Agenda packet, first session — Santa Barbara City Council, August 12, 2025 (part 2 of 3)

parcels are zoned C-G, which aligns with the Commercial/Medium High Density Residential land use designation. (See Attachment 1.)
After 1972, a series of rezones to the subject property resulted in the parcel’s zoning classification being inconsistent with its General Plan land use designation. The zone changes are outlined in the attached Planning Commission staff report. The proposed rezone seeks to revert the zoning classification of the subject property from O-R (Office Restricted) to C-G (Commercial General), which it held from 1957 to 1972.

The C-G zone is generally less restrictive than the O-R zone, as it allows more uses, as shown in Table 30.25.020 Land Uses Regulations – Commercial and Office Zones (Attachment 2).

Zoning standards for the O-R and C-G zones differ only in terms of height and setback limitations, as shown in Table 30.25.030 Development Standards – Commercial and Office Zones (Attachment 3). All other standards are identical.

Per Santa Barbara Municipal Code (SBMC) §30.235.100, the City Council shall not approve a proposed rezone unless it is found to be consistent with the General Plan. Staff performed a consistency analysis and found the proposal to be consistent with all applicable policies, as well as with the General Plan land use designation. The analysis included review of policies from the Land Use, Economy and Fiscal Health, and Historic Resources Elements, which are discussed in the Planning Commission staff report dated April 10, 2025 (Attachment 4).

Staff is supportive of the proposed rezone because the C-G zoning classification is the most consistent with the property’s General Plan land use designation, Commercial/Medium High Density Residential, when compared with other classifications and when considering the adjacent zoning classifications.

The Planning Commission initiated the Zoning Map Amendment on January 16, 2025.

On April 17, 2025, the Planning Commission made a recommention to City Council to approve the Zoning Map Amendment.

The rezone would not physically alter existing property lines, the curb cut, or driveway along Chapala Street, existing site work, or buildings on-site.

BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACT:

This action does not have a budget/financial impact on the City.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:

Staff has determined that the project qualifies for an exemption from further environmental review under CEQA Guidelines Section 15305 of the California Environmental Quality Act Council Agenda Report
Zoning Map Amendment for 2020 Chapala Street [Ordinance Introduction] August 12, 2025

Page 3 ends

(CEQA), and SBMC §22.100.070.C.5., [Minor Alterations in Land Use Limitations], which includes rezones for sites with an average slope less than 20 percent (at seven percent) that would not significantly change planned uses in the area.

As referenced above, Attachment 2 compares allowed land uses of the C-G zone with those of the O-R zone. The C-G zone is generally more permissive in terms of public and semi-public uses, as well as limited types of commercial and industrial uses; however, it is consisent with the planned uses envisioned in the General Plan land use designation, and there would be no change to allowed types of residential uses or density.

No physical change to the buildings or site are proposed; therefore, no substantial adverse change in the significance of the designated City Landmark would occur, and none of the exceptions to the exemption apply.

ATTACHMENTS: 1. General Plan Land Use Designation Map and Zoning Map, Subject Property and Surrounding Area

2. Table 30.25.020 Land Uses Regulations – Commercial and Office Zones

3. Table 30.25.030 Development Standards – Commercial and Office Zones

4. Planning Commission Staff Report Dated April 10, 2025 PREPARED BY: Barbara Burkhart, Project Planner
SUBMITTED BY: Allison DeBusk, Interim Community Development Director APPROVED BY: Kelly McAdoo, City Administrator
Zoning Map
C-G zone
R-2 zone
O-R zone
General Plan Land Use Designation Map
Commercial-Medium High Density Residential
ATTACHMENT 1
Use Classification O-R C-G Additional Regulations
Residential Housing Types
Single-Unit Residential A A Same
Two-Unit Residential A A Same
Multi-Unit Residential A A Same
Special Residential Unit Types
Accessory Dwelling Unit A A §30.185.040, Accessory Dwelling Units Same Caretaker Unit A A §30.185.120, Caretaker Unit Same
Community Care Facilities, Residential Care
Facilities for the Elderly, and Hospices
6 or fewer individuals A A Same
7 to 12 individuals A A Same
More than 12 individuals CUP CUP Same
Family Day Care Home
Small A A Same
Large A A Same
Group Residential PSP PSP §30.185.190, Group Residential Same Home Occupation A A §30.185.200, Home Occupation Same
Live-Work Unit §30.185.240, Live-Work Units Same
Mobilehome Park CUP(1) CUP(1) §30.185.280, Mobilehome and Permanent Recreational Vehicle Parks Same Supportive Housing Same
Transitional Housing Same
Cemetery CUP A
College and Trade School CUP A
Community Assembly CUP A
Community Garden A A §30.185.130, Community and Market Gardens Same Cultural Institution CUP A
Day Care Center CUP A §30.185.150, Day Care Centers
Emergency Shelter CUP CUP §30.185.170, Emergency Shelter Same Hospitals and Clinics
Hospital – CUP
Clinic CUP A
Birth Center – A
Instructional Services – A
Park and Recreation Facility CUP CUP §30.185.350, Recreation Facilities Same Public Facilities CUP A
Recreational Vehicle and Camping Parks,
Overnight – CUP §30.185.320, Overnight Recreational Vehicle and Camping Parks Recreational Vehicle Parks, Permanent CUP(1) CUP(1) §30.185.280, Mobilehome and Permanent Recreational Vehicle Parks Same Schools CUP A
Skilled Nursing Facility – CUP
Social Service Facilities CUP(3) CUP(3) Same
Adult Entertainment Facilities – A §30.185.060, Adult Entertainment Facilities Agriculture A A §30.185.070, Agriculture Same
Animal Care, Sales and Services
Animal Daycare – A(4)
Animal Shelter and Boarding – A(5)
Grooming and Pet Stores – A(4)
Veterinary Services – A(4)
Artist Studio – A
Automated Teller Machine A A §30.185.080, Automated Teller Machines Same Automobile/Vehicle Sales and Services
Automobile/Vehicle Rentals – A
Automobile/Vehicle Sales and Leasing – A(6)
Car Washing Facilities – PSP §30.185.090, Automobile/Vehicle Fueling Stations or Car Washing Facilities Fueling Station – PSP §30.185.090, Automobile/Vehicle Fueling Stations or Car Washing Facilities Service and Repair, Minor – A
Banks and Financial Institutions A A §30.185.100, Banks and Financial Institutions in the O-M Zone Same Business Services – A
Cannabis Storefront-Retailer – A(19) Chapter 9.44 Commercial Cannabis Businesses Commercial Entertainment and Recreation
Cinema/Theater – A
Large-scale – CUP §30.185.350, Recreation Facilities
Small-scale – A
Eating and Drinking Establishments – A
Food Preparation – A(10) §30.185.380, Seafood Odor Control Funeral Parlors and Interment Services – A
Hotels and Similar Uses CUP(11) A §30.185.220, Hotels and Similar Uses Maintenance & Repair Services – A
Market Garden A A §30.185.130, Community and Market Gardens Same Medical Cannabis Dispensaries – – Nonconforming Use. Formerly codified as §30.185.250, Medical Cannabis Dispensaries Nurseries and Garden Centers – A
TABLE 30.25.020: LAND USE REGULATIONS–COMMERCIAL AND OFFICE ZONES "A" Allowed Use
"PSP" Performance Standard Permit Required
"CUP" Conditional Use Permit Required
"–" Use Not Allowed
"(#)" Specific Limitations at the end of the table
Residential Uses
§30.185.140, Community Care Facilities, Residential Care Facilities for the Elderly, and Hospices Allowed subject to the highest
§30.185.430, Transitional and Supportive Housing
§30.185.430, Transitional and Supportive Housing
Public and Semi-Public Uses (2)
Commercial Uses
EXHIBIT G ATTACHMENT 2
Offices
Business and Professional A A Same
Medical and Dental A A Same
Outdoor Sales and Display – A §30.185.300, Outdoor Sales and Display Outdoor Seating – A(14)
Parking, Public or Private A A Same
Personal Services – A
Retail Sales
Food and Beverage Retail Sales – A
General Retail – A §30.185.260, Medical Equipment Supply Stores Neighborhood Market PSP PSP §30.185.370, Retail Sales, Neighborhood Market Same Building Materials and Services – A(16)
Custom Manufacturing – A(16)
Food and Beverage Manufacturing,
Limited/Small Scale – A(16) §30.185.380, Seafood Odor Control Household Hazardous Waste Collection
Facility – A
Industry, Limited – A(16)
Research and Development A(17) A
Warehousing and Storage
Personal Storage – A(18)
Telecommunications Facilities
Transportation Passenger Terminals – PSP
Public Works and Utilities
Accessory Uses and Buildings A/PSP A/PSP §30.185.030, Accessory Uses and §30.140.020, Accessory Buildings Same Alcoholic Beverage Retail Establishments CUP(20) CUP(20) §30.185.075, Alcoholic Beverage Retail Establishments Same Animal Keeping A A §30.185.210, Horse Keeping and SBMC 6.08, Care and Keeping of Animals Same Cannabis Cultivation, Personal Same
Mixed-Use Development Same
Mobilehome Same
Nonconforming Use Same
Solar Energy Systems Same
Temporary Use Same
Industrial Uses
§30.185.420, Temporary Uses
Transportation, Communication, and Utilities Uses
§30.185.410, Telecommunications Facilities
§30.185.340, Public Works and Utilities
Other Applicable Types
§30.185.110, Cannabis Cultivation for Personal Use
Mixed-Use Development is allowed subject to the regulations of the specific uses and applicable zone and permit requirements for any §30.185.270, Mobilehomes, Recreational Vehicles, and Modular Units, Individual Use; and §30.185.420 Temporary Uses Chapter 30.165, Nonconforming Uses, Site Development, and Uses §30.140.090.D.8, Solar Energy Systems, and §30.185.400, Solar Energy Systems

11. Limited to Hotels located in Structures of Merit or Landmarks pursuant to Chapter 22.22, Historic Structures, or in another structure on the same lot as a Structure of Merit or Landmark Specific Limitations

1. Not allowed in a Historic or Landmark District. Allowed within a High Fire Hazard Area if designed to meet high fire construction standards adopted or enforced by the City, as determined

2. Other public or semi-public facilities not specifically permitted may be allowed in any zone pursuant to Conditional Use Permit approval.

3. Must be located a minimum 300 feet from any other social service facility or emergency shelter.

4. All activities shall be conducted within an enclosed building.

5. Limited to boarding of cats and other household pets, excluding dogs. All activities shall be conducted within an enclosed building. Breeding is not permitted.

6. Limited to sales of used automobiles; new or used motorcycles and mopeds are allowed.

7. Limited to no more than six fuel dispensers, which may each serve two vehicles.

8. Banks with 1,000 square feet of floor area or less per lot are allowed. Banks with more than 1,000 square feet of floor area per lot require Performance Standard Permit approval.

9. Limited to no more than 10 employees at any given time.

10. Limited to no more than 20 employees at any given time.

18. Individual storage compartments not to exceed 400 square feet in area.

19. Cannabis Storefront-Retailer uses require a commercial cannabis business permit pursuant to Chapter 9.44.

20. Limited to uses permitted in the zone.
(Ord. 5815, 2017; Ord. 5834, 2018; Ord. 6027 § 2, 2021)

12. Limited to offices related to medical and dental field only.

13. Limited to outdoor uses associated with Fueling Stations and Nurseries and Garden Centers.

14. In conjunction with any establishment that serves or sells food or beverages.

15. Limited to pharmacies and medical equipment supply stores. Medical equipment supply stores with 3,000 square feet of floor area or less per lot are allowed. Medical equipment

16. Limited to no more than 10 employees engaged in manufacturing. Manufacturing activities are limited to accessory uses as defined in §30.185.030, Accessory Uses, and may occupy no

17. Limited to the Land Use Regulations, Operational and Performance Standards in Chapter 30.65, Research and Development (RD) Overlay Zone.

Zone O-R C-G
Minimum Net Lot Area for Newly Created Lots (sq. ft.) Same Minimum Public Street Frontage (ft.) Same
Less than 5,000 sq. ft. Net Lot Area Same
5,000 to 6,999 sq. ft. Net Lot Area Same
7,000 and more sq. ft. Net Lot Area Same
Same
Same
Same
Same
Same
Same
Maximum Height (ft.) 45
45;
60 for Community Benefit Project or Community Benefit
Housing Project (§ 30.140.100.B)
See also A, Theater Additions
Additional Height Limitations Adjacent to all Residential Zones Same
Same
Same
Front
Residential only development: Same as R-M Zone
Nonresidential and mixed-use development:
• 1st and 2nd Stories: 10
• Portions of structure above 2nd story: 20
Residential only development: Same as R-M Zone
Nonresidential and mixed-use development: 0
Interior, Adjacent to a Nonresidential Zone
Residential only development: Same as R-M Zone
Nonresidential and mixed-use development:
• 1st and 2nd Stories: 6
• Portions of structure above 2nd story: 10
Residential only development: Same as R-M Zone
Nonresidential and mixed-use development: 0
Interior, Adjacent to a Residential Zone
Same
Uncovered Parking
Open Yards
Same
1 unit
TABLE 30.25.030: DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS—COMMERCIAL AND OFFICE ZONES Lot Size and Street Frontage
None; except 3,500 sq. ft. of net lot area is required for lots that include residential uses None, See § 30.140.180, Street Frontage and Access; and § 30.140.120, Location of Lot Lines Maximum Base Residential Density
2 units
3 units, or 1 unit/3,500 sq. ft. of net lot area, whichever is greater Additional Residential Density Allowances
All lots, in compliance with the applicable section
See § 30.185.040, Accessory Dwelling Units
See Chapter 30.150, Average Unit-Size Density Incentive Program See Chapter 30.145, Affordable Housing and Density Bonus and Development Incentives Structure Form and Location
Minimum Residential Unit Size
Studio: 220 square feet;
All other units: 400 square feet
See § 30.140.150, Residential Unit
See § 30.175.060, Location of Required Automobile and Bicycle Parking Open Yard
Any lot developed with residential uses shall provide open yard pursuant to § 30.140.140, Open Yards.

