Architectural board clears three housing projects; conditions include irrigation plan, opaque windows and solid railing

The Santa Barbara Architectural Board of Review took action on three separate housing items during the meeting, approving or finalizing design decisions and adding conditions on details the board said require further clarification.

Votes at a glance

- 523 West Gutiérrez Street (Project 0.1): The board approved project design for a three‑story, nine‑unit building proposed to replace a single‑family house and accessory structures. The proposal includes an average unit size of about 597 square feet, eight car parking spaces, nine bicycle parking spaces, and two income‑restricted units (one very low, one moderate). The board’s approval included a specific condition that the third‑floor south balcony railing be constructed solid (rather than open) to increase privacy for an adjacent neighbor. The board recorded the motion and voted to approve the design.

- 617 Bradbury Avenue (Project 0.2): The board granted final approval for a remodel/replace project that includes a new 2,589‑square‑foot primary residence with basement and a 683‑square‑foot detached accessory dwelling unit, plus a 368‑square‑foot attached garage. The approval is conditional: the applicant must provide a finalized irrigation plan to city staff prior to final sign‑off. The condition was added after staff and board discussion about irrigation backflow and plan completeness.

- Two‑unit residential addition (Project 0.3): The board approved final design for a two‑unit residential addition and a new single‑car garage after the applicant incorporated prior comments. The board added a condition that the second‑floor windows on the south elevation adjacent to a neighbor be made either fully opaque or have the lower half of the glazing obscured to protect privacy; the motion with that condition passed.

What the board said: For each item the board reviewed plan changes, materials and landscaping. Board members asked applicants to clarify parking layout, long‑term bicycle parking, trash and recycling locations, mechanical equipment placement and lighting counts. Applicants described changes made since prior hearings: balconies and rail details, revised planting palettes, parking maneuvers checked with the city transportation reviewer and clarifications to plans for windows, decks and rooftop equipment.

Public comment: For the West Gutiérrez project several nearby residents and one virtual commenter raised concerns about driveway layout, potential conversion of driveways to “garage storage,” and privacy impacts; one neighbor asked that the design preserve privacy for a family with children. For the Bradbury project neighbors asked about parking and whether the garage might be converted to another dwelling unit in the future; the applicant said the homeowner wants the parking because they plan to live in the front unit. For the two‑unit addition the board received a few neighborhood comments but no written correspondence was reported at the hearing.

Why it matters: These approvals move small‑scale infill and residential remodel projects through the city’s design‑review process. The board’s conditional approvals reflect its focus on immediate neighbor impacts — privacy, landscaping, lighting and the final placement of mechanical and irrigation systems — while allowing projects to proceed toward building permits.

Next steps: Applicants must comply with the stated staff conditions (e.g., submit an irrigation plan or revised glazing details) and can return for final plan checks or to building‑permit review as required by staff. Appeal periods apply where noted.