained in reviewing the RSU project because of staff's interpretation of County ordinances to prohibit your review of the second story element of the project. Now, however, you are free to consider the entirety of the structure re-defined as asingle-family dwelling, and the impacts of the second story deserve your full analysis. Under the County's Land Use and Development Code section F, your Board cannot approve or conditionally approve a design review application unless you first make nine separate findings. Among these are:

12 Chair Valerie Froscher and Members March 2, 2017 Page 3 a. Overall structure shapes, as well as parts of any structure (buildings, fences, screens, signs, towers, or walls) are in proportion to and in scale with other existing or permitted structures on the same site and in the area surrounding the subject property. e. There will be a harmonious relationship with existing and proposed adjoining developments.... f. Site layout, orientation, and location of structures and signs will be in an appropriate and well designed relation to one other.... i. The proposed development is consistent with any additional design standards as expressly adopted by the Board for a specific local area, community, or zone in compliance with Subsection G. (Local design standards) below. The Toro Canyon Plan, applicable here, repeatedly expresses as residential development policies the protection of public views by restricting heights and the limitation of the size and scale of structures to maintain compatibility with respective parcel size and the surrounding environment. (See, e.g., Toro Canyon Plan Appendix A.) In summary, there are reasons, other than cost, why Ms. Chachakos refused the Honeys' request that she install story poles during and after the RSU proceedings because the story poles validate dramatically the concerns that your Board and the Honeys have raised. We trust that your site visit will confirm what the enclosed images show, and we look forward to your hearing on March 3. Very truly yours, Enclosures cc: Client AB Design Studio!~ Susan M. Basham for PRICE, POSTEL & PARMA LLP

13 848 Ladera Lane ta' ~~''~M `!I 1 ~, ~~,~~~J~'~~~ ~~; -~. ~~ ~ ~_ ;~ E~!,.. / ~ ;, ~~ m~.. ~.. ~ ~~~ jil1/j ~ - - _ o.,, _.. ~~~4i~ vrn.._.ii ~~~ "1_ ~tu~v~.~~!~ ~, vii - ~~ ~

14 .~~ 1. ^V =i.' ~~~ _fir Ih1/~ ],,Rh+r', M `,~. '~1A T~ r" Y~,. ;~ i ~1 ''4 '~f'..~~ t Z.tT t~ P... F.f' ' ~~.:-" ` `.. ~4.' ''A' '} ~.. R j ~.... ~` ~~' ~ :fit.; ~: 5 ~ m!' ~ i ~ 'a'3. { -' lr ~ r ~. Nih~.~~ -"rte ~ ~- ~~.,:~ ~. ~ ~.-.'4 1 ~L.~ ~y,. ~. ~ I'l l i.~; ~ J ~' ~F~ r ~y T, J t1 ~~t ~~ `r? r" ~~ ' ~F ~ ~ ~-~~ ~ ~~~~>~}~i f%s {' a. ~.. ~er i ~. ~ F..f t., ~ +k ;r 5 ~ ;y fnl+` r'.. ~ ~. +' ' ~ ~ ' ~ 4,.. ~'~ f.+ ~~, '( i

15 $~P'rTi ~. r. ~, x.'+ir ;r''.. D -' ~:i~ ~. r3'.`~ `j'~ _ ai.~.a i~.1~ tk i~ e..? '+i ~S' '3'i:'. t :'': - lr ~~.T;: y: ~ ~e- ~"sf.. ~ f ~ R^, ~ ~,Q ~..~'y ~ '.Iii 'y E,, -. ~, ;T~ 4f r + P ~ ~$ ~ ~f k ~ - ~y mo t, ~... ~ ~ C. ~ ~~;y~i~ ~yf M ~tr ~#'~~y'~~ti. _., }' r. Y \t' ~'.^,, ò, '.~.' ~~.1,.... ~~ ~ _.