See Chapter 30.150, Average Unit-Size Density Incentive Program Residential structures, and the residential portion of any mixed-use development: Same as R-M Zone Nonresidential structures, and the nonresidential potion of any structure in a mixed-use development, 30 feet or less in height: 15
Nonresidential structures, and the nonresidential portion of any structure in a mixed-use development, more than 30 feet in height: 20
Height is further limited in accordance with § 30.140.170, Solar Access Height Limitations Minimum Setbacks (ft.)
See also § 30.140.090, Encroachments into Setbacks and Open Yards See Chapter 30.150, Average Unit-Size Density Incentive Program EXHIBIT H ATTACHMENT 3
ATTACHMENT 4
III
1 :lil!.� City of Santa Barbara
./ :, � . California �.· . ._:'$
•• . '

PLANNING COMMISSIO N

STAFF REPORT
REPORT DATE: April l 0, 2025
AGENDA DATE: April 17, 2025
PROJECT ADDRESS: 2020 Chapala Street (PLN2024-00394)
Zoning Ordinance and Zoning Map Amendment
TO:

FROM:

Planning Commission
Planning Division
Megan Arciniega, Senior Planner
Barbara Burkhart, Project Planner
I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
II.

The 22,050-square-foot property is cmrently developed with a 2,803-square-foot one-st01y church building, a 1,265-square-foot detached one-st01y accessory building to the rear ( east), and a 17-space parking lot. The proposal is for a Zoning Ordinance and Zoning Map Amendment to rezone the subject site from 0-R (Office RestJ.icted) to C-G (Commercial General). See Exhibits A and B for archive plans and applicant letter, respectively.

REQUIRED APPLICATIONS
The discretionary applications required at this hearing under the purview of the Planning Commission and the City Council are:

A. A Zoning Ordinance and Zoning Map Amendment to rezone the site from Office RestJ.·icted (0-R) to Commercial General (C-G) per SBMC Chapter 30.235.

APPLICATION DEEMED COMPLETE: February 21, 2025
DATE ACTION REQUIRED: May 22, 2025
III. RECOMMENDATION
The proposed Zoning Ordinance and Zoning Map Amendment is appropriate because the Commercial General zoning classification is most consistent with the site's General Plan land use designation, Commercial-Medium High Density Residential, when compared with other classifications, and when conside1ing the zoning of adjacent lots. Therefore, staff is supportive of the proposed Zoning Ordinance and Zoning Map Amendment, and of a Planning Commission recommendation for approval to the City Council. Per SBMC §30.235.080.B., said recommendation for approval shall be made by the affirmative vote of not less than a majority of the total membership of the Planning Commission.

Item Ill Page 1 of 19

DRAFT ORDINANCE
ORDINANCE NO. __________

AN ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA BARBARA

AMENDING THE SECTIONAL ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF SANTA

BARBARA, AS REFERENCED IN SANTA BARBARA MUNICIPAL CODE
TITLE APX, SECTION SM.010, PERTAINING TO ASSESSOR PARCEL NUMBER 025-311-023 LOCATED AT 2020 CHAPALA STREET
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA BARBARA DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:

Upon approval of the zoning map amendment of the subject property, Sectional Zone Map SC01 of the Sectional Zoning Map of the City of Santa Barbara, incorporated by reference in Section

30.05.020 of the Santa Barbara Municipal Code, is hereby amended to designate Assessor Parcel Number 025-311-023, located at 2020 Chapala Street, and depicted in the attached Exhibit A, as C-G, Commercial General Zone.

EXHIBIT A
Current Zoning – O-R, Office Restricted
Proposed Zoning – C-G, Commercial General
Subject Site
Subject Site

CITY OF SANTA BARBARA

COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
AGENDA DATE: August 12, 2025
TO: Mayor and Councilmembers
FROM: Community Development Department
SUBJECT: Appeal of Architectural Board of Review’s Approval of the 418 N.

Milpas Street and 915-923 E. Gutierrez Street Project
RECOMMENDATION: That Council:

A. Consider and deny Natasha Todorovic’s appeal of the Architectural Board of Review’s Project Design Approval of the 418 N. Milpas Street and 915-923 E.

Gutierrez Street Project, and make the findings set forth in the Council Agenda Report; and
B. 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) granted Project Design Approval for the project consisting of 90 residential units and 850 square feet of commercial space on April 14, 2025. A timely appeal letter was filed by Natasha Todorovic on April 20, 2025, which contends that the approval was based on faulty findings and that the project is not compatible with the neighborhood (see Attachment 1 – Appeal Letter).

The project is proposed under the City’s Average Unit-Size Density (AUD) Incentive Program and State Density Bonus Law. In addition, a Preliminary Housing Application was submitted in accordance with Senate Bill 330 and the project qualifies as a Builder’s Remedy project.

In accordance with State law, denial of a proposed housing project requires a finding that the project would have a specific, adverse impact upon public health or safety. There is no evidence that the proposed project would have a specific, adverse impact upon public health or safety; therefore, staff recommends that Council deny the appeal and uphold the ABR’s Project Design Approval.

Agenda Item No. 7
File Code No. 640.07
Council Agenda Report
Appeal of Architectural Board of Review’s Approval of the 418 N. Milpas Street and 915-923 E. Gutierrez Street Project
August 12, 2025

Page 2 ends

INTRODUCTION
A. Project Description
The project consists of a lot merger of 418 N. Milpas St. (APN 031-311-033) and 915-923 E. Gutierrez St. (APN 031-311-034) to create a 41,477-square-foot (0.95-acre) lot, demolition of all onsite improvements (5,850 square feet of nonresidential floor area, 8 residential units restricted to seniors, and 13 trees), and construction of a new four-story, 108,698-square-foot mixed-use building with 90 residential rental units and 850 square feet (net) of commercial space. The project includes 29 studio units, 46 one-bedroom units, and 15 two-bedroom units, ranging in size from 350 square feet to 974 square feet, with an average unit size of 632 square feet. Nine units would be restricted to very-lowincome households, six units would be restricted to moderate-income households, and one unit would be workforce housing (earning 120-200% of the Area Median Income (AMI). The project includes 65 residential parking stalls, 3 commercial parking stalls, and one loading stall for smaller size delivery/service vehicles. Two existing driveways would be removed from E. Gutierez St. Vehicular access to the site would continue to be from E. Gutierrez Street through a shared driveway with the adjacent property (see Attachment 2 – ABR Approved Plans).

The project site has a General Plan designation of Commercial/ High Density Residential, a Zoning designation of C-G (Commercial General), and is within the Priority Housing Overlay (37- 63 dwelling units/acre).

Average Unit-Size Density (AUD) Incentive Program. The project is consistent with the City’s AUD Program requirements regarding maximum average unit size, interior setbacks, front setback along E. Gutierrez Street, and open yard. The project is using State Density Bonus Law to address density, parking, the front setback on Milpas, and building height requirements (see discussion below).

Inclusionary Housing Ordinance. The project is consistent with the City’s Inclusionary Requirements for AUD Rental Housing by providing six units restricted to moderateincome households. Recently, the City received direction from the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) that, under State Density Bonus law, lower income affordable units may be used to satisfy the City's moderate-income inclusionary requirement. For this project, however, the moderate-income household units continue to be provided.

Removal Of Senior Residential Units. In 1996, the Planning Commission, as a condition of approval for a project developed under the City’s density bonus program, required that each of the 8 residential rental units be restricted to a person 62 years of age and older.

The units do not have income restrictions.

Council Agenda Report
Appeal of Architectural Board of Review’s Approval of the 418 N. Milpas Street and 915-923 E. Gutierrez Street Project
August 12, 2025

Page 3 ends

Under State Density Bonus Law, if existing dwelling units are to be removed, the proposed housing development is required to provide at least the same number of units of equivalent size to be made available at affordable rents in the same or lower income category as those households in occupancy. Although the existing rental units were not income restricted, the rents would qualify as lower income. The current project includes 9 units restricted to low-income households; therefore, the project complies with this requirement.

State Density Bonus Law. State Density Bonus Law (California Government Code Sections 65915 – 65918) allows developers to increase the density of housing projects if they provide affordable housing units. The base density for the two merged lots is 60 units. The proposed project includes a 50% density bonus (60 base density units x 50% = 30 additional units) for a total of 90 units because 15% of base density units (60 x 15% = 9 units) are restricted to very-low-income households. The applicant has requested, and the project qualifies for, the following concessions/incentives, development standard waivers, and parking reductions:

Concessions: Based on the percent and level of affordability proposed, the project qualifies for three concessions/incentives. The application includes only one concession: relief from the AUD Program requirement for a 5-foot variable setback on Milpas Street.

Development Standard Waivers: The project includes one development standard waiver—relief from the AUD Program requirement for a maximum height of 45 feet.

The proposed building is 50’-9” in height with a 64’-10” tall tower element. By waiving the height limit, the project did not need to formally receive a height exception from the Planning Commission1.

Reduction in Parking: The project also qualifies for a reduction in the number of required vehicle parking stalls from one stall per unit (per AUD Program requirements) to 0.5 stalls per unit because at least 11% of the base density units are restricted to very-low income households, resulting in a total of 45 required parking stalls. Although only 45 would be required, the project includes 65 parking stalls for the residential units. The reduction does not apply to the new commercial/ retail space, where the required number of parking spaces (3 spaces) would be provided.
1 Under SBMC §30.140.100.B, Community Benefit Housing projects (which include rental housing) in the C-G zone are eligible for a height increase up to 60 feet if the Planning Commission can make the required findings.

Council Agenda Report
Appeal of Architectural Board of Review’s Approval of the 418 N. Milpas Street and 915-923 E. Gutierrez Street Project
August 12, 2025

Page 4 ends

B. Senate Bill 330 (SB 330)
Senate Bill 330, also known as the Housing Crisis Act of 2019, strengthens protections for housing development projects under the Housing Accountability Act (HAA), Planning and Zoning Law, and the Permit Streamlining Act. The main purpose of SB 330 is to expedite and increase housing production by removing barriers and streamlining the development process.

Preliminary Housing Application. SB 330 allows a housing developer seeking vesting rights to submit a “preliminary application” for a housing development project. A housing development project includes: (1) two or more residential units; (2) a mix of commercial and residential uses with at least two-thirds of the project’s floor area used for residential; or (3) transitional or supportive housing. Upon submittal of this Preliminary Housing Application and payment of the permit processing fee, a housing developer is allowed to “freeze” the applicable fees and development standards that apply to their project while they assemble the rest of the materials necessary for a full application submittal.

For the proposed project, a Preliminary Housing Application and a Pre-Application Review Team (PRT) application were submitted on October 25, 2023. The formal Planning Application was submitted within the required 180-day deadline and subsequent 90-day resubmittal deadlines were met to keep the Preliminary Housing Application from expiring. On January 17, 2025, the project was deemed complete. As required within 30 days, staff issued a Consistency Review letter to the applicant (see Attachment 3 – Consistency Review Letter).

The proposed project was able to freeze the public improvement requirements for the Milpas Street frontage that were in effect at the time of the Preliminary Housing Application submittal. The improvements are consistent with the requirements of Chapter

22.44 (Street Dedication and Improvement Requirements for Building Permits) as it existed on October 25, 2023. Subsequent changes to the ordinance (e.g., Pedestrian Master Plan provisions) do not apply to the project.

Five Hearing Limit. If a proposed housing development project complies with the applicable, objective general plan and zoning standards, once the formal application is deemed complete, the City cannot conduct more than five hearings, including hearing continuances, in connection with the approval of the project (Government Code section 65905.5).

For the proposed project, three hearings have been held thus far: a Planning Commission conceptual review hearing on March 20, 2025 (see Attachment 4 – Planning Commission Staff Report and Minutes), and two ABR hearings (see Attachment 5 – Staff Memo to ABR with PC Minutes; Attachment 6 - ABR Minutes, 4/1/2025; 4/14/2025). This City Council appeal hearing will be the fourth hearing. If the appeal is denied (and the ABR approval upheld), the fifth and final hearing would be before the ABR for Final Approval.

