PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENTOFFICE OF LONG RANGE PLANNING

TRANSMITTAL MEMO

PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT OFFICE OF LONG RANGE PLANNING

DATE: May 29, 2008

TO: SunPAC Members

FROM: Derek Johnson, Deputy Director Shaunn Mendrin, Senior Planner

SUBJECT: SunPAC Meeting #9

SunPAC members, the items noted below have been included or referenced in preparation of the June 4, 2008 meeting.

1. Meeting Agenda. The meeting agenda for the June 4, 2008 meeting has been provided for your review. For further explanation, please see discussion below (Attachment 1, page 4).

2. Meeting Minutes. Action Minutes from the May 7, 2008 meeting are included for

you review and approval (Attachment 2, pages 6-11).

3. Meeting Materials. The following additional materials have been provided as requested by the SunPAC:

• Discussion of Height, FAR and understories (see Attachment 3, pages 13-15)

• Plans for 2410 Lillie Avenue, Kimsey Building (see Attachment 4, pages 17-18)

• Plans for 2420 Lillie Avenue, Perkins Building (see Attachment 5, pages 20-21)

• Draft Summerland Height Methodology (see Attachment 6, pages 23-25)

Note: We will need to reschedule some of the future meeting dates, please bring your calendars. You may also download the SunPAC materials on the following webpage if you have difficulties accessing the files attached in the email: http://countyofsb.org/plandev/comp/planareas/summerland/

1

MEMORANDUM MAY 29, 2008 PAGE 2 OF 2

PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT OFFICE OF LONG RANGE PLANNING

MEETING AGENDA FOR WEDNESDAY, JUNE 4, 2008

Agenda Item 1

Pledge of Allegiance and Roll Call Agenda Item 2

Public Comment period – This item is set aside to allow public testimony on items not on today’s agenda. The time allocated to each speaker will be set at the discretion of the Chair. Agenda Item 3

Meeting Minutes - Review and approval of the May 7, 2008 meeting minutes. Agenda Item 4

Continued discussion of the “Working Draft” Summerland Commercial Design Guidelines.

1. Continued Discussion Height & Floor Area Ratio (FAR) and understories. You may also refer to materials from Meeting 8 for reference.

Note: The SunPAC indicated that a discussion of private views was warranted. Staff presented those materials at the March 19, 2008 meeting and the SunPAC took action on the issue. Please refer to those materials as we will discuss them further during the Residential Design Guidelines component.

Adjourn

Next meeting : SunPAC Community Plan Update Meeting #10 Topic: Residential Design Guidelines Meeting

Date & Location: TBD CC: Jeremy Tittle, Executive Assistant, 1st District Office John McInnes, Director, Office Long of Range Planning Amy Donnelly, Assistant Planner, Office of Long Range Planning

2

Attachment 1

Attachment 1 3

Questions or comments about the Community Plan Update may be directed to Derek Johnson at 805-568-2072 or djjohnson@sbcao.org and further information may be obtained on the following web site: http://countyofsb.org/plandev/comp/planareas/summerland Attendance and participation by the public is invited and encouraged. In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the Hearing Support Staff (805) 568-2000. Notification at least 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the Hearing Support Staff to make reasonable arrangements.

Summerland Planning Advisory Committee Meeting 1

Notice of Public Meeting

Summerland Planning Advisory Committee (SunPAC) Meeting #9

Date: Wednesday, June 4, 2008

Time: 6:00 PM

Location: Board of Supervisors Conference Room

123 East Anapamu Street, 4th Floor, Santa Barbara

Attendees: SunPAC Members, County Staff and Public Participants

Purpose/Discussion: Commercial Design Guidelines Discussion

Material to Read: 1992 Board of Architectural Review Design Guidelines for Summerland

Draft Commercial Design Guidelines for Summerland, April 2008

Material to Bring: SunPAC Meeting & Workshop Materials

Agenda Item Discussion Topic

CALL TO ORDER

# 1 Pledge of Allegiance and Roll Call

# 2 Public Comment Period:

The Public Comment period is set aside to allow public testimony on items not on

today’s agenda. The time allocated to each speaker will be set at the discretion of

the Chair.

