Preview
Christopher E. Haskell, State Bar No. 126745
Melissa Fassett, State Bar No. 135290
PRICE, POSTEL & PARMA LLP
200 East Carrillo Street, Fourth Floor
Santa Barbara, California 93101
Telephone: (805) 962-0011
Facsimile: (805) 965-3978
Attorneys for Defendants
Kootstra SBA, L.P., Howard Kootstra,
Elaine Kootstra, Christian Menard, and
Jenna Kootstra Menard
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA
LEILA NOEL, Trustee of the Noel Living Case No.: 24CV01633
Trust originally dated April 6, 2010, As
Amended and Restated March 18, 2019, Assigned for all purposes to
Hon. Colleen K. Sterne, Dept. 5
Petitioner,
VS. APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE IN
RESPONSE TO MOTION FOR
CITY OF SANTA BARBARA, PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
Respondent. (VOL. 2 — EXHIBITS 3-10)
[Opposition to Ex Parte Application Filed
Concurrently Herewith|
KOOTSTRA SBA L.P., a California limited
partnership; HOWARD KOOTSTRA, an Hearing:
individual; ELAINE KOOTSTRA, an Date: May 7, 2024
individual; CHRISTIAN MENARD, an Time: 9:00 a.m.
individual; JENNA KOOTSTRA MENARD, Dept: 5
an individual,
Complaint Filed: © March 20, 2024
Real Parties in Interest.
28
PRICE, POSTEL
& PARMA LLP l
SANTA BARBARA, CA APPENDIX IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
|
1 Real parties in interest Kootstra SBA, L.P., Howard Kootstra, Elaine Kootstra, Christian
9) Menard, and Jenna Kootstra Menard (“Real Parties’) hereby submit this Appendix of Evidence in
3 || Opposition to the Motion for Preliminary Injunction filed by Petitioner.
4 A. Declaration of Melissa J. Fassett
5 B. Declarations of Christian Menard
6 C. Declarations of Jenna Kootstra Menard
7 D. Declarations of Howard Kootstra
8 E. Declaration of William Pritchett
9 F. Declaration of Eric Oberholtzer
10 1. Exhibit 1 — 1/18/05 Meeting Minutes of Architectural Bd of Review
11 2. Exhibit 2 — Noel 2005 Petition for Mandate
12 3. Exhibit 3 — Emails with Noel
13 4. Exhibit 4 — 10/10/05 Meeting Minutes of Architectural Bd of Review
14 5. Exhibit 5 — Good Neighbor Guidelines
15 6. Exhibit 6 — 10/26/23 Photo of Property
16 7. Exhibit 7 — Side by Side Backyard Plans
17 8. Exhibit 8 —- Menard Plans
18 9, Exhibit 9 — Emails between Howard Kootstra and Leila Noel
19 10. Exhibit 10 — Texts between Howard Kootstra and Leila Noel
20 11. Exhibit 11 — Photos of Privacy Hedge
21 12. Exhibit 12 — Photos of Noel removing Privacy Hedge
oy) 13. Exhibit 13 — Photo of Privacy Hedge Gone
93 14. Exhibit 14 — Noel Property under Construction
94 15. Exhibit 15 — Photos of Noel Property
25 16. Exhibit 16 — Photos of Noel Property from Menard deck
26 17. Exhibit 17 — Screen Shots of Calls to Joele Hatchett
27 18. Exhibit 18 — Screen Shot of Call to Jim Dall
28 19, Exhibit 19 — Screen Shots of Calls to John Zandona
PRICE, POSTEL
& PARMA LLP 2
SANTA BARBARA, CA APPENDIX IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
20. Exhibit 20 — Photo of Joele Hatchett at Menards
21 _ Exhibit 21 — Email Christian Menard to Joele Hatchett 10/17/20
22. Exhibit 22 — Emails Christian Menard with Joele Hatchett 10/30/23 to 11/1/23
23. Exhibit 23 — Photos from Zandona Property
24. Exhibit 24 — Photos of south property line, storm water remediation
25. Exhibit 25 — Neighbor Declarations
26. Exhibit 26 — Neighbor Declarations
27. Exhibit 27 — Neighbor Declaration
28. Exhibit 28 — Photos taken from Menard Deck
29. Exhibit 29 — Noel Emails 3/14/24
30. Exhibit 30 — City Inspection Log of Property
31. Exhibit 31 — Stormwater Management System
Respectfully submitted,
15 || Dated: April 24, 2024 PRICE, POSTEL & PARMA LLP
By§ OX DeaaSie
Melissa Fassett
Attorneys for Real Parties in Interest
Kootstra SBA, L.P., Howard Kootstra,
Christian Menard, Jenna Kootstra Menard
28
PRICE, POSTEL
& PARMA LLP 3
SANTA BARBARA, CA APPENDIX IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
PROOF OF SERVICE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA
I am employed ih the County of Santa Barbara, State of California. I am over the age of
eighteen (18) and not a party to the within action. My business address is 200 East Carrillo Street,
Fourth Floor, Santa Barbara, California 93101.
On April 24, 2024, I served the foregoing document described as APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE IN
RESPONSE TO MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION on all interested parties in
this action by the original and/or true copy thereof enclosed in sealed envelopes, addressed as
follows:
A Barry Cappello, Esq. Tava Ostrenger, Esq.
Mike Brelje, Esq. Robin Lewis, Esq.
Richard Lloyd, Esq. City Attorney, City of Santa Barbara
Cappello & Noel LLP 740 State Street, Suite 201
831 State Street Santa Barbara, CA 93101
Santa Barbara, CA 93101 tostrenger(@santabarbaraca.gov
abc@cappellonoel.com rlewis@santabarbaraca.gov
mbrelje@cappellonoel.com
rlloyd@cappellonoel.com
C BY MAIL: I placed the original and/or true copy in a sealed envelope addressed as
indicated herein. I am readily familiar with the firm’s practice of collection and
processing documents for mailing. It is deposited with the U.S. postal service on that
same day in the ordinary course of business. I am aware that on motion of the party
served, service is presumed invalid if the postal cancellation date or postage meter date 1s
more than one day after the date of deposit for mailing in affidavit.
O BY PERSONAL DELIVERY: I personally delivered the original and/or true copy in a
sealed envelope addressed as indicated herein.
O BY OVERNIGHT DELIVERY: I placed the original and/or true copy in a sealed, fully
prepaid FedEx, Next Day Air envelope addressed as indicated herein, which is picked up
by FedEx on that same day in the ordinary course of business.
BY E-MAIL: I caused to be e-mailed a true copy to the e-mail addresses listed herein.
(STATE) I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that
the foregoing is true and correct.
_ (FEDERAL) (hereby certify that I am employed in the office ofa member of the Bar of
this Court at whose direction the service was made. |
Executed on April 24, 2024, at Santa Barbara, California.
Signatu !
Elizabeth} Wright
28
PRICE, POSTEL
& PARMA LLP
SANTA BARBARA, CA
EXHIBIT 3
City of Santa Barbara
Planning Division
ARCHITECTURAL BOARD OF REVIEW
MINUTES
David Gebhard Public Meeting Room: 630 Garden Street
Monday, October 10, 2005 3:01 P.M.
BOARD MEMBERS: CHRISTINE PIERRON, Chair, Present, out at 5:41p.m., back at 6:10p.m.
BRUCE BARTLETT, Vice-Chair, Present, out at 6:10p.m.
STEPHANIE CHRISTOFF, Present, out at 6:10p.m.
DERRIK EICHELBERGER, Present, out at 5:41p.m., back at 6:25p.m.
JAMES LECRON, Present
CHRISTOPHER MANSON-HING, Present
RANDY MUDGE, Present, out at 5:41p.m., back at 6:10p.m.
MARK WIENKE, Present, out at 6:10p.m., back at 7:12p.m.
CITY COUNCIL LIAISON: HELENE SCHNEIDER, Present, 5:21p.m., out at 5:56p.m.
PLANNING COMMISSION LIAISON: STELLA LARSON, Absent
STAFF: JAIME LIMON, Design Review Supervisor, Present, out at 5:41p.m.
KELLY BRODISON, Planning Technician, Present
DEBBIE BUSH, Recording Secretary, Present
ARCHITECTURAL BOARD OF REVIEW SUBMITTAL CHECKLIST
(See ABR Guidelines & Design Review Submittal Requirements for Details)
CONCEPT Required | Master Application & Submittal Fee - (Location: 630 Garden Street)
areas &
REVIEW Photographs- of the existing building (if any), adjacent structures, composite panoramic view of the site, surrounding
neighborhood streetscape - mounted or folded to no larger than an 8.5" x 14" photo display board.