Council Agenda Report
Appeal of Architectural Board of Review’s Approval of the 418 N. Milpas Street and 915-923 E. Gutierrez Street Project
August 12, 2025

Page 5 ends

Objective Standards. The Housing Crisis Act dictates that the City is prohibited from denying a housing development project or reducing its density based on a subjective design standard. A project can only be reviewed against “objective, quantifiable, written development standards, conditions and policies,” and can only be denied if certain findings described in Gov. Code §65589.5(j) are met (see discussion below). “Objective standards” involve no personal or subjective judgment by a public official, and are uniformly verifiable by reference to an external and uniform benchmark or criterion available and knowable by both the development applicant and the public official. “Gov. Code §65589.5(j)(1). When a proposed housing development project complies with applicable, objective general plan, zoning, and subdivision standards and criteria, including design review standards, in effect at the time that the application was deemed complete, but the local agency proposes to disapprove the project or to impose a condition that the project be developed at a lower density, the local agency shall base its decision regarding the proposed housing development project upon written findings supported by a preponderance of the evidence on the record that both of the following conditions exist:
(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.” [Emphasis added.]
The proposed project is consistent with the City’s “objective, quantifiable, written development standards, conditions and policies,” with the exception of those which are granted relief through State Density Bonus Law, and there is no evidence that the proposed project would have a specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety.

C. Builder’s Remedy
The “Builder’s Remedy” arises from the California Housing Accountability Act (HAA). A project qualifies as a Builder’s Remedy project if a SB 330 Preliminary Housing Application is submitted when the City’s Housing Element is not in compliance with state law, if the housing development project includes a certain level of affordable housing, and if the project is either:
 Residential units only;
Council Agenda Report
Appeal of Architectural Board of Review’s Approval of the 418 N. Milpas Street and 915-923 E. Gutierrez Street Project
August 12, 2025

Page 6 ends

 Mixed-use developments with at least two-thirds of the square footage designated for residential use; or
 Transitional housing or supportive housing.

With regard to the City’s Housing Element not being in compliance with state law, the draft Housing Element was submitted to the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) well within the required timelines. However, HCD responded that revisions were necessary to comply with State Housing Law and, after multiple meetings with HCD for additional guidance, the City was required to submit two revised drafts before HCD confirmed the Housing Element met the statutory requirements. The 6th Cycle Housing Element was subject to many new statutory requirements and HCD rejection of initial drafts and requests for extensive additional research and analysis was a common theme for all jurisdictions in the state.

The level of affordability required to qualify as a Builder’s Remedy project is as follows:
 10% of the total units sold or rented to lower income households (lowered from 20 percent through Assembly Bill 1893);
 100% of the units sold or rented to moderate income households; or  100% of the units sold or rented to middle income households.

The proposed project qualifies as a Builder’s Remedy project because the SB 330 Preliminary Housing Application was submitted on October 25, 2023, prior to the finding made on February 13, 2024 by HCD that the City’s Housing Element was in substantial compliance with state law; it meets the definition of a housing development project; and 10% of the total units would be rented to lower income households.

Builder’s Remedy projects can only be denied if any one of the five findings listed below can be made. Staff’s response follows each finding.

1. The city or county has met or exceeded its Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) for the proposed income categories in the development. This finding cannot be made because the City has not met or exceeded its RHNA.

2. The housing development or emergency shelter would have a specific adverse impact on public health and safety, and there is no way to mitigate or avoid the impact without making the development unaffordable. The impact must be based on objective, written public health or safety standards in place when the application was deemed complete. This finding cannot be made because there is no evidence that the project would have a specific adverse impact on public health and safety.

3. The denial or condition is required to meet state or federal law, and there is no feasible method to comply without making the development unaffordable. This finding cannot be made because there is no state or federal law that would require that the project be denied.

Council Agenda Report
Appeal of Architectural Board of Review’s Approval of the 418 N. Milpas Street and 915-923 E. Gutierrez Street Project
August 12, 2025

Page 7 ends

4. The project is proposed on land zoned for agriculture or resource preservation that is surrounded on at least two sides by land being used for agriculture or resource preservation or there are not adequate water or sewage facilities to serve the project. This finding cannot be made because the land is not zoned for agriculture or resource preservation nor is it surrounded on at least two sides by land being used for agriculture or resource preservation. There are adequate water and sewer facilities to serve the project.

5. The project is inconsistent with both the zoning ordinance and the land use designation as specified in any general plan element. However, a city or county cannot make this finding if it has not adopted a housing element in substantial compliance with state law. This finding cannot be made because the project is consistent with both the zoning ordinance and the land use designation as specified in any general plan element. The City has adopted a housing element in substantial compliance with state law.

Additionally, the project has been determined to be consistent with all development standards that were in effect at the time the SB 330 Preliminary Housing Application was submitted, with the exception of the affordable housing requirements as described in the Consistency Review Letter (e.g., dispersed evenly, average size of affordable units).

These inconsistencies can be addressed at the time of building permit submittal, or the applicant can request relief from these requirements through State Density Bonus Law.

As noted above, none of the five findings listed above can be made in order to deny the project. There is no evidence that the proposed project would have a specific adverse impact on public health and safety.

APPEAL DISCUSSION
The appeal letter filed by Natasha Todorovic states that the approval was based on faulty findings and includes a list of appeal issues. The appeal issues have been organized under the following three categories: Design Review, Project Processing, and CEQA (Environmental Review).

A. Appeal Issues Related to Design Review
The appeal issues identified in the appeal letter related to design review include the following:
 Inadequate Project Compatibility Findings
 Inappropriate Size, Mass, Bulk, Height, and Scale
 Failure to Address Neighborhood Character, Neighborhood Compatibility  Premature Findings without Complete Information
Council Agenda Report
Appeal of Architectural Board of Review’s Approval of the 418 N. Milpas Street and 915-923 E. Gutierrez Street Project
August 12, 2025

Page 8 ends

 Public Views Not Properly Analyzed
 Lack of Story Poles
Response to Appeal Issues Related to Design Review
Inadequate Project Compatibility Findings; Inappropriate Size, Mass, Bulk, Height, and Scale; Failure to Address Neighborhood Character, Neighborhood Compatibility; Premature Findings without Complete Information.

The project was appropriately reviewed by the ABR, and the required findings were made as discussed below.

A previous design was reviewed by the ABR on July16, 2018. The project (submitted as a one-time pre-application design consultation) consisted of a four-story, 45-foot tall mixed-use building with 27 residential rental units, an 84-room bed and breakfast hotel, and underground parking. A significant number of oral and written comments in opposition to the project were received from the public. The ABR expressed concern that the size of the development is out of scale with the neighborhood and the hotel is not appropriate for the location.

On August 22, 2022, the ABR reviewed another version of the project (submitted as a one-time pre-application design consultation) that consisted of a four-story, mixeduse building with 90 residential rental units and 6,118 square feet of commercial space (1,557-square-foot retail; 4,561-square-foot bed and breakfast hotel). Again, a significant number of oral and written comments in opposition to the project were received from the public. Although some ABR members appreciated the design efforts made to address their concerns, the ABR expressed the same concerns regarding the mass, bulk, and scale of the project, and neighborhood compatibility.

After the 2022 ABR hearing, the project was revised. Some of the main changes are listed below.
 reduced size overall
 eliminated bed and breakfast hotel component
 increased number of parking stalls
 reduced massing and increased setback along both Milpas and Gutierrez Streets
 increased setback from adjacent property at northern property line  further articulated the north elevation
 made changes to mass, bulk, and scale
 reduced building height from 52’ to 50’-9”
 designated a loading stall for smaller size delivery/service vehicles Council Agenda Report
Appeal of Architectural Board of Review’s Approval of the 418 N. Milpas Street and 915-923 E. Gutierrez Street Project
August 12, 2025

Page 9 ends

On March 20, 2025, the Planning Commission held a concept review of the project and provided comments to the ABR for consideration (see Attachments 4 and 5).

The ABR reviewed the project for Project Design Approval on two occasions.

On April 1, 2025, the ABR reviewed the project, including the solar study/shadow plan, and the exhibit showing how the project meets the solar access height limitations requirements. Similar to the previous hearings on the project, a significant number of oral and written comments in opposition to the project were received from the public. The hearing was continued to April 14, 2025 with comments regarding design details and massing (see Attachment 6 - ABR Minutes).

On April 14, 2025, a significant number of oral and written comments in opposition to the project were received from the public. The ABR granted Project Design approval with a 4/2/0 vote, making the following Project Compatibility Findings. a. The project is consistent with the design guidelines that are applicable to the location of the project.
b. The design of the project is compatible with the architectural character of the City, of the distinctive characteristics of Santa Barbara. c. The size, mass, bulk, height, and scale meet the zoning code and therefore we can find it appropriate for its location.
d. There are no adjacent landmarks or historic resources that we know of for this project.
e. The project does not impede the public views of the ocean or mountains. f. The use of open space and landscaping is appropriate. g. The Board looks forward to further detailing and the location of the mechanical units and vents and looks forward to them being appropriate to the neighboring properties.

Two Board members voted no because they could not make the findings regarding size, mass, bulk, and scale.

Public Views Not Properly Analyzed. The Planning Commission staff report (see Attachment 4) addressed consistency with the policies of the General Plan related to public views as follows:

The Environmental Resources Element and the Conservation Element include aesthetic and visual resource policies to protect visual resources. There are no clear public views of the ocean from Milpas Street at the project site due to the location, and the existing neighborhood development. Views of the mountains are intermittently visible along Milpas Street. The proposed development replaces one-story buildings along Milpas Street and one-story residential units on E. Gutierrez St. with a new four-story building. While any Council Agenda Report
Appeal of Architectural Board of Review’s Approval of the 418 N. Milpas Street and 915-923 E. Gutierrez Street Project
August 12, 2025

Page 10 ends

multi-story structure has the likelihood to block views of the mountains, this would be intermittent along Milpas Street. Views of the Riviera and mountains as viewed from the beach, harbor, and other important viewing areas would not be impacted by the project. Therefore, the project can be found consistent with the Environmental Resources and Conservation Element.

Lack of Story Poles. On April 1, 2025, the ABR held the first concept review of the current project, and with a straw vote determined that story poles would not be required. The need for story poles is at the discretion of the ABR.

B. Appeal Issues Related to Project Processing
The appeal issues identified in the appeal letter related to project processing include the following:
 Procedural Errors
 Inadequate Public Noticing
 Misapplication of SB35 and Builder's Remedy Law
Response to Appeal Issues Related to Project Processing Procedural Errors. No procedural errors have been identified. This project is proposed under the City's AUD Program and does not require discretionary land use approvals beyond Project Design and Final Approvals by the ABR. While the AUD Program does require Planning Commission "Concept Review," this review is simply to provide comments and recommendations to the ABR regarding the Project's proposed design and consistency with the General Plan.

Inadequate Public Noticing. The required public noticing requirements were followed throughout the processing of the project. Mailed notices were sent to surrounding property owners and occupants within 300 feet of the project site and interested parties prior to the ABR hearing on April 1, 2025, and the Planning Commission meeting on March 20, 2025, as required. The on-site Notice of Development sign was installed at the site, as was the AUD Supplemental On-Site Notice.

Misapplication of SB35 and Builder's Remedy Law. The appeal letter does not explain what the misapplication of SB35 and Builder's Remedy Law was. As described above, the project qualifies as a Builder’s Remedy project. It has not been stated that SB 35 applies to the project.

C. Appeal Issues Related to CEQA (Environmental Review) Council Agenda Report
Appeal of Architectural Board of Review’s Approval of the 418 N. Milpas Street and 915-923 E. Gutierrez Street Project
August 12, 2025

Page 11 ends

The appeal issues identified in the appeal letter related to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) include the following:
 Violations of CEQA; order the preparation of a full Environmental Impact Report  Failure to Address Public Safety Issues
 Flawed, Outdated Traffic Study
Response to Appeal Issues Related to CEQA (Environmental Review) Violations of CEQA; require full compliance with CEQA; order the preparation of a full Environmental Impact Report. The appeal letter does not provide any evidence that there are any violations of CEQA or why an EIR should be required. Staff determined that the project qualifies for an exemption from further environmental review under Section 15332 (In-fill Development Projects) of the CEQA Guidelines. Additionally, none of the exceptions under CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2 apply. There would be no significant project-specific or cumulative impact on the environment due to unusual circumstances, 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. Section 15332 allows an exemption for projects meeting the following:
(a) The project is consistent with the applicable general plan designation and all applicable general plan policies as well as with applicable zoning designation and regulations. The proposed project is consistent with the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance as described in this staff report.
(b) The proposed development occurs within city limits on a project site of no more than five acres substantially surrounded by urban uses. The project is located in an urban setting on a 0.95-acre lot.
(c) The project site has no value as habitat for endangered, rare or threatened species. The project site is located in an urban setting and developed with structures and paved surfaces and has no value as habitat for endangered, rare or threatened species.
(d) Approval of the project would not result in any significant effects relating to traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality. The project would not result in impacts related to traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality. (e) The site can be adequately served by all required utilities and public services.

All required utilities and public services are available.

The Planning Commission staff report included this CEQA exemption discussion. The Planning Commission has extensive experience in reviewing environmental documents Council Agenda Report
Appeal of Architectural Board of Review’s Approval of the 418 N. Milpas Street and 915-923 E. Gutierrez Street Project
August 12, 2025

Page 12 ends

and making CEQA determinations on specific projects. No comments were provided to staff to indicate that the Planning Commission disagreed with the CEQA determination.

Failure to Address Public Safety Issues. No public safety issues were identified in the appeal letter. Right of way improvements are in compliance with the public improvement Municipal Code requirements and federal Americans with Disabilities Act. Loading and unloading of trash and recycling pick up will occur on E. Guiterrez Street. There is loading and unloading designated onsite for service and delivery vehicles. Staff evaluated the potential for loading and unloading traffic/circulation issues and the operation of trash and recycling pick up on E. Gutierrez St. and determined that there would be no safety issues.