# 3 Meeting Minutes from May 7, 2008

# 4 Continued Review of Draft Summerland Draft Commercial Design Guidelines

Adjourn Next

Meeting:

SunPAC Community Plan Update Meeting #10

Topic & Location: TBD

Adjourn

4

Attachment 2

Attachment 2

5

Page 1 of 6

SUMMERLAND Planning Advisory Committee

(SunPAC)

May 7, 2008 Meeting – Minutes

1. Meeting Called to Order: By Chair Donaldson at 6:06pm.

2. SunPAC Committee Members Present: Robert (Robin) Donaldson, David (Tom) Evans,

Jennifer Fairbanks, Betty Franklin, Paul Franz, David Hill, Mary Holzhauer, Nancy Kimsey,

Andy Neumann, Suzanne Perkins, and Wickson (Reeve) Woolpert.

Staff Present: Amy Donnelly, Assistant Planner and Shaunn Mendrin, Senior Planner.

3. Welcome: Chair Donaldson welcomed participants, and provided opening

comments.

4. Public Comment for Non-Agendized Items: None.

5. Meeting Minutes: SunPAC Member Franz moved to approve the SunPAC Meeting

Minutes from April 30, 2008 with one correction to omit the basement definition voted

on at the 4/30/08 SunPAC meeting which will be clarified and continued in the current

meeting discussion. SunPAC Member Woolpert seconded. All were in favor. Motion

carried 11-0.

6. SunPAC Member Comments on “Working Draft” of the Commercial Design Guidelines:

SunPAC Members provided prepared comments on the “Working Draft” of the Draft

Commercial Design Guidelines (April 2008). Staff noted that all comments, except

those requiring further SunPAC deliberation and consensus, will be incorporated into

an updated version of the document.

David Hill:

Page 18 – Add language about living or green roofs.

Page 31 – Felt that 12’ plate height does not provide for a human scale.

Page 49 – Add language on lighting hours and protecting the night sky.

Page 51 – Add language on banner signs (see Betty Franklin’s comment).

Paul Franz:

Page 5 – “Review Process” should include cosmetic changes (i.e. paint color).

Page 12 – Add language about the distinction between E/W of Valencia to Block

Face Character.

Page 17 – Specify requirements of a Landscape Plan. (Shaunn Mendrin mentioned

these reside in the County’s LUDC).

Page 18 – Guideline 3.19 – Include sidewalk improvements (i.e. red brick in County

R-O-W).

Page 25 – Guideline 3.38 – Placing building parallel with the street may not work on all

sites it may further clarification for flexibility.

Page 52 – Clarify new paint versus repainting. New paint should require BAR review.

6

Page 2 of 6

Betty Franklin:

Page 13 – SunPAC agreed to omit Ridgeline & Hillside Development Guidelines

because all of Summerland is considered a Ridgeline & Hillside area.

Page 51 – Signage – Add language on banner signs “not permitted more than 30

days per 3 month period” as determined at the January 26, 2008 Workshop.

Andy Neumann:

None – gave his time to Tom Evans.

Reeve Woolpert:

Page 8 – “Design Phase” – insert “privacy and view” concerns.

Page 9 – Suggestion of Summerland BAR review should be enhanced/stronger.

Page 10 – Add Reeve’s description of Summerland Character here.

Page 11 – “Lot pattern” – Fix typo: tent lots are 25 x 60 feet not 25 x 50 feet.

Page 11 – “Lot pattern” – Add language on E/W Valencia block patterns. After

“rhythm” add “mass, bulk and scale” along with proximity.

Block Face Character: Under “Develop common rhythms” add language on building

upon positive elements (positive defined as elements consistent with these design

guidelines).

Page 12 – Defined visual character – should encourage

“appealing/desirable/preferred” elements (unified can still be ugly).

Page 12 – Doesn’t understand the figure. Both look mixed.

Neighborhood Character Guideline 2.1 – Add “streetscape photomontages” instead

of photos. Add “desirable” after “compatible”.

Page 21 – “Privacy & Views” – add language about views from streets.

Page 23 – Bottom of page after “Gateways” add “…and protect and enhance the

character of Summerland”.

Tom Evans:

Table of Contents: Add a placeholder for Story Poles and FAR Worksheet.

Page 12 – Sketch – Top row shows mixed but with correct scale, last residence is out of

scale (Shaunn Mendrin noted this is just a placeholder).

