Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Multifamily Infill topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board continues 1611 Castillo concept, says massing acceptable but materials and fenestration need revision
Summary
A continued concept review for an AUD proposal at 1611 Castillo Street generated significant critique of façade materials and window patterns; the board found massing, bulk and scale acceptable but continued the project to the full board with direction to revise materials and fenestration.
The Architectural Board of Review on March 17 continued the concept review of a multiunit housing proposal at 1611 Castillo Street, saying the project's massing and overall layout are acceptable but instructing the applicant to substantially revise materials and fenestration to better reflect Santa Barbara character.
City staff explained the project proposes five new residential units under the AUD incentive program with five automobile parking spaces and five bicycle spaces, retaining an existing three-unit building on the lot. The application remains incomplete for environmental review pending an arborist report and outstanding zoning and transportation comments, and ABR review at this hearing was a second concept presentation rather than a final design action.
Applicant representatives described changes since last review, including simplifying massing, switching exterior cladding from a rain-screen assembly to smooth stucco and a narrow vertical metal panel intended to evoke board-and-batten, and reducing roof heights to limit perceived bulk. The team said decisions were made with attention to durability and fire safety, including metal panels rather than plywood siding.
Board members praised improvements in massing and the project's response to grade but said the building's current palette, proportions and window patterns still feel inconsistent with the distinctive local architectural context. Several members urged a more stucco-dominant treatment, deeper window reveals, careful proportioning of window groupings, and restraint in the use of metal paneling so that any non-stucco detailing reads as limited accents rather than primary cladding. One board member suggested incorporating stone or other materials that reference the Mission Creek setting.
Public testimony included written letters from neighbors and an in-person comment from Rick Closin, who said he found the project "ugly" and urged more attention to neighborhood compatibility.
The board voted to continue the project indefinitely to the full board, citing the need for the applicant to revise facade materials and fenestration while acknowledging acceptable massing, bulk and scale. The vote passed with one dissent (Board member Anderson voted no). The motion directed the applicant to return with revisions that better align materials, window proportions, and parapet treatment to Santa Barbara design guidance. The ABR did not take a final action on project entitlements at the March 17 hearing.
