[{"_1":2,"_98":-5,"_99":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,74,86],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":44,"_46":47,"_48":49,"_50":51,"_52":53,"_54":55,"_56":57,"_58":59,"_60":61,"_62":63,"_64":65,"_66":67,"_68":69,"_70":67,"_71":72,"_73":72},"mediaId",6512629,"mediaKeyId","5107732-236730f64cc0e597da1dd22a1a879734","parentId",5107732,"title","Board supports Arbelato addition and existing retaining walls, asks for softening measures and full board review","audioSeconds",0,"startMs",4665409,"endMs","viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=5107732-236730f64cc0e597da1dd22a1a879734&start=4665&end=4665","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5107732-236730f64cc0e597da1dd22a1a879734/thumbnail_4665409.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6512629/Santa-Barbara-City/Santa-Barbara-County/California/Board-supports-Arbelato-addition-and-existing-retaining-walls-asks-for-softening-measures-and-full-board-review","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6512629-d8b599cf43bde83fbbf8dfc47ed88843/orig.mp4?Expires=1775528793&Signature=dEje7TaGO8wL2wNzRhdhHc58kFrj7r0fHSoNBp1vu-n8UjMthzPpht8z9FuU2~bnG3AdG-6FnpBM6E5Fg6WYwG2MBFgcQ8a0chMoLMiETIZirchOUtqFYaOwI6j7mlUck9P7jFD~0wTc3KfRyG~E8oglBiauWENhlpsgBgbLy3ZXJlwQfI~6Cl-BG-sqJoGj0xlEIHx5mRgTjAqKwkE68PRerzUaekeBJzL3NpImLkEV9c1xwMefi-5sDB~AbzcxxCxAsIba2us18pFL-DqaqwvFdtO2eu-Cu~aB4hE90mB0fElMOgrxB7LMs0HVZj57yrzOcUcViXOBs~zF9WyTJA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Santa Barbara","date","2025-06-30T20:52:03Z","article","The Single Family Design Board reviewed a concept for a 297‑square‑foot rear addition and asked the applicants to return to the staff hearing officer with the full board for final action, while recommending ways to soften an as‑built retaining wall and supporting existing parking configuration on a private drive.

Don Sherry and Paul Saket presented the project and told the board that several site improvements were completed under earlier permits (BLD 2005‑295 and BLD 2008‑2819) that later expired. Mary Turnovskaya of Planning staff said staff wanted the board’s initial feedback because the earlier permits lapsed and the built walls and stairs now technically lie within a front setback under current zoning rules.

The project proposes a 297‑square‑foot addition and cantilevered deck at the rear of an existing 1,947‑square‑foot single‑unit residence with a 513‑square‑foot garage in the hillside design district. The proposed total of 2,771 square feet on a 21,205‑square‑foot lot equals about 59 percent of the guideline floor‑area ratio. The application requests a front‑setback modification to permit the expired front‑yard work and may require an additional modification for a parking area at the corner of Arbelato and the private drive.

“Staff is looking for comments regarding the aesthetic supportability of the front setback modification as well as the modification for that parking area on the corner,” planning technician Mary Turnovskaya told the board. Applicants explained that the front‑yard parking area allows deliveries and guest maneuvering on a narrow, dead‑end private drive and that removing it would reduce safety and access.

Board members said they were generally supportive. Several asked for design proposals to soften the tall rear retaining wall visible near the private drive; members suggested landscaping, partial relief in the wall or consistent detailing where future window openings are planned to reduce the wall’s visual impact. The board said it supported the as‑built front stairs and driveway changes given the site constraints and public‑safety concerns on a narrow access drive.