Plans- three sets of foldedplans are required at the time of submittal & each time plans are revised
Vicinity Map and Project Tabulations - (Include on first drawing)
Site Plan - drawn to scale showing the property boundaries, existing & proposed structures, building & area square footages, building
height, areas to be demolished, parking, site topography, conceptual grading & retaining walls, & existing landscaping. Include footprints
of adjacent structures.
Exterior elevations- showing existing & proposed grading where applicable.
Suggested Site Sections - showing the relationship of the proposed building & grading where applicable.
Plans- floor, roof, etc.
However, more
Rough sketches are encouraged early in the process for initial design review to avoid pursuing incompat ible proposals.
complete & thorough information is recommended to facilitate an efficient review of the project.
PRELIMINARY Required | Same as above with the following additions:
REVIEW Plans - floor, roof, ete.
Site Sections - showing the relationship of the proposed building & grading where applicable.
Preliminary Landscape Plans- required for commercial & multi-family; single-family projects where grading occurs. Preliminary planting
plan with proposed trees & shrubs & plant list with names, Plans to include street parkway strips.
Suggested | Color & Material Samples - to be mounted on a board no larger than 8.5" x 14" & detailed on all sets of plans.
Exterior Details - windows, doors, eaves, railings, chimney caps, flashing, etc.
Materials submitted for preliminary approval form the basis for working drawings & must be complete & accurate.
FINAL & Required Same as above with the following additions:
CONSENT Color & Material Samples - to be mounted on a board no larger than 8.5" x 14" and detailed on all sets of plans.
Cut Sheets- exterior light fixtures and accessories where applicable.
Exterior Details - windows, doors, eaves, railings, chimney caps, flashing, etc.
Final Landscape Plans- landscape construction documents including planting & irrigation plan.
Consultant/Engineer Plans - electrical, mechanical, structural, & plumbing where applicable.
EXHIBIT 3
ARCHITECTURAL BOARD OF REVIEW MINUTES October 10, 2005 Page 2
7k All approvals made by the Architectural Board of Review (ABR) are based on compliance with Municipal
Code Chapter 22.68 and with adopted ABR guidelines. Some agenda items have received a mailed notice
and are subject to a public hearing.
OK
The approximate time the project will be reviewed is listed to the left of each item. It is suggested that
applicants arrive 15 minutes early. The agenda schedule is subject to change as cancellations occur. Staff
will notify applicants of time changes.
2k 3K
The applicant's presence is required. If an applicant is not present, the item will be postponed indefinitely.
If an applicant cancels or postpones on item without providing advance notice, the item will be postponed
indefinitely and will not be placed on the following ABR agenda. In order to reschedule the item for re-
view, the applicant must fill out and file a Supplemental Application Form at 630 Garden Street
(Community Development Department) and submit appropriate plans.
eK The Board may grant an approval for any project scheduled on the agenda if sufficient information has
been provided and no other discretionary review is required. Substitution of plans is not allowed, if
revised plans differing from the submittal sets are brought to the meeting, motions for preliminary or final
approval will be contingent upon staff review for code compliance.
eK Preliminary and Final Architectural Board of Review approval is valid for one year from the date of the
approval unless a time extension or Building Permit has been granted.
ak The Board may refer items to the Consent Calendar for Preliminary and Final Architectural Board of
Review approval.
KK In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this
meeting, please contact the Planning Division at (805) 564-5470. Notification at least 48 hours prior to the
meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements.
KR
Many of the items before the Board may be appealed to the City Council. For further information
on appeals, contact the Planning Division Staff or the City Clerk's office. Said appeal must be in
writing and must be filed with the City Clerk at City Hall within ten (10) calendar days of the
meeting at which the Board took action or rendered its decision. The scope of this project may be
modified under further review.
K*
AGENDAS, MINUTES and REPORTS: Copies of all documents relating to agenda items are
available for review at 630 Garden St. in the City Clerk's office, at the Central Library, and
www.SantaBarbaraCa.gov If you have any questions or wish to review the plans, please contact
Kelly Brodison, at (805) 564-5470 between the hours of 8:30 a.m. to noon and 1:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m.,
Monday through Friday.
LICENSING ADVISORY:
The Business and Professions Code of the State of California and the Municipal Code of the City of Santa Barbara
restrict preparation of plans for certain project types to licensed professionals. Applicants are encouraged to
consult with Land Use Controls or Planning Staff to verify requirements for their specific projects.
Unlicensed persons are limited to the preparation of plans for:
EXHIBIT 3
ARCHITECTURAL BOARD OF REVIEW MINUTES October 10, 2005 Page 3
> Single or multiple family dwellings not to exceed four (4) units per lot, of wood frame construction, and
not more than two stories and basement in height,
> Non-structural changes to storefronts; and,
> Landscaping for single-family dwellings, or projects consisting solely of landscaping of not more than
5,000 square feet.
NOTICE:
l. That on October 6, 2005 at 4:00 p.m., this Agenda was duly posted on the Community Development
bulletin board, in the office of the City Clerk, and on the bulletin board on the outside of City Hall.
2. This regular meeting of the Architectural Board of Review will be broadcast live and rebroadcast in its
entirety on Wednesday at 9:00 a.m. on Channel 18.
GENERAL BUSINESS:
A. Public Comment:
Any member of the public may address the Architectural Board of Review for up to two minutes on any
subject within their jurisdiction that is not scheduled for a public discussion before the Board on that
day. The total time for this item is ten minutes. (Public comment for items scheduled on today's agenda
will be taken at the time the item is heard.)
No public comment.
B. Approval of the minutes of the Architectural Board of Review meeting of October 3, 2005.
Motion: Approval of the minutes of the Architectural Board of Review meeting of October 3,
2005, with corrections.
Action: LeCror/Mudge, 7/0/0. Pierron abstained from Item 2.
C. Consent Calendar.
Motion: Ratify the Consent Calendar. The Consent Calendar was reviewed by Bruce Bartlett with
the exception of the landscaping for Item H, reviewed by Derrik Eichelberger.
Action: Mansor-Hing/LeCron, 7/0/0.
D. Announcements, requests by applicants for continuances and withdrawals, future agenda items, and
appeals,
1, Ms. Brodison announced there were no changes to the agenda.
2. Ms. Brodison stated that Bruce Bartlett would be leaving the meeting at 6:00 p.m.
E, Subcommittee Reports.
Christine Pierron stated that she attended the Airport Terminal Subcommittee meeting and there was a
detailed photo presentation submitted by URL, the architect. She also indicated that the ABR would be
the primary design review body for the project.
F, Possible Ordinance Violations.
No reported violations.
EXHIBIT 3
ARCHITECTURAL BOARD OF REVIEW MINUTES October 10, 2005 Page 4
THE BOARD RECESSED FROM 3:11P.M. UNTIL 3:17P.M.
PRELIMINARY REVIEW
1. 155 CEDAR LN E-1 Zone
Assessor's Parcel Number: 015-083-027
Application Number: MST2004-00502
Agent: Gary Myers
Owner: William Pritchett Trust
Applicant: William Pritchett
Architect: Jerald Bell
(Proposal for Revised Preliminary Approval of project previously reviewed. Proposal to construct a
3,958 square foot two-story single family residence with an attached 531 square foot garage and 534
square feet of deck area on a 15,880 square foot lot located in the Hillside Design District. Project also
includes 370 cubic yards of grading.)
(PROPOSAL FOR REVISED PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF PROJECT PREVIOUSLY
REVIEWED. NEIGHBORHOOD PRESERVATION ORDINANCE FINDINGS REQUIRED.)
(3:17)
Scott Vincent, Assistant City Attorney, explained that 155 Cedar Lane has returned to ABR as a result
of a condition of a lawsuit settlement. Mr. Vincent would like the Board members to review the project
as a new preliminary review and determine if Neighborhood Preservation Ordinance findings can be
met.
Steve Hausz, Agent; Bill Pritchett, Owner; Gary Myers, Agent; and Derek Westen, Attorney; present.
Public comment opened at 3:50p.m.
Karl Eberhard, Agent for Mr. and Mrs. Noel, stated that he reviewed the changes in the plans. Mr.
Eberhard stated that the Oak tree has been trimmed and Mr. and Mrs. Noel would like the house to be
moved back approximately 9-10 feet, and centered on the site between the two trees, which would
reduce what they believe to be the canyon effect.
A letter was read into the record submitted by Mr. and Mrs. Hatchett, which stated that to allow a
building permit to be granted, the size of the building and the architecture must conform to the existing
neighborhood. Mr. and Mrs. Hatchett do not want the total square footage to exceed 3,400 square feet.
