Architectural Board approves revisions for 1611 Castillo Street, with conditions

The Architectural Board of Review on Sept. 2 approved project design for a five-unit infill housing proposal at 1611 Castillo Street, imposing conditions on exterior detailing and landscape plans.

The board granted project design approval after hearing a revised presentation from the applicant team, who said they removed metal awnings, regularized window proportions and revised railings and exterior finish details. The board recorded a split vote on an initial motion, then approved a revised motion that required additional traditional detailing and other edits before final approval.

The project proposes five new residential units under the city's Average Unit Density Incentive Program, adding five vehicle parking spaces (four covered carports and one accessible uncovered space) and retaining an existing three-unit apartment on the site. Staff reported the project qualified for an exemption from additional environmental review under “section 15.30.1.” Ted Hamilton, acting design review supervisor, attended for staff assistance.

Applicants from Bilston Architecture and Planning presented the updated design package and a preliminary landscape plan. Ellen Bilston of Bilston Architecture and Planning said the team responded to prior board comments by removing metal awnings, simplifying parapet treatments and regularizing window proportions. Landscape consultant Krista Vorce described a low-water, low‑maintenance planting palette, a small turf area adjacent to the accessible parking stall and screening plantings and fences to address neighbor privacy.

Public commenter Rick Clausen said he reviewed the applicant’s photo inventory of nearby buildings and argued two structures the applicants cited as contextual precedents had been extensively altered over time and should not be held up as examples. "Both of these income properties held up by the project's architect as exemplars of design for the neighborhood are tattered specimens with little remaining historic or original design integrity," Clausen said.

Board members discussed building massing, window proportions, parapet and railing detailing, and the color and finish of window frames and plaster. Several board members urged the team to add modest traditional elements—such as a simple parapet molding, more recessed or colored window frames and less-visible lighting fixtures—to better connect the project to Santa Barbara’s established design language. Members also pressed for confirmation of transformer and utility clearances for landscape plantings.

A motion for project design approval passed with conditions. The board required the applicant, at the time of final review, to provide: a traditional treatment for parapets (and optionally balcony terminations), more shielded/downcast and traditionally-styled exterior light fixtures, revised railing details (examples described as a hammered-iron appearance), elimination of a conspicuous “bike room” sign, and window-frame and body plaster colors consistent with the city's historic color guidance. The board also found the proposed alternate open yard acceptable.

The board voted to continue the project to the full board for final action after the applicant completes the required changes. A 10-day appeal period was noted for the board action.

The applicant will return with updated plans showing the revised parapet and railing details, light fixtures, color selections tied to the city’s color guide, and a refined landscape plan that confirms transformer and utility clearances.

The Architectural Board of Review discussed but did not require additional materials such as story poles for this project. The board’s comments stressed compatibility with neighboring parcels and the public-facing streetscape.

What’s next: The applicant will revise plans per the board’s conditions and return to the full board for final review and sign-off.