In short, as discussed in section A below (i.e., DA issues), substantial evidence shows the TEDR was applied well after the DA expired, where the TEDR was an option the Applicant was required to timely exercise, and not subject to extensions under the plain language of the DA as well as other factors not addressed by the PC action (i.e., issues 1 through 6). Additionally, as discussed in section B below (i.e., LCOA issues), the City and California Coastal Commission (“CCC”) was unambiguous when it required a 100-bed hostel to serve as LCOA mitigation for the luxury 360- room Hilton Resort and 150-room Waterfront Hotel (i.e., a 100-bed hostel for 510 high-cost rooms).
Instead, the City got a 31-room boutique hotel at the Hostel Property, 73 more luxury rooms proposed to be added at the Hilton Resort (i.e., totaling 433 high-cost rooms), and a proposed 86- room luxury Waterfront Hotel (i.e., 86 high-cost rooms). (PC Staff Report, pp. 1, 4.) In total, the Planning Commission and the City are permitting 550 high-cost, luxury rooms with no hostel beds and no LCOAs. Substantial evidence demonstrates numerous issues with the City’s action with respect to LCOA requirements (i.e., appeal issues 7 through 17).
Local 11 appreciates the limited resources the City and staff may have, as well as the numerous interests they must serve at a given time. However, with respect to hotel development, Local 11 is concerned that LCOA requirements are not being enforced. This appears to be a pattern and practice, with this being at least the fourth hotel project. Cumulatively, this has led to a lack of LCOAs provided within the City, which this Project further exacerbates. Local 11 respectfully requests the City Council put a stop to the status quo and require responsible hotel development that does its fair share in providing LCOAs.
This appeal incorporates in its entirety Local 11’s prior Comments (attached hereto as “Exhibit A”), all referenced documents hyperlinked in its previous comments and herein, including but not limited to excerpts provided as figures (“Fig.”) 1 through 22 attached hereto as “Exhibit B,” and its comment letter dated April 4, 2025 regarding the various LCOA issues in the context of the 101 Garden Street Hotel approved by the City in December 2024 (attached hereto as “Exhibit C”).
A. APPEAL ISSUES RELATED TO THE DA
As raised in prior comments, the DA is subject to annual reviews to ensure compliance, which have not been provided to the Commission. (Exh. A, p. A2; PC Video 1:19:00-1:22:00.) As pointed out by at least one PC Commissioner, no annual review documentation had been presented to the Commission, and the DA appears to have expired in 2023. (PC Video, 1:31:00- 1:35:30.) Citing section 21, staff claims that the Waterfront Hotel is keeping the DA alive, with City counsel claiming there is “documentation” showing the DA is being extended. (Id.) This raises several relevant appeal issues (i.e., appeal issues 1 through 6).
1. DA is expired under the plain language of the text.
As pointed out by the Commissioner, the DA had an effective date of June 2016 and a sevenyear term that expired in June 2023 (DA § 4), with Section 21 providing limited exceptions to extend the DA. (PC Video, 1:31:00- 1:35:30; see also PC Staff Report, pp. 93, 98.) As discussed below, section 21 does not apply and, thus, the plain language of the DA suggests the DA is in fact expired.
Appeal Justification RE: Hilton Santa Barbara Beachfront Resort May 27, 2025
2. DA extensions apply to Applicant performances, not options.
Here, no documentation has been provided showing how City staff is extending the DA.
However, as shown in the figure below, Section 21 allows extensions only for the “time for performance” of an obligation of the Applicant. This extension applies to the Applicant’s “obligations” and does not seem to apply to privileges/options afforded to the Applicant.
3. Applicant’s vested right to build the Waterfront Hotel is a separate issue from whether Applicant has timely exercised its option to apply for a TEDR.
As pointed out by the Commissioner, the issue is not about the Waterfront Hotel but rather whether the DA that allows for the TEDR has expired. (PC Video, 1:31:00- 1:35:30.) Whether the Applicant has a vested right to pursue the Waterfront Hotel is independent of the timely application of TEDR, which the DA treats differently under Section 11 (as shown in the figure below). While it states the Applicant may have a “vested right” to build the Waterfront Hotel, Section 11 only states the Applicant “may apply to transfer” its development rights. (PC Staff Report, p. 105 [emphasis added].) As discussed below, the option to transfer was subject to specific time requirements.
4. The plain language of the DA makes clear that TEDR was subject to specific time requirements.
The above TEDR option was subject to precise time requirements under Section 11. As shown in the figure below, the ability to transfer development rights expired according to the terms of the DA, with the Applicant only entitled to continue processing any TEDR application “filed before such expiration or termination” of the DA. (PC Staff Report, p. 105 [DA § 11, par. 4].) Such an application “shall be processed” in accordance with existing City laws (Id., at p. 106 [DA § 11.1.4].) Here, it is clear that the TEDR is an option that had to be exercised in a timely manner, not an obligation subject to extension under Section 21.