In addition, during project review, the Fire Department determined that the subject site is in compliance with their access requirements.

Flawed, Outdated Traffic Study. The project did not use an outdated traffic study. The Planning Commission staff report addressed traffic impacts. Staff’s analysis is as follows:

Project Consistency with the Traffic Management Strategy. Traffic analysis was conducted per the City’s adopted Traffic Analysis Guidelines dated May 2020 and December 2023. Using the City’s Traffic Model rates for the proposed project located in Traffic Model Area 2, the proposed 90 residential units and 850-net-square-foot retail building would generate approximately 38 AM and 37 PM new peak hour trips. The existing nursery (retail use) and eight residential units generate approximately 11 AM and 14 PM peak hour trips.

The net change in peak hour trips is 27 AM and 23 PM peak hour trips.

Distributing these trips to the City grid would not use one percent or more of the intersection capacity at any of the 27 identified future 2030 anticipated impacted intersections. Therefore, a project-specific traffic effect is not anticipated.

FINDINGS
Staff recommends that the following findings to approve the project can be made:

A. Environmental Review (CEQA Guidelines)
The project qualifies for an exemption from further environmental review under CEQA Guidelines Section 15332 (In-fill Development Projects) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. Additionally, none of the exceptions under CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2 apply. There would be no significant project-specific or cumulative impact on the environment due to unusual circumstances, 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. Section 15332 allows an exemption for projects meeting the following:

Council Agenda Report
Appeal of Architectural Board of Review’s Approval of the 418 N. Milpas Street and 915-923 E. Gutierrez Street Project
August 12, 2025

Page 13 ends

1. The project is consistent with the applicable general plan designation and all applicable general plan policies as well as with applicable zoning designation and regulations. The proposed project is consistent with the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance as described in this staff report.

2. The proposed development occurs within city limits on a project site of no more than five acres substantially surrounded by urban uses. The project is located in an urban setting on a 0.95-acre lot.

3. The project site has no value as habitat for endangered, rare or threatened species. The project site is located in an urban setting and developed with structures and paved surfaces and has no value as habitat for endangered, rare or threatened species.

4. Approval of the project would not result in any significant effects relating to traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality. The project would not result in impacts related to traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality.

5. The site can be adequately served by all required utilities and public services.

All required utilities and public services are available.

B. Accept the Project Compatibility Analysis Findings Made by ABR (SBMC Chapter 22.68)

1. The project is consistent with the design guidelines that are applicable to the location of the project.

2. The design of the project is compatible with the architectural character of the City, of the distinctive characteristics of Santa Barbara.

3. The size, mass, bulk, height, and scale meet the zoning code and therefore we can find it appropriate for its location.

4. There are no adjacent landmarks or historic resources that we know of for this project.

5. The project does not impede the public views of the ocean or mountains.

6. The use of open space and landscaping is appropriate.

7. The Board looks forward to further detailing and the location of the mechanical units and vents and looks forward to them being appropriate to the neighboring properties.

C. Senate Bill 330 Findings

1. The proposed project is consistent with the City’s objective, quantifiable, written development standards, conditions and policies in effect at the time of the submittal of the Preliminary Housing Application on October 25, 2023.

Council Agenda Report
Appeal of Architectural Board of Review’s Approval of the 418 N. Milpas Street and 915-923 E. Gutierrez Street Project
August 12, 2025

Page 14 ends

2. There is no evidence that the proposed project would have a specific adverse impact on public health and safety. “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.

The following findings to deny the project cannot be made:

D. Builder’s Remedy Findings to Deny a Project

4. The project is proposed on land zoned for agriculture or resource preservation that is surrounded on at least two sides by land being used for agriculture or resource preservation or there are not adequate water or sewage facilities to the serve the project. This finding cannot be made because the land is not zoned for agriculture or resource preservation nor is it surrounded on at least two sides by land being used for agriculture or resource preservation. There are adequate water and sewer facilities to serve the project.

Council Agenda Report
Appeal of Architectural Board of Review’s Approval of the 418 N. Milpas Street and 915-923 E. Gutierrez Street Project
August 12, 2025

Page 15 ends

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that Council deny the appeal and approve the project making the findings set forth in the Council Agenda Report.

If Council does not agree with the ABR’s decision to approve the project, then Council must deny the project, and identify which specific findings can or cannot be made. The motion must include all relevant facts and evidence that support the determination that the findings necessary to approve the project cannot be made, including health and safety findings.

Regardless of whether Council decides to deny or uphold the appeal, staff recommends that Council direct staff to return with a resolution reflecting the outcome of the appeal and the facts and findings reflecting Council’s decision.

BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACT
This action does not have a budget/financial impact on the City.

ATTACHMENT(S): 1. Appeal letter (4/20/2025)

2. ABR Approved Plans

3. Consistency Review Letter (2/13/2025)

4. Planning Commission Staff Report and Minutes (3/20/2025)

5. Staff Memo to ABR (3/25/2025)

6. ABR Minutes (4/1/2025; 4/14/2025)
PREPARED BY: Kathleen A. Kennedy, Project Planner
SUBMITTED BY: Allison DeBusk, Interim Community Development Director APPROVED BY: Kelly McAdoo, City Administrator
DR. NATASHA TODOROV. IC.

April 20, 2025
Santa Barbara City Council
City of Santa Barbara
P.O. Box 1990
Saota Barbara, CA 93102-1990
Re: Appeal of ABR Ptoject Design Approval for 418 N Milpas / 915-923 E Gutierrez Made Dear Mayor and City Counctlmembers,
I respectfully submit this appeal of the Architectural Board of Review's ("ABR") Ptoject Design Approval for 418 N MUpas and 915-923 E Gutietrez made on Apal 14, 2025.

Description of Decision Being Appealed:

The ABR's Troject Design Approval was based on faulty findings. The ABR must formally find Aat a project is compatible with the neighbodiood before granting ^>proval, and dus project is deafly NOT compatible for many reasons, including sigaificdat health and safety coacerns.

The ABR is required to make sue specific findings based on substantial evidence, tnstead, the Chair redted condusions without dting project-sperific facts, misapplied I^al standards by equating zoning compliance with compatibility, and made prematare findings -without futt iafortnation (for example, the flawed and outdated traffic study).

The Grounds of <his Appeal Include:

Procedural Errors; Inadequate Project Compatibility Findings; Inappropriate Size, Mass, Bulk, Height, and Scale; Failure to Address Neighborhood Character; Premature Findings without Complete Informadon; Public Views Not Properly Analyzed; Failure to Address Public Safety Issues; Violations of CEQA; Inadequate Public Noticing and Lack of Story Poles; Misapplication of SB35 and BuUder's Remedy Law.

I request that City Council heat this appeal, require fiill compUance -with CEQA, review "compatibility", and order the pteparation of a full Eiivironmental Impact Report.

This project, if approved, will have long-lasting consequeaces for the health, safety, and quality of life of hundreds of families within it and in proximity. It represents a significant risk to the neighborhood s integrity and livability for geaeradons to come. Therefore, it requires thoughtful and thorough debate and consideration.

Sincerely,
Natasha Todorovic
920 E GUTIERREZ ST . SANTA BARBARA, CALIFORNIA* 93103
PHONE: (80S) 962 0366
ATTACHMENT 1
SANTA^BARBARA

COMMUNITY
bEVELOPMENT
coMMUNrrv DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
Building

APPLICATION FOR APPEAL
An appeal is hereby made to Your Honorable Body from the decision of the:
|7] Architectural Board of Review
D Building Official / Fire Code Official
C] Community Development Director
D Floodplain Administrator
D Historic Landmarks Commission
D Planning Commission
Parks & Recreation Commission
D Sign Committee
Single Family Design Board
d Staff Hearing Officer
Which was taken on the 14th day of APril , 2025.
1/We, the appellant(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: 418 N. Milpas/915-923 E, Gutierrez Street APPELLANT'S INFORMATION -Appealed by Applicant? Q Yes [7] No Name: Natasha Todorovic Organization (if representing):

Address: po BOX 4011 0, Santa Barbara, CA zlp:931 40
Email: natasha@spiraldynamics. org phone: (805) 962-0366 REASONS FOR APPEAL:

Explain specifically what actions you are appealing, and attach a copy of the protested notice, if applicable The ABR's "Project Design Approval" was based on faulty findings. The ABR must first make the formal finding that a project is compatible with the neighborhood to approve a project. This project is clearly NOT compatible with our I neighborhood for many reasons including significant health and safety problems. The ABR is required to make six specific findings based on substantial evidence in the record. Instead, the Chair and Board ... (see attached) 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.

February 13, 2025
Ginger Andersen, Land Use Planner
Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP
Sent via email: [email protected]
SUBJECT: CONSISTENCY REVIEW FOR 418 N. MILPAS STREET & 915-923 E. GUTIERREZ STREET; PLN2024-00156
Dear Ms. Andersen:

On October 25, 2023, the City of Santa Barbara (City) accepted your SB 330 Housing Project Application and Pre-Application Review Team (PRT) application (PRE2023-00148) for a proposed mixed-use/ housing development project at 418 N. Milpas Street (APN 031-311-034) and 915-923 E. Gutierrez Street (APN 031-311-034) (Project).

On November 17, 2023, the City provided a PRT comment letter confirming the preliminary application was submitted as of October 25, 2023 because that submittal included all items required pursuant to Government Code section 65941.1(a).

On April 22, 2024, you submitted to the City a formal Planning Application (PLN2024-00156) related to the October 25, 2023 preliminary application submission.

On May 22, 2024 the City provided an Application Completeness Letter (Review #1) deeming the application incomplete as required items from the City’s Planning Application Submittal Packet were missing from the formal development application.

On August 16, 2024, you resubmitted the formal Planning Application to the City related to the October 25, 2023 preliminary application submission.

On September 20, 2024, the City provided an Application Completeness Letter (Review #2) deeming the application incomplete as required items from the City’s Planning Application Submittal Packet were missing from the formal development application.

On December 18, 2024, you resubmitted the formal Planning Application to the City related to the October 25, 2023 preliminary application submission.

On January 17, 2025, the City provided an Application Completeness Letter (Review #3) deeming the formal development application complete with regard to basic application components.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION:

The project involves the merger of two lots (APN 031-311-033 and APN 031-311-034) to create a 41,477 square foot (0.95-acre) lot, demolition of all onsite improvements (5,095.2 square feet of nonresidential floor area, and 8 residential units), and the construction of a new four-story, 108,698 square foot (gross) mixed-use building with 90 residential units and 850 square feet ATTACHMENT 3
Consistency Review for 419 N. Milpas St. & 915-923 E. Gutierrez St.

PLN2024-00156
February 13, 2025

Page 2 of 3 ends

(net) of commercial (nonresidential) space. Of the residential rental units, nine (9) would be restricted to very-low-income households and six (6) units would be restricted to moderateincome households.

The project utilizes the City’s Average Unit-Size Density (AUD) Incentive Program and State Density Bonus Law. The project provides at least 10% of the units dedicated to very-low-income households and qualifies as a “Builder’s Remedy” project.

Under State Density Bonus Law, the project includes an additional 50% density bonus (60 base density units x 50% = 30 additional units) for a total of 90 units because 15% of base density (60 x 15% = 9 units) are restricted to very-low-income households. The project includes 29 studio units, 46 one-bedroom units, and 15 two-bedroom units, ranging in size from 350 square feet to 974 square feet, with an average unit size of 632 square feet.

The project qualifies for three concessions/incentives under State Density Bonus Law. Currently, the application includes one concession: relief from the 5-foot variable setback on Milpas Street.

The project also includes one development standard waiver: relief from the 45-foot height requirement.

The project includes a total of 69 parking spaces; 66 for the 90 residential units, and 3 for the commercial retail component. Reduced parking is allowed by State Density Bonus Law.

CONSISTENCY REVIEW:

Please be advised that the formal development application for the Project has been reviewed for consistency with development standards that were adopted and in effect at the time the SB 330 preliminary application was submitted on October 25, 2023, as well as at the time the formal development application was deemed complete on January 17, 2025, as appropriate.

Average Unit-Size Density (AUD) Incentive Program. The Project has been found to be consistent with the City’s Average Unit-Size Density (AUD) Incentive Program in regard to maximum average unit size, setback requirements (except along Milpas Street; see below), and open yard. The project does not comply with AUD parking or height, but that is addressed by State Density Bonus Law; see below).

State Density Bonus Law. State Density Bonus Law allows relief from development standards.

The Project includes relief from the following AUD requirements: 5-foot variable front setback requirement along Milpas Street, the maximum building height requirement, and the parking requirement.

Inclusionary Housing Ordinance. The project is consistent with the Inclusionary Requirements for AUD Rental Housing by providing six (6) units restricted to moderate-income households.

City’s Affordable Housing Policies and Procedures. The project is not consistent with the affordable housing requirements (e.g., dispersed evenly, average size of affordable units compared to market-rate units) as outlined in the Affordable Housing Policies and Procedures (March 2021). See also SBMC §30.145.020.B.

Public Improvements. The project is consistent with the requirements of Chapter 22.44 (Street Dedication and Improvement Requirements for Building Permits) in effect at the time of the SB Consistency Review for 419 N. Milpas St. & 915-923 E. Gutierrez St.

PLN2024-00156
February 13, 2025

Page 3 of 3 ends

330 preliminary housing application submittal on October 25, 2023. Subsequent changes to the ordinance do not apply to the project.

