Santa Barbara City Council
May 9, 2023

ATTACHMENT #2
Hourly Rate Classes
Effective 7/02/2022
Revised 5/09/2023
MUNIS 17 MUNIS 18 Hourly Rate
7045 8037 Grounds Maintenance Worker II $27.0429
7046 8038 Heavy Equipment Tech $35.6678
7047 8039 Housing Programs Specialist $42.6830
7411 8322 Housing Project Planner $45.7698
7048 N/A Human Resources Analyst II $48.1104
7416 8325 Human Resources Technician $35.4904
7023 8017 Information Technology Technician I $29.8058
7024 8018 Information Technology Technician II $32.4431 7049 N/A Law Clerk $33.0126
7050 N/A Legal Administrative Assistant I $28.2834
7051 N/A Legal Administrative Assistant II $34.1854
7052 8040 Librarian I $32.6448
7053 8041 Librarian II $35.8898
7054 8042 Library Assistant I $24.4670
7055 8043 Library Assistant II $25.4630
7057 8045 Library Systems Technician I $29.8058
7056 8044 Library Technician $27.1684
7005 N/A Litigation Paralegal $34.8745
7058 8046 Mail Services Specialist $20.8132
7061 8049 Maintenance Crew Leader $31.9623
7059 8047 Maintenance Worker I $22.9964
7060 8048 Maintenance Worker II $27.1108
7417 8326 Marketing Coordinator $40.2034
7022 8016 Network Analyst $43.4998
7063 8051 Office Specialist I $21.3386
7064 8052 Office Specialist II $23.4599
7067 8055 Outreach Coordinator $37.3055
7066 8054 Painter $32.0632
7068 8056 Parking Coordinator $34.2727
7072 8060 Planning Technician I $32.7682
7071 8059 Planning Technician II $35.4904
7073 8061 Plumber $33.9832
7070 8058 Project Engineer I $46.9091
7075 8063 Project Engineer II $51.5718
7077 8065 Project Planner $45.7698
7078 8066 Public Works Inspector I $34.7016
7397 8310 Real Property Agent $42.4707
7080 8068 Records Technician $27.1108
7382 8306 Recreation Coordinator $31.1740
7082 8070 Recreation Program Leader $22.6546
7083 8071 Recreation Specialist $25.7917
7081 8069 Recycling Educator $32.4431
7084 8072 Rental Housing Mediation Specialist $35.1381
7085 N/A Risk Analyst II $48.1104
7091 8078 Senior Commission Secretary $31.5638
7086 8073 Senior Custodian $24.2932
7035 8028 Senior Electronics/Communications Technician $39.6197 7033 8027 Senior Engineering Technician $37.7926
7087 8074 Senior Grounds Maintenance Worker $28.1438
7088 8075 Senior Library Technician $29.7205
7089 8076 Senior Maintenance Worker $30.4074
7076 8064 Senior Network/Applications Analyst $47.8454
7380 8303 Senior Plans Examiner $48.1781
7090 8077 Senior Real Property Agent $48.8356
7092 8079 Stock Clerk $23.9325
7094 8081 Survey Technician I $30.1045
7093 8080 Survey Technician II $32.7682
7096 8083 Traffic Technician I $29.8058
7097 8084 Traffic Technician II $32.7682
7100 8087 Transportation Engineering Associate $43.3262 7098 8085 Tree Trimmer I $24.6596
7099 8086 Tree Trimmer II $27.6569
7101 8088 Vehicle Services Assistant $24.4148
7104 8091 Water Resources Specialist $41.4249
7379 8304 Water Resources Technician $32.4431
7102 8089 Welder/Fabricator $32.6540
Hourly Assignment to "Regular" Classes

Hourly Rate Classes
Effective 7/02/2022
Revised 5/09/2023
MUNIS 17 MUNIS 18 Range
7006 8003 Airport Operations Specialist $32.8286
7348 8283 Airport Patrol Officer $45.2429
7452 8356 Airport Patrol Officer II $49.5269
7352 8287 Harbor Patrol Officer $44.4969
7354 8289 Lab Analyst I $33.6777
7069 8057 Park Ranger $35.7817
7356 8291 Treatment Plant Technician $34.5945
7349 8284 Wastewater Treatment Plant OIT $29.9983
7350 8285 Wastewater Treatment Plant Operator III $41.8780 7351 8286 Water Distribution Operator Technician II $36.1830 7355 8290 Water Treatment Plant OIT $29.9991
7353 8288 Water Treatment Plant Operator II $37.7385
7450 8354 Water Treatment Plant Operator III $41.8760
MUNIS 17 MUNIS 18 Range
7390 N/A Police Chief $109.3147 - $132.8730
MUNIS 17 MUNIS 18 Range
7357 N/A Police Lieutenant $75.8485 - $92.1944
MUNIS 17 MUNIS 18 Range
7359 N/A Police Officer $47.9705
7361 N/A Police Officer- Entry $45.4095
MUNIS 17 MUNIS 18 Range
7388 N/A EMD Dispatcher $42.7310
7395 N/A Identification Technician $40.2508
7360 N/A Parking Enforcement Officer $26.7395
7358 N/A Public Safety Dispatcher II $33.4808
7362 N/A Police Property/Evidence Assistant $28.3885
7391 N/A Police Property/Evidence Technician $33.4678
7363 N/A Police Records Specialist $24.5657
7364 N/A Police Technician $26.7395
MUNIS 17 MUNIS 18 Range
7432 N/A Fire Inspector II $45.0114
23 Police Management III
24 Police Sworn
39 Fire Non-Sworn
Hourly Assignment to "Regular" Classes
29 Police Non-Sworn
19 SBCEA Treatment & Patrol
21 Police Chief

Hourly Rate Classes
Effective 7/02/2022
Revised 5/09/2023
MUNIS 17 MUNIS 18 Classification Department Hourly Rate 7220 N/A Airport Marketing Assistant Airport $16.46
7219 8205 Airport Operations Intern Airport $15.50
7394 8309 Airport Services Coordinator Airport $32.47
7221 8206 Airport Traffic Aide Airport $15.50
7218 8204 Alternative Transportation Planner Public Works $40.06 7396 N/A ARCON Instructor Police $47.45
7225 N/A Assistant PAL Coordinator I Police $15.50
7222 N/A Assistant PAL Coordinator II Police $18.23
7224 8207 Assistant Park Planner Parks & Recreation $23.46 7223 N/A Assistant to Council I City Council $15.50
7270 N/A Assistant to Council II City Council $15.93
7271 N/A Assistant to Council III City Council $18.23
7226 8208 Automotive Parts Aide Public Works $19.18
7227 N/A Background Investigator Police $47.45
7145 8132 Beach Lifeguard I Parks & Recreation $18.23
7146 8133 Beach Lifeguard II Parks & Recreation $19.14
7147 8134 Beach Lifeguard III Parks & Recreation $20.10 7370 8292 Bus Driver I Parks & Recreation $23.22
7371 8293 Bus Driver II Parks & Recreation $24.38
7372 8294 Bus Driver III Parks & Recreation $25.60
7228 8209 Cannoneer Waterfront $22.40
7229 N/A CAO Special Projects Manager CAO $57.15
7240 N/A CAO Intern CAO $15.50
7243 N/A City Council Intern City Council $15.50
7425 8334 City Programs Intern I Various $15.92
7426 8335 City Programs Intern II Various $18.04
7427 8336 City Programs Intern III Various $20.16
7428 8337 City Programs Intern IV Various $21.22
7429 8338 City Programs Intern V Various $23.34
7430 8339 City Programs Intern VI Various $24.41
7431 8340 City Programs Intern VII Various $26.53
7253 8222 City TV Production Aid Lead Admin Services $17.84 7251 8220 City TV Production Aide I Admin Services $15.50 7252 8221 City TV Production Aide II Admin Services $17.08 7250 8219 City TV Production Intern Admin Services $15.50 7135 8122 Clerical Assistant Various $15.50
7234 8211 Commercial Driver Trainer Public Works $27.21 7217 N/A Community Services Liaison Police $17.50
7384 N/A Community Services Officer Police $23.30
7235 8212 Creeks Resources Technician Parks & Recreation $26.68 7236 8213 Database Specialist Public Works $20.90
7237 N/A Development Manager Library $34.06
7238 N/A Dispatch Training Coordinator Police $45.35
7239 8214 Diver Waterfront $22.40
7399 8311 Downtown Ambassador I Public Works $18.45
7400 8312 Downtown Ambassador II Public Works $21.00
7451 8355 Downtown Ambassador III Public Works $24.12
7374 8296 Driver Trainer I Parks & Recreation $28.06
7413 N/A Elections Advisor Admin Services $107.63
7412 N/A Elections Assistant Admin Services $25.63
7392 N/A EMD Auditor Police $52.07
7275 N/A EMS Nurse Educator Fire $82.82
7245 8215 Extension Aide Library $18.11
7246 N/A Facilities Project Manager Public Works $37.17 7436 8344 Facility Monitor I - Weekday Parks & Recreation $17.36 7437 8345 Facility Monitor II - Weekday Parks & Recreation $18.23 7438 8346 Facility Monitor III - Weekday Parks & Recreation $19.14 7439 8347 Facility Monitor I - Weekend and Evenings Parks & Recreation $21.70 7440 8348 Facility Monitor II - Weekend and Evenings Parks & Recreation $22.79 7441 8349 Facility Monitor III - Weekend and Evenings Parks & Recreation $23.93 7443 8351 Facility Technician I Parks & Recreation $15.50 7444 8352 Facility Technician II Parks & Recreation $16.28 7445 8353 Facility Technician III Parks & Recreation $17.09 7381 N/A Financial Systems Analyst Admin Services $52.29 7247 8216 Fire Public Education Assistant Fire $16.28
7231 N/A Fire Service Mutual Aide Specialist I Fire $38.20 7232 N/A Fire Service Mutual Aide Specialist II Fire $52.70 7230 N/A Fire Special Projects Manager Fire $49.52
7248 8217 GIS Mapping Technician Fire $19.18
7249 8218 Golf Course Maintenance Worker Parks & Recreation $15.50 7254 8223 Grounds Maintenance Assistant I Parks & Recreation $18.63 7255 8224 Grounds Maintenance Assistant II Parks & Recreation $20.70 7306 8260 Harbor Patrol Crew I Waterfront $15.50
7307 8261 Harbor Patrol Crew II Waterfront $16.16
7308 8262 Harbor Patrol Crew III Waterfront $16.96
7309 8263 Harbor Patrol Crew IV Waterfront $17.77
7310 8264 Harbor Patrol Crew V Waterfront $18.57
7311 8265 Harbor Patrol Crew VI Waterfront $19.37
7312 8266 Harbor Patrol Crew VII Waterfront $20.17
7313 8267 Harbor Patrol Crew VIII Waterfront $20.97
7314 8268 Harbor Patrol Crew IX Waterfront $21.78
7315 8269 Harbor Patrol Crew X Waterfront $22.59
7316 8270 Harbor Patrol Crew XI Waterfront $23.38
Hourly Rate Schedule (Limited Term)

Hourly Rate Classes
Effective 7/02/2022
Revised 5/09/2023
MUNIS 17 MUNIS 18 Classification Department Hourly Rate 7187 8174 Head Beach Lifeguard I Parks & Recreation $23.22 7188 8175 Head Beach Lifeguard II Parks & Recreation $24.38 7189 8176 Head Beach Lifeguard III Parks & Recreation $25.60 7296 N/A Human Resources Specialist Admin Services $26.81 7433 8341 Inclusion Specialist I Parks & Recreation $19.14 7434 8342 Inclusion Specialist II Parks & Recreation $20.10 7435 8343 Inclusion Specialist III Parks & Recreation $21.11 7383 8305 Information Systems Intern Admin Services $15.50 7256 N/A Internal Affairs Investigator Police $41.93
7105 8092 Job Apprentice I Parks & Recreation $15.50
7151 8138 Junior Lifeguard Instructor I Parks & Recreation $18.23 7152 8139 Junior Lifeguard Instructor II Parks & Recreation $19.14 7153 8140 Junior Lifeguard Instructor III Parks & Recreation $20.10 7192 8179 Junior Lifeguard Program Director I Parks & Recreation $23.22 7193 8180 Junior Lifeguard Program Director II Parks & Recreation $24.38 7194 8181 Junior Lifeguard Program Director III Parks & Recreation $25.60 7257 8225 Library Building Monitor Library $21.32
7280 8243 Library Volunteer Coordinator Library $19.18
7262 8230 Lot Operator Public Works $16.00
7265 8234 Management Intern Various $15.50
7274 8239 Management Intern IV Various $17.08
7268 8236 Marketing Assistant I Airport $15.50
7269 8237 Marketing Assistant II Airport $21.08
7272 N/A Mayor's Aide City Council $25.00
7330 8302 Meter Reader Public Works $23.16
7279 8242 Page Library $15.50
7281 N/A Parking Citation Admin Review Officer Police $43.82 7402 8313 Parking Coordinator Aide I Various $17.50
7403 8314 Parking Coordinator Aide II Various $19.50
7404 8315 Parking Coordinator Aide III Various $21.50
7418 8327 Parking Lead I Various $16.50
7419 8328 Parking Lead II Various $17.00
7423 8332 Parking Monitor I Various $16.00
7424 8333 Parking Monitor II Various $16.50
7288 N/A Parks Project Manager Parks & Recreation $49.07 7286 8246 Park Ranger Assistant I Parks & Recreation $17.36 7287 8247 Park Ranger Assistant II Parks & Recreation $18.23 7442 8350 Park Ranger Assistant III Parks & Recreation $19.14 7282 8244 Planning Intern I Community Development $15.97 7283 8245 Planning Intern II Community Development $18.64 7284 N/A Police Cadet I Police $18.00
7285 N/A Police Cadet II Police $19.50
7401 N/A Police Project Manager Police $47.45
7124 8111 Pool Lifeguard Parks & Recreation $18.23
7125 8112 Pool Lifeguard II Parks & Recreation $19.14
7126 8113 Pool Lifeguard III Parks & Recreation $20.10
7289 N/A Project Manager I Public Works $44.41
7290 N/A Project Manger II Public Works $56.84
7291 8248 Public Information Assistant Public Works $15.50 7119 8106 Recreation Assistant I Parks & Recreation $15.53 7120 8107 Recreation Assistant II Parks & Recreation $15.75 7121 8108 Recreation Assistant III Parks & Recreation $16.54 7162 8149 Recreation Leader I Parks & Recreation $17.36 7163 8150 Recreation Leader II Parks & Recreation $18.23 7164 8151 Recreation Leader III Parks & Recreation $19.14 7172 8159 Recreation Program Director I Parks & Recreation $20.96 7173 8160 Recreation Program Director II Parks & Recreation $22.06 7174 8161 Recreation Program Director III Parks & Recreation $23.22 7376 8298 Recreation Therapist/Nurse I Parks & Recreation $28.06 7377 8299 Recreation Therapist/Nurse II Parks & Recreation $50.00 7292 8249 Rental Mediation Aide I Community Development $15.50 7293 8250 Rental Mediation Aide II Community Development $21.67 7294 8251 Rental Mediation Aide III Community Development $25.10 7393 N/A Restorative Court Liaison Police $23.54
7295 N/A Restorative Outreach Specialist Police $21.64
7297 8252 School Crossing Guard I Police $15.50
7298 8253 School Crossing Guard II Police $15.93
Hourly Rate Schedule (Limited Term)

Hourly Rate Classes
Effective 7/02/2022
Revised 5/09/2023
MUNIS 17 MUNIS 18 Classification Department Hourly Rate 7167 8154 Senior Pool Lifeguard I Parks & Recreation $20.96 7168 8155 Senior Pool Lifeguard II Parks & Recreation $22.06 7169 8156 Senior Pool Lifeguard III Parks & Recreation $23.22 7398 N/A SNAP Officer Police $23.30
7299 8254 Standby Diver Waterfront $17.04
7140 8127 Swim Instructor I Parks & Recreation $19.14
7141 8128 Swim Instructor II Parks & Recreation $20.06
7301 8256 Traffic Counter Public Works $15.50
7303 N/A Traffic Engineer Public Works $78.58
7304 8258 Utility Worker I Public Works $20.57
7305 8259 Utility Worker II Public Works $23.06
7405 8316 Waterfront Facilities Aide I Waterfront $18.50 7406 8317 Waterfront Facilities Aide II Waterfront $19.03 7407 8318 Waterfront Facilities Aide III Waterfront $19.56 7408 8319 Waterfront Facilities Aide IV Waterfront $20.09 7420 8329 Waterfront Parking Lot Operator I Waterfront $15.50 7421 8330 Waterfront Parking Lot Operator II Waterfront $16.02 7422 8331 Waterfront Parking Lot Operator III Waterfront $16.53 7328 8282 Web Technician Administrative Services $26.68

EFFECTIVE
07/30/2022
08/27/2022
09/24/2022
09/24/2022
10/08/2022
10/08/2022
10/22/2022
11/05/2022
12/31/2022
02/11/2023
03/25/2023
04/08/2023
05/06/2023 Rate change for certain maintenance classifications

1.5% COLA - FIRE
Rate Change - Downtown Ambassador I; Police Officer; Police Officer Entry; APO

3.5% COLA - Unrepresented Managers
3% COLA - TAP

3.5% Increase - Certain Hourly Limited Term Classifications 3% COLA - POA

3.5% COLA - Supervisors
Rate change for certain Management, TAP, and General Unit classifications 2023 Minimum Wage Increase

2.7% Salary Adjustment to Hourly Assigments to Regular Classifications 4% COLA - General Unit

3.75% COLA - PMA
Hourly Rate Schedule (Limited Term)

CITY OF SANTA BARBARA

COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
AGENDA DATE: May 9, 2023
TO: Mayor and Councilmembers
FROM: City Attorney’s Office
SUBJECT: Amendment to the Relocation Assistance Payment Amount for NoFault Just Cause Evictions [Resolution] RECOMMENDATION:

That Council adopt, by reading of title only, a Resolution of the Council of the City of Santa Barbara Amending the Amount of Relocation Assistance Payment Previously Established by Resolution No. 20-084 for No-Fault Just Cause Evictions Pursuant to Santa Barbara Municipal Code Chapter 26.50.

DISCUSSION:

Santa Barbara Municipal Code Chapter 26.50 is a tenant protection law that is more protective than statewide regulations found in Civil Code § 1946.2. Chapter 26.50 was initially added to the Municipal Code by ordinance adopted on December 8, 2020, and recently amended to clarify the definition of “no-fault just cause.” Chapter 26.50 requires relocation assistance payments to tenants subject to no-fault just cause eviction. The amount of relocation assistance payments is established by City Council resolution. On December 8, 2020, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 20-084 establishing relocation assistance payment amounts for no-fault just cause evictions under Santa Barbara Municipal Code Chapter 26.50 at three times monthly rent.

On March 1, 2020, the Santa Barbara Apartment Association, et al. filed a federal civil rights complaint for equitable relief and damages in the United State District Court for the Central District of California against the City of Santa Barbara, et al., [United States District Court Case No. 2:22-cv-01315-SK] (the “lawsuit”). The lawsuit challenged Chapter 26.50 and Resolution No. 20-084. The parties desire to settle the lawsuit and resolve their differences without admission of liability contingent upon reduction of the relocation assistance payment from three to two times monthly rent. Council authorized settlement in closed session on April 11, 2023. Adoption of the recommended resolution will implement the settlement and result in plaintiffs dismissing the lawsuit. The settlement does not require any changes to Chapter 26.50.

Agenda Item No. 9
File Code No. 660.04
Council Agenda Report
Amendment to the Relocation Assistance Payment Amount for No-Fault Just Cause Evictions [Resolution]
May 9, 2023

PREPARED BY: Daniel S. Hentschke, Assistant City Attorney SUBMITTED BY: Sarah J. Knecht, City Attorney
APPROVED BY: City Administrator's Office
1 RESOLUTION NO.

A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF

SANTA BARBARA AMENDING THE AMOUNT OF

RELOCATION ASSISTANCE PAYMENT PREVIOUSLY
ESTABLISHED BY RESOLUTION NO. 20-084 FOR NOFAULT JUST CAUSE EVICTIONS PURSUANT TO SANTA BARBARA MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTER 26.50
WHEREAS, on December 8, 2020, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 20- 084 establishing relocation assistance payment amounts for no-fault just cause evictions under Santa Barbara Municipal Code Chapter 26.50; and
WHEREAS, on March 1, 2020, the Santa Barbara Apartment Association, et al. filed a federal civil rights complaint for equitable relief and damages in the United State District Court for the Central District of California against the City of Santa Barbara, et al., challenging Resolution No. 20-084 [United States District Court Case No. 2:22-cv-01315- SK] (the “lawsuit”); and
WHEREAS, the parties desire to settle the lawsuit and resolve their differences without admission of liability contingent upon amendment of the relocation assistance payment from 3 months as established by Resolution No. 20-084 to 2 months as established by this Resolution; and
WHERES, plaintiffs have agreed to dismiss the lawsuit upon action by the City Council consistent with the settlement terms.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA BARBARA THAT:

1. The following relocation payment assistance amount is established for no-fault evictions pursuant to Santa Barbara Municipal Code Section 26.50.020.

2. This Resolution shall be effective upon adoption and shall apply to no-fault just cause evictions commenced after its effective date.

Relocation Assistance Payments
All Rental Unit Sizes
Qualified Tenant
An amount equal to 2 months of the rent that was in effect when the owner issued the notice to terminate the
tenancy

CITY OF SANTA BARBARA

COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
AGENDA DATE: May 9, 2023
TO: Mayor and Councilmembers
FROM: Administration, Library
SUBJECT: Increase in Revenue and Expenditure Appropriations in the Library’s Miscellaneous Grants Fund from California State Library Grants [Resolution]
RECOMMENDATION: That Council adopt, by reading of title only, a Resolution of the Council of the City of Santa Barbara Authorizing the City Administrator to Prepare and File an Application for Funding and Take Other Actions as Necessary, Including Executing the Agreement, to Accept Two Grants From California State Library in the Total Amount of $1,490,826, and Amending Resolution No. 22-059 to Approve an Increase in Revenue and Expenditure Appropriations in the Library’s Miscellaneous Grants Fund in the Amount of $1,490,826.

DISCUSSION:

Santa Barbara Public Library is the recipient of significant grant funding for infrastructure improvements from the California State Library. On February 28, 2023, Council adopted Resolution No. 23-017 accepting two grants from the California State Library in the total amount of $1,490,826. The first Grant was in the amount of $1,449,989 to support the construction of the ADA elevator and to install fire suppression systems at Central Library, and the second grant was in the amount of $40,837 for a backup battery power system at the Eastside Library that will contribute to the Eastside Library becoming a resiliency hub for the community in times of emergencies.

As part of the release of these grant funds, the California State Library is now requesting that the Council adopt a subsequent resolution authorizing the City Administor to prepare and file applications for funding, execute the funding agreement, and submit documents and reports to the California State Library. They have also requested certification that the project will comply with any laws and regulations including, but not limited to, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), legal requirements for building codes, health and safety codes, the California Labor Code, Agenda Item No. 10
File Code No. 570.04
Council Agenda Report
Increase in Revenue and Expenditure Appropriations in the Library’s Miscellaneous Grants Fund from California State Library Grants [Resolution] May 9, 2023

disabled access laws, and, that prior to commencement of the project, all applicable permits will have been obtained.

