[{"_1":2,"_99":-5,"_100":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75,87],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6568929,"mediaKeyId","3193120-58ef24d342e457c70004bbba591eeecd","parentId",3193120,"title","Neighbors press city board over proposed second‑story addition, driveway and tree loss at 967 Garcia Road","audioSeconds",3952,"startMs",3292580,"endMs",7244700,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=3193120-58ef24d342e457c70004bbba591eeecd&start=3292&end=7244","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3193120-58ef24d342e457c70004bbba591eeecd/thumbnail_3292580.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6568929/Santa-Barbara-City/Santa-Barbara-County/California/Neighbors-press-city-board-over-proposed-secondstory-addition-driveway-and-tree-loss-at-967-Garcia-Road","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6568929-dbf2620d8eee1ef119adbc454f708418/orig.mp4?Expires=1771187241&Signature=Q5B9xODpdCblDBCT0TCCrm~IZizmTyE74fklciMet8Y5nd0bKlv10EqlLZszcHyTeU2x2CVjcY1Na4l~TX~nFoO~vyWKDe1DsJxrqseR3Zzgh7AiQjQbhs0Uj~24pWArO5OlAIqYyl2C30VI2h6C-RJ5379Z31K~~o8IpGxzHAK3mCsPlDsSADcJRQv8lqr6RnzIp2jSFr9I4ANP4x29UPCCueNZrkeuE-nInsvi97M6oyqHWxo4SqqDQ6Z73ziQSe-s4s5v1cAo7lK4CBBFGJyWO1WXEEfzdQtgelP8nXW7vAWq3R6STcLQ6YinL7nijQdB6jqxSY~DCuvKCfhpOw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Santa Barbara","date","2025-05-06T13:04:02Z","article","The Single Family Design Board heard a pre‑application consultation for a proposed major remodel and additions at 967 Garcia Road and continued the item indefinitely with detailed requests after multiple neighbors raised concerns about scale, setbacks, driveway alignment and tree removal.

Applicant Adam Graham and designer Risa Hong presented a plan to remodel a 2,202‑square‑foot, two‑story 1946 house, replace mechanicals and roofing, convert lower‑level space into a legalized accessory dwelling unit, construct a new detached 400‑square‑foot garage and a 322‑square‑foot cabana, and add a roughly 476‑square‑foot third‑story element. The applicants reported the proposed total of about 3,419 square feet on a 14,374‑square‑foot lot (roughly 80% of the stated floor‑area guideline). Staff emphasized this was a one‑time pre‑application consultation and that staff had not completed a zoning compliance review.

Multiple neighbors speaking in person said the project felt outsized for Garcia Heights, questioned technical calculations and raised privacy and construction‑impact concerns. Connie Barcliff, a neighbor across the street, asked why the applicant classified the work as a “remodel” rather than a “substantial redevelopment” and urged staff to confirm whether substantial‑redevelopment thresholds apply; staff confirmed that a substantial‑redevelopment affidavit is required at application if more than 50% of foundation, walls or roofing are structurally replaced. Kevin Sheridan, who lives 130 feet from the site, warned of construction impacts and told the board: \"All of that work will be noisy, will be complicated, will be shaking my property and all the whole neighborhood.\" Several commenters also said removal of mature trees (including an orange and a macadamia) to create a new driveway would reduce privacy and habitat.

Board members and staff identified a set of requested follow‑up items before formal submittal. The board voted to continue the item indefinitely and asked the applicant to provide: a neighborhood study focused on the 20 closest houses to establish compatibility; clear documentation and calculations for floor‑area ratio and the project’s classification with respect to the city’s substantial‑redevelopment thresholds; elevations and sections for the proposed garage and cabana; a landscape plan that preserves or replaces mature trees (staff noted the city generally requests 1:1 replacement for trees 4 inches or greater in diameter, subject to native status and other standards); and a solar/solar‑access study. The board also recommended the applicant study moving the added massing so the second‑story element fits more centrally on the house where feasible to reduce perceived intrusion into the front setback and uphill neighbors’ views.

Action: The board continued the pre‑application consultation indefinitely and recorded a motion with the comments above. Roll call: Board member Mosley — yes; Board member Richards — yes; Board member Grafati — yes; Vice Chair Sherry — yes; Chair Andrew Lewis — yes. Motion passed.