The January 17, 2025 Application Completeness Letter (Review #3) included a number of advisory comments. It has been determined that Marborg can service the site from Gutierrez Street per applicant correspondence with Marborg dated February 10, 2025.

After the project has completed construction, a request can be made to the City’s Downtown Parking Division and Traffic Engineer to review a potential loading zone on Gutierrez Street.

Staff would monitor the operational needs of the street and the adjacent loading areas to determine the need for an on-street loading zone that would service the entire block. If operations warrant the need for on-street loading, consideration will be made at that time. The loading zone is subject to approval and is not guaranteed to be approved. If approved, the loading zone would not be exclusive to the site and would serve the needs of the entire block.

All other comments related to parking design, water meters, etc. are required to be addressed as part of the building permit application. Additional advisory comments were provided in the Review # 1 letter related to Storm Water Management and building code requirements. These comments are also required to be addressed as part of the building permit application.

Please be advised that prior to building permit issuance, the applicant shall also comply with other relevant local/State/federal agencies’ regulations that are directly applicable to the project.

This consistency review is performed based on application materials submitted to date. As the Project application materials are revised and new information is provided, these changes may result in updates to the City’s consistency review determinations.

If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at [email protected].

Sincerely,
Kathleen A. Kennedy
Project Planner

PLANNING COMMISSION

STAFF REPORT
REPORT DATE: March 13, 2025
AGENDA DATE: March 20, 2025
PROJECT ADDRESS: 418 N. Milpas St. and 915-923 E. Gutierrez St. (PLN2024-00156) TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Planning Division
Megan Arciniega, Senior Planner
Kathleen Kennedy, Project Planner
I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The project involves the voluntary lot merger of 418 N. Milpas St. (APN 031-311-033) and 915- 923 E. Gutierrez St. (APN 031-311-034) to create a 41,477-square-foot (0.95-acre) lot, demolition of all onsite improvements (5,850 square feet of nonresidential floor area, 8 residential units, and 13 trees), and construction of a new four-story, 108,698 square foot (gross) mixed-use building with 90 residential rental units and 850 square feet (net) of commercial space.

The project includes 29 studio units, 46 one-bedroom units, and 15 two-bedroom units, ranging in size from 350 square feet to 974 square feet, with an average unit size of 632 square feet. Nine (9) units would be restricted to very-low-income households and six (6) units would be restricted to moderate-income households. The project includes 65 residential parking stalls, 3 commercial parking stalls, and one loading parking stall for smaller size delivery/service vehicles. Vehicular access to the site is from E. Gutierrez Street.

The project is being presented for concept review and comments only. No appealable decisions will be made at this meeting.

II. PURPOSE OF CONCEPT REVIEW HEARING
Planning Commission Conceptual Review is required because the cumulative lot area is greater than 15,000 square feet and the project site has a General Plan land use designation of High Density Residential (28-36 du/acre) (SBMC §30.150.060.A). The purpose of the hearing is for the Planning Commission to review the proposed design and provide the applicant, staff, and the Architectural Board of Review (ABR) with comments regarding the design, overall improvements, and consistency with the City’s General Plan (SBMC §30.150.060.E). As designed, the ABR is the decision-maker for the project.

III Item III Page 1 of 23 ATTACHMENT 4
Planning Commission Staff Report
418 N. Milpas St. and 915-923 E. Gutierrez St. (PLN2024-00156) Report Date: March 13, 2025

Page 2 ends

III. RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission review the project and provide comment and recommendation by majority vote regarding the proposed design and improvements of the project, and the project’s consistency with the City’s General Plan. The Planning Commission’s comments and recommendations will be communicated to the ABR for use in their future deliberations on the project.

Vicinity Map: 418 N. Milpas St. (outlined in yellow) and 915-923 E. Gutierrez St. (outlined in blue)
418 N Milpas St.
915-923 E Gutierrez St.

Item III Page 2 of 23
Planning Commission Staff Report
418 N. Milpas St. and 915-923 E. Gutierrez St. (PLN2024-00156) Report Date: March 13, 2025

Page 3 ends

IV. BACKGROUND
Previous designs. On July16, 2018, the ABR reviewed a project (submitted as a one-time preapplication consultation) that consisted of a four-story, 45-foot tall mixed-use building with 27 residential rental units and an 84-room bed and breakfast hotel.

On August 22, 2022, the ABR reviewed a project (submitted as a one-time pre-application consultation) that consisted of a four-story, mixed-use building with 90 residential rental units and 6,118 square feet of commercial space (1,557 square-foot retail; 4,561-square-foot bed and breakfast hotel).

Current Project. On October 25, 2023, the City accepted the SB 330 Housing Project Application and Pre-Application Review Team (PRT) application (PRE2023-00148) for the proposed mixeduse/ housing development project. On November 17, 2023, the City provided a PRT comment letter regarding the project. On April 22, 2024, the applicant submitted a formal Planning Application (PLN2024-00156) within the required 180-day period to keep the SB 330 application from expiring. The project qualifies as a “Builder’s Remedy” project. On January 17, 2025, the City provided an Application Completeness Letter (Review #3) deeming the formal development application complete.

Item III Page 3 of 23
Planning Commission Staff Report
418 N. Milpas St. and 915-923 E. Gutierrez St. (PLN2024-00156) Report Date: March 13, 2025

Page 4 ends

V. SITE INFORMATION AND PROJECT STATISTICS
A. SITE INFORMATION
Applicant:

Beth Collins & Ginger Andersen, Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck; Riviera Vista I, LLC, Robert Ludwick, Manager
Property Owner: Goldenstone Trust, Carol Kallman and Donald Barthelmess Trustees Site Information
Parcel Number: 031-311-033 and
031-311-034 Lot Area: 0.95 acres; 41,477 SF
General Plan: Commercial High Density
Residential; Priority Housing Overlay (37-
63 du/acre)
Zoning: C-G (Commercial General)
Existing Use: Vacant Commercial/
Senior Housing Topography: < 3% slope
Adjacent Zoning and Land Uses
North: C-G/R-2 Commercial
East: R-2 Residential
South: C-G Public Right-of-Way (E. Gutierrez St.)
West: C-G Commercial; Public Right-of-Way (N. Milpas St.) B. PROJECT STATISTICS
Existing Proposed
Residential Units 8 Units 90 Units
Commercial Floor Area 5,850 SF 850 SF
Number of Units Commercial Space Other Uses
First Floor 3 850 SF
parking stalls;
residential lobbies;
bicycle rooms; leasing
office; activity room
Second Floor 34 - podium courtyards
Third Floor 33 - -
Fourth Floor 20 - roof terraces;
amenity rooms
TOTAL 90 850 SF
Item III Page 4 of 23
Planning Commission Staff Report
418 N. Milpas St. and 915-923 E. Gutierrez St. (PLN2024-00156) Report Date: March 13, 2025

Page 5 ends

VI. POLICY AND ZONING CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS
A. ZONING ORDINANCE CONSISTENCY
Standard Requirement/ Allowance Proposed
Setbacks
-Front
-Interior
Front: 5’ variable
Interior: Adjacent to
Nonresidential 0’
Interior: Adjacent to Residential
6’ variable
Front: N. Milpas St. (<5-
foot variable*)
Front: E. Gutierrez St. (5-
foot variable)
Interior: Adjacent to
Nonresidential 0’
Interior: Adjacent to
Residential > 6’
Building Height 45 feet, or up to 60 feet with
height exception
50’-9” * with
64’-10” element
Parking
-Vehicle
-Bicycle
90 (1 space/ unit);
3 (1 space/ 250 s.f. commercial);
90 (1 covered & secured bicycle
stall/ unit)
1 (1 short-term bicycle stall/
1,750 s.f. commercial)
65 residential*;
3 commercial;
1 loading
124 standard covered;
4 non-standard covered
Density
Priority Housing Overlay:
63 units/acre (60 units) or
State Density Bonus
State Density Bonus*

94.5 units/acre (90 units)
Average Unit Size Maximum 811 s.f. 632 s.f.

Open Yard
Alternative Open Yard Design
(SBMC §30.140.140.F)
6,222 s.f. (15% of lot area; one
area with dimensions of 20’x 20’)
11,701 s. f.
*State Density Bonus Law (see below)

1. STATE DENSITY BONUS LAW
Pursuant to Government Code §65915, the project includes an additional 50% density bonus (60 base density units x 50% = 30 additional units) for a total of 90 units because 15% of base density (60 x 15%=9 units) are restricted to very-low-income households. In addition, the project qualifies for three concessions/incentives as well as waivers or reductions in development standards. As designed, the project includes one concession: relief from the 5- foot variable setback on Milpas Street. The project also includes one development standard waiver: relief from the 45-foot height requirement. The project also qualifies for a reduction in the number of required vehicle parking stalls from 1 stall per unit to 0.5 stalls per unit because at least 11% of the units restricted to very -low income households (Government Item III Page 5 of 23
Planning Commission Staff Report
418 N. Milpas St. and 915-923 E. Gutierrez St. (PLN2024-00156) Report Date: March 13, 2025

Page 6 ends

Code §65915(p)), resulting in a total of 45 required parking stalls. However, the project includes a total of 65 parking stalls for the residential units.

2. SETBACKS
As noted above, the project includes a concession for relief from the 5-foot variable setback on Milpas Street. The project meets all other required setbacks. The interior setback adjacent to a residential zone is six feet. This applies to the east elevation of the project, where the proposal provides a minimum of 14 feet for the first and second stories, more than 20 feet for the third story, and more than 36 feet for the fourth story. The project also meets the solar access height limitations.

3. BUILDING HEIGHT
As noted above, the project includes a density bonus concession for relief from the 45-foot height requirement. The proposed height of the building is 50’-9”. Because the project site is located in the C-G zone and would qualify as a Community Benefit Housing project, the applicant could have requested a height exception from the Planning Commission to allow the height to be between 45 and 60 feet tall if the applicable findings could be made (SBMC §30.140.100.B.1).

4. OPEN YARD
The project proposes to provide open yard using the AUD Alternative Open Yard Design criteria (SBMC §30.150.090.G.2.b.iii.). This section requires that projects provide 15% of the net lot area as open yard, and at least one common area with a minimum dimension of 20 feet long and 20 feet wide, located on the ground or any floor of the building that is accessible to all units. For this project, the open yard requirement is 6,222 square feet. The project provides approximately 11,700 square feet of open yard area throughout the development.

5. INCLUSIONARY HOUSING REQUIREMENTS (SBMC §30.150.110.A.1) The project requires at least 10% of the units to be constructed and offered at an affordable rent as moderate-income units. The project complies with this requirement by providing 6 units affordable to moderate income households (10% of 60 base density units = 6 units).

Other Requirements. The project is consistent with the requirements of SBMC Chapter 22.44 (Street Dedication and Improvement Requirements for Building Permits) in effect at the time of the SB 330 preliminary housing application submittal on October 25, 2023. Subsequent changes to the ordinance adopted in February 2024 do not apply to the project. The project includes a 1’- 8” dedication of easement along N. Milpas Street. The street tree (Ficus) along Milpas Street is in poor health and is expected to be removed by the City by the end of the calendar year.

B. POLICY CONSISTENCY
The project is consistent with the City’s General Plan, which includes policies established in the Land Use Element, Housing Element, Environmental Resources Element (including Noise and Conservation), and Circulation Element. A complete list of policies that apply to the project, situated within the Milpas Neighborhood, is attached as Exhibit D.

Item III Page 6 of 23
Planning Commission Staff Report
418 N. Milpas St. and 915-923 E. Gutierrez St. (PLN2024-00156) Report Date: March 13, 2025

Page 7 ends

1. LAND USE ELEMENT
The project site is in the C-G (General Commercial) zone, within the Priority Housing Overlay, and has a General Plan Land Use designation of Commercial/High-Density Residential. The project site is in the Milpas Neighborhood of the General Plan, bounded on the north by Canon Perdido Street; on the south by Highway 101; and on the east and west by a line mid-block behind commercial properties along on Milpas Street.

Milpas is developed as primarily a strip of commercial uses along both sides of the street, consistent with the General Plan designation of Commercial High Density. There is a scattering of residential uses above and behind shops. This area serves not only the residential areas surrounding Milpas Street, but the Eucalyptus and Riviera neighborhoods as well.

The Milpas corridor generally supports neighborhood commercial uses, with two large shopping centers. Due to the availability of neighborhood serving uses on Milpas Street, and the close proximity to transit, this area could redevelop to incorporate more residential in mixed use projects to form a unique urban neighborhood.

The project is consistent with the Land Use Element Policy LG4. Principles for Development, which encourages workforce and affordable housing within a quarter mile of frequent transit service and commercial services through smaller units and increased density; encourages a mix of land uses; and encourages easy access to basic needs such as groceries and drug stores.

The project is consistent with the Land Use Element Policy LG5. Community Benefit Housing, which encourages new residential development in commercial zones to include affordable housing, and LG5.1 Affordable Housing, an implementation action to encourage rental housing, and housing affordable to low, moderate, or middle income households.

The project is consistent with the Land Use Element Policy LG6. Location of Residential Growth, which encourages new residential units in multi-family and commercial areas of the City with the highest densities to be located in the Downtown, La Cumbre Plaza/Five Points area and along Milpas Street, and Land Use Element Policy LG6.3 Priority Housing Overlay, which encourages increased density (over Average Unit-Size Density Incentive Program).