Cindy Dall, neighbor, read a letter which stated that the proposed project9s size, bulk and scale is not
compatible with the neighborhood. Ms. Dahl would like the Board members to view the project from
the southern point, as it looms directly into her home, and request that story poles be placed on all four
sides of the building structure. There is also serious concern with the proposed drainage systems. The
hillside has already experienced drainage problems.
Deborah Pentland, neighbor, stated that she believes the project should be centered on the lot, and that
the size of the building is too large. Drainage is an issue, as the neighborhood Ins already experienced
problems with runoff.
EXHIBIT 3
ARCHITECTURAL BOARD OF REVIEW MINUTES October 10, 2005 Page 5
Nathan Cultice, neighbor, stated that he is very @ncerned with drainage. His property experiences
runoff. Mr. Cultice is concerned about privacy, and he agrees that the house should be centered on the
lot. The size of the building is too large and should be taken into consideration.
Leila Noel, presented photographs which depicted how large the proposed house would be and how the
house would hover over her yard. Ms. Noel concurs that the house should be centered onto the lot,
which would protect their privacy.
Rita Zandona, stated that she is concerned with drainage and water issues. Ms. Zandona is concerned
that the house is too large for the neighborhood.
Frank Griscom, neighbor who resides on Chase Drive, stated that there is already a minimum of six
automobiles parked on the cul-de-sac daily, and that the parking situation creates a concern.
Emily Nichols, neighbor, stated that the size and square footage of the proposed project is twice the size
of the homes in the neighborhood. The proposal is not in keeping with the character of the
neighborhood and will affect each of the surrounding homes. The traffic from a large house will be
heavy and there will be additional parking concerns.
Alan Blakebono, Attorney for Mr. and Mrs. Noel, is withholding comment unless necessary to speak.
Ray Aller, stated that the project size is too large for the neighborhood. It is also unfortunate what the
large proposal will do to the neighborhood. He is hopeful that there will not be too much traffic.
Robert Genity, neighbor, stated that the proposal will obstruct his view, and Mr. Genity is concerned
with drainage issues.
Helene Segal, neighbor, stated that she concurs with all of the previous neighbors and that the project is
too large and not in scale with the neighborhood.
Robert Noel expressed his gratitude to the Board members and stated that he respects Mr. Noél stated
that he is appreciative of Mr. Vincent9s comments, Mr. Noel also stated that the Oak tree would still
need to be cut down significantly.
A letter was read into the record submitted from several residents who reside on Cedar Lane. The letter
stated that the large, two-story proposed home would not preserve or enhance the character of the
neighborhood. The residents would like ABR to limit the size of the house to approximately 3,000
square feet.
Public comment closed at 4:29p.m.,
EXHIBIT 3
ARCHITECTURAL BOARD OF REVIEW MINUTES October 10, 2005 Page 6
Motion: Continued indefinitely with the following comments: 1) The Board has significant
concerns with the size, bulk and scale and the overall size of the home, neighborhood
compatibility, the two-story downhill slope presence, the grading of the site, and the
apparent lack of compliance with the Hillside Design Guidelines techniques. However,
the Board sees opportunity to address the concerns. 2) Provide an accurate grading plan
which shows existing and proposed grading, both on site and off site to see the effect it
may have on the neighbors. 3) Provide site sections showing the north-south and east-
west directions. 4) The Board is concerned with the as-built grading and the resultant
pad. It appears there may have been more flat lot grading than proposed. 5) The Board is
concemed with the apparent berming to gain more flat lot construction on the hillside.
6) Provide an FAR study for the project and one for the surrounding neighbors.
7) Provide photo documentation of the neighborhood to understand neighborhood
compatibility, particularly in light of the two-story down hill slope. 8) The building does
not step with the topography. 9) The project is boxy in nature. 10) Provide an Arborist
Report, and show all the Oak trees and accurate location of the canopy of trees.
11) Provide Tree Protection notes on future proposals. 12) Eliminate the roof over the
exterior deck and study reducing the 10-foot plate heights. 13) Study the east side to find
better ways in stepping the architecture and to step the apparent mass. 14) Study ways to
dig the home into the hillside. 15) The Board is concerned with the overall length and the
long ridgeline of the design. 16) The Board is concerned with the roof forms that span
the width of the building. 17) There is a sentiment that the Board sees opportunity to
shift the home to the west, which will help resolve concerns.
Action: Bartlett/Wienke, 6/2/0. LeCron, Manson-Hing opposed.
PRELIMINARY REVIEW
2. 320 W PUEBLO ST C-O Zone
Assessor's Parcel Number: 025-102-001
Application Number: MST2003-00152
Owner: Santa Barbara Cottage Hospital
Agent: Suzanne Elledge Permit Processing
Architect: Brian Cearnal
Architect: Erich Burkhart
(Proposed Cottage Hospital Master Plan. The project involves the demolition of 280,090 square feet
including the main hospital building, Eye Center and structures on the adjacent west block. Also
proposed is 434,955 square feet of new construction. Two new parking structures are also proposed.
One of the parking structures will be located behind the Knapp Building at 2400 Bath Street, and the
other will be located at the northeast corner of Pueblo and Castillo Streets. The one-block section of
Castillo Street that borders on the west side of the hospital that is located between Pueblo and Junipero
Streets is proposed to be closed to allow the construction of the new hospital facility. The project
requires Planning Commission approval of the Development Plan and City Council approval of the
Specific Plan, Development Agreement, and Castillo Street Abandonment.)
(Preliminary Review of the Child Care Center Design.)
(COMMENTS ONLY; PROJECT REQUIRES ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT,
PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL OF THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN FINDINGS, CITY
COUNCIL APPROVAL OF THE SPECIFIC PLAN, DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT AND
STREET ABANDONMENT.)
EXHIBIT 3
ARCHITECTURAL BOARD OF REVIEW MINUTES October 10, 2005 Page 7
(5:40)
Irma Unzueta, Case Planner, stated that the applicant is requesting Preliminary Approval, yet Ms.
Unzueta encourages the Board members to voice comments only, with the applicant to return, as
changes have been made to the plans which have not yet been reviewed.
Brain Cearnal, Architect; present.
Public comment opened at 5:50p.m.
Jodi Leipner, neighbor, stated that she is supportive of the day care facility. Ms. Leipner, however,
would like to be assured that the location of the trash container and the washer and dyers be located on
the opposite side of where the neighbors reside. Ms. Leipner would also like the Board to view the area
of the lighting to make sure there will not be light spillage on her side of the property. Ms, Leipner
would like to see the fencing continued along the residential side of the boundary, and stated that the
residents would like to see more landscape and trees to break up the view of the parking garage.
Public comment closed at 5:54p.m.
Motion: Continued indefinitely with the following comments: 1) The project is ready for
Preliminary Approval 2) The Board appreciates the mix of architectural styles of the
three buildings. 3) The Board would support a modification for the 48= wood fence with
the hedge behind it along Castillo Street, as it would be an aesthetic enhancement.
4) Study moving the transformer back further into the alcove of the adjacent garage
property. 5) Study enhancing the fence and the landscape along the adjacent neighbors9
properties. 6) The Board would like to see the fence at the entry way of the building
separation to be a nicely detailed and decorated fence. 7) The Board appreciates and
understands the minor changes made as a result of the phasing of the project. 8) The
Board understands that the project will strive to achieve a Silver Leed Certification.
Action: Wienke/Christoff, 5/0/0. Pierron, Eichelberger, Mudge, stepped down.
CONCEPT REVIEW - CONTINUED ITEM
3. 420 E ANAPAMU ST R-3 Zone
Assessor's Parcel Number: 029-173-005
Application Number: MST2005-00442
Owner: Glennon Mueller
Architect: Lenvik & Minor
(Proposal to construct two new condominium units and add a 270 square foot second story to an existing
single-family residence for a total of three two-story condominium units. An existing one-car garage is
proposed to be demolished and replaced with three new two-car garages. A total of 7,235 square feet 1s
proposed for the 9,044 square foot lot.)
(Second Concept Review.)
(COMMENTS ONLY; PROJECT REQUIRES ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND
PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL OF A TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP.)
(6:10)
Jeff Gorrell, Architect, present.
EXHIBIT 3
ARCHITECTURAL BOARD OF REVIEW MINUTES October 10, 2005 Page 8
Public comment opened at 6:22p.m.
Stuart Wilson, neighbor, stated that he was initially concerned with the three story nature of the project
but after reviewing the plans he and his wife support the project.
Deborah Clayton, neighbor, stated that she is concerned with the amount of windows. Ms. Clayton
supports the project but is concerned with the light and sound coming from the windows. She would
like a very high wall installed to help with the noise.