BUDGET/FINANCIAL INFORMATION:

In addition, acceptance of these grants requires adoption of a resolution to increase revenue and expenditure appropriation of $1,449,989 in the Fiscal Year 2023 Library Miscellaneous Grants Fund budget for the Central Library infrastructure project and $40,837 for the Eastside Library infrastructure project.

PREPARED BY: Kristina Hernandez, Library Services Manager SUBMITTED BY: Jessica Cadiente, Library Director
APPROVED BY: City Administrator's Office
RESOLUTION NO.

A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF

SANTA BARBARA AUTHORIZING THE CITY

ADMINISTRATOR TO PREPARE AND FILE AN

APPLICATION FOR FUNDING AND TAKE OTHER

ACTIONS AS NECESSARY, INCLUDING EXECUTING THE

AGREEMENT, TO ACCEPT TWO GRANTS FROM THE

CALIFORNIA STATE LIBRARY IN THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF
$1,490,826, AND AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 22-059,

TO APPROVE AN INCREASE IN REVENUE AND
EXPENDITURE APPROPRIATIONS IN THE LIBRARY’S

MISCELLANEOUS GRANTS FUND IN THE AMOUNT OF
$1,490,826.

WHEREAS, at a meeting of the City Council on February 28, 2023, Council adopted Resolution No. 23-017 accepting a grant from the California State Library in the amount of $1,449,989 to provide support for the Central Library ADA access and fire suppression infrastructure improvements;
WHEREAS, by way of Resolution No. 23-017 Council also accepted a grant from the California State Library in the amount of $40,837 to provide support for the Eastside Library battery backup power infrastructure improvements; WHEREAS, as part acceptance of these two grants, the California State Library requires that Council authorize the City Administrator to prepare an application for funding and take such other actions necessary or appropriate to obtain grant funding and execute the funding agreement;
WHEREAS, in accordance with the City Charter, the City Administrator filed with the Council a proposed budget for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2022; WHEREAS, the City Council is required to adopt a budget before the beginning of the fiscal year on July 1, 2022;
WHEREAS, the City Charter provides that at any public meeting after the adoption of the budget, the City Council may amend or supplement the budget by motion adopted by the affirmative votes of at least a majority of the total members of the City Council; and WHEREAS, as authorized by Resolution No. 22-059, this Resolution approves the amendment to the budget as provided herein.

NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved by the Council of the City of Santa Barbara as follows:

1. On February 28,, 2023, Council adopted Resolution No. 23-017 accepting two grants from the California State Library in the amount of $1,449,989 for the Central Library infrastructure project and $40,837 for the Eastside Library infrastructure project, for a total of $1,490,826.

2. In accordance with the provisions of Section 1205 of the City Charter, the budget for the fiscal year 2023, as adopted by Resolution No. 22-059, is hereby amended to increase the revenue appropriation and expenditure appropriation in the amount of $1,490,826 in the Fiscal Year 2023 Library Miscellaneous Grant Fund budget.

3. That pursuant and subject to all of the terms and provisions of the California Budget Act of 2021, the City of Santa Barbara’s City Administrator, authorized representative, or designee is hereby authorized and directed to prepare and file an application for funding and take such other actions necessary or appropriate to obtain grant funding from the California State Library for the two above referenced grants, execute the funding agreement with the California State Library and any amendments thereto, and submit any required documents, funding requests, and reports required to obtain grant funding.

4. The City of Santa Barbara certifies that the project will comply with any laws and regulations including, but not limited to, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), legal requirements for building codes, health and safety codes, the California Labor Code, disabled access laws, and, that prior to commencement of the project, all applicable permits will have been obtained.

CITY OF SANTA BARBARA

COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
AGENDA DATE: May 9, 2023
TO: Mayor and Councilmembers
FROM: Engineering Division, Public Works Department
SUBJECT: Design Support Services During Construction for the Fiscal Year 2023 Wastewater Main Rehabilitation Project [Agreement]
RECOMMENDATION:

That Council authorize the Public Works Director to execute a City Professional Services contract with Water Systems Consulting, Inc. in the amount of $91,140 for construction support services for the Fiscal Year 2023 Wastewater Main Rehabilitation Project, and authorize the Public Works Director to approve expenditures of up to $9,114 for extra services that may result from necessary changes in the scope of work.

DISCUSSION:

Background
The City of Santa Barbara (City) owns and operates 256 miles of municipal wastewater collection system. The City uses an asset management program to inspect, manage, and maintain this infrastructure. This ongoing program includes performing routine inspections on sewer mains and manholes, using inspection results to prioritize sewer mains and manholes for rehabilitation and repair, and performing the necessary rehabilitation and repairs to bring the infrastructure to a good state of repair.

The City’s goal is to rehabilitate at least one percent, or approximately 2.56 miles, of the collection system each year as a part of the Annual Rehabilitation Capital Program (Capital Program). The Capital Program aims to minimize the frequency of Sanitary Sewer Overflow events and extend the life span of existing collection system assets.

These goals represent an ongoing commitment to maintaining a reliable and safe collection system.

Project Description
On September 6, 2022, Public Works authorized a contract with Water Systems Consulting, Inc. (WSC) for design support services for the Fiscal Year 2023 Wastewater Main Rehabilitation Project (Project). WSC was selected as part of a competitive Request for Proposals process and has provided design and construction support services for the Agenda Item No. 11
File Code No. 530.01
Council Agenda Report
Design Support Services During Construction for the Fiscal Year 2023 Wastewater Main Rehabilitation Project [Agreement]
May 9, 2023

Capital Program for the last five years. WSC has completed the design support tasks for the Project, which included the preparation of bidding documents for the rehabilitation of approximately 2.6 miles of the wastewater collection system.

The Project includes work at 54 locations throughout the City, with a focus on the Downtown, Eastside, Upper East, East Beach, and Oak Park neighborhoods. The construction Project was publicly advertised, and bids were opened on November 17, 2022. A total of four bids were received. The General Services Manager awarded a maintenance and repair contract for construction to the lowest responsible bidder in April.

Construction is anticipated to begin in May and last approximately nine months.

Design Support Services During Construction
Staff recommends that the Council authorize the Public Works Director to execute a contract with WSC in the amount of $91,140 for design support services during construction and $9,114 for potential extra services, for a total amount of $100,254.

Design support services during construction include the review of submittals, clarifications for requests for information, review and approval of contractor video inspections and completed work, and preparation of record drawings upon completion of construction.

WSC has provided a reasonable proposal to supply these support services and is experienced in this type of work and the needs of the City’s Capital Program.

Community Outreach
It is anticipated that there will be two methods used for community outreach during Project construction. Pre-construction notification letters were sent out in April, one month ahead of construction mobilization, to alert residents and businesses adjacent to work areas of the upcoming work. During construction, door hangers will be used to communicate with those directly impacted by the work, and traffic control will direct vehicles driving by the construction site. City News in Brief will also be utilized for periodic updates to the public.

Council Agenda Report
Design Support Services During Construction for the Fiscal Year 2023 Wastewater Main Rehabilitation Project [Agreement]
May 9, 2023

BUDGET/FINANCIAL INFORMATION:

The following summarizes all estimated total Project costs:

ESTIMATED TOTAL PROJECT COST:

Design Support (by Contract, WSC) $15,285
Design Costs (by City staff) $67,250
Subtotal $82,535
Estimated Construction Contract with Change Order Allowance $1,616,119 Estimated Construction Management/Inspection (by Contract, WSC) $100,254 Estimated Construction Management/Inspection (by City) $201,502 Estimated Other Construction Costs (testing, etc.) $5,500 Subtotal $1,923,375
TOTAL PROJECT COST $2,005,910
There are sufficient expenditure appropriations in the Wastewater Capital Fund in Fiscal Year 2023 to cover the proposed contract, including extra services.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:

The Project is exempt under the California Environmental Quality Act Section § 15302 (c). A Notice of Exemption was filed with the County of Santa Barbara on September 17, 2022.

WATER COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION:

This item was presented to the City's Water Commission at its meeting on April 20, 2023, and the Commission voted 3:0:2 in support of staff’s recommendations.

A copy of the contract may be requested from the Public Works Department for public review by contacting [email protected].

PREPARED BY: Brian D’Amour, P.E., City Engineer/CSW/rl
SUBMITTED BY: Clifford M. Maurer, P.E., Public Works Director APPROVED BY: City Administrator’s Office

CITY OF SANTA BARBARA

COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
AGENDA DATE: May 9, 2023
TO: Mayor and Councilmembers
FROM: Facilities & Fleet Management Division, Public Works Department SUBJECT: Amendment to Construction Support Services Contract for the Central Library Renovation Project [Agreement]
RECOMMENDATION:

That Council authorize the Public Works Director to execute a First Amendment to the City Professional Services Agreement with TynanGroup, LP for an increase in construction support services in the amount of $140,625 for a total not-to-exceed amount of $175,625.

DISCUSSION:

The Central Library Renovation Project (Project), located at 40 East Anapamu Street, is currently under construction with three separately permitted projects, managed under one prime contract. Due to several factors including design complexities, site logistics, and coordination with daily library operations and neighboring businesses, an on-site presence is required to coordinate and document construction activities to maintain Project efficiency and public safety.

An initial contract, within the City Administrator’s authority, was executed with TynanGroup, LP. The amendment is recommended for consultant services to continue, as needed, for the remainder of the Project. TynanGroup, LP was selected due to their experience with this type of construction, familiarity with local conditions, and availability to perform the required services.

BUDGET/FINANCIAL INFORMATION:

There are sufficient expenditure appropriations in the Measure C Capital Fund dedicated to the Project to cover the costs associated with the proposed contract amendment.

A copy of the amendment may be requested from the Public Works Department for public review by contacting [email protected].

Agenda Item No. 12
File Code No. 570.04
Council Agenda Report
Amendment to Construction Support Services Contract for the Central Library Renovation Project [Agreement]
May 9, 2023

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:

California Environmental Quality Act review is not required for the professional services provided under this contract.

PREPARED BY: Angela Oslund, Facilities and Fleet Manager/JW/sk SUBMITTED BY: Clifford M. Maurer, P.E., Public Works Director APPROVED BY: City Administrator’s Office

CITY OF SANTA BARBARA

COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
AGENDA DATE: May 9, 2023
TO: Mayor and Councilmembers
FROM: Water Resources Division, Public Works Department SUBJECT: Authorize Execution of Construction Management Contract for the Wastewater Small Diameter Closed Circuit Television Project for Fiscal Years 2023-2025 [Agreement]
RECOMMENDATION:

That Council authorize the Public Works Director to execute a Professional Services Agreement with Water Systems Consulting, Inc. in the amount of $292,965 to provide construction management services for the Wastewater Small Diameter Closed Circuit Television Project for Fiscal Years 2023-2025 and authorize the Public Works Director to approve expenditures of up to $29,297 for extra services that may result from necessary changes in the scope of work.

DISCUSSION:

The City of Santa Barbara (City) operates and maintains a 256-mile wastewater collection system with mains varying in size from 4 inches to 42 inches in diameter. The City expends significant resources to operate and maintain the wastewater collection system and has made significant progress in reducing sanitary sewer overflows (SSO). However, to optimize operation/maintenance and control costs, more information is needed on the condition of the entire system. To analyze and prioritize pipelines for rehabilitation, repairs, cleaning strategies, and maintenance workflows, an up-to-date visual inspection and condition rating of the remaining 225 miles of sewer mains of small diameter (4 inches to 12 inches) pipes is needed. This contract will support the management, review, and rating for the Closed Circuit Television (CCTV) for the 225 miles of small diameter sewer mains.

The City is currently enhancing the current CCTV program to ensure every sewer main owned and operated by the City is CCTV-inspected and rated using the National Association of Sanitary Sewer Companies Pipeline Assessment Certification Program (PACP) every five years. Before we begin the recurrent inspection of the wastewater collection system, a baseline must be established for every sewer main in the City’s collection system.

To establish this baseline, the City is implementing a three-year CCTV contract to video Agenda Item No. 13
File Code No. 540.13
Council Agenda Report
Authorize Execution of Construction Management Contract for the Wastewater Small Diameter Closed Circuit Television Project for Fiscal Years 2023-2025 [Agreement] May 9, 2023

and PACP rate 225 miles of small diameter collection system over the next three fiscal years (Fiscal Years 2023-2025). The contractor will CCTV approximately 400,000 linear feet (~75 miles) of 4-inch to 12-inch collection mains each year (at a cost of $500,000 annually), with an anticipated start date in May 2023. The General Services Manager is expected to award a contract to perform the CCTV inspections in April 2023.

The contract recommended in this report will provide construction management support for Fiscal Years 2023-2025 to the CCTV contractor to establish this baseline information.

Water Systems Consulting, Inc. (WSC) was selected from a competitive Request for Proposals process. WSC has demonstrated extensive knowledge and ability in this field and will be able to assist the City with the data and video management that will be generated by the CCTV contractor. Staff recommends that Council authorize the Public Works Director to execute a contract with WSC in the amount of $292,965 for these support services and $29,297 for potential extra services, for a total amount of $322,262.

BUDGET/FINANCIAL INFORMATION:

There are sufficient expenditure appropriations in the Adopted Wastewater Operating Fund Budget to fund the contract with WSC, including the extra services allowance.

SUSTAINABILITY IMPACT:

By visually inspecting the existing conditions of the wastewater collection system, staff will be able to accurately prioritize capital improvement projects and cleaning strategies and identify any cross-connections. Visually inspecting sewer mains is an essential aspect of preventative maintenance of the sanitary sewer system and supports the City’s goal of preventing SSOs. This allows City staff to respond efficiently and effectively, therefore reducing the occurrence of SSOs and subsequent threats to public health and the environment.

WATER COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION:

This item was presented to the Water Commission at its meeting on April 20, 2023, and the Commission voted 3:0:2 in support of staff’s recommendations.

A copy of the agreement may be requested from the Public Works Department for public review by contacting [email protected].

PREPARED BY: Amanda Flesse, P.E., Wastewater System Manager/lm SUBMITTED BY: Clifford M. Maurer, P.E., Public Works Director APPROVED BY: City Administrator’s Office

CITY OF SANTA BARBARA

COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
AGENDA DATE: May 9, 2023
TO: Mayor and Councilmembers
FROM: Water Resources Division, Public Works Department SUBJECT: Authorize Execution of a Professional Service Agreement with Alliance for Water Efficiency for a Water Affordability and Conservation Assessment [Agreement]
RECOMMENDATION:

That Council authorize the Public Works Director to execute a professional service agreement with Alliance for Water Efficiency in the amount of $70,000 to conduct a water affordability and conservation assessment.

DISCUSSION:

The Water and Wastewater utilities conduct comprehensive rate studies every three years with outside, independent consultants. Rates are developed based on the cost of operating, maintaining, and upgrading the utility systems. The City strives to develop fair and equitable rates that are based on cost-of-service while ensuring there are sufficient revenues to meet the operation, maintenance, and capital needs of the Water and Wastewater utilities. The Water Resources division seeks to evaluate the affordability of these rates for low-income residential households.

The Alliance for Water Efficiency (AWE) is an organization that works with water and wastewater providers to evaluate the affordability of their rates. They have conducted water affordability assessments for several municipalities including the City of Long Beach, the City of Detroit, and the City of Houston. Unlike previous studies AWE conducted, the City's assessment will also include the financial impact of water and wastewater services on multi-family residential households, rather than focusing solely on single-family residential households. This is a relatively new area of research and study, and AWE is the only organization that staff could identify that provides this type of assessment. The water affordability and conservation assessment will provide valuable insight into how the current water and wastewater rates impact residential households.

The study will also address how conservation and efficiency strategies can play a role in mitigating affordability challenges and provide suggestions for future consideration. Their assessment will characterize the financial burden water and wastewater services place on both single-family and multi-family residential households. Additionally, the study will evaluate water usage across residential customer classes and incorporate additional Agenda Item No. 14
File Code No. 540.01
Council Agenda Report
Authorize Execution of a Professional Service Agreement with Alliance for Water Efficiency for a Water Affordability and Conservation Assessment [Agreement] May 9, 2023

socioeconomic data for further affordability contexts such as household income, the percentage of the population below the federal poverty level, and the percentage of the population age 65 and older below the federal poverty level. The study will also assess water conservation impacts on water and wastewater components of the utility bill and evaluate conservation potential via replacing inefficient appliances, along with efforts to accelerate replacements such as rebate programs.

Public Outreach
AWE will participate in outreach and engagement with low-income stakeholders and advocacy groups to gather perspectives on water and wastewater affordability in the City.

The study is expected to take approximately eight months to complete. AWE will work with the rate consultant on incorporating the findings of the assessment in the upcoming rate study that will begin in fall 2023 for implementation in Fiscal Year 2025.

BUDGET/FINANCIAL INFORMATION:

There are sufficient expenditure appropriations in the adopted Water Operating Fund budget in Fiscal Year 2023 to fund the contract with AWE.

SUSTAINABILITY IMPACT:

The study will identify various water conservation methods that customers can utilize and the potential impacts on the water and wastewater components of the utility bills.

WATER COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION:

This item was presented to the Water Commission at its meeting on April 20, 2023, and the Commission voted 3:0:2 in support of staff’s recommendation.

A copy of the contract may be requested from the Public Works Department for public review by contacting [email protected].

ATTACHMENT(S): Alliance for Water Efficiency Water Affordability and Conservation Assessment Proposal for the City of Santa Barbara
PREPARED BY: Joshua Haggmark, P.E. Water Resources Manager/GC/lm SUBMITTED BY: Clifford M. Maurer, P.E., Public Works Director APPROVED BY: City Administrator’s Office
Date: February 10,2023
Overview
The Alliance for Water Efficiency (“AWE”) will research, develop, and create a Water Affordability and Conservation Assessment for the City of Santa Barbara (“City”). This work will produce valuable insights for water managers, community leaders, and others on how current water and sewer service-related programs and rate structures under the purview of the City impact the community, how conservation and efficiency strategies can play a role in mitigating affordability challenges, and provide suggestions for future consideration.

Water Affordability and Conservation Potential Assessment • Review and Documentation of Current Water Affordability Efforts in the City o Profile any current policies or programs that are being implemented to help lower utility bills and/or mitigate affordability challenges for water and sewer customers • Water Affordability Assessment using indicators put forth in the AWWA report, Developing a New Framework for Household Affordability and Financial Capability Assessment in the Water Sector
o Determine Household Burden Indicator (HBI), Poverty Prevalence Indicator (PPI) and Affordability Descriptors at the census tract level to characterize the financial burden water and sewer services places on single-family residential households in each census tract (e.g., low, medium, high)
o Can incorporate multiple years of analysis (including past and future proposed rate structures/billing data).
o Develop charts, tables, maps, and other data visualizations to support findings related to water affordability.
o Conduct additional analysis to demonstrate overall impact of the three services (water, sewer, and trash/recycling services) that are included on a single bill. • Evaluate Water Usage across Residential Customers Classes o Utilize billing data and census tract level income data for residential customer classes to characterize different usage patterns across different demographics or regions of the City.
• Incorporate Additional Socioeconomic Data for Further Affordability Context o Include additional metrics at the city and census tract levels, including household income, percent of population below the federal poverty level, and percent of population age 65 and older below federal poverty level. These metrics add further context to water affordability within the City.
• Evaluate Water Conservation Potential via Plumbing Fixture Stock Models o Estimate the number of inefficient appliances such as toilets, clothes washers and showerheads, using housing stock data, and any water utility efforts to accelerate replacements (e.g., rebates, direct installation programs)

ATTACHMENT
o Use inefficient fixture and appliance numbers to calculate water savings potential at the city and census tract levels
• Evaluation of Water Conservation Impact on Water and Sewer Bills o Quantify the estimated effect of water savings on affordability metrics by analyzing water and sewer rates alongside conservation-induced water use reductions. o Estimate how much money customers could save through the implementation of various water conservation measures.
• Evaluate Water Affordability in the Multi-Family Sector (unique to this project) o Evaluate billing data for a sample of multi-family accounts and compare to units in structure to help evaluate water affordability for select multi-family buildings. ▪ Comparisons will include buildings in different census tracts with varying socioeconomic statuses
▪ Results will be contingent on the availability of data about each utility account (e.g. number of units, disaggregation of indoor vs. outdoor meters, etc.) • Stakeholder Engagement Activities/Presentations (unique to this project) o Engage with low-income stakeholders and advocate groups to gather stakeholder perspectives on water and sewer affordability in the City. City will help coordinate invitations, document sharing/printing as applicable, etc. as the relationship building is ultimately between the City and its stakeholders.
o Options:
▪ Option 1 (Virtual):
• AWE will develop and serve as facilitator for up to two virtual meetings convening low-income stakeholder and advocate groups.
▪ Option 2 (Virtual and In-person):
• AWE will develop and serve as a facilitator for up to two virtual meetings and up to two in person meetings (if two can be coordinated within a single trip, otherwise just one in-person meeting). o Provide presentations to Water Commission and City Council. Results will be presented in a neutral research-oriented manner. Any suggestions AWE provides in the report are ultimately for staff consideration only and will be up to staff to advocate or recommend next steps as a result of the AWE assessment.
• Coordination with Rate Study Efforts (unique to this project) o Coordinate with City’s upcoming Rate Study effort.
▪ Option 1: AWE will deliver preliminary analysis and recommendations to the selected Rate Study consultant and participate in up to two meetings. ▪ Option 2: Option1 plus after Rate Study team reviews AWE’s preliminary analysis, AWE can further refine analysis and/or incorporate additional analysis into final report. Final timeline may be adjusted as a result. o Subject to timing and ability to coordinate with selected Rate Study consultant. • Final Report:
o Compile all information from above components into a single document.

City agrees to:
• Provide a single point-of-contact to work with AWE throughout project. • Ensure scope is properly vetted and finalized by all relevant parties at the beginning of the project.
• Participation in and help coordinate meetings with City staff. • Participate in and support in information gathering and data sharing. • Help coordinate acquisition of additional data as deemed necessary for assessment. • Help coordinate on stakeholder engagement efforts.
• Provide information and review in a timely manner.
• Allow AWE to publish a public-facing version of the assessment.

Budget and Timeline
Budget Options
Stakeholder Engagement Options
Option 1 (Virtual only) Option 2 (Virtual and
In-person)
Rate Study
Coordination
Options
Option 1 (provide preliminary
analysis)
$60,000 $64,000
Option 2 (provide analysis and
update analysis with input from
Rate Study consultants)
$66,000 $70,000
AWE adds a $5,000 contingency amount in case opportunities arise to expand beyond this scope that are mutually agreed upon by both parties and/or if data cleaning and analysis requires greater effort than initially budgeted for.

Timeline: (subject to change if both parties agree)
• March 2023: Finalize and execute contract
• April 2023: Kick-off meeting(s), preparation work, data-sharing agreements and transfers • May-July 2023: Data analysis
• August 2023: Review of preliminary analysis
• September 30, 2023: Draft Report sent to City
• October 15, 2023: Review due back to AWE
• November 15, 2023: Final Report sent to City
• Water Commission and City Council presentations TBD
• Stakeholder engagement timing TBD.
• AWE-member facing version of report may be generated outside of this timeline.

Contact
Liesel Hans, Director of Programs
Alliance for Water Efficiency
[email protected]

CITY OF SANTA BARBARA

COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
AGENDA DATE: May 9, 2023
TO: Mayor and Councilmembers
FROM: Administration Division, Parks and Recreation Department SUBJECT: Contract Amendment with Architectural Resources Group in the Amount of $10,000 for the Plaza Del Mar Band Shell Restoration Project [Agreement]
RECOMMENDATION:

That Council authorize the Parks and Recreation Director to execute a contract amendment with Architectural Resources Group for the Plaza del Mar Band Shell Restoration Project, Contract No. 26,895 in the amount of $10,000 for a total project expenditure authority of $100,852.