The project is consistent with the General Plan Land Use designation of Commercial/High Density Residential, located in areas of the City that are along and/or near major transit corridors and where the highest residential densities are encouraged.

The project is consistent with the policies described above, and therefore is consistent with the Land Use Element.

2. HOUSING ELEMENT
The goals of the new 2023 Housing Element include Create New Housing; Prioritize Affordable Housing; Provide Housing Assistance; Promote Housing Stability; Preserve Housing; Engage the Community; Coordinate with Regional Partners; and Fund Affordable Housing.

Item III Page 7 of 23
Planning Commission Staff Report
418 N. Milpas St. and 915-923 E. Gutierrez St. (PLN2024-00156) Report Date: March 13, 2025

Page 8 ends

As a housing development project, the proposal is consistent with policies related to Goal 1, Create New Housing and Goal 2, Prioritize Affordable Housing.

In regard to Goal 1, Create New Housing, the project is consistent with Housing Policy

1.2: Infill Housing, which encourages development of housing on infill sites near transit and jobs, particularly redevelopment of sites suitable for housing, and Housing Policy

1.7: Prioritize Housing and Community Benefit, which prioritize residential development on sites zoned for both residential and other uses.

In regard to Goal 2, Prioritize Affordable Housing, the project is consistent with Housing Policy 2.1: Prioritize Affordable Housing and Community Priority Projects and Housing Policy 2.2 Increase Production of Affordable Housing, both of which encourage the production of affordable housing; and Housing Policy 2.5: Rental Housing, which encourages smaller rental units close to transit, and easy walking and biking distance to commercial services.

The project would provide 90 rental units (82 net new) to the City’s housing stock, comprised of 9 very-low-income, 6 moderate-income, and 75 market-rate units, in an area designated for high residential densities. The project is consistent with the policies described above, and therefore is consistent with the Housing Element.

3. CIRCULATION ELEMENT
The Circulation Element’s comprehensive goal and vision statement is, “While sustaining or increasing economic vitality and quality of life, Santa Barbara should be a city in which alternative forms of transportation and mobility are so available and so attractive that use of an automobile is a choice, not a necessity.” The project site is located on N. Milpas Street between E. Haley Street and W. Gutierrez Street, where residents are within proximity to sidewalk, bicycle, and transit facilities. The project provides 124 standard covered and secure bicycle parking stalls and 4 non-standard covered and secure bicycle stalls. Given the location of the site and the variety of transportation methods present, dependency on automobiles is minimized. Therefore, the project can be found consistent with the Circulation Element.

4. ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES ELEMENT & CONSERVATION ELEMENT The Environmental Resources Element and the Conservation Element include aesthetic and visual resource policies to protect visual resources. There are no clear public views of the ocean from Milpas Street at the project site due to the location, and the existing neighborhood development. Views of the mountains are intermittently visible along Milpas Street. The proposed development replaces one-story buildings along Milpas Street and one-story residential units on E. Gutierrez St. with a new four-story building.

While any multi-story structure has the likelihood to block views of the mountains, this would be intermittent along Milpas Street. Views of the Riviera and mountains as viewed from the beach, harbor, and other important viewing areas would not be impacted by the project. Therefore, the project can be found consistent with the Environmental Resources and Conservation Element.

Item III Page 8 of 23
Planning Commission Staff Report
418 N. Milpas St. and 915-923 E. Gutierrez St. (PLN2024-00156) Report Date: March 13, 2025

Page 9 ends

5. TRAFFIC GENERATION AND CONSISTENCY WITH THE CITY’S TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT

STRATEGY
Using the City’s Traffic Model rates for the proposed project located in Traffic Model Area 2, the proposed 90 residential units and 850 net square foot retail building would generate approximately 22 AM and 22 PM new peak hour trips. The existing nursery (retail use) and eight residential units generate approximately 11 AM and 14 PM peak hour trips. The net change in peak hour trips is 11 AM and 8 PM peak hour trips.

VII. DESIGN REVIEW
As noted above, previous designs for the project site were reviewed by the Architectural Board of Review (ABR) in 2018 and 2022. The minutes from the August 22, 2022 hearing are attached (see Exhibit C). On August 22, 2022 , the ABR expressed concerns regarding the mass, bulk, and scale of the project and neighborhood compatibility. The applicant has indicated that a number of changes have been made to the project since the 2022 ABR hearing. Some of the changes are listed below.
• reduced size overall
• eliminated bed and breakfast component
• increased number of parking stalls
• reduced massing and increased setback along both streets • further articulated the north elevation
• made changes to mass, bulk, and scale
• reduced building height
• designated a loading stall for smaller size delivery/service vehicles Project Compatibility Findings. The ABR will consider the following Project Compatibility Findings during the course of its review prior to granting an approval of the project.

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.

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.

Item III Page 9 of 23
Planning Commission Staff Report
418 N. Milpas St. and 915-923 E. Gutierrez St. (PLN2024-00156) Report Date: March 13, 2025

Page 10 ends

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.

VIII. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Staff determined that the project qualifies for an exemption from further environmental review under Section 15332 (In-fill Development Projects) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. Additionally, none of the exceptions under CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2 apply. There would be no significant project-specific or cumulative impact on the environment due to unusual circumstances, 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. Section 15332 allows an exemption for projects meeting the following:
(a) The project is consistent with the applicable general plan designation and all applicable general plan policies as well as with applicable zoning designation and regulations.

The proposed project is consistent with the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance as described in this staff report.
(b) The proposed development occurs within city limits on a project site of no more than five acres substantially surrounded by urban uses. The project is located in an urban setting on an 0.95 acre lot.
(c) The project site has no value as habitat for endangered, rare or threatened species. The project site is located in an urban setting and developed with structures and paved surfaces and has no value as habitat for endangered, rare or threatened species. (d) Approval of the project would not result in any significant effects relating to traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality. The project would not result in impacts related to traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality.
(e) The site can be adequately served by all required utilities and public services. All required utilities and public services are available.

EXHIBITS
A. Project Plans
B. Applicant's Letter, dated March 7, 2025
C. ABR Minutes dated August 22, 2022
D. Applicable General Plan Policies
Contact/Case Planner: Kathleen A. Kennedy, Project Planner ([email protected])
630 Garden Street, Santa Barbara, CA 93101
Phone: (805) 564-5470 x4560
Item III Page 10 of 23

EXHIBIT A
City of Santa Barbara
California
Exhibit B: Project Plans Dated for the March 20, 2025 Planning Commission Meeting, are available electronically for view online at: SantaBarbaraCA.gov/PC and will be transferred the city’s Archived Agendas & Documents system after the hearing.

Item III Page 11 of 23
Ginger C. Andersen
Land Use Planner
805.882.1460 direct
[email protected]
www.bhfs.com
Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP
805.963.7000 main
1021 Anacapa Street, 2nd Floor
Santa Barbara, California 93101
March 7, 2025
Planning Commission
City of Santa Barbara
PO Box 1990
Santa Barbara, CA 93102
RE: Planning Commission Conceptual Review of Milpas Gardens 418 North Milpas, 915‐923 East Gutierrez; City Case No. PRE2023‐00148, PLN2024‐00156
Dear Chair Wardlow and Members of the Planning Commission:

We are pleased to present the Milpas Garden project for conceptual review by the Planning Commission. This project utilizes the City’s Average Unit Density (“AUD”) Incentive Program and the State Density Bonus Law in proposing a mixed use project, including 90 residential units and 850 square feet of commercial space, located at 418 North Milpas and 915‐923 East Gutierrez Streets (“Project”) within the City of Santa Barbara (“City”).

In addition to the conceptual feedback received by the City’s Architectural Board of Review (“ABR”) in 2022, the pre‐application review team (“PRT”) feedback received in the past two years, the City requires conceptual feedback by the Planning Commission (“PC”)1. The PC’s role is to review Project’s consistency with City goals and the General Plan, and to provide comments and recommendations for staff and the ABR before the next meeting, where project design review and approval (“PDA”) will be requested by the applicant. Here, we note that City staff issued their Consistency Letter on February 13, 2025 finding the project consistent with City policies, and later clarified that any final minor inconsistencies can be addressed at the building permit stage.2 I. Section 30.150.010 Average Unit Density Incentive Program The AUD Program was established in 2013 to carry out the key implementation action of the City’s 2011 General Plan. The intent of the AUD Program is to promote the construction of smaller residential units near transit and within easy walking and biking distance to commercial services and activity centers. The AUD Program established density overlays areas throughout the City, including the Priority Housing Overlay, which allows for projects with up to 63 units per acre before density 1 Per Santa Barbara Municipal Code (SBMC) § 30.205.040,30.150.060.E. 2 February 13, 2025 letter from K. Kennedy to G. Andersen Subject: Consistency Review for 418 N. Milpas Street & 915‐923 E Gutierrez Street; PLN2024‐00156 (Consistency Letter), and email from K. Kennedy dated March 6, 2025.

EXHIBIT B Item III Page 12 of 23
March 7, 2025

Page 2 ends

bonus and supports smaller unit sizes. The Project is located within this Priority Housing Overlay3 and is consistent with the goals of the AUD Program, as described below:
 The Project’s average size unit is approximately 632 square feet, well below the AUD program’s suggested size range, which helps minimize the overall building size.  The Project proposes a mix of unit types including studios, one‐bedroom, and two‐bedroom units (29 studios, 46 one‐bedrooms and 15 two‐bedroom units for a total of 90 units).  In addition to promoting affordability with these smaller units sizes, the Project proposes to restrict 9 of these to very low income households.
 In addition to the 9 very low units, the project proposes 6 units for moderate‐income households, consistent with City Inclusionary requirements.  The Project density is below the maximum density allowed with State Density Bonus Law4.

II. Section 22.68.045.B Architectural Board of Review Project Compatibility Findings The current design of the Project incorporates the feedback received by the ABR in August 2022.

Significant changes were made to address their comments, and the Project will return to ABR for Project Design Approval in the coming weeks. For reference, the ABR’s findings, and our summary discussion of each are as follows:

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.

This Project is consistent with all applicable objective design guidelines and voluntarily complies with other City guidelines. This mixed use Project is located within the Milpas Urban Corridor and the AUD Program Priority Housing Overlay. The Project utilizes the majority of the design and detail recommendations in the City’s Urban Infill Design Guidelines as well as the Haley‐Milpas Design Manual.
3 It is our understanding that there were previously error(s) in GIS mapping on certain City platforms regarding this property. City staff has confirmed via email on January 16, 2024 that the property is in the High Priority Overlay, and it is our understanding that online City mapping has been updated to show the High Priority Overlay on the property. 4 Priority overlay density prescribes 63 units per acre, with the inclusion of 9 very low units, the project achieves a 50% bonus density resulting in 90 units. The project has not elected to exercise additional bonus units that would be allowed per Government Code section 65915 (v)(1)(B), and (v)(2) (allowing for an additional density bonus of 32.5%) but reserves the right to do so.

Item III Page 13 of 23
March 7, 2025

Page 3 ends

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.5 The proposed architectural style is Mediterranean with elements and details that draw extensively from the iconic Santa Barbara style and design guidelines. The Project includes terraces, interior hall and courtyards, decorative tile, awnings, gabled and hipped roof elements, colonnades, a tower element, clay tile roofing, wrought iron balconies and detailing. While the roofscape of the architecture is predominantly one of sloping red tile roofs germane to the iconography of Santa Barbara, concealed mechanical wells are incorporated to facilitate unit heat pumps and solar panel utilization. A complete discussion and response to ABR comments has been supplied to City staff.6

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.

Significant revisions have been made to the Project since the August 2022 ABR meeting including a reduction to the overall size, height, massing, bulk, and scale. The Project utilizes one concession and one waiver7 as allowed with the State Density Bonus to 1) exceed the height limit of the zone ‐ but otherwise allowed in the AUD ordinance8 and 2) waive compliance with the variable setback along Milpas. These parameters could not be met without reducing the project density. The project also provides 66 residential parking spaces and 3 commercial spaces.

The Project is not located adjacent to any landmarks, structures of merit, or historic resources.

5. Public Views of the Ocean and Mountains. The design of the project responds appropriately to established scenic public vistas.
5 The City’s recently‐adopted Objective Design and Development Standards (ODDS) do not apply to this project as the project’s SB 330 Preliminary Application ‐ which freezes the local standards in effect at the time ‐ was submitted in 2023, prior to the adoption of the ODDS in 2025. 6 See Brownstein letter dated October 2023. 7 As stated on project plans submitted in December 2024, the project also reserves the right to waive the purported commercial vehicle loading space requirement and any associated vertical clearance within the parking area identified by public works. 8 The project qualifies for an increased height of up to 60‐feet via SBMC 30.140.100.B as a Community Benefit Housing Project as described in the Applicant’s April 18, 2024 letter, however a waiver is instead being applied.

Item III Page 14 of 23
March 7, 2025

Page 4 ends

The only public views potentially impacted by the Project are the views of the mountains from public roads near the project site. The Project’s design however minimizes these impacts. The Project qualifies for a State Density Bonus Law waiver to exceed the City’s height limit; however, the project has been revised since the previous ABR review to minimize height to the maximum extent feasible while maintaining the project density. The Project applicant opted not to maximize State Bonus Density – which would have allowed about 20 more units on the site and the Project applicant is minimizing average unit size to further reduce size bulk and scale. Additionally, the Project complies with the City’s solar ordinance, and exceeds the required setbacks from the neighboring residential neighborhood to the east. Thus, the Project complies with this standard and sufficiently protects public views.