What’s next: The applicant may revise plans and return with the requested neighborhood study, FAR calculations, garage/cabana elevations, landscape/tree‑replacement plan and solar study. Staff reminded neighbors that substantial‑redevelopment affidavits and documentation will be required at application if structural replacement thresholds are exceeded.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Single Family Design Board - May 5, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","The Single Family Design Board continued a pre‑application consultation at 967 Garcia Road after neighbors raised concerns about a proposed second‑story addition, driveway configuration and removal of mature trees.","taxTitle","Santa Barbara City, Santa Barbara County, California","taxId",4209,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6568934,"Santa Barbara board asks designer to slim ADU overhang, study plate heights at 819 N. Aliso St.",2310,736420,3046820,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3193120-58ef24d342e457c70004bbba591eeecd&start=736&end=3046","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3193120-58ef24d342e457c70004bbba591eeecd/thumbnail_736420.jpg","/articles/6568934/Santa-Barbara-City/Santa-Barbara-County/California/Santa-Barbara-board-asks-designer-to-slim-ADU-overhang-study-plate-heights-at-819-N-Aliso-St","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6568934-8545fe865d7176d507ccb48357f00ffd/orig.mp4?Expires=1771187241&Signature=ILseXDgAsJIcU5E1u7BEJQpGkycnex9ZF8buogDtL44gqrywmPyQ-q10qA6gFhJSGkNunSEyytcZj0vXX~xETafOUI-MN64eMnR2munSOhTYeqAQC6A~yPaSocnjit3dcaM~HBW5JUsHBWu5dDRyN5mlGUvSeY95hylRz33lJH4mtTJA6NDP3nCqhkgpgEUbfcznZ2Zpzqk5rst7BobugKB~o3DCTzTiwF9eoN73uyawJgDkz6izaET-D~B6LfCCkZii1fx4OEI8QftkbKo296jnwQInVPCdLgzK06Au2ZoJsufR9~sBFPqtI2~TzxIpgYqdtnDBzfuPnEkft7NWQw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Single Family Design Board continued concept review of a proposed accessory dwelling unit at 819 North Aliso Street after members requested changes to the roof overhang, framing details and landscape screening.

The project team presented a 1,000-square-foot, one‑story ADU and a 50-square‑foot front‑yard storage shed on a 5,000‑square‑foot lot with an existing, to‑remain 660‑square‑foot single‑family residence. Architect Alex Windham described the design as a two‑material house with plaster and charred cedar siding and said the ADU would be sited in the large front yard. The board heard staff advise that the project is still in the application completeness cycle and not final for appeal.

Board members said the overall scale and concept were acceptable but asked the applicant to study a set of refinements before returning for full review. The board recommended shortening the proposed front overhang to about three feet to reduce perceived bulk at the sidewalk; studying the 11‑foot plate height shown on one elevation so interior proportions and exterior scale are consistent; and providing detailed rafter/edge details that better match mid‑century vernacular in the neighborhood. Members also favored native, water‑wise front yard planting and requested a plan to replace a large on‑site cypress if it is removed.

Windham explained materials and neighborhood precedents and confirmed the existing house would be painted to better coordinate with the ADU. He also said the team proposes native manzanita planting and a rain garden to increase site permeability.

Action: The board voted to return the project to the full board (continuance to a future full hearing) with the board comments above and with direction to provide revised elevations, rafter details, a landscape/tree‑replacement plan and documentation of plate heights. Roll call: Board member Mosley — yes; Board member Richards — yes; Board member Grafati — yes; Vice Chair Sherry — yes; Chair Andrew Lewis — yes. Motion passed.