DISCUSSION:

Constructed in 1919, the Plaza del Mar Band Shell was designed by Windsor Soule in the Mission Revival Style and is a City Landmark. The Plaza del Mar Band Shell Restoration Project (Project) is rehabilitation work consisting of structural repairs, repair of the roofing and associated waterproofing, and exterior envelope repairs. The scope includes accessibility upgrades including a wheelchair ramp with access to the stage and a new paved accessible path between the ramp and lawn seating area, and electrical upgrades including new stage lighting and security lighting.

On March 30, 2021, the Parks and Recreation Department (Department) entered into an architectural and engineering professional service agreement with Architectural Resources Group (ARG) in the amount of $82,593 for the Project, and additional $8,259 was included in the contract amount to cover any additional costs that may result from necessary changes in the scope of work.

The project is currently being bid for construction and the building permit is ready to issue when a contractor is selected. The Project is Categorically Exempt under CEQA Guidelines §15301 for Existing Facilities and received a Coastal Exemption.

Agenda Item No. 15
File Code No. 570.05
Council Agenda Report
Contract Amendment with Architectural Resources Group in the Amount of $10,000 for the Plaza Del Mar Band Shell Restoration Project [Agreement] May 9, 2023

Prior to approval of the construction drawings, Public Works Engineering required plan clarifications that expended the $8,259 extra services contingency. Increasing the contract amount by $10,000 will allow continuation of services throughout the renovation process.

Regarding hourly rate increases, the Professional Service Agreement authorized on March 30, 2021, allows for reasonable rate increases. Construction of the project has taken a year longer than anticipated. The amendment also includes a revised hourly rate schedule.

BUDGET/FINANCIAL INFORMATION:

The existing contract including previously authorized extra services has a total amount of $90,852. The proposed contract amendment with ARG will increase the total not-to-exceed amount by $10,000 to $100,852. There are sufficient funds in the department’s Fiscal Year 2023 expenditure budget for the project.

A copy of the agreement may be requested from the Parks and Recreation Department for public review by contacting Rose Nevarez at [email protected].

PREPARED BY: Justin Van Mullem, Capital Project Supervisor SUBMITTED BY: Jill E. Zachary, Parks and Recreation Director APPROVED BY: City Administrator's Office

CITY OF SANTA BARBARA

COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
AGENDA DATE: May 9, 2023
TO: Mayor and Councilmembers
FROM: Water Resources Division, Public Works Department Finance Department
SUBJECT: Authorization to Establish a Low-Income Household Water Assistance Program [Agreement]
RECOMMENDATION:

That Council authorize the Finance Director to execute a Direct Payment Agreement with Horne, LLP, to participate in the Low-Income Household Water Assistance Program.

DISCUSSION:

The federal Low Income Household Water Assistance Program (LIHWAP) provides financial assistance to low-income Californians to help manage their residential water utility costs. With the LIHWAP program, qualified low-income households can apply to a Local Service Provider (LSP) to receive a one-time benefit payment (of up to $15,000) on their past-due combined water and wastewater bill, and benefit payments on current water and wastewater bills. The program includes all eligible low-income households, regardless of whether they are current on their bill or have a past-due balance. It is administered by the California Department of Community Services and Development under the Department of Health and Human Services. Applications and eligibility for the program are administered by LSPs. The LSP for Santa Barbara County is CommUnify.

CommUnify’s role includes customer outreach, intake, eligibility verification, and calculating the LIHWAP benefit amount. CommUnify has been releasing marketing materials within its service area to inform community members that the program has been expanded to cover utility payment needs in general, not only those that are past-due on payment.

Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, late fees and disconnections for water and wastewater bill non-payment in the City were suspended in March 2020. The City is working to reinstate late fees for utility bills in July 2023 and disconnections for water and wastewater bill non-payment in September 2023. Late fees and disconnections are tools the City uses to minimize outstanding balances, ensure compliance, and confirm that all utility bill payers are in good standing with the City. The City’s participation in LIHWAP ahead of resuming disconnections would allow eligible customers to address unpaid balances on Agenda Item No. 16
File Code No. 660.04
Council Agenda Report
Authorization to Establish a Low-Income Household Water Assistance Program [Agreement]
May 9, 2023

their accounts ahead of being assessed late fees or experiencing any disruption to their water service.

In order for the City to participate in this program, a Direct Payment Agreement (attached) must be executed with Horne LLP, the State’s third-party disbursement provider. This agreement will be effective through October 31, 2023, the current expiration date of the program. However, it is likely the grant funds will not be fully expended by this date, and the program may be extended. By executing this Agreement, the City would be obligated to apply and clearly label credits on specified accounts, receive payments, reconcile pay files, return credits unable to be processed, rectify issues, and designate a Project Coordinator.

BUDGET/FINANCIAL INFORMATION:

Currently, the lack of late fees and the disconnection process has amounted to large sums in arrears for both water and wastewater services. This program will reduce or eliminate arrearages and fund current water and wastewater bills for qualified low-income households. Customers will apply for funding through the LSP CommUnify. To be eligible, customers’ total household income must be at or below 60% of the State Median Income ($62,313 for a family of four), or a member of the household must be a current recipient of one of the following programs: Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program, CalFresh, or CalWORKs. Additionally, customers will be required to submit multiple types of documentation to serve as proof of eligibility. The maximum amount of the benefit payment for past-due balances of water and wastewater bills recently increased to $15,000. For current water and wastewater bills, funding amounts vary based on household size, income level, and average bill amounts.

To participate in LIHWAP, time from existing City staff is needed to apply credits, resolve issues, and communicate with customers.

This program is entirely grant-funded and does not require any additional revenue or expenditure appropriation from the City.

WATER COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION:

This item was presented to the Water Commission at its meeting on April 20, 2023, and the Commission voted 3:0:2 in support of staff’s recommendations.

PREPARED BY: Dakota Corey, Water Supply and Services Manager/TL Lyndsay Maas, Assistant Finance Director
SUBMITTED BY: Clifford M. Maurer, P.E., Public Works Director, and Keith DeMartini, Finance Director
APPROVED BY: City Administrator’s Office

CITY OF SANTA BARBARA

COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
AGENDA DATE: May 9, 2023
TO: Mayor and Councilmembers
FROM: City Administrator’s Office
SUBJECT: Storage of Personal Property in Public Areas [Ordinance Introduction] RECOMMENDATION:

That Council introduce and subsequently adopt, by reading of title only, an Ordinance of the Council of the City of Santa Barbara Adding Chapter 9.96 to the Municipal Code to Regulate the Storage of Personal Property in Public Places.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

The purpose of the draft Ordinance is to address the health and safety issues that relate to unattended or stored personal property in public areas in the City of Santa Barbara.

The Ordinance Committee discussed the proposed Ordinance on April 25, 2023, and subsequently voted unanimously to forward the Ordinance to City Council for introduction and adoption.

DISCUSSION:

Legal Considerations
The public streets, rights-of-way, sidewalks, paseos, parks and other publicly-owned or controlled property within the City should be readily accessible and available to residents, businesses, and the public at large for their intended purposes. The use of public places for private storage of personal property is inconsistent with use for public purposes and denies public use and enjoyment of public areas by exclusively occupying public property for private storage.

Unattended or stored personal property in certain public spaces threatens the health and safety of residents and visitors because it interferes with the safe passage of pedestrians and people with disabilities in the public right-of-way and can foster unsanitary conditions.

The needs of the public to access clean, sanitary, and attractive public areas must be balanced with the needs of individuals who have no other alternatives for the storage of Agenda Item No. 17
File Code No. 660.04
Council Agenda Report
Storage of Personal Property in Public Areas [Ordinance Introduction] May 9, 2023

personal property, and who reasonably need to retain access to a limited amount of personal property in public areas.

The City of Santa Barbara benefits from tourism, and often travelers of all economic means may be seen carrying substantial quantities of personal possessions. Therefore, the intent of this draft Ordinance is not to focus on people experiencing homelessness or to discourage tourism, but rather to maintain the City’s ability to preserve clean, accessible public areas and to address specific safety issues.

The draft Ordinance is also mindful that while the City is not required to allow the storage of personal property within its public open spaces, it may not discriminately remove and destroy that property. That was the central issue in Lavan v. City of Los Angeles (9th Cir. 2012) 693 F.3d 1022, in which the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that the removal and immediate destruction of a person’s unattended property violates the United States Constitution. The City of Los Angeles amended its ordinance in 2015 in response to the decision in Lavan (Chapter 56.11 of the Los Angeles Municipal Code) establishing a process to be used prior to removing or destroying personal property left on sidewalks. The process includes providing notice to the owner prior to removal and storing the property for a designated period of time prior to disposing of it.

A new case was filed against the City of Los Angeles in 2020, Garcia v. City of Los Angeles, regarding the storage of personal property in public places, and is still pending. The Garcia case focuses primarily on the immediate seizure and destruction of “bulky items” stored in public areas, with the Plaintiffs asserting that the ordinance is unconstitutionally vague and violated due process under the United States Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution and the California Constitution. The district court issued a preliminary injunction against the City of Los Angeles enjoining them from enforcing several sections of Los Angeles’ ordinance. However, the parties agreed to a Court approved stipulation dissolving the injunction by way of making several changes to Los Angeles’ ordinance. The City Attorney’s Office has reviewed the issues in Garcia, including the most recent updates to the Los Angeles Municipal Code, and has incorporated them into Santa Barbara’s proposed ordinance.

The Draft Ordinance
The Ordinance was drafted considering the Court’s decision in Lavan and the developments in the Garcia case. As mentioned, the draft Ordinance prohibits storage of unattended personal property in defined public areas. These include a public street, sidewalk, plaza, parking lot, park, beach, or public building. The draft Ordinance also prohibits the storage in a public area of excessive amounts of personal property that cannot be immediately moved.

The draft Ordinance excludes operational personal transportation or mobility devices, such as bicycles, walkers, wheelchairs, strollers, and scooters from the definition of personal property. Furthermore, the draft Ordinance does not impact personal property stored on public property pursuant to a permit, ordinance, statute or other authorization by City or Council Agenda Report
Storage of Personal Property in Public Areas [Ordinance Introduction] May 9, 2023

State. The draft Ordinance does not apply to private property. Finally, this Ordinance compliments other laws prohibiting illegal dumping or other public safety actions.

How the Draft Ordinance Works – Impoundment, Repossession, and Afforded Due Process Under the draft Ordinance, storage is generally defined as being in the same location for more than four hours. If after four hours written notice the unattended personal property has not been removed, the City may impound it and thereafter must store it for potential recovery for 90 days. The draft Ordinance provides that personal property may be disposed of immediately when the property is perishable or is contraband or constitutes an immediate threat to the public health or safety. Identification is not required to recover impounded personal property. The owner may claim the property if they describe the items or the location of where the property was impounded, or other identifying details. The draft Ordinance provides that no storage fee shall be charged for any impounded personal property. The draft Ordinance also specifies certain locations where property cannot be left regardless of duration, such as in travel ways. Property left in prohibited locations can be removed immediately.

The Ordinance sets forth the requirements for pre-removal and post-removal notice, which the City is required to use when impounding personal property that is unattended. The notice requirements are specifically detailed in the Ordinance. In addition to a pre-removal notice, the draft Ordinance requires that the written notice be left behind by City employees after personal property is impounded. The Ordinance refers to this as post-removal notice.

In certain circumstances, the Ordinance allows immediate impoundment without notice.

These situations include personal property: that does not allow for passage for people with disabilities; obstructs the City’s maintenance, cleaning, or other operations in public areas; personal property left behind in a public area after a posted closure time; property within five feet of an operational, utilizable entrance, exit, driveway or loading dock; and contraband or property that constitutes evidence of a crime.

The draft Ordinance also allows the City, without prior notice, to remove personal property that either poses an immediate threat to public safety, is left in certain specified areas like the travel way of streets and sidewalks or left in a public area with a posted sign that notifies the public of the area where unattended property is prohibited.

Signage
The City will provide signage specific to public locations where unattended property will be prohibited entirely without the need for additional notice prior to removal. These public locations may include public streets, sidewalks, plazas, parking lots, parks, beaches, or public buildings. The draft Ordinance establishes signage requirements, including a requirement for signs to be written in English and Spanish. Locations for placement of signs will be determined through consultation between the Public Works Director and the Chief of Police or their designee(s).

Council Agenda Report
Storage of Personal Property in Public Areas [Ordinance Introduction] May 9, 2023

Public Storage Outreach & Education
There will be a three-month period between adoption of the draft Ordinance and when enforcement will begin across City departments. The purpose of this period of time will be to facilitate:
 Coordination and education across City departments on the specifics of the Ordinance to ensure proactive and consistent enforcement; and  Collaboration with the Downtown Ambassador Program, Volunteers in Policing, and homeless outreach providers to help inform residents and visitors in the City of Santa Barbara of the new Ordinance and how they can work to meet the necessary requirements.

Additionally, there will be two, standard 26-foot storage containers purchased and placed on City property that will be secure, but also accessible. One container will be utilized by City staff to store impounded personal belongings per the draft Ordinance. The second container will be managed by City Net, the City’s primary homeless outreach and case management provider, to support people experiencing homelessness in storing their personal belongings that can be accessed by a Case Manager.

The City will continue to collaborate with City Net and other service providers to facilitate mechanisms in which the unsheltered population can access personal belongings that are important to them. The City also recognizes that a significant amount of personal belongings has often been the reason why an offer of emergency shelter or interim housing has been declined. We anticipate that helping to address this obstacle will create more opportunities for people experiencing homelessness to receive the critical healthcare and supportive services they need.

Enforcement
The Ordinance provides authorization to abate the nuisance created by storage of personal property through civil abatement (i.e. removal of the item). Enforcement of the Ordinance through criminal prosecution is limited only to situations where a person either obstructs a City employee from removing stored personal property or continues to violate this Ordinance after being given notice by a peace officer or other City employee charged with code enforcement and given a reasonable opportunity to abate.

BUDGET/FINANCIAL INFORMATION:

The estimated costs associated with the placement of each 26-foot storage container include a $60 flat fee along with a $110 per month rental fee. This equals a total estimated cost of $2,760 for FY2024. City departments will need to commit additional staff time to enforcement of the Ordinance, but total personnel costs are unknown at this time.

Council Agenda Report
Storage of Personal Property in Public Areas [Ordinance Introduction] May 9, 2023

There may also need to be adjustments made to the contractual agreement with City Net, the City’s primary homeless outreach provider, if the demand on their services for storage of personal belongings on behalf of clients increases substantially as a result of the new Ordinance.

ATTACHMENT(S): Draft Ordinance for Storage of Personal Property in Public Areas .

PREPARED BY: Barbara Andersen, Sr. Assistant to the City Administrator SUBMITTED BY: City Administrator’s Office
APPROVED BY: Rebecca Bjork, City Administrator
STAFF DRAFT 4/25/23
1 ORDINANCE NO. ______

AN ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF SANTA BARBARA ADDING CHAPTER 9.96

TO THE MUNICIPAL CODE TO REGULATE THE

STORAGE OF PERSONAL PROPERTY IN

PUBLIC PLACES

THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA BARBARA DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. Title 9 of the Santa Barbara Municipal Code is amended by adding Chapter 9.96, which reads as follows:

9.96.010 Definitions.

The following definitions apply to the interpretation of this Chapter.

A. CITY EMPLOYEE. Any full or part-time employee of the City or an independent contractor retained by the City for the purpose of implementing this Chapter.

B. ESSENTIAL PERSONAL PROPERTY. Any and all personal property that cumulatively is not more than four cubic feet in volume or an amount of property capable of being carried within a large capacity backpack, whichever is greater.

C. EXCESS PERSONAL PROPERTY. Any and all personal property that cumulatively exceeds the amount of property defined as essential personal property.

D. PERSONAL PROPERTY has the meaning as defined in Section 1.04.110 of this Code. However, for purposes of this Chapter, personal property does not include:

STAFF DRAFT 4/25/23
2 1. Operational personal transportation or mobility devices, such as bicycles, walkers, wheelchairs, strollers, scooters, and trailers attached to an operation bicycle.

2. Motor vehicles.

E. PUBLIC AREA. Property that is owned, managed, or maintained by the City, including, but not be limited to, any public street, sidewalk, plaza, parking lot, park, beach, building, or structure.

F. STORE; STORED; STORING; OR STORAGE. To put aside or
accumulate for use or to put for safekeeping, or to place or leave for more than four hours.

Placement of personal property for collection and disposal by a franchise waste hauler in accordance with Chapter 7.16 of this Code is not considered storing or storage as used in this Chapter. Authorized placement of personal property in accordance with posted rules and regulations for use of public areas is not considered storing or storage as used in this chapter. Moving personal property to another location in the same or adjacent public area within any 24-hour period, or returning personal property to the same block on a daily or regular basis, shall be considered storing and shall not be considered to be removing the personal property from a public area.

G. STORAGE FACILITY. Means any facility, whether operated by a public, non-profit, or private provider, that allows and has capacity for voluntary storage, free of charge, of Essential Personal Property.

STAFF DRAFT 4/25/23
3 H. UNATTENDED. Personal property is unattended when there is no person present who asserts or claims ownership over the personal property. Indicia of unattended personal property includes, but is not limited to, the act of leaving the personal property in a public area so that it may be appropriated by the next comer. Conversely, property is considered "attended" if a person is present with the personal property and the person claims ownership over the personal property.

9.96.030 Storage of Personal Property Prohibited.

A. It is unlawful to do any of the following:

1. To store any unattended personal property in a public area.

2. To store any attended excess personal property in a public area that cannot be immediately moved.

3. To leave attended or unattended for any period of time any personal property in a: crosswalk; curb ramp; pedestrian pathway; on- or off-street area designed or designated for parking of vehicles of any type; business entryway; bicycle lane; travel lane of any street; landscaped or planted area of a street or sidewalk; area within ten feet of a fire hydrant; railroad crossing, bus stop; or public area so as to obstruct City operations, including street or sidewalk maintenance, repair or cleaning.

4. To leave attended or unattended for any period of time any personal property in a public area in such a manner that interferes with an accessible pathway for persons with disabilities established under federal or state law, including the Americans STAFF DRAFT 4/25/23
4 with Disabilities Act of 1990 (Pub. L. No. 101-336), and California Civil Code Sections 54 and 54.1.

5. To store any personal property within five feet of any operational and utilizable entrance, exit, driveway or loading dock.

6. To leave attended or unattended for any period of time any personal property in a public area in such a manner that obstructs or interferes with any activity in the area for which the City has issued a permit.

7. To attach, chain, or tie any personal property to any public property, including, but not limited, to a pole, bench, news rack, bicycle rack, trash can, sign, tree, mailbox, or fence.

8. To leave any personal property in a public park, building, parking lot, or other facility during any time that the facility is closed to the public.

B. Nothing in this Section precludes storage of personal property on private property or on public areas when the storage authorized by a permit or license issued by the City.

9.96.040 Abatement of Stored Personal Property.

A. Personal property stored in violation of Section 9.96.030 is a public nuisance and may be abated as provided in this Section.

1. With pre-removal notice as specified in Subsection 9.96.050(A), the City may impound any unattended personal property stored in a public area in violation of Section 9.96.030. subdivision A.1
STAFF DRAFT 4/25/23
5 2. With pre-removal notice as specified in Subsection 9.96.050(A), the City may impound any attended excess personal property stored in a public area, stored in violation of Section 9.96.030, subdivision A.2.

3. Without pre-removal notice, the City may move and/or impound any personal property that is left attended or unattended in violation of Section 9.96.030, subdivisions A. 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, or 8.

B. Nothing in this Chapter is intended to preclude any peace officer or City employee from immediately removing or otherwise disposing of any personal property in a public area when the officer has reasonable cause to believe from the totality of the circumstances that the property presents an immediate threat to public safety, is evidence of a crime, is evidence in a criminal investigation, or is contraband.

9.96.050 Pre- and Post-Removal Notice.

A. Pre-removal Notice. Except when immediate removal is authorized by Section 9.96.040, unattended personal property stored in violation of this Chapter shall be impounded only after a pre-removal notice is left at or near the location of the personal property. Pre-removal notice shall be deemed provided if a written notice is directly delivered to the person who is storing or claims ownership of the personal property or is posted conspicuously on or near the personal property and the actual removal commences no less than four hours after the pre-removal notice is posted. The written notice shall contain the following:

1. A general description of the personal property to be removed.

STAFF DRAFT 4/25/23
6 2. The location from which the personal property will be removed.

3. The date and time the notice was posted.

4. A statement that the personal property has been stored in violation of the specific code section.

5. A statement that the personal property may be impounded if not removed from public areas within four hours.

6. A statement that moving personal property to another location in a public area shall not be considered removal of personal property from a public area.

7. The address where the removed public property will be located and may be recovered, including a telephone number and the internet website of the City through which a person may receive information as to impounded personal property as well as information as to voluntary storage location(s).

8. A statement that impounded personal property may be discarded if not claimed within ninety days after impoundment.

B. Post-removal Notice. Upon the removal of stored personal property, written notice shall be conspicuously posted in the area from which the personal property was removed. The written notice shall contain the following:

1. A general description of the personal property removed.

2. The date and approximate time the personal property was removed.

STAFF DRAFT 4/25/23
7 3. A statement that the personal property was stored in a public area in violation of the specific code section.

4. The address where the removed personal property will be located and may be recovered, including a telephone number and internet website of the City through which a person may receive information regarding recovery of impounded personal property.

5. A statement that impounded personal property may be discarded if not claimed within ninety days after impoundment.

C. A notice required by this Section shall be printed or written on durable paper or card stock not less than 5 inches by 7 inches. The pre-removal notice required by subdivision A of this Section shall be in English and Spanish. The post-removal notice of the address where the removed property will be located and may be recovered, including a telephone number and internet website of the City through which a person may receive information regarding recovery of the impounded personal property, and the warning that property not recovered may be destroyed or discarded shall be in English and Spanish.

9.96.060 Storage and Disposal.

A. Except as specified herein, the City shall move personal property to a storage facility.

B. Except as specified herein, the City shall store impounded personal property for ninety days, after which time, if not claimed, it may be discarded. The City STAFF DRAFT 4/25/23
8 shall not be required to undertake any search for, or return, any impounded personal property stored for longer than ninety days.

C. Any personal property may be disposed of immediately and without notice, when such property is perishable or is contraband, or constitutes an immediate threat to the public health or safety.

9.96.070 Repossession.

The owner of impounded personal property may repossess the personal property prior to its disposal upon submitting satisfactory proof of ownership. A person may establish satisfactory proof of ownership by, among other methods, describing the location from and date when the personal property was impounded from a public area, and providing a reasonably specific and detailed description of the personal property.

Valid, government-issued identification is not required to claim impounded personal property.

9.96.080 Unlawful Conduct
A. This Chapter establishes a summary abatement remedy for the unlawful storage of personal property in public areas. The civil and criminal penalties of Chapters

1.25 and 1.28 of this Code shall not apply to violations of Section 9.96.030.

B. Notwithstanding subdivision B of this Section, no person shall resist, delay or obstruct a City employee from moving, removing, impounding or discarding personal property stored in a public area in violation of Section 9.96.030. This subdivision may be enforced as provided in Chapter 1.28 of this Code.