Public comment closed at 6:28p.m.
Motion: Continued indefinitely to the Planning Commission with the following comments:
1) The Board appreciates the redesign of the project. 2) The Board recognizes that the
site is sloped with a three-foot drop. 3) The Board accepts the third story element
because the design of the architecture nestles the third story into the second floor. 4) The
design preserves the existing home on Anapamu Street and recognizes the quality of the
architecture. 5) The Board supports the concept of a wood fence versus the eight-foot
high CMU wall. 6) Simplify the dormers at the third floor. 7) The Board would like to
see the elevation on the second floor facing Anapamu Street enhanced architecturally,
8) Reduce or eliminate the cantilever at the third floor along the east elevation. 9) The
Board would not support the modification request for the two-foot encroachment into the
rear side yard.
Action: LeCror/Mansor-Hing, 4/1/0. Pierron opposed. Wienke stepped down.
THE BOARD RECESSED FROM 6:55P.M. UNTIL 7:12P.M.
CONCEPT REVIEW - CONTINUED ITEM
4. 220 E JUNIPERO ST E-1 Zone
Assessor's Parcel Number: 025-132-003
Application Number: MST2004-0058 1
Owner: John Luca
Applicant: Mario DaCunha
Agent: David Stone
(This is a revised project description since the last ABR concept review on 1/10/05; the project includes
a revised design for a two-story, three bedroom, single family residence of 1,971 square feet with an
attached 441 square foot garage.)
(Fourth Concept Review.)
(COMMENTS ONLY; PROJECT REQUIRES ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND
NEIGHBORHOOD PRESERVATION ORDINANCE FINDINGS.)
Motion: Continued indefinitely due to the applicant9s absence.
Action: LeCron/Mansor-
Hing, 6/0/0.
EXHIBIT 3
ARCHITECTURAL BOARD OF REVIEW MINUTES October 10, 2005 Page 9
CONCEPT REVIEW - CONTINUED ITEM
5. 222 E JUNIPERO ST E-1 Zone
Assessor's Parcel Number: 025-132-019
Application Number: MST2004-00585
Owner: John Luca
Architect: Mario DaCunha
(This is a revised project since the last ABR concept review on 1/10/05. The project includes a revised
design for a two-story, three-bedroom single family residence of 1,853 s.f with an attached 450 square
foot garage.)
(Fourth Concept Review.)
(COMMENTS ONLY; PROJECT REQUIRES ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND
NEIGHBORHOOD PRESERVATION ORDINANCE FINDINGS.)
(7:13)
Motion: Continued indefinitely due to the applicant9s absence.
Action: LeCron/Manson-Hing, 6/0/0.
PRELIMINARY REVIEW
6. 1424 SALINAS PL R-2 Zone
Assessor's Parcel Number: 015-223-001
Application Number: MST2004-00699
Owner: Martin M. Munoz
Architect: Jose Esparza
(Proposal to construct a new detached 1902 square foot two-story residential unit with 123 square feet of
porch/deck area and an attached 454 square foot two-car garage. There is an existing 1,399 square foot
residential unit with 432 square feet of porch/deck area and an attached 546 square foot two-car garage
on an 8,450 square foot lot.)
(Third Concept Review.)
(7:14)
Jose Esparza, Architect; and Martin Munoz, Owner; present.
Motion: Continued two weeks with the following comments: 1) The applicant has successfully
separated the structures into two separate structures. 2) The Board would support the
second driveway. 3) Study the area between the two houses with a detailed grading and
landscape solution with the intent to lower the retaining wall. 4) Provide a site plan
which shows the tops and bottoms of the walls. 5) Study breaking up the mass into
smaller architectural forms and thus creating smaller roof forms and lower roof height.
Action: LeCron/Wienke, 5/1/0. Pierron opposed.
EXHIBIT 3
ARCHITECTURAL BOARD OF REVIEW MINUTES October 10, 2005 Page 10
CONCEPT REVIEW - CONTINUED ITEM
7. 506 DE LA VISTA AVE R-2 Zone
Assessor's Parcel Number: 029-032-002
Application Number: MST2005-00154
Applicant: Bob McPhillips
Architect: Richard Redmond
Owner: Barbara Edmison
(Proposal for a 423 square foot second story addition to an existing 843 square foot one-story residence
and to construct a 402 square foot detached second floor accessory dwelling unit above a 480 square
foot garage located on a 5,200 square foot lot. One uncovered parking space is provided to meet the
parking requirements.)
(Second Concept Review.)
(PROJECT REQUIRES NEIGHBORHOOD PRESERVATION ORDINANCE FINDINGS.)
(7:38)
Richard Redmond, Architect; present.
Motion: Preliminary Approval and continued indefinitely with the following comments:
1) Restudy the stair at the lower deck to relocated to the property line to allow for
an interior vehicular circulation back out space. 2) Restudy the upper deck to
allow for a smaller deck no greater than three-feet. 3) The Neighborhood
Preservation Ordinance criteria have been met as stated in Subsection 22.68.060
of the City of Santa Barbara Municipal Code.
Action: Eichelberger/Wienke, 5/1/0. Pierron opposed.
CONSENT CALENDAR
REVIEW AFTER FINAL
A. 965 W MOUNTAIN DR A-| Zone
Assessor's Parcel Number: 021-050-026
Application Number: MST2004-00164
Designer: Sophie Calvin
Applicant: | Bruce Hayashi
Applicant: Susan Sherwin
(Review After Final of 20' wide, 8' high "as-built" entry gate.)
(PROJECT REQUIRED NEIGHBORHOOD PRESERVATION ORDINANCE FINDINGS.)
Final Approval as submitted with the condition that the gate is to be restudied at the time of the proposal
for the new house.
EXHIBIT 3
ARCHITECTURAL BOARD OF REVIEW MINUTES October 10, 2005 Page 11
REVIEW AFTER FINAL
B. 216 NORTHRIDGE RD A-1 Zone
Assessor's Parcel Number: 055-120-013
Application Number: MST2005-00390
Owner: Donald C. & Elizabeth Swann
(Proposal to demolish the 1,712 square foot one-story residence and detached 410 square foot garage
and construct a one-story 2,784 square foot residence with an attached 491 square foot two-car garage
on a 47,916 square foot lot located in the Hillside Design District. The proposal includes approximately
128 cubic yards of cut and fill outside the main building footprint and approximately 253 cubic yards of
recompaction underneath the main building footprint.)
(Review After Final to omit roof dormer and add item of recessed window details.)
Final Approval of the project as submitted.
REVIEW AFTER FINAL
C, 111 W MICHELTORENA ST C-2 Zone
Assessor's Parcel Number: 039-062-005
Application Number: MST2004-00058
Owner: Glenn & Rose Laabs, Trustees
Applicant: Cingular Wireless
Architect: Beta Architects
Agent: Andy Johnson
(Proposal to construct a wireless communication facility requiring the installation of six panel antennas
(four antennas would be screened inside an existing cupola; two antennas would be screened inside a
proposed dormer on the southwest-side of the existing building.) All cables will be routed through the
attic.)
(Review After Final of change to equipment enclosure.)
Final Approval as noted with the condition that the paint shall match the existing colors.
REVIEW AFTER FINAL
D. 1919 CASTILLO ST R-4 Zone
Assessor's Parcel Number: 025-351-006
Application Number: MST2003-00585
Owner: Silvio Cunha
Architect: James LeCron
(Proposal to construct a 2,485 square foot detached duplex consisting of two residential units above five
one-car garages at the rear of a 9,108 square foot lot. The proposal includes the demolition of the
existing detached four-car garage. The existing 2,078 square foot duplex at the front of the lot is
proposed to remain unaltered.)
(Review After Final of change from wood siding to stucco.)
Final Approval of the project as submitted.
EXHIBIT 3
ARCHITECTURAL BOARD OF REVIEW MINUTES October 10, 2005 Page 12
REFERRED BY FULL BOARD
E. 114 N MILPAS ST C-2 Zone
Assessor's Parcel Number: 017-091-014
Application Number: MST2004-00867
Owner: Maricela Tepeque
Designer: Laura Fernandez
(Proposed addition to an existing one-story residence which would result in a mixed-use building that
includes a 333 square foot beauty salon. This includes the conversion of 163 square foot of residential
area to commercial and the addition of 170 square feet. There is one uncovered parking space proposed
at the front of the property for the beauty salon.)
(Preliminary Approval is requested.)
Continued indefinitely due to the applicant's absence.
