Get AI Briefings, Transcripts & Alerts on Local & National Government Meetings — Forever.
Board ratifies consent-calendar approvals, approves minutes; several abstentions recorded
Loading...
Summary
At the April 27 meeting the Santa Barbara City Board of Architectural Review approved March meeting minutes 'with comments,' ratified actions from April 13 and April 27 consent calendars, and discussed a courtesy review concern about tree species and screening at 721 Cliff Drive; a few members abstained on earlier minutes.
The Santa Barbara City Board of Architectural Review approved several routine items at its April 27 meeting, including approval of the March 16 minutes (with a board member’s wording edits) and ratification of actions taken on the April 13 and April 27 consent calendars.
Staff summarized the minutes and the consent items, noting projects that received project design and final approval (examples cited included 217 South Milpas, 1730 Prospect Ave, 119 E Gutierrez St., 1309 Castillo St., and 1014 Coast Village Road). A board member moved approval of the March 16 minutes with minor edits to wording about Coast Village Road and a recommendation to describe a one‑story secondary form with a more horizontal Craftsman appearance; the motion carried after recorded yes votes and at least one abstention from a member who said they were not present at the March meeting.
The board ratified the consent actions from April 13 and April 27 after staff read the items on the calendars. Among the April 27 consent entries were: 416 E Coda Street (new entry gate — approved as submitted); 1014 Coast Village Road (conversion of a former bank into four tenant spaces — minor exterior alterations approved); 719 W Sola (as‑built patio roof — approved); and 202 E Coda Street (removal of seven ficus trees — granted with the condition that the applicant return with a landscape plan).
During discussion of the April 27 consent items, the vice chair asked what constitutes a 'courtesy review.' Staff explained that county or federal projects located within city jurisdiction sometimes come for a courtesy review for feedback (staff cited Santa Barbara Bowl as an example). Staff also said the board had concerns about tree species choice (an oak) and whether existing plantings would adequately screen a boat yard, and that the board preferred a gable‑end option for a prefab structure’s roofline to better fit the site.
Vote notes: the transcript records several roll‑call yes votes and a small number of abstentions on earlier minutes where members said they had been absent for that meeting. The board concluded the routine business and moved to the continued project agenda item, which was later postponed.
Ending: With the consent ratified and routine votes completed, the board moved on to the continued project and then adjourned.