STAFF DRAFT 4/25/23
9 C. Nothing in this Chapter shall be construed to authorize any activity prohibited by Section 7.16.060 of this Code. Nothing in this Chapter shall be construed to regulate storage of personal property on private property.

CITY OF SANTA BARBARA

COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
AGENDA DATE: May 9, 2023
TO: Mayor and Councilmembers
FROM: Planning Division, Community Development Department SUBJECT: Appeal of the Architectural Board of Review’s Project Design Approval of Development at 425 Santa Barbara Street
RECOMMENDATION: That Council:

A. Find the project is categorically exempt from further environmental review pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines, Article 19, Section 15332 (Infill Development);
B. Deny the appeal of A. Barry Cappello (representing Platform SB, LLC) of the Architectural Board of Review’s Project Design Approval of a development at 425 Santa Barbara Street; and
C. Direct staff to return to Council with a Decision and Findings Resolution reflecting the outcome of the appeal.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

The Architectural Board of Review (ABR) reviewed a proposed 19-unit, multi-family development at 425 Santa Barbara Street on five occasions: December 14, 2020, May 31, 2022, January 30, 2023, February 21, 2023, and March 20, 2023. The ABR granted Project Design Approval (PDA) for the project at the March 20, 2023, hearing. (See Attachment 2 for all ABR minutes.)
On March 30, 2023, A. Barry Cappello, representing Platform SB, LLC, submitted an appeal of the project (Attachment 1). Platform SB, LLC, owns the neighboring parcel at 126 East Haley Street. The appeal letter is consistent with public comment that the appellant previously submitted noting concerns about parking, the interior setback along the shared property line to the east, and the overall mass of the project. (See Attachment 1 for ABR public comment letters from the appellant.)
Agenda Item No. 18
File Code No. 640.07
Council Agenda Report
Appeal of the Architectural Board of Review’s Project Design Approval of Development at 425 Santa Barbara Street
May 9, 2023

It should be noted that the number of parking spaces and depth of interior setbacks are regulated by the City’s zoning code and are not within the purview of the ABR. While the mass, bulk, and scale is generally within the aesthetic purview of the ABR, Staff is recommending denial of the appeal because, as detailed below, reduction of the mass would most likely result in a reduction of density in violation of the State’s Housing Accountability Act. In addition, this project meets all other municipal code requirements.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION:

The subject site is zoned M-C (Manufacturing-Commercial) and is currently vacant.

Surrounding lots have single-story warehouses and offices. Across the street is a large parking lot serving big box retailers, including Smart and Final and Office Max.

The project proposes constructing a four-story, 19-unit residential apartment building comprising one two-bedroom unit, eight one-bedroom units, and ten studio units on a vacant lot within the City’s Priority Housing Overlay area. The project is designed to comply with the City's Average Unit Size Density Incentive (AUD) Program (SBMC Chapter 30.150) and California State Density Bonus Law (CA Gov. Code §65915-65918).

At base density, three units would be allowable on-site. With the AUD program, the number of allowable units increases to 12; finally, with State Density Bonus up to 21 units are allowable. In order to utilize the City’s AUD program the applicant must deed restrict 10% of the units to moderate-income households. Similarly, under the State Density Bonus Law program in exchange for an increase in density above what is allowed under the City’s zoning ordinance, the applicant must deed restrict 2 of the units as affordable to Very Low-Income Households for the proposed 35% density bonus. Consistent with the two programs, one unit (a studio) will be deed-restricted to Moderate income and two units (a studio and one-bedroom) will be deed-restricted to Very Low income1. The 19 proposed units range in size from 634 square feet (net) to 1,144 square feet (net) with an average unit size of 1,022 square feet (net).

Additionally, under State Density Bonus Law, the project is entitled to two concessions, which can be used to waive or reduce zoning development standards at the applicant’s discretion. A local jurisdiction may only deny a density bonus concession if the concession 1.) does not result in identifiable and actual cost reductions to provide affordable housing; 2.) would have a specific, adverse impact on public health and safety or on property that is listed in the California Register of Historical Resources, and which cannot be mitigated; 3.) or would be contrary to state or federal law. Early in the process the applicant requested two concessions; one to exceed the height allowed under the zoning code, and the other to reduce private open yard development standards for particular units. The height of the project, however, was subsequently reduced at the request of the ABR to meet the City’s zoning standards, and thus, this 1 Per the City’s Affordable Housing Policies & Procedures document, Very Low income is defined as 50 percent or below of the Area Median Income (AMI). Moderate income is defined as 80–120 percent of the AMI.

Council Agenda Report
Appeal of the Architectural Board of Review’s Project Design Approval of Development at 425 Santa Barbara Street
May 9, 2023

concession is no longer applicable. As required by law, the Community Development Director did approve the concession to allow a reduction in the minimum private outdoor living space dimensions and square footages for particular units, and to allow particular private open yards from different units to be connected.

DISCUSSION:

Appeal Issues
The appeal letter focuses on three key issues: parking, interior setbacks, and the mass, bulk, and scale of the project.

Appeal Issue 1 – Parking
In the appeal letter the appellant comments on the practical need to require parking for the development, and that the ABR should not have approved the project without parking, either on or off-site.

The number of parking spaces provided for a project is governed strictly by the City’s zoning code or state law, and is therefore not within ABR’s purview when considering the design of a project. This project is within the Central Business District, and therefore, pursuant to the City’s AUD Program, no parking is required and none is proposed.

Additionally, this project is consistent with Assembly Bill 2097 (2021), which prohibits agencies from imposing or enforcing a minimum parking requirement on residential or commercial development that is within one-half mile of a major transit stop. While this project was submitted prior to the effective date of AB 2097, the decision not to include parking at this development site is consistent with both city and state policy. Additionally, it should be noted that each unit in the project will be designed to include a private, secure, covered storage area that includes bicycle parking and is included in the calculated square footage of the unit.

The appellant also alleges that the “ABR should have, at a minimum, required the applicant agree to rental covenants limiting vehicle ownership to mitigate the neighborhood impact lack of onsite parking. Similar covenants already exist in a nearby Housing Authority project at 116 E. Cota Street to mitigate parking impacts.” The ABR, however, has no ability to condition how property owners regulate their tenants’ vehicle ownership. Even if such a condition available, staff would not recommend it because, unlike the Housing Authority who has the ability, through available legal channels, to obtain information regarding vehicle ownership, private developers/owners have no such ability, and verifying ownership would be virtually impossible, making the condition ineffective.

Council Agenda Report
Appeal of the Architectural Board of Review’s Project Design Approval of Development at 425 Santa Barbara Street
May 9, 2023

Appeal Issue 2 – Interior Setbacks
The appellant contends that the interior setback along their shared property line is insufficient for construction or maintenance of the proposed building.

Interior setbacks are a development standard regulated through the City’s zoning code, and not within the purview of the ABR. That said, it should be noted that this project is an AUD project adjacent to a non-residentially zoned parcel and therefore no setback is required. The proposal, however, includes an interior setback ranging from 1’-3.5” to 5’-

7.5” adjacent to the appellant’s property on the eastern side. The original proposal included a 1’-0” to 5’-0” setback, with the storage areas entirely having the 1’-0” setback; the current proposal has at least a 4’-3.5” except for the trash room at the front of the lot with a 1’-0” setback. Along the rear lot line (southern lot line), a 2’-9.5” to 7’-0” interior setback is proposed, and along the western lot line there is a 3’-0.5” to 19’-2.5” interior setback (to the stair enclosure). Fire separation and seismic separation requirements for new construction do exist, but such requirements can be engineered into shared walls or walls with almost a zero-lot-line. As such, the proposed interior setback does not present a building code issue.

At early hearings, the ABR directed the applicant to incorporate landscaping on all four sides of the project and expressed specific concerns about the courtyard’s relationship to the street, but not the proposed interior setbacks. When making the required Project Compatibility Findings at the hearing on March 20, 2023, the ABR commented that the “size, mass, bulk, height, and scale of the project are appropriate for its location and neighborhood” and that the project “includes an appropriate amount of open space and landscaping.” [Emphasis added.]
Maintenance and construction methods, as argued in the appellant’s letter, are not part of ABR’s purview. Furthermore, applicants are not permitted to utilize the public right of way for construction activity without the consent of the Public Works Director and the applicant will be responsible for determining how to construct the project utilizing the available private property.

Appeal Issue 3 – Mass, Bulk, and Scale
The appellant argues that the four-story proposal is out of scale with the neighborhood and cites the single dissenting board member who stated that “the project does not complement existing building, it is not cohesive in height, scale, or character.” The project, however, is located in the Priority Housing Overlay and is an area the City specifically identified as appropriate for increased density and has a maximum height allowance of 48’-0”. In early versions of the project, the applicant requested a height concession, using the State Density Bonus Law program, for an overall height of 52’-9”.

As the request did not meet any of the above state criteria necessary to deny the concession, the Community Development Director approved the height concession. The Council Agenda Report
Appeal of the Architectural Board of Review’s Project Design Approval of Development at 425 Santa Barbara Street
May 9, 2023

ABR expressed concern about the height at several hearings and encouraged the applicant to reduce the plate heights of each floor to lower the overall height of the building. The plans that the ABR approved on March 20, 2023 included a height of 43’-

8.5”; therefore, the need for a Density Bonus concession was voluntarily eliminated by the applicant as the proposal now meets the municipal code allowance of 48’-0”.

The ABR expressed concern about the overall scale of the project at early hearings, however, the concerns were related mostly to the height of the building and visual permeability of the project from the street. In response, the applicant made design changes throughout the process, including opening the courtyard to the street. At the January 30, 2023 hearing, the ABR specifically noted that the Board “appreciates the design changes to open center courtyard and the introduction of additional landscaping areas.” On March 20, 2023, when making Project Compatibility findings the ABR found that based on the prior changes the proposed four-story project was comparable to the other projects pending, approved, and built in the area. The Board also found that “the design of the project [was] compatible with desirable architectural qualities and characteristics that are distinctive of Santa Barbara and of the particular neighborhood surrounding the project, given that the larger neighborhood several blocks each way has eclectic architecture.”
For clarification, the following properties and the map below shows all pending, approved, and built AUD projects in the surrounding neighborhood. 425 Santa Barbara Street is represented by the boxed blue marker (meaning pending project) at right-center in the image. The other projects are numbered to show their location on the map.

The other four pending projects (shown with blue markers) include the following project descriptions:
 (1) Four-story 36-unit project (425 Garden Street),
 (2) Three-story mixed-use project with 26 units (401 E Haley Street),  (3) Four-story mixed-use project with 27 units (428 Chapala Street), and  (4) Four-story mixed-use project with 39 units (630 Chapala Street).

The approved projects (shown with green markers) represent the following projects:
 (5) Four-story 78-unit project (410 State Street), and  (6) Four-story mixed-use project with 34 units (219 E Haley Street).

Finally, the red markers indicate the following three built projects:
 (7) Four-story mixed-use project with 21 units (414 Chapala Street),  (8) Three-story, two-unit project (522 Garden Street), and  (9) Three-story mixed-use project with 23 units (800 Santa Barbara Street).

Council Agenda Report
Appeal of the Architectural Board of Review’s Project Design Approval of Development at 425 Santa Barbara Street
May 9, 2023

Figure 1: AUD projects in the surrounding neighborhood; subject project highlighted with the boxed blue marker.
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 Council Agenda Report
Appeal of the Architectural Board of Review’s Project Design Approval of Development at 425 Santa Barbara Street
May 9, 2023

The Project is subject to the Housing Accountability Act (California Government Code §65589.5), which provides that a housing development that is at least two residential units and meets all objective zoning and design standards can only be denied or a condition imposed that reduces density if written findings are made confirming that both:

A. The housing development project would have a specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety unless the project is disapproved or approved upon the condition that the project be developed at a lower density. As used in this paragraph, a "specific, adverse impact" means a significant, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable impact, based on objective, identified written public health or safety standards, policies, or conditions as they existed on the date the application was deemed complete.

B. There is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the adverse impact identified pursuant to paragraph (1), other than the disapproval of the housing development project or the approval of the project upon the condition that it be developed at a lower density.

This project complies with all applicable development standards listed in the municipal code, the City’s current objective standards. Any modifications to the size, bulk, and scale that would reduce the proposed allowable density, such as conditioning the project such that the fourth story is no longer possible, or shrinking the scale in such a way that would result in fewer units or bedroom counts, would be a violation of state law.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:

The project was found to be categorically exempt from further environmental review pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, Article 19, Section 15332 (Infill Development), which allows for construction in existing developed areas under certain criteria. The proposed project meets all criteria by  complying with the general plan designation and policies;  being located on a lot within the City that is less than five acres in size;  the site having no designated habitat for endangered, rare, or threatened species;  there being no significant effects related to traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality anticipated; and
 there being adequate public utility services for the project.

While the project is a Density Bonus project and inherently exceeds the allowed density of the General Plan designation, per California Government Code Section 65915(f)(5), “the granting of a density bonus shall not require, or be interpreted, in and of itself, to require a general plan amendment, local coastal plan amendment, zoning change, or Council Agenda Report
Appeal of the Architectural Board of Review’s Project Design Approval of Development at 425 Santa Barbara Street
May 9, 2023

other discretionary approval,” and is therefore considered compliant with the General Plan.

No significant project-specific or cumulative environmental impacts are expected as a result of the project. The project does not have the potential to damage scenic highways or historic resources, and the project site is not identified as a hazardous waste site; therefore, none of the categorical exceptions (per Guidelines Section 15300.2) apply.

CONCLUSION:

Staff recommends that Council deny the appeal, uphold the Architectural Board of Review’s approval of the project, and adopt the Board’s Project Compatibility Findings, as there is no specific adverse impact resulting from the project and the project meets all development standards, exclusive of the required approval of the open yard concession pursuant to State Density Bonus Law. Additionally, staff recommends that Council find that the project is categorically exempt from further environmental review pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines, Article 19, Section 15332 (Infill Development).

If City Council cannot make the required Project Compatibility Findings, Council may uphold the appeal and state the reasons why the required findings cannot be made. If Council does not agree with the ABR’s decision to grant Project Design Approval, the appeal may be upheld, and Council should identify the reasons. If the project is to be reduced in scale in a way that would reduce density, written findings consistent with the Housing Accountability Act listed above are required.

Whether or not Council chooses to deny the appeal or uphold the appeal, staff recommends that Council direct staff to return with a Decision and Findings Resolution reflecting the outcome of the appeal.

ATTACHMENTS: 1. Appellant Letter, received March 30, 2023, including public comment letters from Appellant, dated May 27, 2022, February 17, 2023, and March 20, 2023

2. Architectural Board of Review minutes, dated December 14, 2020, May 31, 2022, January 30, 2023, February 21, 2023, and March 20, 2023

3. Project Compatibility Findings (Municipal Code Section

22.68.045)
PREPARED BY: Stephanie Swanson, Associate Planner
SUBMITTED BY: Elias Isaacson, Community Development Director APPROVED BY: City Administrator’s Office
SANTA^BARBARA

COIVIMUNITY

DEVELOPMENT

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
630 GARDEN ST. SANTA BARBARA, CA 93101
Planning: (805) 564-5578 I Buiiding & Safeiy: (805) 564-5485

RECEIVED
MAR 3 0 2023
An appeal is hereby made to Your Honorable Body from the decision of ^y CLERK'S omCE

SANTA BARBARA, CA
D Planning Commission
Parks & Recreation Commission
Sign Committee
Single Family Design Board
Staff Hearing Officer
[7] Architectural Board of Review
Building Official / Fire Code Official
Community Development Director
Floodplain Administrator
D Historic Landmarks Commission
Which was taken on the 20 day of March , 2Q23_
1/We, the appetlant(s), hereby respectfully request that Your Honorable Body reject the decision and D Approve / [7] Deny the application or permit in question.

PROPERTY INFORMATION
Project Address: 425 Santa Barbara Street
APPELLANT'S INFORMATION - Appealed by Applicant? D Yes [/] No Name: A. Barry Cappello Organization (if representing): Platform SB LLC Address: cappello & Noel LLP, 831 State Street, Santa Barbara zlp: 93111 Email: abc@cappellonoel. com, riloyd@cappellonoeLcom^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ REASONS FOR APPEAL:

Explain specifically what actions you are appealing, and attach a copy of the protested notice, if applicable Grant of Project Design Approval
Describe the reasons or grounds why you believe the action should be reversed, modified, or otherwise set aside.

Include what evidence you have that supports your appeal. You may attach additional pages, if necessary.

Attachment 1
Signatur . Date: ^ . ?<^. 2L^
Community Deveiopment Depart:ment I Information & Application Page 5 of 5 ATTACHMENT 1
Attachment 1
Mayor Rowse and Councilmembers,
We represent Platform SB, LLC ("Platform SB"), the property directly adjacent to the 425 Santa Barbara Street project. On March 20, 2023, the Architectural Board of Review ("ABR") granted project design approval. (See Exhibit 1.)
Platform SB has standing to appeal, because it has participated in multiple ABR hearings raising the same concerns and questions upon which its appeal is based. Platform SB'S prior written comments to the ABR are attached as Exhibit 2 and are incorporated fully by reference.

Platform SB is appealing the ABR's decision, because the project is inconsistent with the Urban Design Guidelines; incompatible with the architectural qualities and characteristics of Santa Barbara and the surrounding neighborhood, and the size, mass, bulk, and scale of the project are entirely inappropriate.

As Board member Whelan summarized in his dissenting vote: the project does not corn lement existing buildings, it is not cohesive in height, scale or character. It's livability and quality of life for residents is uestionable if not negligible. " (Exh. 1 at 5, emphasis added.)
First, the cumulative impact of this project on the Haley corridor-an area that is principally one to two-story mixed commercial/residential with minimal access to public parking or public transport-cannot be overstated. Approval of this project would give a green-light to every property owner in the Haley corridor, including Platform SB, to build identical projects, without parking and expanded to the limit of the property lines. If this project is approved, Platform SB explicitly reserves the right to build a similar project with the same height, density and lack of amenities, and the City would be required to approve such a project.

However, is that really what the City Council imagined when it enacted the Priority Housing Overlay? The development of a massed corridor from State Street to Milpas of four (or more)-story buildings, built to the lot lines, with pre-existing business and homeowners left fighting with new residents for a diminishing amount of open space and parking? And yet the developer need only include a paltry three affordable units, pay a meaningless "in-lieu" fee and gets to build a nineteen-unit apartment building?
Further, the ABR Guidelines and Infill Design Guidelines1 (the "ABR Guidelines") expressly encourage and require developers to depart from the "required minimums", in order to achieve development that is compatible with the neighborhood. See e. g. ABR Guidelines at 3, 12,
In our written submissions to the ABR, we made a number of suggestions, consistent with the Guidelines, that would enhance and promote neighborhood compatibility, summarized below. Taking these issues into account, the project is not compatible with the neighborhood, and should have been denied. The City should therefore reverse the decision of the ABR and deny project approval. 1) Parkin Ini acts
The project as proposed includes nineteen units and twenty bedrooms, of which only three are designated as "affordable". The reality is 93% of US households have access to at least one car, the average American household owns at least two cars2, and that is who will be renting these apartments.

With this reality in mind, the ABR should have, at minimum, required the applicant agree to rental covenants limiting vehicle ownership to mitigate the neighborhood impact lack ofonsite parking. Siinilar covenants already exist in a nearby Housing Authority project at 116 E. Cota Street to mitigate parking impacts3. As Mayor Rowse aptly pointed out in a City Council meeting last year:
""People still own cars, and we can dream about
autonomous vehicles, you whistle and the car shows up or whatever all day long. . . Sounds great in a planning
document, but in reality we have people who are fighting each other for parking spaces."
Here, Platform SB has made very clear that it will not tolerate parking on its property, and that street parking is already at capacity. Yet the ABR has approved a project that provides the bare minimum of a storage unit per apartment (where residents supposedly will park their bikes), provides no turn-in for pick-up or dropoff, and offers nothing to mitigate the project's impact on the neighborhood. 1 htt s://santabarbaraca. ov/sites/default/files/2022-OG/ABR with Infill Final, df 2 htt s^/www.thezebra. com/resources/research/car-ownershi -statistics/ 3 See htt s://hacsb.or /sb-inde endent-housin -authorit -sna s-downtown-lot-insanta-barbara/ ("Like other Housing Authority projects providing transitional housing to homeless people, tenants living in this one will not be allowed to have cars."
This project is not on State Street, or State Street-adjacent. The alreadylimited parking will be further exacerbated when the Cota Commuter lot is replaced with the new SBPD headquarters. The MTD is struggling to provide adequate service and cutting routes, and to our knowledge, the "unbundled parking" touted by the City as a means to mitigate parking impacts remains a pipe-dream.

For all these reasons, the ABR should have found the project was incompatible and denied approval.
2) Lack ofAde uate Setbacks
During the ABE hearing process, Platform SB repeatedly stated that no access would be granted or available through its property, either for construction or maintenance, and suggested that a minimum five-foot interior setback would be appropriate. This was for the simple reason that no substantive construction or maintenance can safely or effectively occur using a three-foot gap sandwiched between a fourteen-foot wall and twenty-plus foot building side.

Despite this, the Applicant failed to explain how it will achieve either construction or maintenance of the project in such a limited space. Does the Applicant intend to use the public roads for staging? Where will the heavy equipment and construction materials be stored during construction? What will happen after the first floor is framed? Despite these clear and valid concerns, the ABR approved the project. The City should reverse that decision, and require the applicant to provide, at minimum, an interior setbacks of five feet or more, consistent with the City's residential zoning requirements. 3) Incom atible Mass Bulk and Scale / Desi n
As our comments to the ABR pointed out, the surrounding neighborhood is principally one and two-story mixed commercial and residential. The four-story project approved by the ABR, built virtually lot-line to lot-line, will tower over surrounding residences and businesses, and is inconsistent with both the character and style of surrounding building.

On this point, we concur entirely with Board member Whelan s characterization of the project in his vote to deny approval. Those same concerns similarly provide ample reason for the City to reverse the ABR's decision and deny approval of this project.

Thank you for your consideration and we look forward to presenting at the scheduled hearing.

Regards,
/s/ A. Barry Cappello
A. Barry Cappello
Cappello & Noel LLP
Attorneys for Appellant Platform SB, LLC
City of Santa Barbara

ARCHITECTURAL BOARD OF REVIEW

MINUTES
MARCH 20, 2023
3:00 P. M.

David Gebhard Public Meeting Room
630 Garden Street
SantaBarbaraCA. ov
BOARD MEMBERS:

Kevin Moore, Chair
Richard Six, Vice Chair
Lauren Anderson
David Black
Steve Nuhn
Dennis Whelan
CITf COUNCIL LIAISON:

Mike Jordan
PLANNING COMMISSION LIAISON:

Roxana Bonderson
STAFF:

Tava Ostrenger, Assistant City Attorney
Ellen Kokinda, Design Review Supervisor
William Russell, Assistant Planner
Mariah Johnson, Commission Secretary

CALL TO ORDER
The Full Board meeting was called to order at 3:01 p. m. by Vice Chair Six.

ATTENDANCE
Members present:

Members absent:

Staff present:

Six, Anderson, Black, Nuhn, and Whelan
Moore
Kokinda; Russell; and Mary Ternovskaya, Senior Commission Secretary

GENERAL BUSINESS
A. Public Comment:

Written correspondence from Scott Wenz was acknowledged.

