Board approves design and final for three‑unit residential project at 311 West Montecito with one board member dissenting

The Santa Barbara City Architectural Board of Review voted on Sept. 15 to approve project design and final for a proposed three‑unit residential building and accessory dwelling unit at 311 West Montecito Street. The decision followed a continued review and several plan adjustments addressing backflow device locations, condenser equipment, gate design, fenestration changes and accessibility revisions.

Agent Lonnie Roy presented the project on behalf of the property owner. The project proposes demolition of an 889‑square‑foot short‑term vacation rental and construction of a three‑unit apartment building plus an ADU. Unit sizes presented in the board packet are 1,143 sq ft, 1,038 sq ft, 991 sq ft and a 565 sq ft ADU, for a total of 3,737 square feet. No vehicle parking is proposed pursuant to AB 2097; the project previously received staff hearing officer approval of an administrative coastal development permit on Oct. 30, 2024, and the plans require compliance with project compatibility findings last reviewed on Sept. 3, 2024.

Questions from the board addressed the trash room ventilation (applicant: vented to allow the trash room to breathe), the location and screening of condenser/heat pump units (two hidden behind a parapet; two on a patio that the owner preferred to keep for maintenance but could be relocated if the board required), and exterior door/head heights (several ground‑level doors are shown at nine‑foot head heights). Vice Chair Whelan suggested widening the bike room door to reduce damage from bikes; Board Member Anderson expressed concerns about unusually tall ground‑level doors and the single‑window grouping on one elevation, saying the design felt “not fully baked.” Other board members supported approval with the noted comments.

A motion for project design and final approval passed by roll call (Chair Anderson: yes; Vice Chair Whelan: yes; Board Member Sovereign: yes; Board Member Anderson: no). Board Member Anderson later stated his “no” vote reflected unresolved aspects of proportions and certain elevations; a 10‑day appeal period was announced.

The board and applicants also confirmed the project’s consistency with design compatibility findings — size, mass, bulk, height and landscaping — during the hearing. No public commenters spoke for or against the project at the meeting.

Because the board recorded a dissenting vote, applicants should review Board Member Anderson’s comments (ground‑floor door heights, single‑window groupings on elevations) in final construction drawings to reduce the risk of appeal or a future review.