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

The project proposes:
 To hide project parking within the ground floor of this podium project.  Ground‐floor landscape areas located primarily on the eastern side of the property, exceeding the side‐yard setback on that side.
 12.4% of the ground floor area as proposed landscape, and another 5.7% as hardscape.  12,379 square feet of common open space, nearly double the required amount9.  Exterior residential balconies and walkways.
 Fourth floor amenity spaces connected to a roof terrace of 1,208 square feet.  Two additional fourth‐floor roof terraces.

III. Closing
This Project proves that high quality architecture can be achieved in high‐density multi‐family development. City staff has concluded that the Project is consistent with the City’s General Plan and municipal code policies as well as the City’s goals and infill guidelines with application of AUD incentives and minimal state density bonus concessions, incentives, and waivers. The Project will be a great addition to the Milpas corridor and a wonderful transition from the commercial uses along Milpas to the residential uses to the east.

The applicant team has been working very closely with City staff on the Project and thank you in advance for your feedback. If you have any questions or would like to discuss further please contact me at (805) 260‐8392 or [email protected].
9 See project plan sheet A0.2 per 30.140.140.2.F, total common open space is required to be greater than 15% of site area where 15% of net lot area (41,477 SF) is 6,221.6 SF required; Project provides 12,379 SF which is 188% of required.

Item III Page 15 of 23
March 7, 2025

Page 5 ends

We look forward to providing the City with much‐needed residential for‐rent units with this Project.

Sincerely,
Ginger C. Andersen
Senior Land Use Planner
cc: Kathleen Kennedy via email [email protected] Item III Page 16 of 23
City of Santa Barbara

ARCHITECTURAL BOARD OF REVIEW

MINUTES
AUGUST 22, 2022
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
Leon A. Olson
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
Kira Esparza, Commission Secretary

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

ATTENDANCE
Members present: Moore, Six, Anderson, Nuhn, Olson and Whelan Members absent: Black
Staff present: Kokinda, Russell, and Esparza

GENERAL BUSINESS
A. Public Comment:

Written correspondence from Kathleen Dagg and Bob Cunningham was acknowledged.

B. Approval of Minutes:

Motion: Approve the minutes of the Architectural Board of Review meeting of August 8, 2022, as submitted.

Action: Six/ Moore, 6/0/0. (Black absent.) Motion carried.

C. Approval of the Consent Calendar:

Motion: Ratify the Consent Calendar of August 15, 2022, as reviewed by Board Members Whelan and Moore.

Action: Whelan/ Olson, 6/0/0. (Black absent.) Motion carried.

EXHIBIT C Item III Page 17 of 23
Architectural Board of Review Minutes August 22, 2022 Page 8 of 9 (6:10PM) ONE-TIME PRE-APPLICATION CONSULTATION

5. 418 N MILPAS ST
Assessor's Parcel Number: 031-311-033
Zone: C-G
Application Number: PRE2022-00116
Owner: Kallman Family Trust,
Robert Ludwick, Managing Member
Applicant: Jan Hochhauser, Hochhauser Blatter Architecture (Proposal for a 101,204 square foot, four story, 90-unit mixed-use building, comprised of 34 studio units, 44 one-bedroom units, and 12 two-bedroom units, and 6,118 square feet of commercial / retail space on the ground level for commercial retail (1,557 square feet) and bed & breakfast hotel (4,561 square feet). The project is designed to comply with the City’s Average Unit Size Density Incentive program (AUD), City Inclusionary housing requirements, California State Density Program (SDB), and the streamlined housing project program (CA State Senate Bill 330). The project site is 41,473 square feet (.952 acre). Under the AUD priority overlay maximum of 63 units per acre, 60 units would be allowed on the site. The project will include 9 very low-income units (15% of 90 units). This would allow a 50% density bonus under SDB bringing the total to 90 units. The project will also include 6 moderate income units (10% of 60 units) satisfying the City Inclusionary requirement. In total there will be 15 below market units and 75 market units within the 90 total units. The project provides 52 parking spaces for residential units of .5 spaces per bedroom as allowed by the SDB parking incentive for 15% very low-income units. The commercial / retail and bed & breakfast hotel requirements adds 14 additional spaces for a total of 69 spaces. Development Plan approval at Planning Commission is required for the project, along with the request for a 52-foot maximum height as a community benefit project. A waver /concession is requested for relief from solar set back) No final appealable decision will be made at this hearing. Project requires compliance with the Project Compatibility Findings.

Actual time: 7:25 p.m.

Present: Jan Hochhauser, Architect, Hochhauser Blatter Architecture; Tim Johnson, Hochhauser Blatter Architecture; Ginger Anderson, Council for Owner Staff comments: Ms. Kokinda stated that this is a onetime pre-application consultation, not a formal application. The applicants are looking for the Board’s feedback on the design of the project. Ms.

Kokinda gave instructions to members of the public on how to get signed up as an interested party for the project.

Public comment opened at 7:45 p.m.

The following individuals spoke:

1. Natasha Todorovic

2. Jose Gallegos

3. Fred Sweeney

4. Britta Bartels

5. Danny Moreno

6. Chris Scott
Item III Page 18 of 23
Architectural Board of Review Minutes August 22, 2022 Page 9 of 9

7. Julie Stark

8. Carole Wockner

9. Paul Fletcher

10.Susan shields

11.Natalia Govoni

12.Chris Burros

13.Martha Fragosa

14.Victoria Valente

15.Tino De Guevarra

16.Sebastian Aldana Jr

17.Abbey Fragosa
Written correspondence from Cynthia Blanton, Sebastian Aldana Jr, Steve Sherwin, Pat Saley, Steve Dowty, Lyn Proctor, Brian Tanguay, Victoria Valente, Natasha Todorovic-Cowan, Marell Brooks, Lisa Jehle, Ann Hefferman, Brent Ortiz, Christine Neuhauser, Steve Johnson, Lia Romero, Kathryn Clarke, Mary Turley, Susan Sherwin, Eric Stowell, Mary Robles, Christina Stowell was acknowledged.

Public comment closed at 8:16 p.m.

Board comments:

1. Board Member Nuhn appreciates the Applicant’s effort at achieving the goals of the program. The project does not seem compatible with the relation to neighborhood and is not in favor of the project yet.

2. Board Member Six appreciates the design effort and is sensitive to the constraints of the project.

This design is more refined than the previous design that was submitted. Board member Six has significant concerns of the compatibility of the project with the texture of neighborhood. The project would have to be half in height and half in footprint to be compatible in the neighborhood. Board Member Six believes there was a mistake in the priority housing overlay that allows this size of development on Milpas. The blank walls on north elevations are not acceptable. The streetscape on Milpas is not compatible with rhythm of street front. In future meetings, there needs to be documentation of the condition of the neighbors to the east and include the 3D elevation in the presentation.

3. Board Member Anderson stated that the north elevation without relief is not compatible with the neighborhood. The 3rd story at Milpas is not compatible. The street trees that are existing are trees that can ruin existing buildings and will most likely have to be removed at some point. Currently, Board member Anderson cannot support this size or architectural style of the project. The style is not fully developed and is not compatible with neighborhood or Santa Barbara Style. It would benefit the Applicant to study breaking the building up into multiple buildings if possible.

4. Board Member Moore stated that he acknowledges that this is a difficult location. If the project comes back, the Applicant should study the condition and how to juggle massing to better address the contradiction.

5. Board Member Whelan stated that the illustrations are too large and it is on an awkward site. Board Member Whelan agrees with other comments on the North elevation, which speaks to blankness and bulk and scale. It is a good neighborhood for reasonable housing, but this project does not fit in nicely with the neighborhood.

6. Board Member Olson stated that he believes the Applicant has the ability to address the issues with the project, and hopes that as the applicant progresses with this project, that the same level of attention to the west side of the project is given to the neighbors on the east side. * MEETING ADJOURNED AT 9:01 P.M. *
Item III Page 19 of 23
Applicable General Plan Policies
418 N. Milpas St. and 915-923 E. Gutierrez St. Project
Land Use Element (2011)
LG1. Resource Allocation Priority. Prioritize the use of available resources capacities for additional affordable housing for extremely low, very low, low, moderate, and middle income households over all other new development.

LG4. Principles for Development. Establish the following Principles for Development to focus growth, encourage a mix of land uses, strengthen mobility options and promote healthy active living.
 Focus Growth. Encourage workforce and affordable housing within a quarter mile of frequent transit service and commercial services through smaller units and increased density, transit resources, parking demand standards, targeted infrastructure improvements, and increased public areas and open space. Incorporate ideas as a result of an employee survey.
 Mix of Land Uses. Encourage a mix of land uses, particularly in the Downtown to maintain its strength as a viable commercial center, to include retail, office, restaurant, residential, institutional, financial and cultural arts, encourage easy access to basic needs such as groceries, drug stores, community services, recreation, and public space.
 Mobility and Active Living. Link mixed-use development with main transit lines; promote active living by encouraging compact, vibrant, walkable places; encourage the use of bicycles; and reduce the need for residential parking.

LG5. Community Benefit Housing. While acknowledging the need to balance the provision of affordable housing with market-rate housing, new residential development in multifamily and commercial zones, including mixed-use projects, should include affordable housing and open space benefits.

Possible Implementation Actions to be Considered
LG5.1 Affordable Housing. Develop standards and project level findings to encourage the development of Community Benefit Housing defined as:
 Rental housing;
 Housing affordable to low, moderate, or middle income households;  Employer sponsored workforce housing;
 Limited Equity Co-operative Housing;
 Affordable Housing Downtown for Downtown Workers; and/or EXHIBIT D Item III Page 20 of 23

APPLICABLE GENERAL PLAN POLICIES
418 N MILPAS ST. AND 915-923 E. GUTIERREZ ST. (PLN2024-00156) PAGE 2 OF 4
 Transitional housing, single residential occupancy, and other housing for special needs populations including seniors, physically or mentally disabled, homeless, and children aging out of foster care.

LG6. Location of Residential Growth. Encourage new residential units in multi-family and commercial areas of the City with the highest densities to be located in the Downtown, La Cumbre Plaza/Five Points area and along Milpas Street.

Possible Implementation Actions to be Considered
LG6.3 Priority Housing Overlay. Encourage the construction of rental and employer housing and limited equity co-operatives in select multi-family and commercial zones where residential use is allowed by providing increased density (over Average Unit-Size Density Incentive Program).

LG12. Community Character. Strengthen and enhance design and development review standards and process to enhance community character, promote affordable housing, and further community sustainability principles.

LG12.2 Building Size, Bulk and Scale. Ensure that proposed buildings are compatible in scale with the surrounding built environment.

Housing Element (2023)
Goal 1 Create New Housing: Create new healthy, safe, and energy‐efficient housing that meets community needs, within our resources.

POLICIES
Policy 1.1: Sustainable and Livable Neighborhoods. Ensure that new housing programs, housing developments, and related infrastructure improvements include community-led strategies that encourage community revitalization in areas of lower opportunity to meet the needs of lower-income residents and are consistent with the City’s sustainability initiatives for energy efficiency and active transportation goals.

Policy 1.2: Infill Housing. Encourage development of housing on infill sites near transit and jobs, particularly redevelopment of sites suitable for housing, while continuing to limit residential density in High Fire Hazard Areas.

Policy 1.7: Prioritize Housing and Community Benefit. Prioritize residential development and nonresidential priority projects with broad community benefit on sites zoned for both residential and other uses.

Goal 2 ‐ Prioritize Affordable Housing: Prioritize housing that is affordable to the workforce and vulnerable communities, by the use of deed restrictions and other measures, over other types of development, with special emphasis on housing that meets the needs of extremely low, very low, low, moderate, and middle income, and special needs households.

Item III Page 21 of 23

APPLICABLE GENERAL PLAN POLICIES
418 N MILPAS ST. AND 915-923 E. GUTIERREZ ST. (PLN2024-00156) PAGE 3 OF 4

POLICIES
Policy 2.1: Prioritize Affordable Housing and Community Priority Projects. Prioritize production of deed restricted affordable housing and nonresidential community priority projects with broad community benefits over all other land uses and housing types.

Policy 2.2 Increase Production of Affordable Housing. Encourage and provide development opportunities and incentives to increase production of affordable housing.

Policy 2.5: Rental Housing. Continue to encourage smaller rental units close to transit, and easy walking and biking distance to commercial services and recreational opportunities.

Environmental Resources Element (2011)
ER29. Visual Resources Protection. New development or redevelopment shall preserve or enhance important public views and viewpoints for public enjoyment, where such protection would not preclude reasonable development of a property.

ER30. Enhance Visual Quality. Not only retain, but improve visual quality of the city wherever practicable.

Conservation Element (1979, prior amendment 1994)
Visual Resources

3.0 New development shall not obstruct scenic view corridors, including those of the ocean and lower elevations of the City viewed respectively from the shoreline and upper foothills, and of the upper foothills and mountains viewed respectively from the beach and lower elevations of the City.

4.0 Trees enhance the general appearance of the City’s landscape and should be preserved and protected.

4.1 Mature trees should be integrated into project design rather than removed. The Tree Ordinance should be reviewed to ensure adequate provision for review of protection measures proposed for the preservation of trees in the project design.

4.2 All feasible options should be exhausted prior to the removal of trees.

4.3 Major trees removed as a result of development or other property improvement shall be replaced by specimen trees on a minimum one-for-one basis.