B. Approval of Minutes:

Motion:

Action:

C. Approval of the Consent Calendar:

Motion:

Action:

Approve the minutes of the Architectural Board of Review meeting of March 6, 2023, as amended.

Anderson/Black, 5/0/0. (Moore absent.) Motion carried.

Ratify the Consent Calendar of March 20, 2023, as reviewed by Board Members Six, Nuhn, and Black.

Nuhn/Black, 5/0/0. (Moore absent. ) Motion carried.

Architectural Board of Review Minutes March 20, 2023 DRAFT Page 2 of 7 D. Announcements, requests by applicants for continuances and withdrawals, future agenda items, and appeals:

1. Ms. Kokinda announced that there is currently a special recruitment underway for the Single Family Design Board. There were two unexpected vacancies that opened up on the Board.

The recruitment will be open for a couple of weeks, and then City Council interviews will be held on April 11th. Appointments will occur on that same day. She requested that the Board Members refer anyone interested in the positions to her and she will make an appointment.

E. Subcommittee Reports:

No subcommittee reports.
3:15PM CONTINUED ITEM: PROJECT DESIGN APPROVAL

1. 604 E ORTEGA ST
Assessor's Parcel Number:

Zone:

Application NumberOwner:

Applicant:
031-172-002
P-R
PLN2019-00425
City of Santa Barbara
Justin Van Mullem, City of Santa Barbara Parks and
Recreation Department
(Proposal for renovations to Ortega Park. The project consists of the Ortega Park Master Plan, including a new swimming pool, wading pool with splash pad amenities, water slide, skate park, sports courts, shade sails, sports field with synthetic turf, and buildings for restrooms and maintenance. Site improvements such as fencing, parking, landscaping, dumpsters and related enclosures, and walkways are also proposed. The park is considered a Community Park (except the ballfields and related facilities), a Sports Facility (for the ballfields and related facilities only), and a Community Building (the Welcome House) per City Council Resolution 17-074.)
Project Design Approval is requested. Project requires compliance with the Project Compatibility Analysis and the following guidelines: Urban Design Guidelines, Outdoor Lighting Design Guidelines. Project was last reviewed on May 4, 2020.

Actual time: 3:07 p. m.

Present: Justin Van Mullem, Applicant, City of Santa Barbara Parks and Recreation Department; Elijah Pierce, RRM Design Group; Anna Schmitz, Landscape Architect, RRM Design Group; and Stephanie Swanson, Associate Planner, City of Santa Barbara Public comment opened at 3:25 p. m.,
The following individuals spoke:

1. Victor Reyes

2. Victoria Valente

3. MarkAlvarado

4. Andi Garcia
Architectural Board of Review Minutes March 20, 2023 DRAFT Page 3 of 7

5. Mary Turley
Written correspondence from George Nagai; Sarah Brasel; Paulina Conn; Lisa Ann, Chad, George, and William Kelly; Victoria Valente; Pamela Boehr; Chris Barros; Mary Jo Swalley; Anna Marie Gott; Victoria Valente; and Anne Pizzinat was acknowledged.

Public comment closed at 3:38 p. m.

Motion: Project Design Approval and continue indefinitely for in-progress review with comments:

1. The applicant shall return for an in-progress review to review refinements as suggested to pool buildings and central plaza trellis.

2. The Board appreciates the well thought-out design and appreciates the applicant's response to past concerns. The Board appreciates the care taken on the murals program, and the care taken on saving what is existing. The Board looks forward to the new additions.

3. The Board would like to see additional medallions on the fencing on the soccer field.

The Board would also like to see traditional finials on the fence posts.

4. The Board would like to see a more decorative pattern in the concrete in the central trellis area.

5. The Board understands that the pool trellises need to be portable, but would like to see the manufacturer's option for most traditional looking design.

6. The seat walls should have more detail, such as shadow line or molding, in order to have them be more traditional and less austere, as indicated.

7. The Board finds that the Compatibility Analysis Criteria generally have been met (per SBMC 22. 68. 045. B.) as follows:
a. The project fully complies with all applicable City Charter and Municipal Code requirements. The project's design is consistent with design guidelines applicable to its location within the City, with the caveat that the Board wants to see more traditional design in some features.
b. The design of the project is compatible with desirable architectural qualities and characteristics that are distinctive of Santa Barbara and of the neighborhood surrounding the project, for same reason as above.
c. The size, mass, bulk, height, and scale of the project are appropriate for its location and neighborhood, given the buildings are of modest size and scattered throughout the area.
d. The project does not affect adjacent Landmarks or other nearby designated historic resources. The project's location in respect to the Santa Barbara Junior High School is a significant distance away. Significant landscaping and grass areas are not going to impact the Santa Barbara Junior High School historic resource.
e. The scenic public vistas are not affected.
f. The project includes an appropriate amount of open space and landscaping.

Action: Six/Black, 5/0/0. (Moore absent. ) Motion carried.

The ten-day appeal period was announced.

Architectural Board of Review Minutes March 20, 2023 DRAFT Page 4 of 7 * THE BOARD RECESSED FROM 4:37 TO 4:40 P.M.
3:50PM CONTINUED ITEM: PROJECT DESIGN APPROVAL

2. 425 SANTA BARBARA ST
Assessor's Parcel Number:

Zone:

Application Number:

Owner:

Applicant:
031-271-008
M-C
PLN2020-00426
Edward St. George
Jarrett Gorin, Vanguard Planning
(The project consists of constructing a four-story 19-unit residential apartment building, comprised of one (1) two-bedroom unit, eight (8) one-bedroom units and ten (10) studio units, on a vacant lot within the Priority Housing Overlay area of the City. The project is designed to comply with the City's Average Unit Size Density Incentive (ADD) Program (SBMC Chapter 30. 150) and California State Density Bonus Program (CA Gov. Code §65915-65918). The units range in size from 634 square feet (net) to 1, 144 square feet (net) with an average unit size of 1 , 022 square feet (net). Under the State's Density Bonus program, the project proposes the following concession from City development standards: to allow a reduction in the minimum private outdoor living space dimensions for each unit and allow private open yards from different units to be connected. The project proposes no on-site vehicle parking. Each unit will be provided a private, secure, covered storage area that includes bicycle parking and is included in the calculated square footage of the unit.)
Project Design Approval is requested. Project requires compliance with the Project Compatibility Analysis and the following guidelines: Urban Design Guidelines, Outdoor Lighting Design Guidelines. Project was last reviewed February 21, 2023.

Actual time: 4:40 p. m.

Present: Noah Greer, Architect; Jarrett Gorin, Applicant, Vanguard Planning; and Stephanie Swanson, Associate Planner, City of Santa Barbara
Public comment opened at 4:54 p. m.,
The following individual(s) spoke:

1. Richard Lloyd
Written correspondence from Richard Lloyd was acknowledged.

Public comment closed at 4:56 p. m.

Architectural Board of Review Minutes March 20, 2023 DRAFT Page 5 of 7 Motion: Project Design Approval and continue indefinitely with comments:

1. The Board finds that the Compatibility Analysis Criteria generally have been met (per SBMC 22. 68. 045. B.) as follows:
a. The project fully complies with all applicable City Charter and Municipal Code requirements. The project's design is consistent with design guidelines applicable to its location within the City.
b. The design of the project is compatible with desirable architectural qualities and characteristics that are distinctive of Santa Barbara and of the particular neighborhood surrounding the project, given that the larger neighborhood several blocks each way has eclectic architecture.
c. The size, mass, bulk, height, and scale of the project are appropriate for its location and neighborhood.
d. There are no adjacent Landmarks or other nearby designated historic resources. e. The scenic public vistas are not affected.
f. The project includes an appropriate amount of open space and landscaping.

Action: Anderson/Nuhn, 4/1/0. (Whelan opposed. Moore absent. ) Motion carried.

Individual comments: Board Member Whelan stated that he does not believe that the project meets the Compatibility Analysis Criteria. There are areas without distinctive architecture structures. These areas should be designed to lead the area towards Santa Barbara's distinctive build environment. This project does not appear to be Spanish Colonial Revival. The project does not complement existing buildings nor is it cohesive in height, scale, or character. It's livabitity and quality of life for residents is questionable, if not negligible.

The ten-day appeal period was announced.
4:35PM NEW ITEM: CONCEPT REVIEW

3. 35 ANACAPA ST
Assessor's Parcel Number:

Zone:

Application Number
Owner:

Applicant:
033-112-002
OC/SD-3
PLN2021-00226
35 Anacapa LLC
JeffTheimer, Managing Member
Troy White, TW Land Planning
(The project consists of a new three-story development on a 0. 5-acre vacant lot located at the southwest corner of Anacapa Street and E. Mason Street. The proposal includes an airspace condominium map for development of one building consisting of two small, six-room hotels, corner market/bodega, a restaurant/bar, two tasting rooms, and 15 parking spaces. The project would require a Coastal Development Permit (SBMC §28. 44. 060); Development Plan (SBMC Chapter 28. 85); two Conditional Use Permits (SBMC Chapter 28. 94 and 28. 71. 030); and a Vesting Tentative Map (SBMC Chapter 27. 20).)
No appealable decision will be made at this hearing. Project requires compliance with the Project Compatibility Analysis and the following guidelines: Urban Design Guidelines, Outdoor Lighting Design Guidelines. Project last reviewed on November 15, 2021.

Architectural Board of Review Minutes
Actual time: 5:05 p. m.

Present:

March 20, 2023 DRAFT Page 6 of 7
Mark Kirkhart, Architect, DesignARC; Melissa Turner, DesignARC; Scott Capps, Landscape Architect, EPTDesign; and Kathleen Kennedy, Project Planner, City of Santa Barbara
Public comment opened at 5:19 p. m.,
The following individual(s) spoke:

1. Brittany Zajic
Public comment closed at 5:22 p. m.

Motion: Continue indefinitely to Planning Commission with comments:

1. The Board appreciates the applicant's design to minimize the mass, bulk, and scale on this property.

2. The Board appreciates the attention to materiality of this project.

3. The Board would like to see further study of the finishes to the materials and where they are located, in order to make them compatible with the industrial character.

4. Provide further study of the finish of the glass railing and the exact location where it will be.

5. Provide further study of the corten steel material and if it is laser cut, or show what kind of pattern it has to reflect the industrial style. Provide physical samples of the corten steel material.

6. The Board appreciates the significant reduction of the program and the massing since last meeting.

7. One Board Member is concerned about the west elevation and its visibility from certain places from State Street. It should be more of an appropriate background, such as the Bekins Building.

8. The Board makes preliminary comments regarding the Compatibility Analysis Criteria (per SBMC 22. 68. 045. B. ) as follows:
a. The project fully complies with all applicable City Charter and Municipal Code requirements. The project's design is consistent with design guidelines applicable to its location within the City, as this area is eclectic in nature. b. The design of the project is compatible with desirable architectural qualities and characteristics that are distinctive of Santa Barbara and of the particular neighborhood surrounding the project, as this area is eclectic in nature. c. The size, mass, bulk, height, and scale of the project are appropriate for its location and neighborhood. The applicant has designed the project to reduce plate heights and step the massing back at corners.
d. There are no adjacent Landmarks or other nearby designated historic resources. e. The scenic public vistas are not affected.
f. The project includes an appropriate amount of open space and landscaping.

Action: Anderson/Black, 3/2/0. (Six and Whelan opposed. Moore absent.) Motion carried.

Individual comments: Board Member Six stated that he is opposed to the motion due to west elevation and its visual effect on State Street and nearby surroundings.

Architectural Board of Review Minutes March 20, 2023 DRAFT Page 7 of 7 Board Member Whelan stated that he does not believe that the project meets the Compatibility Analysis Criteria findings a, b, and c.
5:05PM NEW ITEM: PROJECT DESIGN APPROVAL

4. 2940 DE LA ViNA ST
Assessor's Parcel Number: 051-122-007
Zone:

Application Number:

Owner:

Applicant:

C-G
PLN2022-00392
Daniel Zia
Lizette Elenes, ERA Architects
(Proposal for improvements to existing site and single-story office building. Proposal includes demolition of existing canopy roof and columns and demolition of storage buildings. Proposal for a building addition, new patio, new fence and gate, parking spaces, and landscaping.) Project Design Approval is requested. Project requires compliance with the Project Compatibility Findings and Urban Design Guidelines.

Actual time: 6:05 p. m.

Present: Lizette Elenes, Applicant, ERA Architects; Guillermo Gonzalez, Blue Studio Landscape Architect; Jordan Bottenfield, Design Consultant Bottenfield Construction Public comment opened at 6:15 p. m., and as no one wished to speak, it closed.

Motion: Continue indefinitely with comments:

1. The character of the wall and gate shall be less modern and more compatible with the character of De La Vina Street.

2. The gate itself shall allow for more visibility into courtyard, and the applicant shall also reduce the height of the wall to increase visibility into the site.

Action: Whetan/Black, 5/0/0. (Moore absent. ) Motion carried * MEETING ADJOURNED AT 6:39 P. M.

LLP
\ pp '
& NOEL

TRIAL LAV/YERS
A. Barry Cappello
May 27, 2022
Via Email Ozity
ABMSecretar, ' 'tfiSantaBa r|b>«u*a.C''A.<^-
Architectural Board of Review
David Gebhard Public Meeting Room
630 Garden Street
Santa Barbara, CA 93101
PLN2020-00426 - 425 Santa Barbara Street
APN: 031-271-008
Dear Board Members:

We represent Platform SB, LLC, the entity that owns "The Platform" office space located at 126 E Haley Street, directly adjacent to the proposed development at 425 Santa Barbara Street, and offer the following comments regarding the proposed development:

First, Applicant's submission for the 425 Santa Barbara Street development appears to rely on the collective amnesia of the Board.

On December 14, 2020, this project came before the ABR. Board members expressed concern about the lack of parking, and the impact on the limited street parking. The Board was also "very concerned" with the neighborhood compatibility, and concluded the project did not comply with either the Urban Design Guidelines or Infill Design Guidelines. Just eighteen months later. Applicant has re-submitted a project that is substantively identical to that previously submitted.

There is still no on-site parking - a significant concern given the occupants will inevitably own their own cars and need somewhere to park them. In an area with extremely limited parking already, the burden will fall entirely on neighboring residents and businessowners, resulting in hostility and discord. The lack ofon-site parking takes on particular importance given the recent announcement from the Santa Barbara MTD that it is reducing service, while at the same time, the Cota public parking lot is being removed with the anticipated development of the new Police Station, with no replacement envisaged.

S31 STATE STREET, SAN
TEL (SOS) 564-2444
RNIA 93 7 ABC(a)CA r ELLONOEL.COM
FAX (805) 965-5950 WWW. CAPPELLONOEL. COM
May 27, 2022

The Haley Street corridor is not State Street or State Street-adjacent, where there are multiple parking structures in close walkable distance. Nor is this Isla Vista, or Applicant s project at Beach City, where the majority of residents are students who can manage with bicycles. These are market-rate apartments designed for professionals who need and will buy cars, and need somewhere to put them.

Second, the exterior massing and visual appearance is essentially identical to that proposed previously, with the building set to tower over neighboring properties. The Haley neighborhood is almost exclusively single and two-story buildings, amply demonstrated by Applicant's plans. In fact, the only substantive changes to this project are to the interior floor plan, which shuffles the square footage and introduces two "tiny home" sub-300 square foot apartments.

Finally, the Board must not view this project in isolation, but must also consider the cumulative impact of other proposed AUD projects in the neighborhood, including but not limited to the potential development at 425 Garden Street project, which was roundly panned by the Board for its disregard for neighborhood impact and compatibility.

Our client is sympathetic to the concerns about housing availability within the City. However other AUD projects demonstrate a far more thoughtful and considered approach with appropriate deference and respect for neighborhood compatibility. For example, the 219 E Haley Project which came before the Board on March 7, 2022 provides 34 off-street parking units for the 34 residential units, and an architectural approach that limits the visual impact on the neighborhood. Just two days ago, the Historic Lands Commission reviewed an AUD project proposed for 1815 State Street, which incorporates private outdoor spaces, a measured architectural approach and includes a 16-space car stacker to support the proposed 16 residential units. These are the types of AUD project the ABR should encourage.

Ultimately the ABR should send a clear message on the project, just as it did in November with the nearby 425 Garden Street project. The AUD program serves a purpose in providing much-needed residential housing in the City. But it is not a "blank check" for developers to stack and pack four-story apartments to the curbside, without the slightest regard for the impact on neighboring residents or business owners. This project must be downscaled significantly, including appropriate accommodations for parking and consideration for neighborhood compatibility.

Regards,
^-s^-^^^y^^
A. Barry Caplxffio

CAPPELLO& NOEL LLP
From: Richard Llovd
To: Community Development ABRsecretarv
Subject: 425 Santa Barbara St (PLN2020-00426)
Date: Friday, February 17, 2023 12:41:00 PM
Attachments: 2022.05.27 ABC Letter to Planning Commission Signed.pdf imaaeOOl. pna
Dear Board Members,
We represent Platform SB, LLC, the entity that owns "The Platform" office space located at 126 E Haley Street, directly adjacent to the proposed development at 425 Santa Barbara Street.

We strongly object to the proposed development, and incorporate by reference our prior comments from May 2022 (attached), all of which apply equally to the current iteration of this project. In addition, we draw the Board's attention to the following specific issues:

1. The mass, bulk and scale of this project is completely out of character for the surrounding neighborhood. The four-story project, which still seeks a completely unnecessary height concession, will tower over the surrounding residences and businesses, and should be scaled back significantly. The fourth story of this project is particularly egregious - in "exchange" for just two mor^et-rate one-bedroom units, this project will significantly occlude the view of the Santa Ynez mountains for its neighbors, even exceeding the ridgeline.

H
B8
a
-}
a
.--u

2. As proposed, the North and West sides of the building have less than two feet of clearance to the property line. Platform SB LLC has no intention of permitting access, at any time, to the west side of the building, whether for construction, maintenance, or any other purpose. A minimum set-back of at least 5-feet should be required on all sides.

3. Platform SB LLC has strict and actively enforced parking and towing arrangements, in order to protect its business tenants. Any construction workers, maintenance workers, or tenants that park on Platform's property without permission will be towed immediately. The project's lack of parking should be considered with this in mind.

4. This project proposes nineteen units comprising twenty bedrooms, sixteen of which are market-rate. It is pure fantasy to believe the residents of these units will not own vehiclesstreet parking is already at premium, and there are no public parking facilities available. Even if tenants do use ride-sharing, or rent cars, where will they park to drop-off/load? What about residents with disabilities, or families with young children? This project, like the 425 Garden St project, simply builds to the limits of the AUD program, without a single thought to the impact on the neighborhood.

5. As part of the ADD program, the applicant is required to execute several covenants, including maintaining the units as rental housing and addressing affordability. See e.g. SBMC

30. 150.075. B. 3 [Rental Housing]. The ABR should similarly require Applicant to execute a covenant precluding vehicle ownership by its tenants, to minimize and mitigate the burden this project places on the surrounding neighborhood.

6. This project is a prime example of the complete failure of the City's AUD program. In exchange for adding a meagre three affordable units to the City's housing stock-two studii and a one-bedroom unit (applicant has chosen to pay a meaningless "in-lieu" fee rather than add a fourth affordable unit)-the Applicant will, without your intervention, be permitted to construct a four-story monstrosity, that shifts the burden of the inevitable parking and congestion issues onto its neighbors. That is unacceptable, and completely incompatible with the surrounding neighborhood.

It is vital that the ABR consider the impact of projects such as this on the surrounding neighborhood, both individually and the cumulative impact. If the project is not compatible, and will detrimentally impact the neighborhood, the project should be denied. Based on the above and attached, this project should be scaled down significantly, or simply rejected as proposed.

Regards,
Richard Lloyd
Cappello & Noel LLP
Office: 805-564-2444X217
Cell: 805-335-7772
Fax: 805-965-5950
Email: rllovdOcapDellonoel.com
The information contained in this message maybe legally privileged and confidential. It is intended only for the eyes and use of the individual or entity named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please immediately notify the sender by e-mail rilovdOcaoDellonoel.com. Thank you, your cooperation is appreciated.

CAPPELLO
& NOEL U.P

TRIAL LAWYERS
Richard Lloyd
March 20, 2023
Via E-Mail Only
ABRSecretary@ SantaBarbaraCA. gov
Architectural Board of Review
David Gebhard Public Meeting Room
630 Garden Street
Santa Barbara, CA 93101
PLN2020-00426 - 425 Santa Barbara Street
Dear Board Members:

We write on behalf of our client, Platform SB, LLC, the entity that owns the "Platform" office space at 126 E Haley St, directly adjacent to the proposed development.

As a preliminary matter, we note the Applicant has grudgingly revised its plans, apparently in response to public comment and Board members' feedback. We encourage the Board to continue its robust approach to ensuring neighborhood compatibility-a role which is crucially important when contemplating large-scale AUD projects that will fundamentally alter and shape the future of both the Haley Street corridor and Santa Barbara as a whole.

On that point, we remind the Board the ABR Guidelines' explicitly provide that the zoning ordinances do not govern the ABR's discretion, but instead provide a "development envelope" for the property. Even where a project complies with every zoning limit but is not compatible with the neighborhood, the ABR may find the project not approvable. See ABR Guidelines at 3.

Similarly, the ABR Guidelines offer specific guidance on AUD projects, and require that:
"[t]he characteristics of each project site and its context and surroundings must be evaluated to ensure proposed development fits into a neighborhood. " The Infill Design Guidelines similarly encourage design that, where necessary, departs from the "required minimums" to create a development that is compatible with the neighborhood. See ABR Guidelines at 12.

With these guidelines in mind, we offer the following comments:
. The mass, bulk and scale of this project continues to be out of character for the neighborhood. The Applicant's decision to simply omit the ridgeline from the Comparison and Elevation Render images is questionable, if not outright misleading. At minimum, the ABR should require the Applicant to provide updated images showing the ridgeline for a true "comparison."
' htt s://santabarbaraca. ov/sites/default/files/2022-06/ABR with Infill Final, df 831 STATE STREET, SANTA BARBARA, CALIFORNIA 93101-3227 RLLOYD@CAPPELLONOEL. COM TEL (805) 564-2444 FAX (805) 965-5950 WWW.CAPPELLONOEL.COM March 20, 2023

We note that the Applicant has increased the western interior setback to a little over three feet. That may be sufficient for an individual to squeeze through on occasion, but how does the Applicant plan to bring in equipment if more substantive work is required? At the prior meeting there was speculation that "they would find a way" for things to work. ot good enough. If this project was in a residential zone, a minimum five-foot interior setback would required-that is what should be required here. This is Santa Barbara, not San Francisco city center with buildings packed in side-by-side.

Regarding the lack ofon-site parking, we have made our record previously, and reiterate and incorporate our prior comments regarding the negative impact this project will have on the already-limited parking in the area. We understand the City has imposed an absurd "zero-minimum" parking requirement on AUD projects in the Haley corridor, without any follow-up or real plan to address the inevitable neighborhood frustration and friction.