Guideline 2.5 – Not sure if breaks every 25’ are appropriate. Not as important as

gabled ends to retain small scale. No mention of gable proportioning. Robin

Donaldson noted to encourage a break every 25’ is too vague for an architect. Term

“gable” should appear in the Block Face Character section of the Design Guidelines.

Traditional gable proportions are 15’ to 16’. (Shaunn Mendrin noted a more

appropriate section for this may be the Architectural Features chapter.)

Page 13 – Add language: “Solutions that enhance the residential feel of Varley Street

are encouraged”.

Page 15 – Guidelines should reference private views.

Page 16 – Guideline 3.11 – Should corner buildings be close to intersections? They

should be setback to create an open feel. A varied offset has a nicer feel.

Page 21 – Privacy – figure is poor (Shaunn noted this is a placeholder).

Page 23 – Guideline 3.35 – add language regarding views from roadways.

Page 26 – “Abandoned E/W R-O-W” – clarify owner gets 50% FAR credit.

Page 27 – Height – need to add language on understories.

Page 33 – Seaside example is good but too large for Summerland (Robin Donaldson

noted it looks too Craftsman).

Page 33 – Victorian example is too ornate for the simpler style found in Summerland.

Page 34 – Colonial Revival example is poor.

Page 35 – Contemporary needs to be removed. It’s “contemporary interpretation” of

allowed styles that is acceptable and encouraged.

7

Page 3 of 6

Page 42 – Should say “acceptable and encouraged”.

Materials: Float sand finish should be for additions only.

Figure of wooden siding is also a good example of window relief.

Guidelines 6.4 – Some non-factory finishes can also have glare.

Page 48 – Fixtures with shields are encouraged but should be required. Robin

Donaldson said it should read “Fixtures with solid, opaque shields should be required”.

Should we address good design for tree lighting?

Page 58 – SBAR Review Checklist is not as complete as current checklist. See current

checklist for reference to spot elevation, etc.

Mary Holzhauer:

Page 14 – Third Bullet refers to Toro Canyon (strike).

Nancy Kimsey:

Page 11 & 16 – Difference between E/W Valencia is not described. David Hill noted

east is more rural, west is denser. Nancy Kimsey disagreed. Robin Donaldson asked we

agendize to clarify.

Page 15 – Last sentence is not correct in her recollection (setbacks west of Valencia =

5-15’, east of Valencia = more than 15’? (Paul Franz, Suzanne Perkins and Nancy

Kimsey recall differently than the rest of the group). Agendize to clarify.

Landscape Plan required for all except SF dwelling. Don’t we want to require for any

development on Lillie? Shouldn’t this be required for the entire C-1 zone?

Page 21 – Privacy & Views – There is minimal description of the definition of a view

(add “existing” views).

Page 41 – Guideline 5.27 – Add language on hours of operation for garage doors, or

reference LUDC.

Page 9 – Asks “neighbor concerns” be respected. Noted all SunPAC members should

also respect other member’s concerns.

Suzanne Perkins:

Page 15 – Is unclear on setbacks for east of Valencia.

Page 17 – Philosophical question: Add language on landscaping maintenance?

(Shaunn Mendrin noted this would reside in LUDC as a requirement. We can add to list

of LUDC amendments.)

Page 23 – Privacy and Views – Need to tread lightly. Public versus private requires

involvement of County Counsel and Board of Supervisors. Problem with definitions and

enforcement. Robin Donaldson asked the item be agendized again.

Gateways: Need a roundabout at Padaro Lane and Via Real. Will discuss more during

Circulation Element update (Phase III).

Page 25 – “Primary mass of building” should not be parallel to the street. Needs to be

broken up on some blocks otherwise will appear too boxy and won’t promote the

desired village quality.

Page 35 – Need a better “Contemporary” style example. (Shaunn Mendrin noted this

is just a placeholder.)

Remodels should require curb, gutter, sidewalk and utility undergrounding (need to

come up with a monetary figure to trigger this work).

Robin Donaldson:

Page 32 – Architectural Styles – concerned about interpretation. It should be okay to

make a distinction between new and historical, and reference to Secretary of the

Interior’s guidelines here (refer to Chapter 8).

Design Review Process: Add language that non-architects are not legally permitted to

present plans to SBAR. CA law states plans must be brought forward by a licensed

architect.

8

Page 4 of 6

Landscape Architect: Should be required for projects in C-1.

