Single Family Design Board denies backyard pickleball court at 45 Los Alurus Circle over noise and neighborhood impacts

The Santa Barbara Single Family Design Board voted 4–1 on April 6 to deny a homeowners’ application to construct a backyard pickleball court at 45 Los Alurus Circle, citing neighborhood‑level noise impacts and site topography that the board said could not be reasonably mitigated.

The board’s decision came after more than an hour of testimony from nearby residents, technical exchanges about two competing acoustical reports and a lengthy presentation by the applicants and staff. Chair Sherry moved to deny the application, arguing the proposed court’s siting and the measured or modeled sound levels made the project incompatible with the surrounding neighborhood; the motion carried after a roll‑call vote.

Why it matters: Neighbors and multiple speakers told the board that impulsive pickleball impacts — the sharp pop when the paddle hits the ball — carried up the hillside and would intrude into homes and outdoor spaces. Several residents cited a third‑party acoustical review that modeled levels of 60–80 decibels at nearby property lines and concluded the court could create an unlawful nuisance under the city’s noise guidance. The applicants and their consultant disputed those conclusions and offered additional mitigation including 6‑foot fence panels with internal baffles, dense evergreen screening, and noise monitors.

The project, a continued item before the board, proposed a single sport court with a gravel path, a 4‑foot masonry retaining wall topped by a 6‑foot fence, roughly 173 feet of 30‑inch dry‑stack boulder walls, about 180 cubic yards of grading and the removal of two eucalyptus trees with replacement plantings (Stacy Isaac, the landscape architect, described the planting plan and materials). Staff stated the project qualified for an exemption under section 15304 of the California Environmental Quality Act and noted the applicant granted a 90‑day extension under the Permit Streamlining Act; staff also told the board that the municipal noise regulations in Title 9 primarily address mechanical equipment and active violations rather than the zoning review before the board.

Neighbor testimony was a central part of the record. Gary Hill, who said he lives at 121 Camino Alto, summarized the neighborhood’s concerns and cited a PSM Consulting analysis that, he said, applied the City’s 50‑foot audible rule and the factors listed in the municipal code to reach the conclusion that play on the proposed court would be “unlawful” and “annoying” at adjacent properties. Hill told the board the modeled peak levels were in the 70s–80s decibel range at some nearby points and warned the noise could be continuous during daylight hours if the court were used frequently.

Applicants’ response: Drew Finley, one of the property owners, said the family intends to be respectful neighbors and emphasized the applicant’s willingness to add acoustic panels, screening plants and to limit use to daylight hours. Stacy Isaac said the revised plans incorporated acoustic baffles, native and fast‑growing screening plants and that the applicant’s consultant (an expert identified as Sarah Tobitz) had concluded the project did not present a regulatory noise problem. Isaac also described site constraints — steep topography and required grading limits — that restricted alternative placements for the court.

Board deliberations focused on two issues: whether the project complied with the board’s “good neighbor” guidelines (including orientation of active outdoor areas away from neighbors, and year‑round screening) and whether the board could reasonably find the project would not harm public health, safety or welfare given the acoustical evidence. Several board members found the landscape plan and materials acceptable but said they remained unconvinced that the proposed mitigation would reduce the impulsive sound sufficiently at the nearest residences; other members said modest revisions (larger initial trees, small shifts in elevation or location, or additional acoustic detail) might change their view.

The final motion to deny listed the board’s primary reasons as site topography, proximity to neighbors and demonstrated noise impacts that the board concluded were not reasonably mitigable. The vote triggered a 10‑calendar‑day appeal period; staff announced appeal instructions and fees for parties wishing to appeal to the Planning Commission.

What’s next: The denial starts the administrative appeal window; the applicants or other interested parties may file an appeal within 10 calendar days. If appealed, the Planning Commission would review the record, the competing acoustic evidence and the board’s required findings.

The meeting record includes the applicant’s design plans, two acoustical reports (the applicant’s consultant and the PSM study referenced by neighbors), staff’s analysis about zoning and CEQA section 15304, and the public comment correspondence posted on the board’s webpage.