Single Family Design Board continues review of Mountain Avenue two‑story proposal; asks for FAR study and oak mitigation plan

The Santa Barbara Single Family Design Board on July 28 continued concept review of a proposed two‑story single‑family residence with an attached garage and a detached accessory dwelling unit (ADU) at 1911 Mountain Avenue, asking the applicant for additional design information and a study of nearby floor‑area ratios (FAR).

The board voted unanimously to continue the project to the full board and requested a set of follow‑up materials including a FAR study of the 20 closest residences (and a diagram showing which residences were counted), a street silhouette or cross‑section showing the applicant’s building alongside the nearest residences, a proposed gate elevation related to the driveway entrance, clarification of proposed fence heights and proposed planting to mitigate tree loss, and refinement of west‑elevation window sill heights to reduce visibility into neighboring yards.

Staff described the proposal as a new 1,897‑square‑foot two‑story home with an attached 538‑square‑foot two‑car garage on a 7,007‑square‑foot lot, plus a detached accessory building comprising a 731‑square‑foot ADU and a 249‑square‑foot garage. Staff advised the board the plans submitted for concept review had not yet been plan‑checked and noted an internal accounting difference: because the ADU garage is included in the city’s FAR calculation even though the ADU living area is not, staff showed a project‑wide FAR of 91% (including the ADU garage) and an 85% FAR for the primary residence excluding the ADU garage. The plans posted with the agenda, staff said, had initially shown a lower percentage because they omitted the ADU garage from the total.

Multiple neighbors spoke at the hearing. Rob Perez of 1903 Mountain Avenue and Hillary Mills‑Perez said they were concerned the two‑story house would eliminate backyard privacy and change neighborhood scale. Perez cited potential increases in occupancy and parking pressure, concerns echoed by other neighbors who said mature trees had been removed from the site (commenters identified one Canary Island palm and raised questions about protections and permits). Written comments from Michael Myers and Andrea Warren were also entered into the record.

Applicants and their design team — Jarrett Goran and Sergio Macheo of Vanguard Planning and Sean Tolivo of LaSalle Design Studio — described site constraints, including fire‑safety landscaping requirements in a designated high fire hazard area that limit tree placements. The applicants said the second story is stepped back about 15 feet from the west property line, that many of the second‑story windows are high clerestory or bathroom windows intended to avoid direct views into neighboring yards, and that the house (without the ADU garage) reads at about 85% FAR, consistent with city guidelines the team referenced. The applicants said the ADU garage is the primary contributor to the higher combined FAR figure staff reported.

The board’s requested materials and comments included: a clear diagram showing which residences will be used in the 20‑house FAR comparison; a silhouette or section through the applicant’s house and the nearest row of houses (the board described this as a partial “street” elevation focused on the row behind the house to show relative heights and setbacks); a street elevation showing the proposed gate and driveway in relation to the public right‑of‑way; additional landscape detail and mitigation options for the oak and other trees lost on site, recognizing fire‑safety constraints; reduced visibility measures for west‑facing windows (higher sill heights where practicable); a study of alternatives to break up the driveway hardscape; and color/material samples with a warmer palette and additional modulation between upper and lower stories to reduce perceived massing.

Chair Lewis moved to continue the project indefinitely to the full board with the requested items; the motion was seconded and passed by the board. The motion included a summary of the board’s findings that the 15‑foot second‑story setback and many of the privacy measures were appropriate but that additional documentation and refinements were needed before project design approval.

Provenance: staff read the project description at the start of the Mountain Avenue segment and the board’s motion to continue and list of requested materials concluded the hearing.