Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Design Review topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Santa Barbara board approves modified decking at contested Farella Road home, requires lower privacy screens
Summary
The Single Family Design Board approved project design and final approval for a second‑floor deck at 1257 Farella Road, requiring the applicant to lower proposed 6‑foot wood screening so it matches the guardrail height or otherwise match the guardrail on both stories. The item followed lengthy public comment and a multi‑year enforcement history.
The Single Family Design Board on April 7 approved project design and final approval for an as‑built second‑floor deck at 1257 Farella Road, requiring the applicant to reduce the height or otherwise alter proposed privacy screening on the west side of the upper and lower decks.
Board action matters because the property has an extended enforcement history and neighbors raised privacy and compliance concerns; the board’s approval allows the homeowner to pursue building permits subject to the screening condition and the city's 10‑day appeal period.
The homeowner’s team said the proposal responds to prior direction and neighborhood concerns. “Our new project is is consistent with zoning, building codes, design guidelines,” said Eric Berg, legal counsel for the applicant, describing plans that remove a spiral staircase and add lattice screening and revised guardrails. Architect Jan Hakkauser presented drone imagery and laser‑scan measurements intended to show how the decks sit within surrounding properties.
Neighbors who opposed the as‑built decks urged the board to require removal or replacement of the deck with a smaller Juliet balcony, citing a years‑long enforcement case. Emma Brinkman, the immediate west neighbor, told the board the Juliet balcony approved in 2017 would have been more “integrated” with the house and said, “The balcony would also allow the Third Floor French doors to remain.” Other public commenters described repeated noncompliance and months or years of citations and court action.
Board discussion focused on scale, screening, and neighborhood context. Several members said the deck size and siting were compatible with nearby properties and that replacement of the spiral stair reduced visual and privacy concerns. Vice Chair Sherry said the deck “is appropriately designed” and that she would have approved the deck if it had not already been built. Several members objected to the proposed 6‑foot solid wood slat screening on the west ends, saying the tall screens would increase apparent bulk from public vantage points.
The board’s approval includes a condition that the wood slat screening (referred to as “item 6” in the plans) be lowered to match the height of the guardrail or be replaced with a guardrail‑matching solution on both the first and second stories. The motion passed unanimously: Chair Lewis, Vice Chair Sherry, Board Member Grafaiti (listed in the record as Grafide/Grafaiti), and Board Member Mosley voted yes.
Next steps: staff noted the 10‑day appeal period. If there is no appeal the applicant may proceed to submit the required building permit application; staff reminded the applicant a survey may be required to verify setback compliance before permit finalization.