4.4 Private efforts to increase the number of street trees throughout the City should be encouraged.

Circulation Element (2011)
C1. Transportation Infrastructure Enhancement and Preservation. Assess the current and potential demand for alternative transportation and where warranted increase the availability and attractiveness of alternative transportation by improving related infrastructure and facilities without reducing vehicle access.

Item III Page 22 of 23

APPLICABLE GENERAL PLAN POLICIES
418 N MILPAS ST. AND 915-923 E. GUTIERREZ ST. (PLN2024-00156) PAGE 4 OF 4
Circulation Element (1997, original 1964)

1.1 The City shall establish, maintain, and expand a mobility system that supports the economic vitality of local businesses.

1.1.1 Optimize access and parking for customers in business areas by implementing policies of the Circulation Element aimed at reducing dependence upon the automobile, and improving and increasing pedestrian, bicycle use, and transit use.

1.1.2 Review traffic impact standards used at City intersections for consistency with the goals of the Circulation Element and General Plan through public worksessions with the Planning Commission and the City Council.

1.1.3 Enhance alternative transportation services and infrastructure access between residential, recreational, educational, institutional and commercial areas.

1.1.4 Provide adequate infrastructure and info-structure to support the delivery of goods and services to and from area businesses.

4.2 The City shall work to expand, enhance, and maintain the system of bikeways to serve current community needs and to develop increased ridership for bicycle transportation and recreation.

4.2.3 Encourage facilities for bicycle travel and parking in any future development, construction, or reconstruction projects during the review of new development and infrastructure improvements. Bicycle facilities can be achieved through methods such as:
• purchase, dedication, and other means of property acquisition, • conditions of approval,
• expanding the scope of maintenance projects, and
• enforcement of the Santa Barbara Municipal Code, Parking Section.

8.5 The City shall promote/facilitate the development of housing to decrease the need for parking through an increased walking/biking population that lives, works, and shops in the Downtown (See Chapter 13).

Item III Page 23 of 23
City of Santa Barbara

PLANNING COMMISSION

MINUTES
MARCH 20, 2025
1:00 P.M.

City Hall, Council Chambers
735 Anacapa Street
SantaBarbaraCA.gov
COMMISSION MEMBERS:

Devon Wardlow, Chair
Lucille Boss, Vice Chair
Brian Barnwell
John M. Baucke
Donald DeLuccio
Benjamin Peterson
Lesley Wiscomb
CITY COUNCIL LIAISON:

Mike Jordan
STAFF:

Tava Ostrenger, Assistant City Attorney
Megan Arciniega, Senior Planner
Jasper Carman, Commission Secretary
I. NEW ITEM
ACTUAL TIME: 1:07 P.M.
418 N MILPAS ST AND 915-923 E. GUTIERREZ ST.

Assessor’s Parcel Number: 031-311-033; 031-311-034
Zoning Designation: C-G (Commercial General)
Application Number: PLN2024-00156
Applicant: Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck; Riviera Vista I LLC Owner: Goldenstone Trust
Carol Kallman and Donald Bathelmess, Trustees
The project involves the voluntary lot merger of 418 N. Milpas St. (APN 031-311-033) and 915- 923 E. Gutierrez St. (APN 031-311-034) to create a 41,477-square-foot (0.95-acre) lot, demolition of all onsite improvements (5,850 square feet of nonresidential floor area, 8 residential units, and 13 trees), and construction of a new four-story, 108,698 square foot (gross) mixed-use building with 90 residential rental units and 850 square feet (net) of commercial space. The project includes 29 studio units, 46 one-bedroom units, and 15 two-bedroom units, ranging in size from 350 square feet to 974 square feet, with an average unit size of 632 square feet. Nine (9) units would be restricted to very-low-income households and six (6) units would be restricted to moderate-income households. The project includes 65 residential parking stalls, 3 commercial parking stalls, and one loading parking stall for smaller size delivery/service vehicles. Vehicular access to the site is from E. Gutierrez Street.

The project is proposed under the City’s Average Unit-Size Density (AUD) Incentive Program and State Density Bonus Law.

The project is being presented for concept review and comments only. No appealable decisions will be made at this meeting.

Planning Commission Minutes March 20, 2025
Kathleen Kennedy, Project Planner, gave the Staff presentation. Jessica Grant, Supervising Transportation Planner was available to answer questions.

Jan Hochhauser, HBA Architects, gave the Applicant presentation, and was joined by Ginger Andersen, Brownstein Hyatt Farber Shreck, and Bob Ludwick, Riviera Vista I LLC.

Public comment opened at 1:30 p.m., and the following individuals spoke:

1. Natalia Govoni

2. Jess Espinoza

3. Pedro Toscano

4. Kristin Shi

5. Joar Gutierrez

6. Britta Bartels

7. Danny Moreno

8. Marshall Guilmette

9. Emma Hanlon

10.Natasha Todorovic

11.Paul Fletcher

12.Christine Neuhauser

13.Steve Johnson

14.Mary Ellen Brooks

15.Drew Carmichael
Written correspondence from Lia Romero, Brian Tanguay, Richard Bornstein, Lyn Proctor, Steve Johnson, Ann Hefferman, Fae Perry, Lisa Jehle, Sebastian Aldana Jr., Mary Ellen Brooks, Patricia Saley, Jesse Espinoza, Lourdes Dorado, Denice Spangler Adams, Britta Bartels, Danny Moreno, Natalia Govoni, Beatriz Dorado, and Steve Johnson was acknowledged.

Public comment closed at 2:12 p.m.
* THE COMMISSION RECESSED FROM 2:51 TO 2:59 P.M. *
MOTION: Wiscomb / Barnwell

1. The Commission concurs that Land Use Element Policy LG12.2 is tenuous with respect to this project.

2. The mix of units on each floor is appreciated but the affordable units should be spread out over each floor and not clustered to one end.

3. The tower element is a nice anchor to the building, but the Commission recommends ABR consider reducing the girth of the tower.

4. The archways are appreciated; they are a good start to Santa Barbara architecture.

5. The architecture still needs review; the north elevation, in particular, needs something in the form of fenestration, detailing, or other architectural treatments to make it more interesting.

6. The open podium appropriately breaks up the mass.

7. The “wedding cake” approach to the building is appreciated.

8. The Commission is not opposed to story poles as they feel it could be good for neighborhood’s understanding of the size and scope of the project, though it is up to the ABR to decide.

9. The Commission appreciates the smaller 630 square foot (approximate) unit size instead of Planning Commission Minutes March 20, 2025
the 800+ square foot unit size that could be there.

10.The Commission would prefer unbundled parking be required, with the exception of the tandem spaces.

11.More landscaping should be included in the project to soften the impact of the building.

12.The views from Haley St. and Alisos St. should be included in the elevations and the simulation.

13.The applicant should explore arrangements with nearby business for additional parking.

14.City staff should analyze the hours of the commercial loading zones and consider limiting them to daytime hours so they could be used as parking spaces at night.

15.The Commission appreciates the internal open space of the building, but the landscaping needs to be worked on.

16.There is some concern over the livability of the units in terms of light and air, so the Commission recommends that the ABR study the architecture and detailing in an effort to de-institutionalize the project design.

17.Housing is a top priority of the General Plan; and the Commission agrees that, for the most part, the project fits the General Plan policies.

18.The applicant should consider adding 8 affordable units to replace the senior units that will be demolished.

19.The Commission appreciates the solar study.

The motion carried by the following vote:

Ayes: 6 Noes: 0 Absent: 1 (Peterson)
City of Santa Barbara
Planning Division
Memorandum
DATE: March 25, 2025
TO: Architectural Board of Review
FROM: Kathleen Kennedy, Project Planner
SUBJECT: 418 N. Milpas St. and 915-923 E. Gutierrez St. (PLN2024-00156) The project at 418 N. Milpas St. and 915-923 E. Gutierrez St. (PLN2024-00156) was reviewed by the Planning Commission on March 20, 2025. This conceptual review hearing was required because the cumulative lot area is greater than 15,000 square feet and the project site has a General Plan land use designation of High Density Residential (28-36 du/acre) (SBMC §30.150.060.A). The purpose of the hearing is for the Planning Commission to review the proposed design and provide the applicant, staff, and the Architectural Board of Review (ABR) with comments regarding the design, overall improvements, and consistency with the City’s General Plan (SBMC §30.150.060.E).

ABR is the decision-maker for the project.

Please see Attachment 1 – March 20, 2025 Draft Planning Commission Minutes. Please note these are draft minutes which will be reviewed and approved at the next Planning Commission meeting. You may also review the Planning Commission video recording using the following link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=- kNSAuXxHGw&list=PLfBeKnytVovUb8drcMOD0MLUS82HpEMFp&index=1 ATTACHMENT 5
City of Santa Barbara

PLANNING COMMISSION

MINUTES
MARCH 20, 2025
1:00 P.M.

City Hall, Council Chambers
735 Anacapa Street
SantaBarbaraCA.gov
COMMISSION MEMBERS:

Devon Wardlow, Chair
Lucille Boss, Vice Chair
Brian Barnwell
John M. Baucke
Donald DeLuccio
Benjamin Peterson
Lesley Wiscomb
CITY COUNCIL LIAISON:

Mike Jordan
STAFF:

Tava Ostrenger, Assistant City Attorney
Megan Arciniega, Senior Planner
Jasper Carman, Commission Secretary

CALL TO ORDER
Chair Wardlow called the meeting to order at 1:04 p.m.

I. ROLL CALL
Chair Devon Wardlow, Vice Chair Lucille Boss, Commissioners Brian Barnwell (at 1:39 p.m.), John M. Baucke, Donald DeLuccio, Bejamin Peterson (until 3:33 p.m.), and Lesley Wiscomb

Absent: None

STAFF PRESENT
Tava Ostrenger, Assistant City Attorney
Megan Arciniega, Senior Planner
Kathleen Kennedy, Project Planner
Jessica Grant, Supervising Transportation Planner
Christopher Bell, City TV Production Supervisor
Janet Ahern, City TV Production Specialist
Jasper Carman, Commission Secretary
II. PRELIMINARY MATTERS
A. Requests for continuances, withdrawals, postponements, or addition of ex-agenda items:

No requests.

B. Announcements and appeals:

Ms. Arciniega announced that the appeal for 101 Garden Street will be heard in front of the California Coastal Commission on April 10, 2025.

ATTACHMENT 1
Planning Commission Minutes March 20, 2025 DRAFT Page 2 of 5 C. Review, consideration, and action on the following draft Planning Commission minutes and resolutions:

1. March 6, 2025 Planning Commission Minutes
MOTION: DeLuccio / Peterson
Approve the minutes as presented.

The motion carried by the following vote:

Ayes: 4 Noes: 0 Abstain: 2 (Baucke and Boss) Absent: 1 (Barnwell) D. Comments from members of the public pertaining to items not on this agenda:

Public comment opened at 1:06 p.m.,
The following individual spoke:

1. Steve Johnson
Public comment closed at 1:07 p.m.

Written correspondence from Steve Johnson, Wayne Mellinger and Steve Johnson was acknowledged.

III. NEW ITEM
ACTUAL TIME: 1:07 P.M.
418 N MILPAS ST AND 915-923 E. GUTIERREZ ST.

Planning Commission Minutes March 20, 2025 DRAFT Page 3 of 5 The project is proposed under the City’s Average Unit-Size Density (AUD) Incentive Program and State Density Bonus Law.

The project is being presented for concept review and comments only. No appealable decisions will be made at this meeting.

Kathleen Kennedy, Project Planner, gave the Staff presentation. Jessica Grant, Supervising Transportation Planner was available to answer questions.

Jan Hochhauser, HBA Architects, gave the Applicant presentation, and was joined by Ginger Andersen, Brownstein Hyatt Farber Shreck, and Bob Ludwick, Riviera Vista I LLC.

Public comment opened at 1:30 p.m., and the following individuals spoke:

1. Natalia Govoni

2. Jess Espinoza

3. Pedro Toscano

4. Kristin Shi

5. Joar Gutierrez

6. Britta Bartels

7. Danny Moreno

8. Marshall Guilmette

9. Emma Hanlon

10.Natasha Todorovic

11.Paul Fletcher

12.Christine Neuhauser

13.Steve Johnson

14.Mary Ellen Brooks

Public comment closed at 2:12 p.m.
* THE COMMISSION RECESSED FROM 2:51 TO 2:59 P.M. *
Planning Commission Minutes March 20, 2025 DRAFT Page 4 of 5 MOTION: Wiscomb / Barnwell

1. The Commission concurs that Land Use Element Policy LG12.2 is tenuous with respect to this project.

2. The mix of units on each floor is appreciated but the affordable units should be spread out over each floor and not clustered to one end.

3. The tower element is a nice anchor to the building, but the Commission recommends ABR consider reducing the mass of the tower.

4. The archways are appreciated; they are a good start to Santa Barbara architecture.

5. The architecture still needs review; the north elevation, in particular, needs something in the form of fenestration, detailing, or other architectural treatments to make it more interesting.

6. The open podium appropriately breaks up the mass.

7. The “wedding cake” approach to the building is appreciated.

8. The Commission is not opposed to story poles as they feel it could be good for neighborhood’s understanding of the size and scope of the project, though it is up to the ABR to decide.

9. The Commission appreciates the smaller 630 square foot (approximate) unit size instead of the 800+ square foot unit size that could be there.