CONTINUED ITEM
F, 23 FRANCISCO DR A-1 Zone
Assessor's Parcel Number: 055-141-042
Application Number: MST2005-00664
Owner: Dennis Walsh
Designer: Tectonica Design
(Proposal for new retaining wall along interior property line.)
(Final Approval is requested.)
Final Approval as noted and with the finding that the Neighborhood Preservation Ordinance criteria
have been met as stated in Subsection 22.68.060 of the City of Santa Barbara Municipal Code.
CONTINUED ITEM
G. 1405 MISSION RIDGE RD A-2 Zone
Assessor's Parcel Number: 019-210-001
Application Number: MST2005-00652
Owner: Schmidt Pillsbury 2001 Famil
Preview
Christopher E. Haskell, State Bar No. 126745 Melissa Fassett, State Bar No. 135290 PRICE, POSTEL & PARMA LLP 200 East Carrillo Street, Fourth Floor Santa Barbara, California 93101 Telephone: (805) 962-0011 Facsimile: (805) 965-3978 Attorneys for Defendants Kootstra SBA, L.P., Howard Kootstra, Elaine Kootstra, Christian Menard, and Jenna Kootstra Menard SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA LEILA NOEL, Trustee of the Noel Living Case No.: 24CV01633 Trust originally dated April 6, 2010, As Amended and Restated March 18, 2019, Assigned for all purposes to Hon. Colleen K. Sterne, Dept. 5 Petitioner, VS. APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE IN RESPONSE TO MOTION FOR CITY OF SANTA BARBARA, PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION Respondent. (VOL. 2 — EXHIBITS 3-10) [Opposition to Ex Parte Application Filed Concurrently Herewith| KOOTSTRA SBA L.P., a California limited partnership; HOWARD KOOTSTRA, an Hearing: individual; ELAINE KOOTSTRA, an Date: May 7, 2024 individual; CHRISTIAN MENARD, an Time: 9:00 a.m. individual; JENNA KOOTSTRA MENARD, Dept: 5 an individual, Complaint Filed: © March 20, 2024 Real Parties in Interest. 28 PRICE, POSTEL & PARMA LLP l SANTA BARBARA, CA APPENDIX IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION | 1 Real parties in interest Kootstra SBA, L.P., Howard Kootstra, Elaine Kootstra, Christian 9) Menard, and Jenna Kootstra Menard (“Real Parties’) hereby submit this Appendix of Evidence in 3 || Opposition to the Motion for Preliminary Injunction filed by Petitioner. 4 A. Declaration of Melissa J. Fassett 5 B. Declarations of Christian Menard 6 C. Declarations of Jenna Kootstra Menard 7 D. Declarations of Howard Kootstra 8 E. Declaration of William Pritchett 9 F. Declaration of Eric Oberholtzer 10 1. Exhibit 1 — 1/18/05 Meeting Minutes of Architectural Bd of Review 11 2. Exhibit 2 — Noel 2005 Petition for Mandate 12 3. Exhibit 3 — Emails with Noel 13 4. Exhibit 4 — 10/10/05 Meeting Minutes of Architectural Bd of Review 14 5. Exhibit 5 — Good Neighbor Guidelines 15 6. Exhibit 6 — 10/26/23 Photo of Property 16 7. Exhibit 7 — Side by Side Backyard Plans 17 8. Exhibit 8 —- Menard Plans 18 9, Exhibit 9 — Emails between Howard Kootstra and Leila Noel 19 10. Exhibit 10 — Texts between Howard Kootstra and Leila Noel 20 11. Exhibit 11 — Photos of Privacy Hedge 21 12. Exhibit 12 — Photos of Noel removing Privacy Hedge oy) 13. Exhibit 13 — Photo of Privacy Hedge Gone 93 14. Exhibit 14 — Noel Property under Construction 94 15. Exhibit 15 — Photos of Noel Property 25 16. Exhibit 16 — Photos of Noel Property from Menard deck 26 17. Exhibit 17 — Screen Shots of Calls to Joele Hatchett 27 18. Exhibit 18 — Screen Shot of Call to Jim Dall 28 19, Exhibit 19 — Screen Shots of Calls to John Zandona PRICE, POSTEL & PARMA LLP 2 SANTA BARBARA, CA APPENDIX IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION 20. Exhibit 20 — Photo of Joele Hatchett at Menards 21 _ Exhibit 21 — Email Christian Menard to Joele Hatchett 10/17/20 22. Exhibit 22 — Emails Christian Menard with Joele Hatchett 10/30/23 to 11/1/23 23. Exhibit 23 — Photos from Zandona Property 24. Exhibit 24 — Photos of south property line, storm water remediation 25. Exhibit 25 — Neighbor Declarations 26. Exhibit 26 — Neighbor Declarations 27. Exhibit 27 — Neighbor Declaration 28. Exhibit 28 — Photos taken from Menard Deck 29. Exhibit 29 — Noel Emails 3/14/24 30. Exhibit 30 — City Inspection Log of Property 31. Exhibit 31 — Stormwater Management System Respectfully submitted, 15 || Dated: April 24, 2024 PRICE, POSTEL & PARMA LLP By§ OX DeaaSie Melissa Fassett Attorneys for Real Parties in Interest Kootstra SBA, L.P., Howard Kootstra, Christian Menard, Jenna Kootstra Menard 28 PRICE, POSTEL & PARMA LLP 3 SANTA BARBARA, CA APPENDIX IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION PROOF OF SERVICE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA I am employed ih the County of Santa Barbara, State of California. I am over the age of eighteen (18) and not a party to the within action. My business address is 200 East Carrillo Street, Fourth Floor, Santa Barbara, California 93101. On April 24, 2024, I served the foregoing document described as APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE IN RESPONSE TO MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION on all interested parties in this action by the original and/or true copy thereof enclosed in sealed envelopes, addressed as follows: A Barry Cappello, Esq. Tava Ostrenger, Esq. Mike Brelje, Esq. Robin Lewis, Esq. Richard Lloyd, Esq. City Attorney, City of Santa Barbara Cappello & Noel LLP 740 State Street, Suite 201 831 State Street Santa Barbara, CA 93101 Santa Barbara, CA 93101 tostrenger(@santabarbaraca.gov abc@cappellonoel.com rlewis@santabarbaraca.gov mbrelje@cappellonoel.com rlloyd@cappellonoel.com C BY MAIL: I placed the original and/or true copy in a sealed envelope addressed as indicated herein. I am readily familiar with the firm’s practice of collection and processing documents for mailing. It is deposited with the U.S. postal service on that same day in the ordinary course of business. I am aware that on motion of the party served, service is presumed invalid if the postal cancellation date or postage meter date 1s more than one day after the date of deposit for mailing in affidavit. O BY PERSONAL DELIVERY: I personally delivered the original and/or true copy in a sealed envelope addressed as indicated herein. O BY OVERNIGHT DELIVERY: I placed the original and/or true copy in a sealed, fully prepaid FedEx, Next Day Air envelope addressed as indicated herein, which is picked up by FedEx on that same day in the ordinary course of business. BY E-MAIL: I caused to be e-mailed a true copy to the e-mail addresses listed herein. (STATE) I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. _ (FEDERAL) (hereby certify that I am employed in the office ofa member of the Bar of this Court at whose direction the service was made. | Executed on April 24, 2024, at Santa Barbara, California. Signatu ! Elizabeth} Wright 28 PRICE, POSTEL & PARMA LLP SANTA BARBARA, CA EXHIBIT 3 City of Santa Barbara Planning Division ARCHITECTURAL BOARD OF REVIEW MINUTES David Gebhard Public Meeting Room: 630 Garden Street Monday, October 10, 2005 3:01 P.M. BOARD MEMBERS: CHRISTINE PIERRON, Chair, Present, out at 5:41p.m., back at 6:10p.m. BRUCE BARTLETT, Vice-Chair, Present, out at 6:10p.m. STEPHANIE CHRISTOFF, Present, out at 6:10p.m. DERRIK EICHELBERGER, Present, out at 5:41p.m., back at 6:25p.m. JAMES LECRON, Present CHRISTOPHER MANSON-HING, Present RANDY MUDGE, Present, out at 5:41p.m., back at 6:10p.m. MARK WIENKE, Present, out at 6:10p.m., back at 7:12p.m. CITY COUNCIL LIAISON: HELENE SCHNEIDER, Present, 5:21p.m., out at 5:56p.m. PLANNING COMMISSION LIAISON: STELLA LARSON, Absent STAFF: JAIME LIMON, Design Review Supervisor, Present, out at 5:41p.m. KELLY BRODISON, Planning Technician, Present DEBBIE BUSH, Recording Secretary, Present ARCHITECTURAL BOARD OF REVIEW SUBMITTAL CHECKLIST (See ABR Guidelines & Design Review Submittal Requirements for Details) CONCEPT Required | Master Application & Submittal Fee - (Location: 630 Garden Street) areas & REVIEW Photographs- of the existing building (if any), adjacent structures, composite panoramic view of the site, surrounding neighborhood streetscape - mounted or folded to no larger than an 8.5" x 14" photo display board. Plans- three sets of foldedplans are required at the time of submittal & each time plans are revised Vicinity Map and Project Tabulations - (Include on first drawing) Site Plan - drawn to scale showing the property boundaries, existing & proposed structures, building & area square footages, building height, areas to be demolished, parking, site topography, conceptual grading & retaining walls, & existing landscaping. Include footprints of adjacent structures. Exterior elevations- showing existing & proposed grading where applicable. Suggested Site Sections - showing the relationship of the proposed building & grading where applicable. Plans- floor, roof, etc. However, more Rough sketches are encouraged early in the process for initial design review to avoid pursuing incompat ible proposals. complete & thorough information is recommended to facilitate an efficient review of the project. PRELIMINARY Required | Same as above with the following additions: REVIEW Plans - floor, roof, ete. Site