16 ;,! Y. J r ^r 17 ~ xl1 ^. t.'l a~ w ~ ~r A ~ i~~!.~'.~.i p W ị ~s r. ~ ~ ~'.t p7'~~.;y1~,js.d ~ ~. ~'1 ~~`~av`.~ 0,y~, L.~ r 1..., `` t l ~ p RT'. `~ f 3.r t'i' t i ile ~,,,,,~r -~y ~ t m ~. s,~,~, 'f~t~': ~~'1~ :~' iii` ~a'. a-te'a;~' ~ w ~ + ~'tr ~.i.` ~. ~: '~ ~.ii. a;! i.` ~ ~ x ~ ~ ' ~k J r ^. f r.., ~ y~ ~t,,n~ ii,5 +' ~ y '~: ~ ~, { ~ 1t6~' ~~, s ~t,/" '.~ ~s r rte_ ~.. k r ~. r 7r~ v X.771 i r A ~ `~ ~rr r5} ~~~ `~}wr / ~V{~ y, ~~. - N ~~I y, ` ~~ _ rte' r v- ~ ~---`~~,~-- _-, ~.P.a_ '-hg~-...fir -...,'-. ~. ~~"i.r,~~, _': d'' ~ ~i ~. -f~... - _ * ~51~ ~ r I- 1 ~ Y' ~ _ j ~1.'~ ~ ~ ~. ~ ~ I t 'r`.. '~._ 1 ~' -._ - ~ ~~ : - --_ ~r _ ~.; -~,,,,,, r - '.i ~, t \..~.~-- i;~" ~' fi~w`~ ~ -~y j., ~ I''r'f ry'r=.~'' _... S ~~F ~_. _r

17 ~r t ~; ~~ F ~~,r.- z ~.. y, 4 y- ~ r },i.l ~~ ~.. r ~ t~,` r ~~ {a t e' ~ t... S ~".~Y ~j' r.^~: ~' 1.. 2/x ~P ~J '~~ Z ~ i ~(h,.,~- ~a '~,~, ~h x 1~~ ~,'j, 17 0 ti'. ~.egg J~^ Car a~f~ 4 j ~+. 3 tl~t ~ a y ~' ~ JK ~ T ". ~ ~"? y~~~r t r ~~l~t~`~-' r. s~ ~ ~ /"V,{{.mow ~'~ ~ ' ~1(t ~ ~ } 'F ~,~w~'~^' ~ 1 '4,P 4M,,~Y ~ a~i ~,>r'~,7.4' r < ~'~? ~1.., +lµ. 'fig,. i.. ~ il., -, ` ~~.oi-r~l`~, ^ ~.. ~ 4 h ~ ~ ~',' }{ fit`, y is ytr ~ ' y.~ - }A r~... ' i,. ~ - f i~ / ~~":.,~, 'c"?`.~~,,~ I,~ Yom.. '.A ' \', d - -. ~,;, Fj~~ n~~~--~' - ;~~

18 ~ ", 1,~. ~,!~~ 1 *~',t icy{ ~, ~ ~i..,,,...1 t~ r ~ f. \.... L ~: r At ~ ~ ~ ''.`~C.~... e., ~^! ~ } ~~ ~ ~ '- ~' 1~~~"" " n f ~ ~ ~.. J1'., ~~a ~ ' ~', r ye '. ~ 4:...Yi. ~~ 'DPI ~~ ~S' j ;~ :,,` +. 'F. 'rr~f~y ~~''r o- ~11,r._`. YtJ K..I J V _ t 1~ i.~ i ~ y ~~.y'~ > l it w;; ~ ~ b1'. x,_ ~4., r r. ~.. ~.. r '' < ~~ ` ~"

19 .4, ~ ~s,a. ~,t ~;q,, *~ ~_ ;^' :~ ~y~{. +~ '~~~,tip ~ ~~ S..~ ~~ ~, ~\ ~- N+... ~~..,..' l r `` ~ ~ ~. ~r~`..y' f,~ lei r r K ~;,r ~ 5 Y y.. 1~~.'l. z' : ~,G~. ~ ~ t ~ ~ ~ "~. f

20 /iew 4 Story Poles r - '~-.~_~" ~.~, *~" ~ '..+s - '., may +N ~fif~ti~ t / V ~ l

21 View 4 Massing s ' =,;~, mow. -f~ ~ r!' a 3'

22 _,~., ~....,. r.~~ ~-.~ ~;.ti, ~ ~ ~. a" ~. -.,, 3~ r,~-.,. mm T.~;. `k ~ 1c,_..... X t~t. i ~.. 1 `, ~~1., ~ 11 ~.\ t`,,, ` ~, ' ' { ` yyy i 1 'r ~, ~ ~.. I` J ~ '.. ~~' J~, y ~. ~ _,y~'r ~4 t 1 ~{ ~'x ~ /~Srf~~~.y ~,:dera L:~e.. ' ~x ~~~ 'err ~~' r ' ~r+ ~ J, ~ ~~ y 1 ~,,, ' ~.... t~? ~~ ~. i~.,~~ic::yf l ~~.r!#~ :: r.... c +.,.~ _. ~,,, ~.,r~

23 k a~q.." ~ ~ ~~3a 3',~. ~._ ~} ~\ 1 ~ ~ j ` 1.. ~ ~ 1~i1,1 ~ ~. j,~~ -'t ~ `` i ~ 1 ; ;. ~ art... ~ _ ~ ~1' i ~, "..~, v~ `f ~~ 1 ~ ni b.` ~..,~~ h ~ ~, ~ ~ ~F ~ ~~r ~, '~``" ~-. _ Y _'_ =, s- ~''1, Z!% ~ ~ i. ~ _;,,i4 /.,t -~ ~a ~ ~~~',,: ~. ~ ~. Y ~. _ i ~ T `.t ~ '\' ~1'~9.. ~ - Y+.. ~ ~~ 1,\ t 1.:... _ a e'+~ ~w-:.

