Board requests restudy of front roof for Cliff Drive addition while giving conceptual approval
February 09, 2026 | Santa Barbara City, Santa Barbara County, California
This article was created by AI summarizing key points discussed. AI makes mistakes, so for full details and context, please refer to the video of the full meeting. Please report any errors so we can fix them. Report an error »
The Santa Barbara Single Family Design Board on Feb. 9 reviewed conceptual plans for additions at 1407 Cliff Drive and unanimously directed the applicant to restudy the front addition roof to better articulate the new upper‑level massing.
Project architect Tom Ochsner described two additions: a modest ground‑level storage area off the garage and a small second‑story expansion with an extended terrace and trellis. The submission is incomplete and conceptual; staff characterized the hearing as a first review and sought broad design guidance. Ochsner said the garage storage addresses bicycle and utility needs and that the upper‑level trellis and a modest roof extension are intended to provide sun protection while maintaining existing roof forms.
Board members asked for clarification on distances from decks to property lines (the architect estimated about 10 to 14 feet for the second‑story decks), guardrail treatments (the plan retains cable rail at the front bridge entrance and proposes glass panels in the rear to create cohesion), and the interplay of a low flat roof with a trellis. Several members expressed support for the overall massing but recommended additional work on the front elevation and rooflines to preserve the house’s entry character. As Chair Sherry said while framing the board’s motion, the board felt “the north elevation with the extension of the existing shed roof over the new upper level addition can be improved upon by a different articulation of the addition.”
On that basis the board moved, seconded and approved a motion requesting the applicant restudy the front elevation and roof articulation on the west upper level, confirm the distance of the existing east deck to the east property line, and refine flat roof detailing and trellis connections. The motion passed on roll call.
Next steps: the applicant should return with refined drawings that address the board’s specific comments on rooflines, guardrail cohesion, deck distances, and front entry enforcement before the next formal design review.
Project architect Tom Ochsner described two additions: a modest ground‑level storage area off the garage and a small second‑story expansion with an extended terrace and trellis. The submission is incomplete and conceptual; staff characterized the hearing as a first review and sought broad design guidance. Ochsner said the garage storage addresses bicycle and utility needs and that the upper‑level trellis and a modest roof extension are intended to provide sun protection while maintaining existing roof forms.
Board members asked for clarification on distances from decks to property lines (the architect estimated about 10 to 14 feet for the second‑story decks), guardrail treatments (the plan retains cable rail at the front bridge entrance and proposes glass panels in the rear to create cohesion), and the interplay of a low flat roof with a trellis. Several members expressed support for the overall massing but recommended additional work on the front elevation and rooflines to preserve the house’s entry character. As Chair Sherry said while framing the board’s motion, the board felt “the north elevation with the extension of the existing shed roof over the new upper level addition can be improved upon by a different articulation of the addition.”
On that basis the board moved, seconded and approved a motion requesting the applicant restudy the front elevation and roof articulation on the west upper level, confirm the distance of the existing east deck to the east property line, and refine flat roof detailing and trellis connections. The motion passed on roll call.
Next steps: the applicant should return with refined drawings that address the board’s specific comments on rooflines, guardrail cohesion, deck distances, and front entry enforcement before the next formal design review.
View the Full Meeting & All Its Details
This article offers just a summary. Unlock complete video, transcripts, and insights as a Founder Member.
✓
Watch full, unedited meeting videos
✓
Search every word spoken in unlimited transcripts
✓
AI summaries & real-time alerts (all government levels)
✓
Permanent access to expanding government content
30-day money-back guarantee