Sections - showing the relationship of the proposed building & grading where applicable. Preliminary Landscape Plans- required for commercial & multi-family; single-family projects where grading occurs. Preliminary planting plan with proposed trees & shrubs & plant list with names, Plans to include street parkway strips. Suggested | Color & Material Samples - to be mounted on a board no larger than 8.5" x 14" & detailed on all sets of plans. Exterior Details - windows, doors, eaves, railings, chimney caps, flashing, etc. Materials submitted for preliminary approval form the basis for working drawings & must be complete & accurate. FINAL & Required Same as above with the following additions: CONSENT Color & Material Samples - to be mounted on a board no larger than 8.5" x 14" and detailed on all sets of plans. Cut Sheets- exterior light fixtures and accessories where applicable. Exterior Details - windows, doors, eaves, railings, chimney caps, flashing, etc. Final Landscape Plans- landscape construction documents including planting & irrigation plan. Consultant/Engineer Plans - electrical, mechanical, structural, & plumbing where applicable. EXHIBIT 3 ARCHITECTURAL BOARD OF REVIEW MINUTES October 10, 2005 Page 2 7k All approvals made by the Architectural Board of Review (ABR) are based on compliance with Municipal Code Chapter 22.68 and with adopted ABR guidelines. Some agenda items have received a mailed notice and are subject to a public hearing. OK The approximate time the project will be reviewed is listed to the left of each item. It is suggested that applicants arrive 15 minutes early. The agenda schedule is subject to change as cancellations occur. Staff will notify applicants of time changes. 2k 3K The applicant's presence is required. If an applicant is not present, the item will be postponed indefinitely. If an applicant cancels or postpones on item without providing advance notice, the item will be postponed indefinitely and will not be placed on the following ABR agenda. In order to reschedule the item for re- view, the applicant must fill out and file a Supplemental Application Form at 630 Garden Street (Community Development Department) and submit appropriate plans. eK The Board may grant an approval for any project scheduled on the agenda if sufficient information has been provided and no other discretionary review is required. Substitution of plans is not allowed, if revised plans differing from the submittal sets are brought to the meeting, motions for preliminary or final approval will be contingent upon staff review for code compliance. eK Preliminary and Final Architectural Board of Review approval is valid for one year from the date of the approval unless a time extension or Building Permit has been granted. ak The Board may refer items to the Consent Calendar for Preliminary and Final Architectural Board of Review approval. KK In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the Planning Division at (805) 564-5470. Notification at least 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements. KR Many of the items before the Board may be appealed to the City Council. For further information on appeals, contact the Planning Division Staff or the City Clerk's office. Said appeal must be in writing and must be filed with the City Clerk at City Hall within ten (10) calendar days of the meeting at which the Board took action or rendered its decision. The scope of this project may be modified under further review. K* AGENDAS, MINUTES and REPORTS: Copies of all documents relating to agenda items are available for review at 630 Garden St. in the City Clerk's office, at the Central Library, and www.SantaBarbaraCa.gov If you have any questions or wish to review the plans, please contact Kelly Brodison, at (805) 564-5470 between the hours of 8:30 a.m. to noon and 1:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. LICENSING ADVISORY: The Business and Professions Code of the State of California and the Municipal Code of the City of Santa Barbara restrict preparation of plans for certain project types to licensed professionals. Applicants are encouraged to consult with Land Use Controls or Planning Staff to verify requirements for their specific projects. Unlicensed persons are limited to the preparation of plans for: EXHIBIT 3 ARCHITECTURAL BOARD OF REVIEW MINUTES October 10, 2005 Page 3 > Single or multiple family dwellings not to exceed four (4) units per lot, of wood frame construction, and not more than two stories and basement in height, > Non-structural changes to storefronts; and, > Landscaping for single-family dwellings, or projects consisting solely of landscaping of not more than 5,000 square feet. NOTICE: l. That on October 6, 2005 at 4:00 p.m., this Agenda was duly posted on the Community Development bulletin board, in the office of the City Clerk, and on the bulletin board on the outside of City Hall. 2. This regular meeting of the Architectural Board of Review will be broadcast live and rebroadcast in its entirety on Wednesday at 9:00 a.m. on Channel 18. GENERAL BUSINESS: A. Public Comment: Any member of the public may address the Architectural Board of Review for up to two minutes on any subject within their jurisdiction that is not scheduled for a public discussion before the Board on that day. The total time for this item is ten minutes. (Public comment for items scheduled on today's agenda will be taken at the time the item is heard.) No public comment. B. Approval of the minutes of the Architectural Board of Review meeting of October 3, 2005. Motion: Approval of the minutes of the Architectural Board of Review meeting of October 3, 2005, with corrections. Action: LeCror/Mudge, 7/0/0. Pierron abstained from Item 2. C. Consent Calendar. Motion: Ratify the Consent Calendar. The Consent Calendar was reviewed by Bruce Bartlett with the exception of the landscaping for Item H, reviewed by Derrik Eichelberger. Action: Mansor-Hing/LeCron, 7/0/0. D. Announcements, requests by applicants for continuances and withdrawals, future agenda items, and appeals, 1, Ms. Brodison announced there were no changes to the agenda. 2. Ms. Brodison stated that Bruce Bartlett would be leaving the meeting at 6:00 p.m. E, Subcommittee Reports. Christine Pierron stated that she attended the Airport Terminal Subcommittee meeting and there was a detailed photo presentation submitted by URL, the architect. She also indicated that the ABR would be the primary design review body for the project. F, Possible Ordinance Violations. No reported violations. EXHIBIT 3 ARCHITECTURAL BOARD OF REVIEW MINUTES October 10, 2005 Page 4 THE BOARD RECESSED FROM 3:11P.M. UNTIL 3:17P.M. PRELIMINARY REVIEW 1. 155 CEDAR LN E-1 Zone Assessor's Parcel Number: 015-083-027 Application Number: MST2004-00502 Agent: Gary Myers Owner: William Pritchett Trust Applicant: William Pritchett Architect: Jerald Bell (Proposal for Revised Preliminary Approval of project previously reviewed. Proposal to construct a 3,958 square foot two-story single family residence with an attached 531 square foot garage and 534 square feet of deck area on a 15,880 square foot lot located in the Hillside Design District. Project also includes 370 cubic yards of grading.) (PROPOSAL FOR REVISED PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF PROJECT PREVIOUSLY REVIEWED. NEIGHBORHOOD PRESERVATION ORDINANCE FINDINGS REQUIRED.) (3:17) Scott Vincent, Assistant City Attorney, explained that 155 Cedar Lane has returned to ABR as a result of a condition of a lawsuit settlement. Mr. Vincent would like the Board members to review the project as a new preliminary review and determine if Neighborhood Preservation Ordinance findings can be met. Steve Hausz, Agent; Bill Pritchett, Owner; Gary Myers, Agent; and Derek Westen, Attorney; present. Public comment opened at 3:50p.m. Karl Eberhard, Agent for Mr. and Mrs. Noel, stated that he reviewed the changes in the plans. Mr. Eberhard stated that the Oak tree has been trimmed and Mr. and Mrs. Noel would like the house to be moved back approximately 9-10 feet, and centered on the site between the two trees, which would reduce what they believe to be the canyon effect. A letter was read into the record submitted by Mr. and Mrs. Hatchett, which stated that to allow a building permit to be granted, the size of the building and the architecture must conform to the existing neighborhood. Mr. and Mrs. Hatchett do not want the total square footage to exceed 3,400 square feet. Cindy Dall, neighbor, read a letter which stated that the proposed project9s size, bulk and scale is not compatible with the neighborhood. Ms. Dahl would like the Board members to view the project from the southern point, as it looms directly into her home, and request that story poles be placed on all four sides of the building structure. There is also serious concern with the proposed drainage systems. The hillside has already experienced drainage problems. Deborah Pentland, neighbor, stated that she believes the project should be centered on the lot, and that the