Jennifer Fairbanks:

Page 25 – Primary mass of building should not be parallel with the street (see Suzanne

Perkins’ comment above).

Architectural Styles: Is Spanish creeping into the residential? It’s not encouraged.

Public Comment:

1. Mr. Blair Whitney commented that story poles are important, and they should

be altered to reflect any approved modifications to pending projects. He

noted any changes made to floor area ratio (FAR) calculations or allowances

may affect the 50% allowance on the east/west portions of abandoned rights-

of-way on purchased property and suggested this be kept as is. He

commented the SunPAC should take a field trip and walk down Lillie Avenue

and Varley Street to visually assess the dozen or so properties with

development potential. He said a landscape architect should be involved

with any landscaping on Lillie, which should be enforced by the County. He

further stated there should not be differentiation between east/west of

Valencia Street as all of the area is in the C-1 Zone and thus should be treated

the same. On the subject of views, Mr. Whitney stated a project applicant

should be required to take photos of the project site prior to performing any

demolition in order for the BAR to asses “existing” views. Lastly, he noted it

would be useful for the County to establish an email listserv to automatically

notify interested parties of upcoming BAR hearings.

2. Mr. Chris Roberts commented that while views need to be protected, some

balance is important. He noted the City of Valencia has handled the

protection of views by stipulating if a certain percentage of a view is

obstructed, landscape removal is required. He explained the bike trail in

Summerland is important, and bicycle access to the community should be

retained and enhanced. He suggested the need to address the historic

character of Summerland, proper landscaping for hillside areas that have

unstable plastic soil, and guidelines for enhancing the natural environment like

the creek by Greenwell Avenue. He noted he would forward these notes to

Chair Robin Donaldson.

3. A Summerland resident commented there should be an ordinance for stop

signs or traffic calming along Lillie and Padaro because of excessive speeding

in these areas.

Chair Donaldson identified the following comments on the “Working Draft” require

further discussion and consensus by the SunPAC:

•••• Private versus Public Views.

•••• Descriptive language of the difference between east versus west of Valencia

Street to add to the Draft Commercial Design Guidelines.

•••• Clarification on setbacks for areas east versus west of Valencia Street previously

voted on by the SunPAC at the March 19, 2008 and March 31, 2008 SunPAC

meetings.

•••• Floor area ratio (FAR), plate height, basements and building height discussion will

continue through this meeting and the next on June 4, 2008. (The outcome will be

incorporated into the Draft Commercial Design Guidelines.)

9

Page 5 of 6

7. Staff Member Mendrin led a PowerPoint presentation on the discussion items

continued from the prior SunPAC meeting concerning basements, plate height,

building height and floor area ratio (FAR).

Action: SunPAC Member Franz made a motion to approve a new definition for floor

area ratio (FAR) and a new definition and exclusions for basements for Summerland,

as amended below. SunPAC Member Perkins seconded the motion. All voted in

favor. Motion carried 11-0.

• Floor Area Ratio – Summerland: A measurement of development intensity

represented by the quotient of net floor area divided by net lot area.

o Exclusions:

• Parking located within, or portion thereof, a basement (see Figure X-

Basement Illustration),

• 100% of a true basement with no more that 18 inches above the finished

grade of the building footprint to be used for storage-accessory and/or

mechanical for a one story structure, OR

• 50% of a true basement with no more that 18 inches above the finished

grade of the building footprint to be used for storage-accessory and/or

mechanical for a two story structure.

• Basement – Summerland: A basement shall be counted as a story if its floor-to-

ceiling height is 6.5 feet or more, and the finished floor directly above is no more

than 4 feet above the finished grade.

o Additional Building Height Guideline:

• 4.3 – “Basements should be cut or dug into the existing grade. The use of

excessive fill to qualify a portion of a structure is discouraged.”

Action: Chair Donaldson moved to remove the current 9 foot plate height

requirement (which results in an incremental FAR penalty if exceeded) and accept

Staff’s recommendation to make plate height a guideline since the mass, bulk and

scale of the building is already controlled through floor area ratio (FAR) and building

height requirements. Further, the Design Guideline #4.4 will be amended as follows

and reference to 12 foot plates being “encouraged” will be struck:

“Commercial first floor space should provide a taller plate height. The second

floor plate should generally be less than the first floor.”