Yet other projects, like 425 Garden Street, undertook to explore off-site parking partnerships, incorporated a cargo e-bike, and built a vehicle turn-in for passenger delivery and drop-off. None of these changes were "required" by the City's ordinance, yet the Applicant did so in response to ABR and public concerns about lack ofparkingactions that the ABR encouraged and approved. Where is that same neighborhood consideration here?
Similarly, Applicant has not explained how it plans to construct the building, using only a 3-foot interior setback and no on-site parking space. There will certainly be no street parking available-that is filled up immediately every morning by the neighboring residents and businesses. Will the construction workers be parking in the middle of the street? Where will their equipment be staged?
Once again, we reiterate the abject failure and lack of neighborhood planning that underlies the City's AUD Ordinance. For a paltry three affordable units and an "in-lieu" fee that will go nowhere, a four-story project is being proposed that will tower over the neighboring properties and set an unwelcome precedent for this neighborhood and the City as a whole. The ABR should exercise its discretion to the maximum extent possible to minimize this project's impact on the neighborhood. If that means denying the project and letting the City Council be the final decision-maker, we encourage the ABR to make that record.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Regards,
/s/ Richard Lloyd
Richard Lloyd

CAPPELLO & NOEL LLP
831 STATE STREET, SANTA BARBARA, CALIFORNIA 93101-3227 RLLOYD@CAPPELLONOEL. COM TEL (805) 564-2444 FAX (805) 965-5950 WWW.CAPPELLONOEL.COM December 14, 2020 ABR Minutes
(5:00PM) NEW ITEM: CONCEPT REVIEW

3. 425 SANTA BARBARA ST
Assessor's Parcel Number: 031-271-008
Zone: M-C
Application Number: PLN2020-00426
Owner: SBID, LLC
Applicant: Shelby Messner
(The project consists of constructing a four-story 19 unit residential apartment building, comprised of (1) two bedroom unit, eight (8) one-bedroom units and ten (10) studio units, on a vacant lot within the Priority Housing Overlay area of the City. The project is designed to comply with the City's Average Unit Size Density Incentive (AUD) Program (SBMC Chapter 30.150), California State Density Bonus Program (CA Gov. Code §65915-65918), and the Streamlined Housing Project Program (CA State Senate Bill 330). The units range in size from 489 square feet (net) to 995 square feet (net) with an average unit size of 608 square feet (net).

Two (2) of the units are proposed to be restricted to "Very Low Income" tenants under the State's Density Bonus Program; additionally, one (1) of the units is required to be restricted to "Moderate Income" tenants under the City's Inclusionary Program (SBMC §30.150.110), with an additional in-lieu fee payment to replace a second “Moderate Income” unit. Per the "Priority Housing" General Plan designation of the lot, 13.23 (14) units is the maximum base density (63 dwellings units/acre), with AUD and State Density Bonus, the 19 proposed units are allowable (90.48 dwelling units/acre). Under the State's Density Bonus program, the project proposes the following concessions from City development standards: 1) to allow a reduction in the minimum private outdoor living space dimensions for each unit, and 2) to allow the proposed building to exceed the 48'- 0" height limit for AUD projects in the M-C zone. The project proposes no on-site parking, and one on-street car sharing space on Santa Barbara Street. Each unit will be provided a private, secure, covered storage area that includes bicycle parking.)
No final appealable decision will be made at this hearing. Project requires compliance with the Project Compatibility Analysis and the following guidelines: Urban Design Guidelines, Infill Design Guidelines, and Outdoor Lighting Design Guidelines.

Actual time: 6:31 p.m.

Present: Shelby Messner, Applicant; and Noah Greer, Architect Public comment opened at 6:53 p.m.,
The following individual(s) spoke:

ATTACHMENT 2

1. Robin Donaldson

2. Michael Bishop
Written correspondence from Robin Donaldson was acknowledged.

Public comment closed at 7:00 p.m.

Motion: Continue indefinitely with comments:

1. The Board is concerned about the lack of parking and the impact on the limited street parking.

2. The Board is very concerned with the neighborhood compatibility of the project, understanding that the neighborhood is in transition, yet there needs to be more work on the massing of the building to provide a transition between the surrounding neighborhood.

3. Provide documentation, block long elevations, or three dimensional images so that the Board can understand the impact of the proposed massing.

4. Some Board members find that the internal courtyard scheme makes the mass of the building extreme, and suggests that other overall site uses and layouts be studied, such as collapsing the interior courtyard and accessing the units through much smaller or enclosed corridors.

5. The project needs to relate more to the streetscape as far as action, space, windows, etc.

6. Provide solutions to alleviate the height concession such as adjusting floor heights. With restudy of the interior courtyard, more outdoor living spaces can be accommodated.

7. The project currently does not comply with Urban Design Guidelines or Infill Design Guidelines
Action: Six/Moore, 5/1/0. (Olson opposed. Cunningham absent.) Motion carried.

May 31, 2022 ABR Minutes
(3:15PM) CONTINUED ITEM: PROJECT DESIGN APPROVAL

1. 425 SANTA BARBARA ST
Assessor's Parcel Number: 031-271-008
Zone: M-C
Application Number: PLN2020-00426
Owner: Edward St. George
Applicant: Jarrett Gorin, Vanguard Planning
(The project consists of constructing a four-story 19-unit residential apartment building, comprised of one (1) two-bedroom unit, eight (8) one-bedroom units and ten (10) studio units, on a vacant lot within the Priority Housing Overlay area of the City. The project is designed to comply with the City's Average Unit Size Density Incentive (AUD) Program (SBMC Chapter 30.150), California State Density Bonus Program (CA Gov. Code §65915-65918), and the Streamlined Housing Project Program (CA State Senate Bill 330). The units range in size from 292 square feet (net) to 1,163 square feet (net) with an average unit size of 645 square feet (net). Two (2) of the units are proposed to be restricted to "Very Low Income" tenants under the State's Density Bonus Program; additionally, one (1) of the units is required to be restricted to "Moderate Income" tenants under the City's Inclusionary Program (SBMC §30.150.110), with an additional in-lieu fee payment to replace a second “Moderate Income” unit. Per the "Priority Housing" General Plan designation of the lot, 13.23 (14) units is the maximum base density (63 dwellings units/acre), but with AUD and State Density Bonus, the 19 proposed units are allowable (90.48 dwelling units/acre). Under the State's Density Bonus program, the project proposes the following concessions from City development standards: 1) to allow a reduction in the minimum private outdoor living space dimensions for each unit and allow private open yards from different units to be connected, and 2) to allow the proposed building to exceed the 48' 0" height limit for AUD projects in the M-C zone. The project proposes no on-site vehicle parking.

Each unit will be provided a private, secure, covered storage area that includes bicycle parking.)
Project Design Approval is requested. Project requires compliance with the Project Compatibility Findings. Project was last reviewed December 14, 2020.

Actual time: 3:07 p.m.

Present: Jarrett Gorin, Applicant, Vanguard Planning; Noah Greer, Architect, ONDesign Architects; and Allison DeBusk, Senior Planner, City of Santa Barbara
Staff comments: Ms. DeBusk stated that the project is proposed under state density bonus law, and it is confirmed that the density complies. City Zoning rules state that no parking is required in the Central Business District, and this property is located within this district. As a density bonus project with the very low income affordable units, they are entitled to two concessions. The applicant is requesting two concessions, one related to open space and one related to the building height.

There is an ability to exceed the 48-foot height without a concession, as the City has a process for that for community benefit housing, which this project would qualify for. The storage unit space has been accounted for within the average unit size of each unit.

Public comment opened at 3:26 p.m.,
The following individual(s) spoke:

1. Richard Lloyd
Written correspondence from Pete Feldman, A. Barry Cappello on behalf of Platform SB, LLC, and Robin Donaldson was acknowledged.

Public comment closed at 3:29 p.m.

Straw vote: How many Board Members feel that the exterior design/style is appropriate? 2/4 Failed.

Motion: Continue four weeks with comments:

1. The Board at this time cannot find neighborhood compatibility and would suggest the following:
a. Change or revise the styling of the exterior of the building to be not so purely Spanish detailed as shown.
b. There should be an attempt to take that new style choice and find ways to minimize the massing, in particular the
opaqueness of the perimeter wall and opaqueness of the
balconies.
c. Applicant shall find ways to open the courtyard to the street with a much more transparent architecture.
d. The next iteration shall show the electrical transformer and have it be well integrated into the architecture.
e. Make every effort to increase the perimeter landscaping on all four sides, as feasible.

Action: Six/Anderson, 5/1/0. (Olson opposed. Whelan absent.) Motion carried.

Individual comments: Board Member Olson stated that his vote could be swayed next time if the applicant provides lower plate heights.

January 30, 2023 ABR Minutes
(9:30AM) CONTINUED ITEM: PROJECT DESIGN APPROVAL

3. 425 SANTA BARBARA ST
Assessor's Parcel Number: 031-271-008
Zone: M-C
Application Number: PLN2020-00426
Owner: Edward St. George
Applicant: Jarrett Gorin, Vanguard Planning
(The project consists of constructing a four-story 19-unit residential apartment building, comprised of one (1) two-bedroom unit, eight (8) one-bedroom units and ten (10) studio units, on a vacant lot within the Priority Housing Overlay area of the City. The project is designed to comply with the City's Average Unit Size Density Incentive (AUD) Program (SBMC Chapter 30.150) and California State Density Bonus Program (CA Gov. Code §65915-65918).The units range in size from 370 square feet (net) to 1,144 square feet (net) with an average unit size of 634 square feet (net). Under the State's Density Bonus program, the project proposes the following concessions from City development standards: 1) to allow a reduction in the minimum private outdoor living space dimensions for each unit and allow private open yards from different units to be connected, and 2) to allow the proposed building to exceed the 48'-0" height limit for AUD projects in the MC zone. The project proposes no on-site vehicle parking. Each unit will be provided a private, secure, covered storage area that includes bicycle parking and is included in the calculated square footage of the unit.) Project Design Approval is requested. Project requires compliance with the Project Compatibility Findings. Project was last reviewed May 31, 2022.

Actual time: 9:18 a.m.

Present: Jarrett Gorin, Applicant, Vanguard Planning; Noah Greer, Architect, Manual Labor; and Stephanie Swanson, Project Planner, The City of Santa Barbara
Public comment opened at 9:30 a.m.,
The following individual spoke:

1. Sheila Lodge
Public comment closed at 9:32 a.m.

Straw vote: How many Board Members can support Project Design Approval? 1/5 Failed
Motion: Continue to February 21st with the following comments:

1. The Board appreciates the change in stylistic direction and feel that the general style and design proposed is appropriate for the location.

2. The Applicant shall study the reduction of plate heights to 9 ft on floors two through four.

3. The Applicant shall reduce the fourth-floor parapet height to the minimum required.

4. The Applicant shall study the south elevation and provide a break at the front unit along the third-floor parapet to visual reduce the mass of the building, as well as study the reduction of the unit’s trellis element.

5. The Applicant shall study the treatment of the east elevation and corner balcony units to reduce the overall mass and bulk in those areas.

6. The Board appreciates the design changes to open center courtyard and the introduction of additional landscaping areas.

Action: Moore/Six, 5/1/0. (Whelan opposed.) Motion carried.

Individual comments: Board Member Whelan stated that he disagrees with the comments regarding change in stylistic direction and the opening of the courtyard.

February 21, 2023 ABR Minutes
(3:15PM) CONTINUED ITEM: PROJECT DESIGN APPROVAL

1. 425 SANTA BARBARA ST
Assessor's Parcel Number: 031-271-008
Zone: M-C
Application Number: PLN2020-00426
Owner: Edward St. George
Applicant: Jarrett Gorin, Vanguard Planning
(The project consists of constructing a four-story 19-unit residential apartment building, comprised of one (1) two-bedroom unit, eight (8) one-bedroom units and ten (10) studio units, on a vacant lot within the Priority Housing Overlay area of the City. The project is designed to comply with the City's Average Unit Size Density Incentive (AUD) Program (SBMC Chapter 30.150) and California State Density Bonus Program (CA Gov. Code §65915-65918). The units range in size from 370 square feet (net) to 1,144 square feet (net) with an average unit size of 634 square feet (net). Under the State's Density Bonus program, the project proposes the following concession from City development standards: to allow a reduction in the minimum private outdoor living space dimensions for each unit and allow private open yards from different units to be connected. The project proposes no on-site vehicle parking. Each unit will be provided a private, secure, covered storage area that includes bicycle parking and is included in the calculated square footage of the unit.)
Project Design Approval is requested. Project requires compliance with the Project Compatibility Findings. Project was last reviewed January 30, 2023.

Actual time: 3:06 p.m.

Present: Jarrett Gorin, Applicant, Vanguard Planning; Noah Greer, Architect, Manual Labor; Sam Maphis, Landscape Architect, Earthform Design; and Allison DeBusk, Development Review Supervisor, City of Santa Barbara
Public comment opened at 3:19 p.m.,
The following individuals spoke:

2. Richard Lloyd
Written correspondence from Richard Lloyd and Paulina Conn was acknowledged.

Public comment closed at 3:22 p.m.

Straw vote: How many Board Members can support Project Design Approval as presented? 0/5 Failed
Motion: Continue indefinitely with comments:

2. The Board finds the height unacceptable as proposed.

3. The roof parapet shall be reduced to the greatest extent feasible.

4. The floor to ceiling heights on levels two, three, and four shall be reduced to 9ft.

5. The Board appreciates the reductions in massing that the Applicant has made.

6. Continue to add landscaping as discussed.

7. The Board suggests to add additional warmth in detailing and materials throughout the project.

Action: Moore/Six, 5/1/0. (Whelan opposed.) Motion carried.

Individual comments: Board Member Whelan stated that he believes the project does not meet compatibility guidelines.

March 20, 2023 ABR Minutes
(3:50PM) CONTINUED ITEM: PROJECT DESIGN APPROVAL

2. 425 SANTA BARBARA ST
Assessor's Parcel Number: 031-271-008
Zone: M-C
Application Number: PLN2020-00426
Owner: Edward St. George
Applicant: Jarrett Gorin, Vanguard Planning
(The project consists of constructing a four-story 19-unit residential apartment building, comprised of one (1) two-bedroom unit, eight (8) one-bedroom units and ten (10) studio units, on a vacant lot within the Priority Housing Overlay area of the City. The project is designed to comply with the City's Average Unit Size Density Incentive (AUD) Program (SBMC Chapter 30.150) and California State Density Bonus Program (CA Gov. Code §65915-65918). The units range in size from 634 square feet (net) to 1,144 square feet (net) with an average unit size of 1,022 square feet (net). Under the State's Density Bonus program, the project proposes the following concession from City development standards: to allow a reduction in the minimum private outdoor living space dimensions for each unit and allow private open yards from different units to be connected. The project proposes no on-site vehicle parking. Each unit will be provided a private, secure, covered storage area that includes bicycle parking and is included in the calculated square footage of the unit.)
Project Design Approval is requested. Project requires compliance with the Project Compatibility Analysis and the following guidelines: Urban Design Guidelines, Outdoor Lighting Design Guidelines. Project was last reviewed February 21, 2023.

Actual time: 4:40 p.m.

Present: Noah Greer, Architect; Jarrett Gorin, Applicant, Vanguard Planning; and Stephanie Swanson, Associate Planner, City of Santa Barbara Public comment opened at 4:54 p.m.,
The following individual(s) spoke:

1. Richard Lloyd
Written correspondence from Richard Lloyd was acknowledged.

Public comment closed at 4:56 p.m.

Motion: Project Design Approval and continue indefinitely with comments:

1. The Board finds that the Compatibility Analysis Criteria generally have been met (per SBMC 22.68.045.B.) as follows:
a. The project fully complies with all applicable City Charter and Municipal Code requirements. The project’s design is
consistent with design guidelines applicable to its location within the City.
b. The design of the project is compatible with desirable architectural qualities and characteristics that are distinctive of Santa Barbara and of the particular neighborhood
surrounding the project, given that the larger neighborhood several blocks each way has eclectic architecture.
c. The size, mass, bulk, height, and scale of the project are appropriate for its location and neighborhood.
d. There are no adjacent Landmarks or other nearby
designated historic resources.
e. The scenic public vistas are not affected.
f. The project includes an appropriate amount of open space and landscaping.

Action: Anderson/Nuhn, 4/1/0. (Whelan opposed. Moore absent.) Motion carried.

Individual comments: Board Member Whelan stated that he does not believe that the project meets the Compatibility Analysis Criteria. There are areas without distinctive architecture structures. These areas should be designed to lead the area towards Santa Barbara’s distinctive build environment. This project does not appear to be Spanish Colonial Revival. The project does not complement existing buildings nor is it cohesive in height, scale, or character. It’s livability and quality of life for residents is questionable, if not negligible.

The ten-day appeal period was announced.

22.68.045 Project Compatibility Analysis.

A. PURPOSE. The purpose of this section is to promote effective and appropriate communication between the Architectural Board of Review and the Planning Commission (or the Staff Hearing Officer) in the review of development projects and in order to promote consistency between the City land use decision making process and the City design review process as well as to show appropriate concern for preserving the historic character of certain areas of the City.

B. PROJECT COMPATIBILITY FINDINGS. In addition to any other considerations and requirements specified in this code, the following findings shall be considered by the Architectural Board of Review when it reviews and approves or disapproves the design of a proposed development project in a noticed public hearing pursuant to the requirements of Chapter 22.68:

1. Consistency with Design Guidelines. The design of the project is consistent with design guidelines applicable to the location of the project within the City.

2. Compatible with Architectural Character of City and Neighborhood. The design of the project is compatible with the desirable architectural qualities and characteristics which are distinctive of Santa Barbara and of the particular neighborhood surrounding the project.

3. Appropriate size, mass, bulk, height, and scale. The size, mass, bulk, height, and scale of the project is appropriate for its location and its neighborhood.

4. Sensitivity to Adjacent Landmarks and Historic Resources. The design of the project is appropriately sensitive to adjacent Federal, State, and City Landmarks and other nearby designated historic resources, including City structures of merit, sites, or natural features.

5. Public Views of the Ocean and Mountains. The design of the project responds appropriately to established scenic public vistas.

6. Use of Open Space and Landscaping. The project includes an appropriate amount of open space and landscaping.

C. REVIEW PROCEDURES.

1. Projects with Design Review Only. If a project only requires design review by the Architectural Board of Review pursuant to the provisions of this chapter and does not require some form of discretionary land use approval, the Architectural Board of Review shall consider the applicable Project ATTACHMENT 3
Compatibility Findings during the course of its review prior to granting an approval, denial or continuance of project design approval for the project.

2. Projects with Design Review and Other Discretionary Approvals. If, in addition to design review by the Architectural Board of Review, a project requires a discretionary land use approval (either from the Staff Hearing Officer, the Planning Commission, or the City Council), the Architectural Board of Review shall review and discuss the applicable Project Compatibility Findings during its conceptual review of the project and shall provide its comments on those findings as part of the minutes of the Board decision forwarded to the Staff Hearing Officer, the Planning Commission, or the City Council (as applicable). (Ord. 6003, 2021; Ord. 5464, 2008)

ANCUARD
. PLANNING

ACQUISITION I DESIGN I ENTITLEMENT

RECEIVED
MAY -2 2023
May 2, 2023 cnv CLERK'S OFFICE Page 1 of 4
SANTA BARBARA. CA
Mayor Randy Rowse & City Council Members
c/o City Clerk's Office
735 Anacapa Street
Santa Barbara, CA 93101-2203
Hand Delivered
RE: Response to Appeal of Architectural Board of Review Approval of Multifamily Housing 425 Santa Barbara Street (Case No. PLN2020-00426)
Mayor and Councilmembers:

Vanguard Planning Inc. represents Edward St. George (the "Applicant") the applicant for a nineteen unit apartment development (the "Project") proposed under the City of Santa Barbara (the "City") Average Unit Density Incentive Program (hereinafter "ADD") on the above referenced property. One moderate income affordable unit (per City inclusionary requirements) and two very-low income affordable units (per the State Density Bonus Program) are included.

This is a response to the appeal dated March 30, 2023 (the "Appeal") of the Architectural Board of Review (the "ABR") action to grant Project Design Approval for the Project on March 20, 2023 (the "Approval"). The Appeal was filed by Barry Cappelo on behalf of Platform SB LLC (the "Appellant").

1.0 APPELLANT HAS NOT ESTABLISHED VALID BASIS FOR THE APPROVAL TO BE

REVERSED, MODIFIED, OR OTHERWISE SET ASIDE
The Project is proposed under existing General Plan and Zoning designations that allow for the proposed land use and physical parameters approved by the ABR. The Project was submitted and reviewed pursuant to SB330, which amended the California Government Code (the "GC") placing limitations on the basis for denial of housing projects by the City.

GC Sec. 65589. 5(h)(2) defines a "Housing Project" as follows:
'"Housing development project' means a use consisting of any of the following:

A Residential units onl .
(B) Mixed-use developments consisting of residential and nonresidential uses with at least two-thirds of the square footage designated for residential use. (C) Transitional housing or supportive housing.
(emphasis added)
805. 966.3966 office
805. 715.7005 fax
"anguardplanning.com
Vanguard Planning Inc.
735 State Street, Suite 204
Santa Barbara, CA93101
May 2, 2023

GC Sec. 65589. 5(d) states the following regarding the basis for denial of a Housing Project:
"A local a enc shall not disa roveahousin develo ment ro'ect including farmworker housing as defined in subdivision (h) of Section 50199.7 of the Health and Safety Code, for very low, low-, or moderate-income households, or an emergency shelter, or condition approval in a manner that renders the housing development project infeasible for development for the use of very low, low-, or moderate-income households, or an emergency shelter, including through the use of design review standards, unless it makes written findin s based u on a re onderance of the evidence in the record as to one of the followin :
(1) OMITTED - INAPPLICABLE: The City has not met or exceeded its share of the regional housing need allocation pursuant to Section 65584 for the planning period for the income category proposed for the housing development project. (2) The housin develo ment ro'ect or emer enc shelter as ro osed would have a s ecific adverse im act u on the ublic health or safet and there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specific adverse impact without rendering the development unaffordable to low- and moderate-income households or rendering the development of the emergency shelter financially infeasible. As used in this ara ra h a 's ecific adverse im act' means a si nificant uantifiable direct and unavoidable im act based on ob'ective identified written oublic health or safety standards volicies. or conditions as the existed on the date the a lication was deemed corn lete.

Inconsistency with the zoning ordinance or general plan land use designation shall not constitute a specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety. (3) OMITTED - INAPPLICABLE: The denial of the housing development project or imposition of conditions is not required in order to comply with specific state or federal law.
(4) OMITTED - INAPPLICABLE: The housing development project is not proposed on land zoned for agriculture.
(5) OMITTED - INAPPLICABLE: The housing development project is not inconsistent with both the City's zoning ordinance and general plan land use designation." (emphasis added)
Santa Barbara Municipal Code (the "SBMC") Sec. 22. 68. 100. C establishes limits upon what may be presented in an appeal and/or hearings to consider the appeal:
"LIMITS ON NEW EVIDENCE. The City Council will decide the appeal in the exercise of its independent judgment based upon the record of the proceedings of the Single Family Design Board (sic). New evidence will not be considered unless the City Council determines that relevant evidence exists that, in the exercise of reasonable diligence, could not have been produced or was improperly excluded at the hearing before the Architectural Board of Review."
GC Sec. 65589.5(d)(2) existed prior to consideration of the Project by the ABR and could have been produced and/or discussed by Appellant at any of the previous hearings for the Project. Furthermore, the Applicant discussed this specific finding before the ABR at one of its hearings, which Appellant's representative attended.

Appellant has not asserted the Project has the potential to result in "a specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety" in its testimony before the ABR or in the Appeal. That is the legal basis for denial of the Project by the ABR. As such, the Appeal does not to establish or even attempt to present applicable "reasons or grounds" why Appellant believes "the action should be reversed, modified, or otherwise set aside" as required the City's Application for Appeal.