size of the building is too large. Drainage is an issue, as the neighborhood Ins already experienced problems with runoff. EXHIBIT 3 ARCHITECTURAL BOARD OF REVIEW MINUTES October 10, 2005 Page 5 Nathan Cultice, neighbor, stated that he is very @ncerned with drainage. His property experiences runoff. Mr. Cultice is concerned about privacy, and he agrees that the house should be centered on the lot. The size of the building is too large and should be taken into consideration. Leila Noel, presented photographs which depicted how large the proposed house would be and how the house would hover over her yard. Ms. Noel concurs that the house should be centered onto the lot, which would protect their privacy. Rita Zandona, stated that she is concerned with drainage and water issues. Ms. Zandona is concerned that the house is too large for the neighborhood. Frank Griscom, neighbor who resides on Chase Drive, stated that there is already a minimum of six automobiles parked on the cul-de-sac daily, and that the parking situation creates a concern. Emily Nichols, neighbor, stated that the size and square footage of the proposed project is twice the size of the homes in the neighborhood. The proposal is not in keeping with the character of the neighborhood and will affect each of the surrounding homes. The traffic from a large house will be heavy and there will be additional parking concerns. Alan Blakebono, Attorney for Mr. and Mrs. Noel, is withholding comment unless necessary to speak. Ray Aller, stated that the project size is too large for the neighborhood. It is also unfortunate what the large proposal will do to the neighborhood. He is hopeful that there will not be too much traffic. Robert Genity, neighbor, stated that the proposal will obstruct his view, and Mr. Genity is concerned with drainage issues. Helene Segal, neighbor, stated that she concurs with all of the previous neighbors and that the project is too large and not in scale with the neighborhood. Robert Noel expressed his gratitude to the Board members and stated that he respects Mr. Noél stated that he is appreciative of Mr. Vincent9s comments, Mr. Noel also stated that the Oak tree would still need to be cut down significantly. A letter was read into the record submitted from several residents who reside on Cedar Lane. The letter stated that the large, two-story proposed home would not preserve or enhance the character of the neighborhood. The residents would like ABR to limit the size of the house to approximately 3,000 square feet. Public comment closed at 4:29p.m., EXHIBIT 3 ARCHITECTURAL BOARD OF REVIEW MINUTES October 10, 2005 Page 6 Motion: Continued indefinitely with the following comments: 1) The Board has significant concerns with the size, bulk and scale and the overall size of the home, neighborhood compatibility, the two-story downhill slope presence, the grading of the site, and the apparent lack of compliance with the Hillside Design Guidelines techniques. However, the Board sees opportunity to address the concerns. 2) Provide an accurate grading plan which shows existing and proposed grading, both on site and off site to see the effect it may have on the neighbors. 3) Provide site sections showing the north-south and east- west directions. 4) The Board is concerned with the as-built grading and the resultant pad. It appears there may have been more flat lot grading than proposed. 5) The Board is concemed with the apparent berming to gain more flat lot construction on the hillside. 6) Provide an FAR study for the project and one for the surrounding neighbors. 7) Provide photo documentation of the neighborhood to understand neighborhood compatibility, particularly in light of the two-story down hill slope. 8) The building does not step with the topography. 9) The project is boxy in nature. 10) Provide an Arborist Report, and show all the Oak trees and accurate location of the canopy of trees. 11) Provide Tree Protection notes on future proposals. 12) Eliminate the roof over the exterior deck and study reducing the 10-foot plate heights. 13) Study the east side to find better ways in stepping the architecture and to step the apparent mass. 14) Study ways to dig the home into the hillside. 15) The Board is concerned with the overall length and the long ridgeline of the design. 16) The Board is concerned with the roof forms that span the width of the building. 17) There is a sentiment that the Board sees opportunity to shift the home to the west, which will help resolve concerns. Action: Bartlett/Wienke, 6/2/0. LeCron, Manson-Hing opposed. PRELIMINARY REVIEW 2. 320 W PUEBLO ST C-O Zone Assessor's Parcel Number: 025-102-001 Application Number: MST2003-00152 Owner: Santa Barbara Cottage Hospital Agent: Suzanne Elledge Permit Processing Architect: Brian Cearnal Architect: Erich Burkhart (Proposed Cottage Hospital Master Plan. The project involves the demolition of 280,090 square feet including the main hospital building, Eye Center and structures on the adjacent west block. Also proposed is 434,955 square feet of new construction. Two new parking structures are also proposed. One of the parking structures will be located behind the Knapp Building at 2400 Bath Street, and the other will be located at the northeast corner of Pueblo and Castillo Streets. The one-block section of Castillo Street that borders on the west side of the hospital that is located between Pueblo and Junipero Streets is proposed to be closed to allow the construction of the new hospital facility. The project requires Planning Commission approval of the Development Plan and City Council approval of the Specific Plan, Development Agreement, and Castillo Street Abandonment.) (Preliminary Review of the Child Care Center Design.) (COMMENTS ONLY; PROJECT REQUIRES ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT, PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL OF THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN FINDINGS, CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF THE SPECIFIC PLAN, DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT AND STREET ABANDONMENT.) EXHIBIT 3 ARCHITECTURAL BOARD OF REVIEW MINUTES October 10, 2005 Page 7 (5:40) Irma Unzueta, Case Planner, stated that the applicant is requesting Preliminary Approval, yet Ms. Unzueta encourages the Board members to voice comments only, with the applicant to return, as changes have been made to the plans which have not yet been reviewed. Brain Cearnal, Architect; present. Public comment opened at 5:50p.m. Jodi Leipner, neighbor, stated that she is supportive of the day care facility. Ms. Leipner, however, would like to be assured that the location of the trash container and the washer and dyers be located on the opposite side of where the neighbors reside. Ms. Leipner would also like the Board to view the area of the lighting to make sure there will not be light spillage on her side of the property. Ms, Leipner would like to see the fencing continued along the residential side of the boundary, and stated that the residents would like to see more landscape and trees to break up the view of the parking garage. Public comment closed at 5:54p.m. Motion: Continued indefinitely with the following comments: 1) The project is ready for Preliminary Approval 2) The Board appreciates the mix of architectural styles of the three buildings. 3) The Board would support a modification for the 48= wood fence with the hedge behind it along Castillo Street, as it would be an aesthetic enhancement. 4) Study moving the transformer back further into the alcove of the adjacent garage property. 5) Study enhancing the fence and the landscape along the adjacent neighbors9 properties. 6) The Board would like to see the fence at the entry way of the building separation to be a nicely detailed and decorated fence. 7) The Board appreciates and understands the minor changes made as a result of the phasing of the project. 8) The Board understands that the project will strive to achieve a Silver Leed Certification. Action: Wienke/Christoff, 5/0/0. Pierron, Eichelberger, Mudge, stepped down. CONCEPT REVIEW - CONTINUED ITEM 3. 420 E ANAPAMU ST R-3 Zone Assessor's Parcel Number: 029-173-005 Application Number: MST2005-00442 Owner: Glennon Mueller Architect: Lenvik & Minor (Proposal to construct two new condominium units and add a 270 square foot second story to an existing single-family residence for a total of three two-story condominium units. An existing one-car garage is proposed to be demolished and replaced with three new two-car garages. A total of 7,235 square feet 1s proposed for the 9,044 square foot lot.) (Second Concept Review.) (COMMENTS ONLY; PROJECT REQUIRES ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL OF A TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP.) (6:10) Jeff Gorrell, Architect, present. EXHIBIT 3 ARCHITECTURAL BOARD OF REVIEW MINUTES October 10, 2005 Page 8 Public comment opened at 6:22p.m. Stuart Wilson, neighbor, stated that he was initially concerned with the three story nature of the project but after reviewing the plans he and his wife support the project. Deborah Clayton, neighbor, stated that she is concerned with the amount of windows. Ms. Clayton supports the project but is concerned with the light and sound coming from the windows. She would like a very high wall installed to help with the noise. Public comment closed at 6:28p.m. Motion: Continued indefinitely to the Planning Commission with the following comments: 1) The Board appreciates the redesign of the project. 