The board moved to continue the project to the staff hearing officer and requested that the matter return to the full board for any final action. The motion passed unanimously.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Single Family Design Board - June 30, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","The board reviewed a proposed 297‑square‑foot rear addition and multiple as‑built site improvements at 1030 Arbelato Road, endorsed the addition and as‑built front yard work, and asked the applicant for proposals to soften a prominent retaining wall visible from a private drive.","taxTitle","Santa Barbara City, Santa Barbara County, California","taxId",4209,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":75,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":76,"_41":77,"_43":78,"_45":79,"_46":80,"_48":81,"_50":82,"_52":83,"_54":55,"_56":57,"_58":84,"_60":61,"_62":63,"_64":85,"_66":67,"_68":69,"_70":67,"_71":72,"_73":72},6512633,"Board questions visibility, privacy and railing design on as‑built Shoreline roof deck, asks for original plans",2469,2323930,4793385,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5107732-236730f64cc0e597da1dd22a1a879734&start=2323&end=4793","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5107732-236730f64cc0e597da1dd22a1a879734/thumbnail_2323930.jpg","/articles/6512633/Santa-Barbara-City/Santa-Barbara-County/California/Board-questions-visibility-privacy-and-railing-design-on-asbuilt-Shoreline-roof-deck-asks-for-original-plans","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6512633-03bdcb731008834b6179661244e96fe2/orig.mp4?Expires=1775528793&Signature=oNv6ZP4-6jXLU3RhUdZ-UkFLo2hsCNf1ZS71hO3AomwyuL07-P7Q9RjwcPFAiy1RfKbuW04jtDbzHzeJhOLNyRUpZ0DtugUiCgNmDDLCMsiMubTiH~sOS1upaMK-Cq1CxoLr7U4hW9XbJdU1vLZNo2x-37SZ9wbwiowf8vEYlPgH9sWpfD17AEOlvDUZic0a0mirFdHBDLwIhySuDCrwIl~7uJiy5UDjV7TupzR9hwx5AdQa84KlUp-BOJJWn48TOsdR3f3PnKIQddjYAVvfy2yo~nK~3Z07cxYzCO7MPIrI~sxs3~EzW26o7E5~kRPgHhwWgF6l8fcVr2ZRzhts1Q__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Single Family Design Board reviewed a proposal to legalize an as‑built third‑story roof deck at 1618 Shoreline Drive and continued the item to the full board, asking applicants to provide the original approved plans, sightline photos and alternative railing concepts.

Agent Brian Zant and owner/designer Dustin Dodgen said the project would add 354 square feet of Trex decking and powder‑coated aluminum posts with stainless‑steel cable infill to an existing 425‑square‑foot roof deck. Zant said the front edge of the area of work is about 32 feet from the front (south) property line and side setbacks are roughly 22–23 feet; the rear set‑back from the property line is about 55 feet.

“We’re proposing to add 354 square feet of Trex decking and cable guard rails,” Zant told the board. He said an existing parapet around much of the deck was about 4 inches high in places and that the new rail would be roughly 36–37 inches above the deck in parts of the revised layout.

Board members expressed concern about the raised portion of the deck, which sits roughly 3 feet higher than the rest of the roof deck adjacent to a vaulted primary bedroom. Several commissioners said the elevated rails create a visually heavy, “basketball‑court” appearance from Shoreline Drive and asked the applicants to study railing options that reduce perceived height. Member Richards said the raised section “was likely never intended to be a deck” and asked for a clearer showing of what was historically permitted.

The board moved to continue the application to the full board with a list of requested materials: (1) the original 1992 approved plans for the roof deck; (2) photos from the deck showing the relationship to neighboring properties; (3) alternative railing concepts that reduce visible height on the east/front elevation, especially between the curved lower deck and the higher parapet; and (4) additional neighborhood precedents. The motion passed unanimously.