SunPAC Member Woolpert seconded. The motion carried 10-1 with SunPAC Member

Evans opposed.

Action: SunPAC Member Franz made a motion to maintain the existing floor area ratio

(FAR) allowances but with the provision that a formula be applied to adjust the

existing FAR percentages to retain the current development envelops, ensuring the

existing character of Summerland is retained. The FAR modification would be

recalculated based on the new methodology for calculating the floor area and other

adopted changes such as plate height. SunPAC Member Woolpert seconded. All

voted in favor with the exception of SunPAC members Perkins and Kimsey. Motion

10

Page 6 of 6

carried 9-2. Chair Donaldson noted the floor area ratio (FAR) and height discussion

would continue to the next SunPAC meeting on June 4, 2008.

8. Adjournment: Chair Donaldson moved to adjourn the meeting. SunPAC Member

Perkins seconded the motion. All were in favor. Motion carried 11-0. Meeting

adjourned at 9:36pm.

Next Meeting: Wednesday, June 4, 2008, 6:00pm

123 East Anapamu Street, Santa Barbara

Board of Supervisors Hearing Room, 4th Floor

Topic: Finalize Discussion of Commercial Design Guidelines

Minutes Approved:

_____________________________

Robin Donaldson III, Chair

G:\GROUP\COMP\Planning Areas\Summerland\2007 Summerland LRP Effort\Summerland PAC\SunPAC Meeting Information\1-Meetings &

Agenda's for Commercial Design Guidelines\8-Meeting 8\Minutes\5-7-08 Draft Minutes.doc

11

Attachment 3

Attachment 3

12

BUILDING HEIGHT & FAR COMMERCIAL DESIGN GUIDLEINES

Background

SunPAC members expressed concern regarding the extent of recommended

changes in methodologies and the resulting increase in the size of buildings. Staff has

recommended the following changes, those that have been approved by the

SunPAC include a check (�) next to them:

� FAR Calculation – Changed to methodology consistent with the County.

� Basement – Language has been modified to allow parking to be excluded

from the FAR for any portion meeting the Summerland Basement Definition.

Additional exclusion language was added for a “true basement” in which

accessory storage and mechanical equipment may be located based on the

number of stories of the structure. In addition, a guideline was added to the

draft document which discourages the use of excessive fill to qualify portions of

a structure as a basement.

� Plate Height – The definition of plate height has been retained and used as a

design guideline to allow more flexibility in design. This was done to make this

element consistent with the proposed design guidelines since they encourage

taller plate heights at the first floor level. In these cases, applicants should not

be penalized through a reduction of FAR as is the current practice.

Building Height – Staff has recommended the SunPAC adopt the current

methodology used throughout the County which uses a building height based

on the existing grade. This creates a “height” envelope over the site in which

the entire structure, including the roof, must be located. The methodology also

includes a maximum height, measured from the lowest point of the structure to

the highest point of the structure for those sites that qualify as Ridgeline and

Hillside Development. Staff and some SunPAC members have expressed that

the existing 22 foot height limit is too restrictive for commercial development.

In response, staff recommends the SunPAC change the building height in the

C-1 to 25 feet, which is consistent with the Countywide allowed height within

the Coastal Zone.

FAR – Staff has recommended that the existing FAR calculations of .29 for

commercial and .35 for mixed used be retained. The SunPAC indicated

concern about the extent of the adopted changes and the resulting increase

in the building envelope.

At the May 7, 2008 SunPAC meeting, the SunPAC continued the discussion of Building

Height and FAR to June 4, 2008. The SunPAC also indicated by a straw vote that they

would like staff to study existing projects based on the proposed new height

methodology and to consider a FAR that would keep the building envelopes similar in

size as existing development. The following discussion addresses the direction given

by the SunPAC.

Building Height

The current methodology for measuring building height is determined by the

calculating the average height by measuring from the grade to the midpoint of the

roof at various points around the structure. This allows for portions of a building to

have taller facades on one side and shorter facades on another, which may not

13

TRANSMITTAL MEMO BUILDING HEIGHT & FAR

necessarily be consistent with the topography of the site. Currently, the maximum

building height for “Urban Area” of the community is 22 feet.