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40 COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: South County Board of Architectural Review Mark Friedlander, Planner DATE: February 28, 2017 RE: 16BAR ; Knapp New Residence and Garage 0 Winther Way; APN Preliminary review indicates that the project does not comply with all zoning requirements for the 15-R-1 zone district. See planner comments. X Fences, walls, gateposts/gates to be included as part of the overall architectural review of the project. This project may proceed for: X CONCEPTUAL PRELIMINARY REVISED PRELIMINARY PRELIMINARY/FINAL FINAL APPROVAL by your board. PLANNER COMMENTS: No planner comments at this time. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The project is for a Land Use Permit to allow the construction of new 1,916 square foot (net) one story single-family residence, 567 square foot (net) detached garage and new driveway. Grading would include 440 cubic yards of cut and 280 cubic yards of fill. No native trees are proposed for removal. The parcel will be served by the Goleta Water District, the Goleta Sanitary District, and the County Fire District. Access will be provided off of Foothill Road and Winther Way. The property is a vacant 2.12-acre parcel zoned 15-R-1 and shown as Assessor's Parcel Number , located in the Goleta Area, 2 nd Supervisorial District. Any revisions to the project plans and any additional information regarding this project should be directed to my attention for further review of project consistency. An amendment to this notice will then be returned

41 to your Board. Additional conditions may be applied to the project at the Land Use Permit phase if additional information indicates a need to condition the project to achieve consistency with policies. Final approval of the Land Use Permit is subject to my review. cc: Case File (to Mark Friedlander) David Villalobos G:\GROUP\PERMITTING\Case Files\LUP\16 Cases\16LUP Knapp New Residence and Garage\SBAR\SBAR Memo-Knapp doc

42 COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: Board of Architectural Review Attn: Lia Graham Kimberley McCarthy, Planner DATE: February 13, 2017 RE: 17BAR /17LUP , Hespanha Residential Addition, 5419 Parejo Drive, APN Preliminary review indicates that the project complies with all the requirements of the 8-R-1 zone and is compatible with the requirements of the Land Use Development Code and the policies of the Comprehensive Plan, including the Eastern Goleta Community Plan] subject to certain conditions. Fences, walls, gateposts and gates are to be included as part of the overall architectural review of the project. This project may proceed for: X CONCEPTUAL/PRELIMINARY FINAL APPROVAL by your board. PLEASE SPECIFICALLY COMMENT ON: PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The proposed project is for an addition of approximately337 square feet (net) to the existing one-story single family dwelling and construction of a second story approximately 584 square feet (net) in size. The maximum height of the structure will become approximately 22.5 feet. The project does not require any grading or the removal of any native vegetation or specimen trees. The project site is served by the Goleta Water and Sanitary districts. Access to the property will continue to be taken from the existing driveway off Parejo Drive.

43 Any revisions to the project plans and any additional information regarding this project should be directed to my attention for further review of project consistency. An amendment to this notice will then be returned to your Board. Additional conditions may be applied to the project at the Land Use Permit phase if additional information indicates a need to condition the project to achieve consistency with policies. Final approval of the Land Use Permit is subject to my review.

44 -COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: Board of Architectural Review Attn: Anne Almy Tess Harris, Case Planner DATE: March 3, 2017 RE: 15BAR LUP Nicolais SFD and Accessory Structures 990 North Patterson Avenue, Goleta, CA APN: Preliminary review indicates that the project site is in the AG-II-40 zone and the proposed project consists of several structures. The use of each structure is still under P&D review in order to determine compliance with the Land Use Development Code and the policies of the Comprehensive Plan, including the Eastern Goleta Valley Community Plan. This project may proceed for: X CONCEPTUAL REVIEW by your Board. PLEASE SPECIFICALLY COMMENT ON: This BAR application was reviewed on January 22, The project description changed subsequent to the January 22, 2016 meeting, and the proposed project no longer includes three employee dwellings or one foreman s dwelling. The applicant has decided to submit the revised project for conceptual review prior to conducting a site visit with the SBAR. 1. The proposed project is subject to the Ridgeline and Hillside Development Guidelines (LUDC ) for the proposed structures where there is a 16 foot drop in elevation within 100 feet in any direction from the proposed building footprint. The Development Guidelines are as follows for Rural, Inner Rural, Existing Developed Rural Neighborhood and Rural Neighborhood: a. The height of any structure should not exceed 16 feet wherever there is a 16 foot drop in elevation within 100 feet of the location of the proposed structure s location. b. Building rake and ridge line should conform to or reflect the surrounding terrain.