No final, appealable decision was made at the hearing; staff and applicants will return with the requested materials for the full board to review.","The board reviewed an enforcement/permit application to legalize a 354‑square‑foot Trex roof‑deck addition at 1618 Shoreline Drive. Members asked the applicants for the original 1992 plans, photos showing sightlines to neighbors, and alternatives to reduce the apparent height of the new railing.",{"_33":87,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":88,"_41":89,"_43":90,"_45":91,"_46":92,"_48":93,"_50":94,"_52":95,"_54":55,"_56":57,"_58":96,"_60":61,"_62":63,"_64":97,"_66":67,"_68":69,"_70":67,"_71":72,"_73":72},6512638,"Single‑family board backs changes to Surfview ADU design, sends project to staff hearing officer",1682,646475,2329450,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5107732-236730f64cc0e597da1dd22a1a879734&start=646&end=2329","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5107732-236730f64cc0e597da1dd22a1a879734/thumbnail_646475.jpg","/articles/6512638/Santa-Barbara-City/Santa-Barbara-County/California/Singlefamily-board-backs-changes-to-Surfview-ADU-design-sends-project-to-staff-hearing-officer","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6512638-bd04756a29c2dbc76afef4233e0cf80d/orig.mp4?Expires=1775528793&Signature=hpb0bWaB0bv~w-UyFfu~gSZjqyoom7heIIsgNiiBljV5ue4Toq6i7CxDskRYdk0QyqJkMiC7H2-Xg0jZ7E1WfcIChwvhXTQz~btSIBnq6yejZNKHXfJgh3DkU0co~RPM7z0gpAb4qCNPXFy0qm9Io~MXrjzqR6CLhxK8xtOdbPrWhMnV~7lEvWuPuKbgasAalHtLuDXE0btlnZODE~ggyspNq-nks5z3d6xbNM5LbYXZL~fCQcWNgdXSmbsTvxRmCYiEZTB58TRhQP0PsSrNKdXKUwXElTUDt8nS34qMoG8PmpfUbe10Po~dM9PmgeSzKHViIJfPw-cvpfMcON9A5A__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Single Family Design Board on June 30 reviewed a revised plan to add an accessory dwelling unit (ADU) above an expanded garage at 726 Surfview Road and voted to continue the application to the staff hearing officer with design comments.

Board members said the applicants reduced the visual bulk of a north‑facing second story and improved the ADU’s integration with the existing house. The board moved that the project be continued to the staff hearing officer with direction to return with final materials and detailing for wrought iron and landscaping; the motion passed unanimously.

The 15,567‑square‑foot lot currently includes a 1,412‑square‑foot one‑story residence and a 424‑square‑foot garage. The proposal demolishes the existing garage and builds a 749‑square‑foot garage with a 749‑square‑foot ADU above, for a proposed total of 2,910 square feet (about 67 percent of the guideline floor‑area ratio). The applicants requested three zoning modifications to allow encroachments into the front yard setbacks on Island View Drive and Surfview Drive and to permit a garage larger than the 500‑square‑foot limit.

Agent Michael Stroh and designer Marco Alejandro Cervantes of DMHA said they had lowered the plate height on the north end by about 18 inches (and, in effect, about 24 inches where combined with a reduced flare) and removed a pronounced gable flare to reduce the second‑story visual mass. “So we’ve dropped that northern side a total of about 24 inches,” Stroh told the board. He said the team also enlarged and infilled the garage area to provide a grounded base for the ADU and added windows to break up large blank walls.

Kelly Broadison of the Community Development Department told the board the item was scheduled to go to the staff hearing officer on July 9 for continued review of the requested zoning modifications.

Board members praised the lower ridgeline, the elimination of the gable flare and the added openings on the north and east elevations. Member Richards said the revisions made the ADU feel “a lot more grounded than the previous iteration.” Member Moslahi recommended landscaping at the new first‑floor bump‑out to soften the massing.

The board asked for a full south elevation showing the ADU in context with the rest of the house and requested material samples and details for the proposed belly band and any wrought‑iron elements. The board did not make a final, appealable decision at the hearing.

The matter will move to the staff hearing officer with direction to return to the full board for preliminary and final review if the applicants submit a package ready for final action.","The Single Family Design Board supported a revised design for a garage‑top accessory dwelling unit at 726 Surfview Road, applauding reductions to second‑floor bulk and added windows, and continued the matter to the staff hearing officer with conditions for materials and detailing.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Board supports Arbelato addition and existing retaining walls, asks for softening measures and full board review

Board questions visibility, privacy and railing design on as‑built Shoreline roof deck, asks for original plans

Single‑family board backs changes to Surfview ADU design, sends project to staff hearing officer