What’s next: The applicant will revise plans to reflect the board’s comments and return to the full board for project design review. The board asked staff to note that no final, appealable approvals were issued at this concept review.","The Single Family Design Board continued concept review of a proposed 1,000-square-foot accessory dwelling unit at 819 North Aliso Street and asked the applicant to return to the full board with refined roof/rafter details, reduced front overhang and a tree‑replacement plan.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6568924,"Board approves project design for 575 Braemar Ranch Lane with condition on railing; one director objects",2567,7482720,10049900,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3193120-58ef24d342e457c70004bbba591eeecd&start=7482&end=10049","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3193120-58ef24d342e457c70004bbba591eeecd/thumbnail_7482720.jpg","/articles/6568924/Santa-Barbara-City/Santa-Barbara-County/California/Board-approves-project-design-for-575-Braemar-Ranch-Lane-with-condition-on-railing-one-director-objects","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6568924-328b79fe721b26dd6cbdeddd3fa1560e/orig.mp4?Expires=1771187241&Signature=LEAN9qyU5X2E4kud462CXoShdth8av5Sw-zGGjHBZcCodUEOD4SkjPJSch-9b9WiD8PvYPhdVibLHPQWTL68grqOXZ4NhOSshSkSoDTXDJoyqDir9ir-7sO9JnPdSb~wSYyKVqjoJu-8xK3xaOioQEI81NK610gLmf-jti8Y8b1Mc3ma0M2XX0ttSSfj8Y3k4eMYtXBcRr5VlPXbYzkBmvpUv5IPL3Bq0sNIxAern5lPyUoQqD5y2FaG-FCzOJ~97MaAY~r~CkWuw0k~MKxf9yDskLqfDWBsNQjqGAlaUm7DoQU8aeSPQbih5DKEpoaj0QviW~0eBxRUXB2FJqwpSA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Single Family Design Board approved project design for alterations and additions at 575 Braemar Ranch Lane, finding the visible elements largely screened from public view but requiring a change to the deck railing as a condition of approval.

Project designer David Watkins and owner Eric Sudlar presented a design that included permitting about 700 square feet of as‑built additions, constructing 557 square feet of new additions, replacing windows and doors, attaching a 649‑square‑foot three‑car garage, and adding a new pool. The applicant reported that the proposed total development would be about 5,508 square feet on a 2.5‑acre lot (reported as about 94% of the guideline floor‑area ratio discussed in board materials). Staff noted the project qualified for a CEQA existing‑facilities exemption (reference to CEQA Guideline section 15301) and reminded the board the property is heavily screened by vegetation and topography.

Board members focused discussion on exterior detailing, the large glazing expanses and the south elevation where prior comments had requested better proportioning and window mullion rhythm. The applicant described revisions made since the prior hearing: more consistent mullion patterning on south elevation glazing, modified porch columns and a simplified trim and railing arrangement intended to better match the house and screening. The design team said much of the larger roof geometry remained unchanged due to zoning constraints and prior permitted elements.

Several board members said the project is well screened from public viewpoints and that proposed revisions addressed many prior concerns. Vice Chair Sherry said she could not support the project in its current state, citing a lack of cohesive architectural identity between retained traditional elements and the contemporary details; at the end of the hearing she stated in the record: \"I cannot support it in this state.\" Chair Andrew Lewis moved for approval with a condition specifying a revised railing detail; Board member Richards seconded. The motion passed by roll call: Board member Mosley — yes; Board member Richards — yes; Board member Grafati — yes; Vice Chair Sherry — no; Chair Andrew Lewis — yes.

Action: Project design approval granted with condition that the deck/guardrail be revised to a design with vertical divisions or a more vertical profile consistent with the approved facade detailing; the board entered neighborhood‑preservation findings and noted the project is substantially screened from public view. Vote tally: 4–1 (Vice Chair Sherry opposed). The board also recorded specific findings that the addition is minimal relative to the site, that screening and landscape mitigate public scenic impacts, and that no protected trees were proposed for removal.

What’s next: The applicant was informed of the 10‑day appeal period and may return to the board for final approval consistent with the conditioned details. The board member who voted no asked staff to record the reasoning in the file as \"architectural style inconsistent.\"","The Single Family Design Board granted project design approval for alterations and additions at 575 Braemar Ranch Lane, finding the visible work largely screened; the board conditioned approval on a revised railing design and recorded a 4–1 vote with Vice Chair Sherry voting no on grounds of inconsistent architectural identity.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Neighbors press city board over proposed second‑story addition, driveway and tree loss at 967 Garcia Road

Santa Barbara board asks designer to slim ADU overhang, study plate heights at 819 N. Aliso St.

Board approves project design for 575 Braemar Ranch Lane with condition on railing; one director objects