45 c. Materials and colors should be compatible with the character of the terrain and natural surroundings of the site. d. Large, visually unbroken and/or exposed retaining walls should be minimized. e. Landscaping should be used to integrate the structure into the hillside, and shall be compatible with the adjacent vegetation. f. Grading shall be minimized, in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. g. Development on ridgelines shall be discouraged if suitable alternative locations are available on the lot. The BAR may exempt a new structure or an alteration to an existing structure from compliance with these guidelines, in compliance with (Design Review) provided that in their review of the structure they find that one or more of the following situations applies to the proposed development: a. Due to unusual circumstances, strict adherence to these guidelines would inordinately restrict the building footprint or height below the average enjoyed by the neighborhood. For example, significant existing vegetation, lot configuration, topography or unusual geologic features may necessitate exceeding the height limit in order to build a dwelling comparable to other structures in the neighborhood. b. In certain circumstances, allowing greater flexibility in the guidelines will better serve the interests of good design without negatively affecting neighborhood compatibility or the surrounding view shed. 2. Trees exist on the site where development is proposed. P&D requests that the BAR comment on the potential for tree removal for the proposed project, with the site and neighborhood in mind. 3. The proposed project is subject to the Outdoor Lighting Standards for All Development and Land Uses (LUDC (6)). The outdoor lighting standards state that all light fixtures that require a County permit prior to installation shall be subject to the following general requirements: a. All outdoor light fixtures installed in the Eastern Goleta Valley Community Plan area after November 20, 2015 (the effective date of this Subsection C) and thereafter maintained upon private property, public property, or within the public right-of way shall be fully shielded (full cutoff). b. All replaced or repaired lighting fixtures requiring a permit shall be subject to the requirements of this Subsection C. c. Light trespass and glare shall be reduced to the maximum extent feasible through downward directional lighting methods. Additionally, the proposed project is subject to the Eastern Goleta Valley Community Plan Development Standards, including: a. Outdoor lighting in Goleta shall be designed and placed so as to minimize impacts on neighboring properties and the community in general. (VIS-GV-6) 2.

46 b. All new development with major outdoor lighting facilities should be illuminated with only fully shielded lighting with low glare design. (VIS-GV-6.1) P&D requests that the BAR comment on the lantern effect and night lighting impacts associated with the design of the house as well as the proposed development s potential visibility to the south. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The proposed project is for a Land Use Permit to allow the demolition of an existing 1,543 square foot residence, 783 square foot attached garage and 811 square foot barn, and construction of a new residence of approximately 6,500 square feet, 1,222 square foot detached garage, 450 square foot cabana/office, 790 square foot guest house, 456 square foot detached garage/laundry room, 2,374 square foot round pen, 1,000 square foot pool, 2,671 square foot stable building, 945 square foot orchard workshop, 816 square foot orchard equipment storage, 162 square foot orchard office, 312 square foot three sided hay barn (three sided), and 240 square foot storage (three sided). No landscaping is proposed. The proposed project will require 7,500 cubic yards of cut and approximately 1,000 cubic yards of fill, resulting in 6,600 cubic yards of export. The parcel would continue to be served by the Goleta Water District, a private septic system, and the Santa Barbara County Fire Department. Access to the site would continue to be via a private driveway off of La Josa Road, which is located east of North Patterson Avenue. The property is a acre parcel zoned AG-II-40 and shown as Assessor s Parcel Number , located at 990 North Patterson Avenue in the Goleta area, Second Supervisorial District. Any revisions to the project plans and any additional information regarding this project should be directed to my attention for further review of project consistency. An amendment to this notice will then be returned to your Board. Additional conditions may be applied to the project at the Land Use Permit phase if additional information indicates a need to condition the project to achieve consistency with policies. Final approval of the Land Use Permit is subject to my review. c: Case File (to Tess Harris) Lia Graham, P&D G:\GROUP\PERMITTING\Case Files\LUP\17 Cases\17LUP Nicholais SFD and Accessory Structures\BAR Memo.doc

47