May 2, 2023

2.0 ABR's APPROVAL IS BASED UPON EVIDENCE IN THE ADMINSITRATIVE RECORD The Project was reviewed by the ABR at four noticed hearings. Appellant raised each one of the greivances set forth in the Appeal at these hearings, both in written correspondence and during public comment. Appellant's comments and assertions were considered by the ABR during its evaluation of the Project. The ABR also reviewed the neighborhood context, site plans, building elevations, and proposed landscaping enhancements. The original design was revised several times in response to direction from the ABR. Ultimately the ABR determined that it could approve the Project. The required findings, and the ABR's basis to support those findings are set forth in its approved minutes. The ABR determined the following when it granted the Approval:
"1. The Board finds that the Compatibility Analysis Criteria generally have been met (per SBMC 22. 68. 045. B.) as follows:
a. The project fully complies with all applicable City Charter and Municipal Code requirements. The project's design is consistent with design guidelines applicable to its location within the City.
b. The design of the project is compatible with desirable architectural qualities and characteristics that are distinctive of Santa Barbara and of the particular neighborhood surrounding the project, given that the larger neighborhood several blocks each way has eclectic architecture.
c. The size, mass, bulk, height, and scale of the project are appropriate for its location and neighborhood.
of. There are no adjacent Landmarks or other nearby designated historic resources. e. The scenic public vistas are not affected.
f. The project includes an appropriate amount of open space and landscaping" The ABR granted the Approval after considering the entirety of information in the administrative record.

The ABR's findings to approve the Project are valid provided there is evidence in the administrative record that supports those findings, even if Appellant presented competing claims in its efforts to have the proposal denied. It should be noted that the Appeal does not cite any of the above findings and includes no discussion, other than Appellant's opinion, about why the ABR was incorrect making any of its findings.

3.0 CONCLUSION AND REQUEST
The ADD program is a critical component of the City's strategy to address the current housing crisis, implement its Housing Element, and meet its Regional Housing Needs Assessment obligations.

The Appeal and Appellant's comments and correspondence previously presented to the ABR can be characterized as a list of grievances about the City's AUD program and strategies. Appellant simply does not like aspects of the Project that comply with and implement the City's AUD program (e. g. applicable parking and setback standards). Appellant's preferences and opinions do not serve as evidence, or a meaningful argument for the City Council to reverse, modify, or otherwise set aside the Approval.

The ABR pays close attention to neighborhood concerns and public comments on all projects. The Board heard all of Appellant's objections during its review of the Project. After evaluating the proposal for compliance with specific, applicable City guidelines and standards, the ABR granted the Approval and articulated the basis for its findings. The Appeal does not cite or challenge those findings.

May 2, 2023

We respectfully request that the City Council deny the Appeal.

If you have any questions, you can reach me via E-mail atjarrett. gorin@vanguardplanning. com or via phone at (805) 966-3966.

Thank you for taking the time to review this.

Sincerely,
VANGUARD PLANNING INC.

Jarre G rin, AICP
Prin ipa

425 Santa Barbara Appeal - Handout
Mayor Rowse and Councilmembers,
We represent Platform SB, LLC (“Platform SB”), the property directly adjacent to the 425 Santa Barbara Street project. On March 20, 2023, the Architectural Board of Review (“ABR”) granted project design approval. (See Exhibit 1.)
Platform SB has standing to appeal, because it has participated in multiple ABR hearings raising the same concerns and questions upon which its appeal is based. Platform SB’s prior written comments to the ABR are attached as Exhibit 2 and incorporated fully by reference.

1. Introduction
Platform SB is appealing the ABR’s decision, because the project is inconsistent with the Urban Design Guidelines; incompatible with the architectural qualities and characteristics of Santa Barbara and the surrounding neighborhood, and the size, mass, bulk, and scale of the project are entirely inappropriate.

As Board member Whelan summarized in his dissenting vote: “the project does not complement existing buildings, it is not cohesive in height, scale or character. It’s livability and quality of life for residents is questionable, if not negligible.” (Exh. 1 at 5, emphasis added.)
In addition, the City’s General Plan, its 2020 AUD Ordinance, and the environmental assessments analyzing those policies show the intent of the City’s "Priority Housing Overlay” was to establish a maximum allowable density of 49-63 units per acre.
“Projects developed under the Average Unit-Size Density Incentive Program may exceed the base residential density for the zone in which the lot is located up to the maximum
residential density specified in the density tier assigned to the lot by its City General Plan land use designation.”
SBMC 30.150.075.A – Range of Residential Unit Sizes
The reality, however, is that developers, including the project applicant, have adopted the Priority Housing Overlay density as a baseline, before leveraging the state density bonus law to build a project that massively increase project density far beyond the “maximum” density anticipated by current City zoning.

This approach not only violates the intent of the City’s AUD Ordinance, but mandates that additional CEQA analysis be performed on this specific project, because the project is inconsistent with and falls outside the scope of the City’s EIR and Addenda. (See generally CEQA Guidelines § 125162(a), (b); id. at § 15063(c)(3)(D).)
Further, a new EIR for the City’s General Plan and 2020 AUD Ordinance must be prepared that evaluates the impact of future housing development on the environment, including an analysis of the impact of state density bonus laws on the City’s previously adopted 2011 General Plan and 2020 AUD Ordinance.

2. The Project is outside the scope of the CEQA Review of the 2011 General Plan and 2020 AUD Ordinance therefore additional CEQA analysis is required
When the City of Santa Barbara adopted its Plan Santa Barbara General Plan in 2011, the Average Unit-Size Density program envisaged a “Priority Housing Overlay” that would allow a greater housing density range of 49-63 dwelling units per acre in certain areas of the City (du/acre). (See Nov. 7, 2011 Addendum to Certified FEIR at 3.
1) Multiple statements in the 2011 EIR show the intent of the overlay was to provide an alternative to State bonus laws, not establish a “base density” that state bonus law would then apply to in addition to the overlay.

See e.g.:
2011 Plan Santa Barbara EIR, Vol II, Appendix A at 32:
//
//
1 https://santabarbaraca.gov/sites/default/files/documents/General%20Plan/Addendum%20to%20Certified%20FEI R/2011-11-07%20-%20Plan%20Santa%20Barbara%20General%20Plan%20Update.pdf 2 https://santabarbaraca.gov/sites/default/files/documents/General%20Plan/Certified%20Final%20Program%20Env ironmental%20Impact%20Report/Volume%20II.pdf at p. 515.

“This estimate [of 8,600 additional units] incorporates assumed use of City or State bonus density provisions on some parcels. . .” 2011 Plan Santa Barbara EIR, Vol I at 1453:
“H11.5 Bonus Density. Continue to provide bonus density units above levels required by State law, to be reviewed on a case-bycase-basis. 2011 Plan Santa Barbara EIR, Vol I at 9564:

When the City adopted its “Downtown-Focused Amendments” to its AUD Ordinance in August 2020, an EIR Addendum was prepared to support the City’s proposed ordinance. Notably, no mention is made of any state density bonus laws, and both the 2020 AUD Ordinance and EIR Addendum show the “bonus density” envisaged by the Priority Housing Overlay was assumed to be the maximum permitted density, without accounting for any cumulative density bonus permitted by state law:
“Projects developed under the Average Unit-Size Density Incentive Program may exceed the base residential density for the zone in which the lot is located up to the maximum
residential density specified in the density tier assigned to the lot by its City General Plan land use designation.”
SBMC 30.150.075.A – Range of Residential Unit Sizes
“Adding High Density with Priority Overlay in the majority of the CBD, effectively changing the maximum allowable densities for these areas from 15-27 units per acre to 37-63 units per acre (Exhibits 1 and 2)”.

July 2, 2020 – Addendum to Certified PEIR for 2011 General Plan at 55 Here, however, the 425 Santa Barbara project crams nineteen (19) dwelling units onto a 0.20 acre lot, an effective density of 95 units per acre. This represents a fifty-percent (50%) increase over and above the maximum permissible density authorized by the Priority Housing Overlay pursuant to the 2020 Ordinance, and 3https://santabarbaraca.gov/sites/default/files/documents/General%20Plan/Certified%20Final%20Program%20En vironmental%20Impact%20Report/Volume%20III.pdf
4 Id.
5https://santabarbaraca.gov/sites/default/files/documents/General%20Plan/Addendum%20to%20Certified%20FEI R/AUD%20Addendum%20for%20the%20CBD.pdf

far in excess of the anticipated density anticipated and evaluated by the City in its 2011 General Plan EIR and subsequent Addenda.

The City should therefore deny the project as exceeding the permissible zoning density of 63 units/acre. Alternatively, a specific CEQA analysis must be performed, because the project falls out outside the scope of anticipated development pursuant to the 2011 Plan Santa Barbara General Plan EIR and its subsequent Addenda, and there are multiple potential negative impacts caused by increasing the permissible housing density by up to 50%, including negative impacts on aesthetics, greenhouse gas emissions, land use/planning, population/housing, transportation, public services, noise, air quality, noise, recreation and utilities.

Further, the City’s failure to account for state density bonus law amendments renders the City’s 2011 General Plan EIR and Addenda defective and out-of-date.

As of January 1, 2021, project applicants are now permitted to add up to 50% “density bonus” units, an increase from 35% previously allowed. (See Gov. Code 65915 et seq.) A new EIR must therefore be performed which analyzes the impact on the environment of state bonus laws which, when combined with the Priority Housing Overlay, appear to allow housing density in excess of one hundred (100) du/acre, far in excess of the allowable density evaluated by the 2011 General Plan EIR and subsequent Addenda.

3. The Project is incompatible with the surrounding neighborhood and will cause unavoidable detrimental impacts to surrounding residences and businesses
The cumulative impact of this project on the Haley corridor—an area that is principally one to two-story mixed commercial/residential with minimal access to public parking or public transport—cannot be overstated. As the Council is aware, it is a basic principle of zoning that a property owner is entitled to build properties with similar characteristics to those in the same area and same zone designation.

Approval of this project would give a green-light to every property owner in the Haley corridor, including Platform SB, to build identical projects, without parking and expanded to the limit of the property lines.

Is that really what the City Council imagined when it enacted the Priority Housing Overlay—a massed corridor from State Street to Milpas of four (or more)- story buildings built to the lot lines, with pre-existing business and homeowners left fighting with new residents for a diminishing amount of open space and parking?

All because the developer need only include a paltry three affordable units, pay a meaningless “in-lieu” fee and gets to build a nineteen unit apartment building? The ABR Guidelines and Infill Design Guidelines6 (the “ABR Guidelines”) expressly encourage and require developers to depart from the “required minimums”, in order to achieve development that is compatible with the neighborhood. See e.g. ABR Guidelines at 3, 12,
In our written submissions to the ABR, we made a number of suggestions, consistent with the ABR Guidelines, that would enhance and promote neighborhood compatibility. The ABR failed to fully consider these issues, and should have denied the project finding that the project is not compatible with the neighborhood.

The City should therefore reverse the decision of the ABR and deny project approval:
1) Parking Impacts
As proposed, this project contains nineteen units and twenty bedrooms, of which a mere three units have been designated as “affordable”, and zero on-site parking spaces. However, the reality is 93% of US households have access to at least one car, the average American household owns at least two cars7, and the tenants of these apartments—the large majority of which are market-rate—will own cars and will need to park them somewhere.

As Mayor Rowse correctly noted in a City Council meeting last year:
“"People still own cars, and we can dream about
autonomous vehicles, you whistle and the car shows up or whatever all day long. . . Sounds great in a planning
document, but in reality we have people who are fighting each other for parking spaces."
With this in mind, the ABR should have, at minimum, imposed a minimum parking requirement or, in the alternative, a condition that the applicant agree to impose rental covenants limiting personal vehicle ownership, in order to mitigate the impact on the surrounding neighborhood of the lack of onsite parking. Similar covenants already exist in a nearby Housing Authority project at 116 E. Cota Street to mitigate parking impacts8. There is no reason the ABR could not have required 6 https://santabarbaraca.gov/sites/default/files/2022-06/ABR_with_Infill_Final.pdf 7 https://www.thezebra.com/resources/research/car-ownership-statistics/ 8 See https://hacsb.org/sb-independent-housing-authority-snags-downtown-lot-insanta-barbara/ (“Like other Housing Authority projects providing transitional

the developer agree to implement a similar covenant precluding personal vehicle ownership, including provisions for enforcement by the City Attorney against the developer and/or tenants, pursuant to their nuisance authority.

Instead, the ABR approved a project that provides the bare minimum of a small storage unit per apartment (where residents supposedly will park their bikes). There is no turn-in area for pick-up or drop-off, and the project offers nothing in the way of creative solutions that would mitigate the project’s impact on the neighborhood.

This project is not on State Street, or State Street-adjacent. The street parking in the neighborhood is already at capacity—a situation that will worsen when the Police Department headquarters takes over the Cota Commuter lot. The MTD is struggling to provide adequate service, and the “unbundled parking” program touted by the City as a means to mitigate parking impacts has been cancelled before it left the ground. The project’s lack of on-site parking, and the ABR’s failure to require reasonable mitigation measures, such as restricting personal vehicle ownership, will cause widespread nuisance and further highlights the lack of compatibility of the project with the neighborhood.

For all these reasons, the ABR should have found the project was incompatible and denied approval.
2) Impracticability of Construction and Maintenance
In our comments to the ABR, we suggested the ABR require a minimum fivefoot interior setback, for the basic reason that any substantial construction or maintenance tasks cannot take place safely or effectively in a three-foot gap sandwiched between a fourteen-foot wall and 20+ foot building. During the ABR process, the project applicant failed to explain how it will achieve either construction or maintenance of the project in such a limited space, yet the ABR ignored these reasonable concerns and approved the project regardless.

Specific concerns include:
• The plans provided to the ABR allow very limited space for staging, material storage and vertical transportation (hoisting). The area designated on the plans is entirely inadequate, as materials from multiple truck loads will have to be stockpiled somewhere until they can be distributed to the jobsite. housing to homeless people, tenants living in this one will not be allowed to have cars.”

• The setback along Santa Barbara Street is as little as 4' 7". The public sidewalk will become the de facto staging area, will be inaccessible to the public, and will create hazards as pedestrians are forced to cross and/or walk in the road,
• The curb lane will inevitably be utilized for the parking of large commercial vehicles making deliveries of concrete, lumber, drywall, etc. A special encroachment permit will likely be required, and the lane will be lost to traffic, negatively impacting surrounding residences and businesses. • Material from trucks parked in the curb lane will likely be unloaded using a reach forklift. Given the boom length of this equipment, Santa Barbara Street will be completely blocked during unloading. Given the lack of usable storage areas, each delivery could easily take an hour per truck. • It is likely that construction materials will be off-loaded onto either the sidewalk, or the curb lane, and will remain there until it is distributed, which typically takes days, especially as framing progresses. Material stored in the curb lane will force subsequent delivery vehicles into traffic lanes for unloading
• Stocking of materials to upper floors will again be done with a reach forklift.

Given the boom length required, this could block traffic lanes. • The 2' 9 1/2" setback for the south elevation is inadequate for both construction and normal maintenance. Once framing commences, it will be almost impossible to bring material to this area without accessing the adjacent property. Plaster rebound will cover the adjacent property. For future issues with the south elevation, (a window leak?), it will not be possible to set a ladder 40' high, within the setback.
• Plans call for a 2% slope away from the building, toward the adjacent property at both the south and east elevations. No area drains are shown, nor any concrete curb to prevent runoff from flowing onto the adjacent property. If area drains are installed, given the long runs required to exit the water, at some point the drains will back up, and flood the adjacent property.

If the area is landscaped, and not paved, it will be impossible to contain runoff within the building's property liner. During construction, it will be almost impossible to prevent storm runoff, or even water used in construction, from flooding the adjacent property.

It is clear that construction and ongoing maintenance will be both impracticable and unsafe, and will cause massive disruption to the surrounding properties. For these reasons, the ABR should have found the project was incompatible with the surrounding neighborhood and denied approval. 3) Mass, Bulk and Scale / Design
As our comments to the ABR pointed out, the surrounding neighborhood is principally one and two-story mixed commercial and residential. The four-story project approved by the ABR, built virtually lot-line to lot-line, will tower over surrounding residences and businesses, and is inconsistent with both the character and style of surrounding building.

On this point, we concur entirely with Board member Whelan’s characterization of the project in his vote to deny approval, which also provide ample grounds for the City to reverse the ABR’s decision and deny approval of this project.

4. Conclusion
In conclusion, the City should grant this appeal and reverse the ABR’s decision granting Project Design Approval, based on the following findings:
a. A specific project EIR must be prepared to analyze the impact of this project on the environment. In addition, the City must prepare an updated EIR for the 2011 General Plan and/or 2020 AUD Ordinance, taking into account state density bonus laws; b. The project applicant should be required to implement on-site parking or, at minimum, agree to impose a lease covenant restricting vehicle ownership, enforceable against the developer and/or tenants by the City Attorney;
c. The construction and maintenance of the project is wholly impracticable given the lot size, project scale, limited access and impact on surrounding properties;
d. The mass, bulk and scale of the project is inconsistent with the character and scale of the surrounding neighborhood. Both the immediate and cumulative impacts of this project will result in a significant and detrimental impact on neighboring residences and businesses.

City of Santa Barbara

ARCHITECTURAL BOARD OF REVIEW

MINUTES
MARCH 20, 2023
3:00 P.M.

David Gebhard Public Meeting Room
630 Garden Street
SantaBarbaraCA.gov
BOARD MEMBERS:

Kevin Moore, Chair
Richard Six, Vice Chair
Lauren Anderson
David Black
Steve Nuhn
Dennis Whelan
CITY COUNCIL LIAISON:

Mike Jordan
PLANNING COMMISSION LIAISON:

Roxana Bonderson
STAFF:

Tava Ostrenger, Assistant City Attorney
Ellen Kokinda, Design Review Supervisor
William Russell, Assistant Planner
Mariah Johnson, Commission Secretary

CALL TO ORDER
The Full Board meeting was called to order at 3:01 p.m. by Vice Chair Six.

ATTENDANCE
Members present: Six, Anderson, Black, Nuhn, and Whelan Members absent: Moore
Staff present: Kokinda; Russell; and Mary Ternovskaya, Senior Commission Secretary

GENERAL BUSINESS
A. Public Comment:

Written correspondence from Scott Wenz was acknowledged.

B. Approval of Minutes:

Motion: Approve the minutes of the Architectural Board of Review meeting of March 6, 2023, as amended.

Action: Anderson/Black, 5/0/0. (Moore absent.) Motion carried.

C. Approval of the Consent Calendar:

Motion: Ratify the Consent Calendar of March 20, 2023, as reviewed by Board Members Six, Nuhn, and Black.

Action: Nuhn/Black, 5/0/0. (Moore absent.) Motion carried.

EXHIBIT 1
Architectural Board of Review Minutes March 20, 2023 DRAFT Page 2 of 7 D. Announcements, requests by applicants for continuances and withdrawals, future agenda items, and appeals:

1. Ms. Kokinda announced that there is currently a special recruitment underway for the Single Family Design Board. There were two unexpected vacancies that opened up on the Board.

The recruitment will be open for a couple of weeks, and then City Council interviews will be held on April 11th. Appointments will occur on that same day. She requested that the Board Members refer anyone interested in the positions to her and she will make an appointment.

E. Subcommittee Reports:

No subcommittee reports.
(3:15PM) CONTINUED ITEM: PROJECT DESIGN APPROVAL

1. 604 E ORTEGA ST
Assessor's Parcel Number: 031-172-002
Zone: P-R
Application Number: PLN2019-00425
Owner: City of Santa Barbara
Applicant: Justin Van Mullem, City of Santa Barbara Parks and Recreation Department
(Proposal for renovations to Ortega Park. The project consists of the Ortega Park Master Plan, including a new swimming pool, wading pool with splash pad amenities, water slide, skate park, sports courts, shade sails, sports field with synthetic turf, and buildings for restrooms and maintenance. Site improvements such as fencing, parking, landscaping, dumpsters and related enclosures, and walkways are also proposed. The park is considered a Community Park (except the ballfields and related facilities), a Sports Facility (for the ballfields and related facilities only), and a Community Building (the Welcome House) per City Council Resolution 17-074.)
Project Design Approval is requested. Project requires compliance with the Project Compatibility Analysis and the following guidelines: Urban Design Guidelines, Outdoor Lighting Design Guidelines. Project was last reviewed on May 4, 2020.

Actual time: 3:07 p.m.

Present: Justin Van Mullem, Applicant, City of Santa Barbara Parks and Recreation Department; Elijah Pierce, RRM Design Group; Anna Schmitz, Landscape Architect, RRM Design Group; and Stephanie Swanson, Associate Planner, City of Santa Barbara Public comment opened at 3:25 p.m.,
The following individuals spoke:

1. Victor Reyes

2. Victoria Valente

3. Mark Alvarado

4. Andi Garcia
Architectural Board of Review Minutes March 20, 2023 DRAFT Page 3 of 7

5. Mary Turley
Written correspondence from George Nagai; Sarah Brasel; Paulina Conn; Lisa Ann, Chad, George, and William Kelly; Victoria Valente; Pamela Boehr; Chris Barros; Mary Jo Swalley; Anna Marie Gott; Victoria Valente; and Anne Pizzinat was acknowledged.

Public comment closed at 3:38 p.m.

Motion: Project Design Approval and continue indefinitely for in-progress review with comments:

1. The applicant shall return for an in-progress review to review refinements as suggested to pool buildings and central plaza trellis.

2. The Board appreciates the well thought-out design and appreciates the applicant’s response to past concerns. The Board appreciates the care taken on the murals program, and the care taken on saving what is existing. The Board looks forward to the new additions.

3. The Board would like to see additional medallions on the fencing on the soccer field.

The Board would also like to see traditional finials on the fence posts.

4. The Board would like to see a more decorative pattern in the concrete in the central trellis area.

5. The Board understands that the pool trellises need to be portable, but would like to see the manufacturer’s option for most traditional looking design.

6. The seat walls should have more detail, such as shadow line or molding, in order to have them be more traditional and less austere, as indicated.

7. The Board finds that the Compatibility Analysis Criteria generally have been met (per SBMC 22.68.045.B.) as follows:
a. The project fully complies with all applicable City Charter and Municipal Code requirements. The project’s design is consistent with design guidelines applicable to its location within the City, with the caveat that the Board wants to see more traditional design in some features.
b. The design of the project is compatible with desirable architectural qualities and characteristics that are distinctive of Santa Barbara and of the neighborhood surrounding the project, for same reason as above.
c. The size, mass, bulk, height, and scale of the project are appropriate for its location and neighborhood, given the buildings are of modest size and scattered throughout the area.
d. The project does not affect adjacent Landmarks or other nearby designated historic resources. The project’s location in respect to the Santa Barbara Junior High School is a significant distance away. Significant landscaping and grass areas are not going to impact the Santa Barbara Junior High School historic resource.
e. The scenic public vistas are not affected.
f. The project includes an appropriate amount of open space and landscaping.

Action: Six/Black, 5/0/0. (Moore absent.) Motion carried.

The ten-day appeal period was announced.

