Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Accessory Dwelling Unit topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Single‑family board delays Surf View ADU review but backs setback variances
Summary
The Santa Barbara Single Family Design Board on May 19 continued review of a proposed ADU above a rebuilt garage at 726 Surf View Drive, signaling support for two setback modifications while asking the applicant to reduce the ADU’s visual bulk and study roof and wall details.
The Santa Barbara Single Family Design Board on May 19 continued consideration of a proposal to build a 749‑square‑foot accessory dwelling unit (ADU) above a rebuilt garage at 726 Surf View Drive while expressing general support for the two requested setback modifications.
The measure matters because the ADU would sit in the property’s secondary front yard and project into the primary front yard for a stair and entry deck — locations that require either staff hearing‑officer review or design‑board support to be considered “aesthetically supportable.” Board members said the site’s constrained yard and existing detached garage limit alternate designs.
The applicants, Michael Stroh and Marco Alejandro Cervantes of DMHA Architects, told the board the lot is 15,567 square feet and that the project would demolish the existing garage and construct a new ~650‑square‑foot garage with a 150‑square‑foot storage area and a 749‑square‑foot ADU above. The design team said the new garage footprint largely matches the existing garage and that the ADU is placed above that footprint to avoid disruption to the existing main house and yard. Stroh said the ADU ridge height is 25 feet.
Board members asked the applicants to reduce the apparent bulk of the ADU and to show options that make the upper level feel more grounded to the first floor. Comments included studying larger or more substantial columns or corbels at the southwest corner, breaking up long, solid walls on the north and east elevations with window or architectural relief, and testing a hip roof on the north elevation to lower the perceived ridgeline. The board also asked for a full south elevation showing the ADU in the context of the entire residence, and for refinements to the second‑story openings so window and door proportions do not read oversized beneath the roof.
There was one in‑person public comment raising on‑street parking constraints on the small cul‑de‑sac where the property sits; staff advised the neighbor to consult Public Works and the city’s permit process for construction staging and enforcement of parking rules.
A motion to continue the item to the full board for project‑design review passed unanimously. The board recorded no opposition to the requested zoning modifications and recommended the staff hearing officer consider the board’s comments when reviewing the front‑yard and secondary front‑yard encroachment requests.
The applicants will return with revised drawings that study ridgeline options, additional elevation context, and refined second‑story openings. Staff will include the board’s comments in the record for the hearing‑officer review of the setback modifications.