In order to provide consistency within the County, staff has recommended that the

SunPAC consider the adoption of the height methodology used throughout the

County. This methodology establishes a height envelope over the subject lot, which

reflects the existing grade. On sloped lots, this encourages designers to cut into the

slope, which will lower the building profile. This also allows for increased design

flexibility and provides consistency with the proposed design guidelines.

Staff has noted that the existing building height of 22 feet is too restrictive to

accommodate good design. In the example provided at the May 7, 2008 meeting, a

two story structure with minimal plate heights of 8 feet and floor joists of 1.5 feet would

result in a 19 foot high structure, leaving 3 feet available for the roof structure. Staff

recommended the following for building height:

1. Adoption of the Countywide Height Methodology for Summerland.

2. Change the Building Height in the C-1 to 25 feet, consistent with the County

Coastal Area height limit.

Note: Staff has included a sample of the height methodology form for

Summerland.

Site sections for 2410 Lillie (Kimsey Building) and 2420 Lillie (Perkins Building) have been

included for your reference (Attachments 4 and 5 respectively). The first sheet in

Attachments 4 and 5 indicate the existing grade, the height envelope based on the

new methodology for 22 feet and 25 feet, and the buildings height measured from

the lowest point to the ridge as a reference. The second sheet indicates the same

measurements, but with topography changed to a flat site. Staff has included the 11”

x 17” set of plans for reference, which will be sent via mail and available at the June

4, 2008 meeting.

In comparing the two illustrations for each building you will see that the proposed

methodology at a 22 foot height envelope will limit the design flexibility. It also

important to note the design of these buildings and their rooflines were influenced by

the current methodology, which results in a roof structure slightly out of proportion with

the main structure and retail space that feels closed in. Table 1, indicates the heights

of building components that affect the overall height and interior space.

Table 1 Building Component 2410 Lillie 2420 Lillie

1st Floor Plate1 9’ 10’

2nd Floor Plate 11’ 9’

Height, based on proposed methodology2 22’ 22’

Height, based on existing methodology 17’ 18’ 1. The second floor plate height includes the floor joists.

2. The building height indicated is measured from the finished floor to the highest point of the roof

structure.

A good exercise prior to the meeting for SunPAC members is to walk into the Just Folk

commercial space to get a sense of the interior and then walk down to the Kimsey

and Perkins building just past Valencia. This will provide a gauge on how plate height

14

TRANSMITTAL MEMO BUILDING HEIGHT & FAR

influences the interior and functionality of a structure. Staff’s recommendation

remains the same as noted above.

FAR

At the May 7, 2008 meeting, the SunPAC also stated that in light of the changes

approved to date, which include FAR calculation methodology, removal of the plate

height FAR penalty and basement exclusions, the FAR should be adjusted accordingly

to ensure that the extent of building allowed (FAR) matches that of existing

development.

The existing FAR for commercial is .29 and mixed use is .35. As indicated during the

FAR methodology discussion, the resulting change FAR is approximately 6% to 7%

based on the examples used. Based on the direction of the SunPAC, this additional

floor area should be adjusted to ensure that the building scale remains similar to

current development. A reduction of 6% in FAR allowed on a site translates into

approximately .02. The resulting “adjusted” FAR would be .27 for commercial and .33

for mixed use.

Other factors that have changed include the elimination of a penalty for plate

height. Plate height penalty was unique in that was not always used by applicants.

Further reducing the FAR would restrict the design of commercial development, when

considering that generally commercial areas have a FAR of .50 or greater, and the

new design guidelines have a significant amount of additional guidelines to further

shape and mold a structure into a composition that is consistent and complimentary

to the character of the community.

Staff has not mentioned Understories since the guidelines generally deal with this issue

by requiring buildings to be set at or near the same level of the sidewalk. The issue of

understory affects the apparent height of building. Staff will propose other strategies

to address the understory or crawl space area under a structure in the Residential

Design Guidelines.

Staff recommends that the SunPAC retain the existing FAR calculations of .29 and .35

due to the depth of the updated design guidelines and comparison of interior space

of the Just Folk Building and the Kimsey and Perkins building past Valencia. The

additional square footage is minimal and would be unperceivable on a new

structure. Staff recommends that design flexibility for architects and should be

preferred with the expectation of a higher quality design within existing FAR.

Additional language can be added to the Commercial Design Guidelines if

recommended by the SunPAC.

