Santa Barbara Single-Family Design Board approves Andalusia addition with materials and landscaping conditions

At its Jan. 27 meeting, the Santa Barbara Single‑Family Design Board voted unanimously to grant preliminary and final approval to project 02/1936 (Andalusia), a house alteration and first‑floor addition, with standard conditions and neighborhood preservation findings.

The board’s approval follows prior action by the staff hearing officer, which granted the project’s front and interior setback modifications on Jan. 6. Holly Garson of Planning and Zoning told the board that “the staff hearing officer granted the land use approvals with the standard conditions of approval.” The board’s motion incorporated the Neighborhood Preservation findings required by the ordinance and included conditions on materials, landscape plans and mitigation for the tree removal.

The applicant, Chris Mancin Hing of Mancin Hing Architects, described the project as a modest set of conforming first‑floor additions totaling 304 square feet on an existing single‑story home. He said the project retains the home’s original stonework and several existing character elements: “She has fond memories of it,” Mancin Hing said of the owner’s attachment to the stonework. The proposal keeps an existing two‑car garage, raises one gable roof by 10 inches as previously reviewed, and results in a proposed total of 2,301 square feet of development on a 10,019‑square‑foot lot (about 62 percent of the maximum floor‑to‑lot area ratio noted in the project materials).

Exterior materials described to the board include painted smooth plaster for the main house, a stained vertical‑board finish for the garage face, metal windows and doors, dark‑gray asphalt shingles, Galvalume gutters and downspouts, and Sun Valley bronze hardware. The applicant also proposed two low‑profile skylights and retaining‑wall work at the western side of the property. The project involves removal of an existing mulberry tree; the applicant’s landscape plan shows seven replacement trees in the rear yard plus additional plantings at the front, and the board’s motion noted that the tree removals are mitigated on the proposed landscape plan.

Board members who commented described the project as compatible with the neighborhood’s size, bulk and scale and supportive of the applicant’s material choices. After discussion, a board member moved for preliminary and final approval “as submitted” with the Neighborhood Preservation findings and conditions; the motion passed 5‑0 (Chair Carrie Lewis, Vice Chair Sherry, Board Member Grafati, Board Member Moslahi and Board Member Richards voting yes). The board recorded that the modest height change and rear additions do not materially change the project’s perceived bulk or impact on public ridgeline views.

The board noted that final building permits may proceed after the 10‑day appeal period ends with no appeal filed. The staff announcement at the meeting reminded the applicant that the decision starts the 10‑day appeal period, after which the applicant may proceed to Building Safety if no appeals are filed.

The board’s approval included standard conditions of approval and directed the applicant to return any required final details as part of the usual building permit and final approval process.