2) The Board recognizes that the site is sloped with a three-foot drop. 3) The Board accepts the third story element because the design of the architecture nestles the third story into the second floor. 4) The design preserves the existing home on Anapamu Street and recognizes the quality of the architecture. 5) The Board supports the concept of a wood fence versus the eight-foot high CMU wall. 6) Simplify the dormers at the third floor. 7) The Board would like to see the elevation on the second floor facing Anapamu Street enhanced architecturally, 8) Reduce or eliminate the cantilever at the third floor along the east elevation. 9) The Board would not support the modification request for the two-foot encroachment into the rear side yard. Action: LeCror/Mansor-Hing, 4/1/0. Pierron opposed. Wienke stepped down. THE BOARD RECESSED FROM 6:55P.M. UNTIL 7:12P.M. CONCEPT REVIEW - CONTINUED ITEM 4. 220 E JUNIPERO ST E-1 Zone Assessor's Parcel Number: 025-132-003 Application Number: MST2004-0058 1 Owner: John Luca Applicant: Mario DaCunha Agent: David Stone (This is a revised project description since the last ABR concept review on 1/10/05; the project includes a revised design for a two-story, three bedroom, single family residence of 1,971 square feet with an attached 441 square foot garage.) (Fourth Concept Review.) (COMMENTS ONLY; PROJECT REQUIRES ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND NEIGHBORHOOD PRESERVATION ORDINANCE FINDINGS.) Motion: Continued indefinitely due to the applicant9s absence. Action: LeCron/Mansor- Hing, 6/0/0. EXHIBIT 3 ARCHITECTURAL BOARD OF REVIEW MINUTES October 10, 2005 Page 9 CONCEPT REVIEW - CONTINUED ITEM 5. 222 E JUNIPERO ST E-1 Zone Assessor's Parcel Number: 025-132-019 Application Number: MST2004-00585 Owner: John Luca Architect: Mario DaCunha (This is a revised project since the last ABR concept review on 1/10/05. The project includes a revised design for a two-story, three-bedroom single family residence of 1,853 s.f with an attached 450 square foot garage.) (Fourth Concept Review.) (COMMENTS ONLY; PROJECT REQUIRES ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND NEIGHBORHOOD PRESERVATION ORDINANCE FINDINGS.) (7:13) Motion: Continued indefinitely due to the applicant9s absence. Action: LeCron/Manson-Hing, 6/0/0. PRELIMINARY REVIEW 6. 1424 SALINAS PL R-2 Zone Assessor's Parcel Number: 015-223-001 Application Number: MST2004-00699 Owner: Martin M. Munoz Architect: Jose Esparza (Proposal to construct a new detached 1902 square foot two-story residential unit with 123 square feet of porch/deck area and an attached 454 square foot two-car garage. There is an existing 1,399 square foot residential unit with 432 square feet of porch/deck area and an attached 546 square foot two-car garage on an 8,450 square foot lot.) (Third Concept Review.) (7:14) Jose Esparza, Architect; and Martin Munoz, Owner; present. Motion: Continued two weeks with the following comments: 1) The applicant has successfully separated the structures into two separate structures. 2) The Board would support the second driveway. 3) Study the area between the two houses with a detailed grading and landscape solution with the intent to lower the retaining wall. 4) Provide a site plan which shows the tops and bottoms of the walls. 5) Study breaking up the mass into smaller architectural forms and thus creating smaller roof forms and lower roof height. Action: LeCron/Wienke, 5/1/0. Pierron opposed. EXHIBIT 3 ARCHITECTURAL BOARD OF REVIEW MINUTES October 10, 2005 Page 10 CONCEPT REVIEW - CONTINUED ITEM 7. 506 DE LA VISTA AVE R-2 Zone Assessor's Parcel Number: 029-032-002 Application Number: MST2005-00154 Applicant: Bob McPhillips Architect: Richard Redmond Owner: Barbara Edmison (Proposal for a 423 square foot second story addition to an existing 843 square foot one-story residence and to construct a 402 square foot detached second floor accessory dwelling unit above a 480 square foot garage located on a 5,200 square foot lot. One uncovered parking space is provided to meet the parking requirements.) (Second Concept Review.) (PROJECT REQUIRES NEIGHBORHOOD PRESERVATION ORDINANCE FINDINGS.) (7:38) Richard Redmond, Architect; present. Motion: Preliminary Approval and continued indefinitely with the following comments: 1) Restudy the stair at the lower deck to relocated to the property line to allow for an interior vehicular circulation back out space. 2) Restudy the upper deck to allow for a smaller deck no greater than three-feet. 3) The Neighborhood Preservation Ordinance criteria have been met as stated in Subsection 22.68.060 of the City of Santa Barbara Municipal Code. Action: Eichelberger/Wienke, 5/1/0. Pierron opposed. CONSENT CALENDAR REVIEW AFTER FINAL A. 965 W MOUNTAIN DR A-| Zone Assessor's Parcel Number: 021-050-026 Application Number: MST2004-00164 Designer: Sophie Calvin Applicant: | Bruce Hayashi Applicant: Susan Sherwin (Review After Final of 20' wide, 8' high "as-built" entry gate.) (PROJECT REQUIRED NEIGHBORHOOD PRESERVATION ORDINANCE FINDINGS.) Final Approval as submitted with the condition that the gate is to be restudied at the time of the proposal for the new house. EXHIBIT 3 ARCHITECTURAL BOARD OF REVIEW MINUTES October 10, 2005 Page 11 REVIEW AFTER FINAL B. 216 NORTHRIDGE RD A-1 Zone Assessor's Parcel Number: 055-120-013 Application Number: MST2005-00390 Owner: Donald C. & Elizabeth Swann (Proposal to demolish the 1,712 square foot one-story residence and detached 410 square foot garage and construct a one-story 2,784 square foot residence with an attached 491 square foot two-car garage on a 47,916 square foot lot located in the Hillside Design District. The proposal includes approximately 128 cubic yards of cut and fill outside the main building footprint and approximately 253 cubic yards of recompaction underneath the main building footprint.) (Review After Final to omit roof dormer and add item of recessed window details.) Final Approval of the project as submitted. REVIEW AFTER FINAL C, 111 W MICHELTORENA ST C-2 Zone Assessor's Parcel Number: 039-062-005 Application Number: MST2004-00058 Owner: Glenn & Rose Laabs, Trustees Applicant: Cingular Wireless Architect: Beta Architects Agent: Andy Johnson (Proposal to construct a wireless communication facility requiring the installation of six panel antennas (four antennas would be screened inside an existing cupola; two antennas would be screened inside a proposed dormer on the southwest-side of the existing building.) All cables will be routed through the attic.) (Review After Final of change to equipment enclosure.) Final Approval as noted with the condition that the paint shall match the existing colors. REVIEW AFTER FINAL D. 1919 CASTILLO ST R-4 Zone Assessor's Parcel Number: 025-351-006 Application Number: MST2003-00585 Owner: Silvio Cunha Architect: James LeCron (Proposal to construct a 2,485 square foot detached duplex consisting of two residential units above five one-car garages at the rear of a 9,108 square foot lot. The proposal includes the demolition of the existing detached four-car garage. The existing 2,078 square foot duplex at the front of the lot is proposed to remain unaltered.) (Review After Final of change from wood siding to stucco.) Final Approval of the project as submitted. EXHIBIT 3 ARCHITECTURAL BOARD OF REVIEW MINUTES October 10, 2005 Page 12 REFERRED BY FULL BOARD E. 114 N MILPAS ST C-2 Zone Assessor's Parcel Number: 017-091-014 Application Number: MST2004-00867 Owner: Maricela Tepeque Designer: Laura Fernandez (Proposed addition to an existing one-story residence which would result in a mixed-use building that includes a 333 square foot beauty salon. This includes the conversion of 163 square foot of residential area to commercial and the addition of 170 square feet. There is one uncovered parking space proposed at the front of the property for the beauty salon.) (Preliminary Approval is requested.) Continued indefinitely due to the applicant's absence. CONTINUED ITEM F, 23 FRANCISCO DR A-1 Zone Assessor's Parcel Number: 055-141-042 Application Number: MST2005-00664 Owner: Dennis Walsh Designer: Tectonica Design (Proposal for new retaining wall along interior property line.) (Final Approval is requested.) Final Approval as noted and with the finding that the Neighborhood Preservation Ordinance criteria have been met as stated in Subsection 22.68.060 of the City of Santa Barbara Municipal Code. CONTINUED ITEM G. 1405 MISSION RIDGE RD A-2 Zone Assessor's Parcel Number: 019-210-001 Application Number: MST2005-00652 Owner: Schmidt Pillsbury 2001 Famil