15

Attachment 4

Attachment 4

16

P/L

P/L

Existing Grade

22’25’

22’

15’

15’

22-Foot HeightBased on Proposed Methodology

25-Foot HeightBased on Proposed Methodology

Setback

Setback

17

P/L

P/L

25’

22’

15’ 15’

22-Foot HeightBased on Proposed Methodology

25-Foot HeightBased on Proposed Methodology

Lillie Avenue Varely

2410 Lillie Avenue, Kimsey Building Scale 1/16 = 1”

Setback Setback

P/L

P/L

Existing Grade

18

Attachment 5

Attachment 5

19

22’

25’

22’

15’

15’

P/L

P/L

22-Foot HeightBased on Proposed Methodology

25-Foot HeightBased on Proposed Methodology

Setback

Setback

Existing Grade

20

P/L

P/L

25’

22’

15’ 15’

22-Foot HeightBased on Proposed Methodology

25-Foot HeightBased on Proposed Methodology

Lillie Avenue Varely

2420 Lillie Avenue, Perkins Building Scale 1/16 = 1”

Setback Setback

P/L

P/L

Existing Grade

21

Attachment 6

Attachment 6

22

Height Calculation Methodology

Except for structures located within the Coastal Zone on property zoned with the VC View Corridor Overlay, the height of a structure (not including fences and walls) is determined by the vertical distance between the existing grade and the uppermost point of the structure directly above that grade. If the structure is located within the Coastal Zone on property zoned with the VC View Corridor Overlay, then the height of the structure (not including fences and walls) is determined by the vertical distance between the average finished grade and uppermost point of the structure directly above that grade. The height of the structure shall not exceed the applicable height limit (see Diagram 1 below) except for certain limited exceptions discussed below. In addition to the height limit applicable to a structure as described above, a structure subject to the Ridgeline and Hillside Development Guidelines shall not exceed a maximum height of 32 feet as measured from the highest part of the structure, excluding chimneys, vents and noncommercial antennas, to the lowest point of the structure where an exterior wall intersects the finished grade or the existing grade, whichever is lower (see Diagram 2 below). 1. In the case where the lowest point of the structure is cantilevered over the ground surface,

then the calculated maximum height shall include the vertical distance below the lowest point of the structure to the finished grade or the existing grade, whichever is lower.

2. This 32 foot limit may be increased by no more than three feet where the highest part of

the structure is part of a roof element that exhibits a pitch of four in 12 (rise to run) or greater.

EXCEPTIONS 1. Chimneys, church spires, elevator, mechanical and stair housings, flag poles,

noncommercial antennas, towers, vents, and similar structures which are not used for human activity may be up to 50 feet in height in all zones subject to compliance with the F Airport Approach Overlay and the VC View Corridor Overlay. The use of towers or

COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA

Planning and Development www.sbcountyplanning.org

Methodology applies to: Structures located inside the Summerland Planning Area.

23

Height Calculation Methodology – Summerland Page 2

similar structures to provide higher ceiling heights for habitable space shall be deemed a use intended for human activity.

2. Portions of a structure may exceed the applicable height limit by no more than three feet

where the roof exhibits a pitch of four in 12 (rise to run) or greater. 3. Architectural elements (portions of a building that exceeds the height limit and extends

beyond the roof of the building) with an aggregate area less than or equal to 10 percent of the roof area or 400 square feet, whichever is less, may exceed the height limit by no more than eight feet when approved by the BAR.

4. Special exemptions for oil/gas equipment (see Article II, Section 35-127.1.a). DEFINITIONS Existing Grade: The existing condition of the ground elevation of the surface of a building site at the time of permit application, including Board of Architectural Review applications, that represents either (1) the natural grade prior to the placement of any fill on the site or the excavation or removal of earth from the site, or (2) the manufactured grade following the completion of an approved grading operation including grading approved in conjunction with the subdivision of the site. Finished Grade: The height of the manufactured grade of that portion of the lot covered by the structure following the completion of an approved grading operation. Finished Grade, Average: The average height of the manufactured grade of that portion of the lot covered by the structure following the completion of an approved grading operation. Height Limit: The maximum allowed height of a structure as established by an imaginary surface located at the allowed number of feet above and parallel to the existing grade.

Diagram 1

24

Height Calculation Methodology – Summerland Page 3

Diagram 2

25