Architectural Board of Review Minutes March 20, 2023 DRAFT Page 4 of 7 * THE BOARD RECESSED FROM 4:37 TO 4:40 P.M. *
(3:50PM) CONTINUED ITEM: PROJECT DESIGN APPROVAL

2. 425 SANTA BARBARA ST
Assessor's Parcel Number: 031-271-008
Zone: M-C
Application Number: PLN2020-00426
Owner: Edward St. George
Applicant: Jarrett Gorin, Vanguard Planning
(The project consists of constructing a four-story 19-unit residential apartment building, comprised of one (1) two-bedroom unit, eight (8) one-bedroom units and ten (10) studio units, on a vacant lot within the Priority Housing Overlay area of the City. The project is designed to comply with the City's Average Unit Size Density Incentive (AUD) Program (SBMC Chapter 30.150) and California State Density Bonus Program (CA Gov. Code §65915-65918). The units range in size from 634 square feet (net) to 1,144 square feet (net) with an average unit size of 1,022 square feet (net). Under the State's Density Bonus program, the project proposes the following concession from City development standards: to allow a reduction in the minimum private outdoor living space dimensions for each unit and allow private open yards from different units to be connected. The project proposes no on-site vehicle parking. Each unit will be provided a private, secure, covered storage area that includes bicycle parking and is included in the calculated square footage of the unit.)
Project Design Approval is requested. Project requires compliance with the Project Compatibility Analysis and the following guidelines: Urban Design Guidelines, Outdoor Lighting Design Guidelines. Project was last reviewed February 21, 2023.

Actual time: 4:40 p.m.

Present: Noah Greer, Architect; Jarrett Gorin, Applicant, Vanguard Planning; and Stephanie Swanson, Associate Planner, City of Santa Barbara
Public comment opened at 4:54 p.m.,
The following individual(s) spoke:

1. Richard Lloyd
Written correspondence from Richard Lloyd was acknowledged.

Public comment closed at 4:56 p.m.

Architectural Board of Review Minutes March 20, 2023 DRAFT Page 5 of 7 Motion: Project Design Approval and continue indefinitely with comments:

1. The Board finds that the Compatibility Analysis Criteria generally have been met (per SBMC 22.68.045.B.) as follows:
a. The project fully complies with all applicable City Charter and Municipal Code requirements. The project’s design is consistent with design guidelines applicable to its location within the City.
b. The design of the project is compatible with desirable architectural qualities and characteristics that are distinctive of Santa Barbara and of the particular neighborhood surrounding the project, given that the larger neighborhood several blocks each way has eclectic architecture.
c. The size, mass, bulk, height, and scale of the project are appropriate for its location and neighborhood.
d. There are no adjacent Landmarks or other nearby designated historic resources. e. The scenic public vistas are not affected.
f. The project includes an appropriate amount of open space and landscaping.

Action: Anderson/Nuhn, 4/1/0. (Whelan opposed. Moore absent.) Motion carried.

Individual comments: Board Member Whelan stated that he does not believe that the project meets the Compatibility Analysis Criteria. There are areas without distinctive architecture structures. These areas should be designed to lead the area towards Santa Barbara’s distinctive build environment. This project does not appear to be Spanish Colonial Revival. The project does not complement existing buildings nor is it cohesive in height, scale, or character. It’s livability and quality of life for residents is questionable, if not negligible.

The ten-day appeal period was announced.
(4:35PM) NEW ITEM: CONCEPT REVIEW

3. 35 ANACAPA ST
Assessor's Parcel Number: 033-112-002
Zone: OC/SD-3
Application Number: PLN2021-00226
Owner: 35 Anacapa LLC
Jeff Theimer, Managing Member
Applicant: Troy White, TW Land Planning
(The project consists of a new three-story development on a 0.5-acre vacant lot located at the southwest corner of Anacapa Street and E. Mason Street. The proposal includes an airspace condominium map for development of one building consisting of two small, six-room hotels, corner market/bodega, a restaurant/bar, two tasting rooms, and 15 parking spaces. The project would require a Coastal Development Permit (SBMC §28.44.060); Development Plan (SBMC Chapter 28.85); two Conditional Use Permits (SBMC Chapter 28.94 and 28.71.030); and a Vesting Tentative Map (SBMC Chapter 27.20).)
No appealable decision will be made at this hearing. Project requires compliance with the Project Compatibility Analysis and the following guidelines: Urban Design Guidelines, Outdoor Lighting Design Guidelines. Project last reviewed on November 15, 2021.

Architectural Board of Review Minutes March 20, 2023 DRAFT Page 6 of 7 Actual time: 5:05 p.m.

Present: Mark Kirkhart, Architect, DesignARC; Melissa Turner, DesignARC; Scott Capps, Landscape Architect, EPTDesign; and Kathleen Kennedy, Project Planner, City of Santa Barbara
Public comment opened at 5:19 p.m.,
The following individual(s) spoke:

1. Brittany Zajic
Public comment closed at 5:22 p.m.

Motion: Continue indefinitely to Planning Commission with comments:

1. The Board appreciates the applicant’s design to minimize the mass, bulk, and scale on this property.

2. The Board appreciates the attention to materiality of this project.

3. The Board would like to see further study of the finishes to the materials and where they are located, in order to make them compatible with the industrial character.

4. Provide further study of the finish of the glass railing and the exact location where it will be.

5. Provide further study of the corten steel material and if it is laser cut, or show what kind of pattern it has to reflect the industrial style. Provide physical samples of the corten steel material.

6. The Board appreciates the significant reduction of the program and the massing since last meeting.

7. One Board Member is concerned about the west elevation and its visibility from certain places from State Street. It should be more of an appropriate background, such as the Bekins Building.

8. The Board makes preliminary comments regarding the Compatibility Analysis Criteria (per SBMC 22.68.045.B.) as follows:
a. The project fully complies with all applicable City Charter and Municipal Code requirements. The project’s design is consistent with design guidelines applicable to its location within the City, as this area is eclectic in nature. b. The design of the project is compatible with desirable architectural qualities and characteristics that are distinctive of Santa Barbara and of the particular neighborhood surrounding the project, as this area is eclectic in nature. c. The size, mass, bulk, height, and scale of the project are appropriate for its location and neighborhood. The applicant has designed the project to reduce plate heights and step the massing back at corners.
d. There are no adjacent Landmarks or other nearby designated historic resources. e. The scenic public vistas are not affected.
f. The project includes an appropriate amount of open space and landscaping.

Action: Anderson/Black, 3/2/0. (Six and Whelan opposed. Moore absent.) Motion carried.

Individual comments: Board Member Six stated that he is opposed to the motion due to west elevation and its visual effect on State Street and nearby surroundings.

Architectural Board of Review Minutes March 20, 2023 DRAFT Page 7 of 7 Board Member Whelan stated that he does not believe that the project meets the Compatibility Analysis Criteria findings a, b, and c.
(5:05PM) NEW ITEM: PROJECT DESIGN APPROVAL

4. 2940 DE LA VINA ST
Assessor's Parcel Number: 051-122-007
Zone: C-G
Application Number: PLN2022-00392
Owner: Daniel Zia
Applicant: Lizette Elenes, ERA Architects
(Proposal for improvements to existing site and single-story office building. Proposal includes demolition of existing canopy roof and columns and demolition of storage buildings. Proposal for a building addition, new patio, new fence and gate, parking spaces, and landscaping.) Project Design Approval is requested. Project requires compliance with the Project Compatibility Findings and Urban Design Guidelines.

Actual time: 6:05 p.m.

Present: Lizette Elenes, Applicant, ERA Architects; Guillermo Gonzalez, Blue Studio Landscape Architect; Jordan Bottenfield, Design Consultant Bottenfield Construction Public comment opened at 6:15 p.m., and as no one wished to speak, it closed.

Motion: Continue indefinitely with comments:

1. The character of the wall and gate shall be less modern and more compatible with the character of De La Vina Street.

2. The gate itself shall allow for more visibility into courtyard, and the applicant shall also reduce the height of the wall to increase visibility into the site.

Action: Whelan/Black, 5/0/0. (Moore absent.) Motion carried. * MEETING ADJOURNED AT 6:39 P.M. *

CAPPELLO
&NOEL LLP

TRIAL LAWYERS
A. Barry Cappello
May 27, 2022
Via Email Only
A BRSecJ"etary@San ta Ba rbaraCA.gov
Architectural Board of Review
David Gebhard Public Meeting Room
630 Garden Street
Santa Barbara, CA 93101
PLN2020-00426 - 425 Santa Barbara Street
APN: 031-271-008
Dear Board Members:

We represent Platform SB, LLC, the entity that owns "The Platform" office space located at 126 E Haley Street, directly adjacent to the proposed development at 425 Santa Barbara Street, and offer the following comments regarding the proposed development:

First, Applicant's submission for the 425 Santa Barbara Street development appears to rely on the collective amnesia of the Board.

On December 14, 2020, this project came before the ABR. Board members expressed concern about the lack of parking, and the impact on the limited street parking. The Board was also "very concerned" with the neighborhood compatibility, and concluded the project did not comply with either the Urban Design Guidelines or Infill Design Guidelines. Just eighteen months later, Applicant has re-submitted a project that is substantively identical to that previously submitted.

There is still no on-site parking - a significant concern given the occupants will inevitably own their own cars and need somewhere to park them. In an area with extremely limited parking already, the burden will fall entirely on neighboring residents and businessowners, resulting in hostility and discord. The lack of on-site parking takes on particular importance given the recent announcement from the Santa Barbara MTD that it is reducing service, while at the same time, the Cota public parking lot is being removed with the anticipated development of the new Police Station, with no replacement envisaged. 831 STATE STREET, SANTA BARBARA, CALIFORNIA 93101-3227 [email protected] TEL (805) 564-2444 FAX (805) 965-5950 WWW.CAPPELLONOEL.COM EXHIBIT 2
May 27, 2022

The Haley Street corridor is not State Street or State Street-adjacent, where there are multiple parking structures in close walkable distance. Nor is this Isla Vista, or Applicant's project at Beach City, where the majority ofresidents are students who can manage with bicycles. These are market-rate apartments designed for professionals who need and will buy cars, and need somewhere to put them.

Second, the exterior massing and visual appearance is essentially identical to that proposed previously, with the building set to tower over neighboring properties. The Haley neighborhood is almost exclusively single and two-story buildings, amply demonstrated by Applicant's plans. In fact, the only substantive changes to this project are to the interior floor plan, which shuffles the square footage and introduces two "tiny home" sub-300 square foot apartments.

Finally, the Board must not view this project in isolation, but must also consider the cumulative impact of other proposed AUD projects in the neighborhood, including but not limited to the potential development at 425 Garden Street project, which was roundly panned by the Board for its disregard for neighborhood impact and compatibility.

Our client is sympathetic to the concerns about housing availability within the City. However other AUD projects demonstrate a far more thoughtful and considered approach with appropriate deference and respect for neighborhood compatibility. For example, the 219 E Haley Project which came before the Board on March 7, 2022 provides 34 off-street parking units for the 34 residential units, and an architectural approach that limits the visual impact on the neighborhood. Just two days ago, the Historic Lands Commission reviewed an AUD project proposed for 1815 State Street, which incorporates private outdoor spaces, a measured architectural approach and includes a 16-space car stacker to support the proposed 16 residential units. These are the types of AUD project the ABR should encourage.

Ultimately the ABR should send a clear message on the project, just as it did in November with the nearby 425 Garden Street project. The AUD program serves a purpose in providing much-needed residential housing in the City. But it is not a "blank check" for developers to stack and pack four-story apartments to the curbside, without the slightest regard for the impact on neighboring residents or business owners. This project must be downscaled significantly, including appropriate accommodations for parking and consideration for neighborhood compatibility.

Regards,
A. Barry ag Jo

CAPPELLO & NOEL LLP
From: Richard Lloyd
To: Community Development ABRsecretary
Subject: 425 Santa Barbara St (PLN2020-00426)
Date: Friday, February 17, 2023 12:41:00 PM
Attachments: 2022.05.27 ABC Letter to Planning Commission Signed.pdf image001.png
Dear Board Members,
We represent Platform SB, LLC, the entity that owns "The Platform" office space located at 126 E Haley Street, directly adjacent to the proposed development at 425 Santa Barbara Street.

We strongly object to the proposed development, and incorporate by reference our prior comments from May 2022 (attached), all of which apply equally to the current iteration of this project. In addition, we draw the Board’s attention to the following specific issues:

1. The mass, bulk and scale of this project is completely out of character for the surrounding neighborhood. The four-story project, which still seeks a completely unnecessary height concession, will tower over the surrounding residences and businesses, and should be scaled back significantly. The fourth story of this project is particularly egregious – in “exchange” for just two market-rate one-bedroom units, this project will significantly occlude the view of the Santa Ynez mountains for its neighbors, even exceeding the ridgeline.

2. As proposed, the North and West sides of the building have less than two feet of clearance to the property line. Platform SB LLC has no intention of permitting access, at any time, to the west side of the building, whether for construction, maintenance, or any other purpose. A minimum set-back of at least 5-feet should be required on all sides.

3. Platform SB LLC has strict and actively enforced parking and towing arrangements, in order to protect its business tenants. Any construction workers, maintenance workers, or tenants that park on Platform’s property without permission will be towed immediately. The project’s lack of parking should be considered with this in mind.

4. This project proposes nineteen units comprising twenty bedrooms, sixteen of which are market-rate. It is pure fantasy to believe the residents of these units will not own vehicles-- street parking is already at premium, and there are no public parking facilities available. Even if tenants do use ride-sharing, or rent cars, where will they park to drop-off/load? What about residents with disabilities, or families with young children? This project, like the 425 Garden St project, simply builds to the limits of the AUD program, without a single thought to the impact on the neighborhood.

5. As part of the AUD program, the applicant is required to execute several covenants, including maintaining the units as rental housing and addressing affordability. See e.g. SBMC

30.150.075.B.3 [Rental Housing]. The ABR should similarly require Applicant to execute a covenant precluding vehicle ownership by its tenants, to minimize and mitigate the burden this project places on the surrounding neighborhood.

6. This project is a prime example of the complete failure of the City’s AUD program. In exchange for adding a meagre three affordable units to the City’s housing stock--two studios and a one-bedroom unit (applicant has chosen to pay a meaningless “in-lieu” fee rather than add a fourth affordable unit)--the Applicant will, without your intervention, be permitted to construct a four-story monstrosity, that shifts the burden of the inevitable parking and congestion issues onto its neighbors. That is unacceptable, and completely incompatible with the surrounding neighborhood.

It is vital that the ABR consider the impact of projects such as this on the surrounding neighborhood, both individually and the cumulative impact. If the project is not compatible, and will detrimentally impact the neighborhood, the project should be denied.Based on the above and attached, this project should be scaled down significantly, or simply rejected as proposed.

Regards,
Richard Lloyd
Cappello & Noel LLP
Office: 805-564-2444 X217
Cell: 805-335-7772
Fax:
805-965-5950
Email:[email protected]
************************************************************************************************************************** ****
The information contained in this message may be legally privileged and confidential. It is intended only for the eyes and use of the individual or entity named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please immediately notify the sender by e-mail [email protected]. Thank you, your cooperation is appreciated. ************************************************************************************************************************** ****
Richard Lloyd
831 S TATE S TREET , S ANTA B ARBARA , C ALIFORNIA 93101 - 3227 RLLOYD @ CAPPELLONOEL . COM T EL (805) 564 - 2444 F AX (805) 965 - 5950 WWW . CAPPELLONOEL . COM March 20, 2023
Via E-Mail Only
ABRSecretary@ SantaBarbaraCA.gov
Architectural Board of Review
David Gebhard Public Meeting Room
630 Garden Street
Santa Barbara, CA 93101
PLN2020-00426 - 425 Santa Barbara Street
Dear Board Members:

We write on behalf of our client, Platform SB, LLC, the entity that owns the “Platform” office space at 126 E Haley St, directly adjacent to the proposed development.

As a preliminary matter, we note the Applicant has grudgingly revised its plans, apparently in response to public comment and Board members' feedback. We encourage the Board to continue its robust approach to ensuring neighborhood compatibility—a role which is crucially important when contemplating large-scale AUD projects that will fundamentally alter and shape the future of both the Haley Street corridor and Santa Barbara as a whole.

On that point, we remind the Board the ABR Guidelines1 explicitly provide that the zoning ordinances do not govern the ABR’s discretion, but instead provide a "development envelope” for the property. Even where a project complies with every zoning limit but is not compatible with the neighborhood, the ABR may find the project not approvable. See ABR Guidelines at 3.

Similarly, the ABR Guidelines offer specific guidance on AUD projects, and require that:
“[t]he characteristics of each project site and its context and surroundings must be evaluated to ensure proposed development fits into a neighborhood.” The Infill Design Guidelines similarly encourage design that, where necessary, departs from the “required minimums” to create a development that is compatible with the neighborhood. See ABR Guidelines at 12.

With these guidelines in mind, we offer the following comments:
• The mass, bulk and scale of this project continues to be out of character for the neighborhood. The Applicant’s decision to simply omit the ridgeline from the Comparison and Elevation Render images is questionable, if not outright misleading. At minimum, the ABR should require the Applicant to provide updated images showing the ridgeline for a true “comparison.”
1 https://santabarbaraca.gov/sites/default/files/2022-06/ABR_with_Infill_Final.pdf March 20, 2023

831 S TATE S TREET , S ANTA B ARBARA , C ALIFORNIA 93101 - 3227 RLLOYD @ CAPPELLONOEL . COM T EL (805) 564 - 2444 F AX (805) 965 - 5950 WWW . CAPPELLONOEL . COM • We note that the Applicant has increased the western interior setback to a little over three feet. That may be sufficient for an individual to squeeze through on occasion, but how does the Applicant plan to bring in equipment if more substantive work is required? At the prior meeting there was speculation that “they would find a way” for things to work. ot good enough. If this project was in a residential zone, a minimum five-foot interior setback would required—that is what should be required here. This is Santa Barbara, not San Francisco city center with buildings packed in side-by-side. • Regarding the lack of on-site parking, we have made our record previously, and reiterate and incorporate our prior comments regarding the negative impact this project will have on the already-limited parking in the area. We understand the City has imposed an absurd “zero-minimum” parking requirement on AUD projects in the Haley corridor, without any follow-up or real plan to address the inevitable neighborhood frustration and friction.

Yet other projects, like 425 Garden Street, undertook to explore off-site parking partnerships, incorporated a cargo e-bike, and built a vehicle turn-in for passenger delivery and drop-off. None of these changes were “required” by the City’s ordinance, yet the Applicant did so in response to ABR and public concerns about lack of parking— actions that the ABR encouraged and approved. Where is that same neighborhood consideration here?
• Similarly, Applicant has not explained how it plans to construct the building, using only a 3-foot interior setback and no on-site parking space. There will certainly be no street parking available—that is filled up immediately every morning by the neighboring residents and businesses. Will the construction workers be parking in the middle of the street? Where will their equipment be staged?
• Once again, we reiterate the abject failure and lack of neighborhood planning that underlies the City’s AUD Ordinance. For a paltry three affordable units and an “in-lieu” fee that will go nowhere, a four-story project is being proposed that will tower over the neighboring properties and set an unwelcome precedent for this neighborhood and the City as a whole. The ABR should exercise its discretion to the maximum extent possible to minimize this project's impact on the neighborhood. If that means denying the project and letting the City Council be the final decision-maker, we encourage the ABR to make that record.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Regards,
/s/ Richard Lloyd
Richard Lloyd
CAPPELLO & NOËL LLP
425 Santa Barbara Street
“The project does not complement existing buildings nor is it cohesive in height, scale, or character. It’s livability and quality of life for residents is questionable, if not negligible”
- Boardmember Whelan, Architectural Board of Review
Haley Street
Neighborhood
Mixed Commercial/Residential
1-2 story buildings
Open Spaces
2011 General Plan
• Designated Haley Street Corridor
“Commercial/Industrial/Medium
High Residential
• 15-27 dwelling units/acre
2020 Zoning
Ordinance
• Designates Haley Street as
“Priority Housing Overlay”
• More than doubles allowable
density of units to 37-63 dwelling
units per acre
• “[I]mpacts to community character and
views could be reduced to less than
significant levels by application of
existing design review standards and the
mitigation measures outlined in the PEIR
City’s Failure to Plan
• “The City will likely initiate formal neighborhood planning efforts for those areas identified as priorities due to more rapid change and associated urban design concerns (e.g., Downtown, Coast Village, Upper State Street, and the
Milpas and Haley/Gutierrez corridors).”
City of Santa Barbara, Land Use Element (2011)
• Reality – 12 years later:
• No outreach or planning efforts
• Haley Commuter Lot removed for new police station
• MTD service continues to decline
• No adjustment for changes in State Density Bonus Law
permitting massive increase (>50%) in allowable
density
Additional
CEQA
Analysis
Required
• Priority Housing Overlay allows the
development of projects at residential
densities ranging from 37 to 63 residential
units per acre.
2011 Plan / 2020 Ordinance EIR
• Nineteen (19) units on 0.20 acres
• 95 residential units per acre
Reality:
• Additional CEQA Analysis must be performed
Result:

Proposed Project
Proposed Project
Four stories
43’-9” building height
19 units [20-40 occupants] / 0.20 acres (95 du/acre)
• 10 studio apartments
• [1 moderate income, 2 very low income]
• 8 one-bedroom apartments
• 1 two-bedroom
No on-site parking
• No temporary turn-in/turn-out
3-foot interior setback
Lack of Onsite Parking
“People still own cars, and we can dream about
autonomous vehicles, you whistle and the car
shows up or whatever all day long. . . Sounds
great in a planning document, but in reality we
have people who are fighting each other for
parking spaces”
• Mayor Rowse, Feb 15, 2022
Solution:
• Lease covenant to preclude ownership of personal vehicles • No conflict with City policies
• Required for Housing Association projects
• Promotes neighborhood compatibility
Construction/Maintenance - Impracticable
• Nowhere to stage building materials – hazardous to public • Use of public streets = disruption to neighborhood
• “Impossible to bring material” to rear of property without access through adjacent property
• Lack of drainage/adequate run-off prevention
Solution:
• Increase interior and front setbacks to five feet or greater • Implement drainage/run-off curbs
Mass/Bulk/Scale
• Project must be compatible with surrounding
neighborhood
• Will tower over surrounding properties
• Lot-line to lot-line construction
• Solution:
• Reduce to maximum twelve units permitted by PHO
• Separate out massing
• Increase setbacks
• Ensure consistency with surrounding one and twostory mixed commercial/residential Conclusion
• Overturn ABR Project Design Approval
• Project-specific EIR required
• Updated Program EIR / Addendum required
• Require on-site parking and/or lease
covenant restricting vehicle ownership
• Reduce project scale and increase interior
setbacks
• Reduce height, mass, bulk, scale to
enhance neighborhood compatibility

CITY OF SANTA BARBARA

COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
AGENDA DATE: May 9, 2023
TO: Mayor and Councilmembers
FROM: City Attorney’s Office
SUBJECT: Conference with City Attorney – Existing Litigation – Gov. Code § 54956.9(d)(1)
RECOMMENDATION:

That Council hold a closed session to consider pending litigation pursuant to subsection (d)(1) of section 54956.9 of the Government Code and take appropriate action as needed.

The pending litigation is Jaime Herrera v. City of Santa Barbara WCAB Case Nos.:

ADJ1881406, ADJ1732620, ADJ12619926.

Scheduling: Duration 15 mins; anytime
Report: None anticipated
PREPARED BY: Sarah J. Knecht, City Attorney
SUBMITTED BY: Sarah J. Knecht, City Attorney
APPROVED BY: City Administrator's Office
Agenda Item No. 19
File Code No. 160.03