/ / /
Appeal Justification RE: Hilton Santa Barbara Beachfront Resort May 27, 2025
5. Substantial evidence shows that the option was not timely exercised.
Here, the PC Staff Report states the application was deemed completed on September 27, 2024, and the Applicant’s letter describing the requested TEDR is dated April 2025. (PC Staff Report, pp. 2, 32-35.) Hence, it appears that the City staff is invoking an expired DA to revive a dead option the Applicant has failed to timely exercise. This would not be the first time for the City or Applicant to take action to resuscitate expired permits, where the 1995/1996 “Development Agreement No. 1” (“DA No. 1”) expired, which led to the City’s entering into this subsequent DA in 2016. (Id., at pp. 8, 10, 95 [recital p], 113 [definitions]. 4)
6. Failure to conduct annual DA reviews is substantial evidence of City staff’s lax enforcement and monitoring of mandatory conditions.
Here, this office has not been able to find any annual reviews conducted for the 2016 DA.
Nor has this office found any public documents showing compliance with other LCOA issues discussed below. Collectively, this is substantial evidence that mandatory conditions and other obligations are not adequately monitored and or enforced. This is relevant not only to DA requirements but also to enforcement of conditions of approval (“COA”) and CEQA mitigation measures (discussed further below).
B. APPEAL ISSUES RELATED TO THE LCOA ISSUES
This case may be one of the earliest cases under the Coastal Act (adopted in 1976), involving the California Coastal Commission (“CCC”) approval of a hotel project with off-site LCOA mitigation. At the center of the controversy is the former Wayfarer Hotel, which is still featured predominately on CCC materials as purportedly providing hostel rooms as part of the approval of CDP No. 4-81-205 (Park Plaza Corp.).5 In 1981, when approving the 360-room Fess Parker resort project (i.e., the Hilton Resort) and Specific Plan, CCC required the dedication of land or construction of a 75-bed hostel onsite or offsite.6 At the time, the Coastal Commission found “hotels under $20 per night (which is equivalent to $52 in 2014 dollars, as adjusted by the consumer price 4 See also PC Staff Report (4/19/16), pp. 4, 28, 67,
https://docs.santabarbaraca.gov/publicaccess/api/Document/AU7q2GU0Hxlkhzz3HSnÁq37cpQtoiw14khH9 C4QWKIQDCpcM1RMkiKIOK1i0HdBpqts98ZO6sfaYÁSJwUePPDJs%3D/. 5 See e.g., CCC LCOA Presentation (7/11/24) p. 14;
https://documents.coastal.ca.gov/reports/2024/7/Th7/Th7-7-2024-exhibits.pdf; see also CCC Staff Report (4/29/10) p. 2. https://documents.coastal.ca.gov/reports/2010/5/f14c-5-2010.pdf. 6 See LCOA Workshop (10/26/16) PDF pp. 9, 26, https://documents.coastal.ca.gov/reports/2016/11/th6-11- 2016.pdf.
Appeal Justification RE: Hilton Santa Barbara Beachfront Resort May 27, 2025
index [“CPI”]) could be considered low cost[,]”7 which is about $70 in 2025 dollars (CPI adjusted).8 In 1994, after the construction of the existing 360-room Hilton Resort on Parcel A, the Applicant (and/or its predecessors in interest) sought a Specific Plan amendment to allow the 150-room Waterfront Hotel, which the CCC required the 75-bed hostel to be increased to a 100-bed hostel. (PC Staff Report, p. 4.) This is reflected in the 1994 amendment to the Specific Plan that makes clear the purpose and intent of the 100-bed youth hostel to provide lower-cost rooms, as demonstrated by Resolution No. 94-030 (e.g., statement of overriding considerations, findings).9 Moreover, as shown below, Section VI.B.4 makes clear that the hostel would not only have at least 100 beds and meet the American Youth Hostel Association (“AYHA”) or equivalent standards but also explicitly states the hostel will operate “in perpetuity as a hostel.” (Id., at pp. 50-51; see figure below.) ⩩⩩⩩
Furthermore, the 2016 DA references the requirement of Applicant (or its predecessor in interest) to “construct a separate 100-bed hostel to provide lower-cost visitor accommodations” (PC Staff Report, p. 95), which was the subject of “Development Agreement No. 1” (i.e., DA No. 1) via Ordinance No. 4920 in August 1995 (id., at pp. 94-95, 113, 115). While this office has not been able to locate DA No. 1, Ordinance No. 4920 effectuating DA No. 1 demonstrates the clear intent and purpose of the 100-bed hostel to be constructed and provide lodging for lower-income individuals 7 See CCC Workshop Materials (12/10/14) PDF pp. 13, 22, https://documents.coastal.ca.gov/reports/2014/12/W3-12-2014.pdf. 8 See https://www.bls.gov/data/inflation_calculator.htm. 9 See PC Staff Report, pp. 44 (statement of overriding consideration B.1.4 [“100 bed youth hostel will be constructed …, which will provide low cost, visitor-serving lodging …”]), p. 46 (specific plan findings C.8 [Policy 4.4 will be met in part by “youth hostel will provide lodging facilities for lower income visitors]).
Appeal Justification RE: Hilton Santa Barbara Beachfront Resort May 27, 2025
(i.e., CEQA findings, overriding considerations, entitlement findings). 10 This is further evidenced by
the 2016 DA definition of the 100-bed “Hostel” and “Hostel Conditions of Approval” requiring the Hostel Property be used “solely and exclusively for the construction, operation and maintenance of a 100-bed hostel” (as shown in the figure below). (Id., at p. 114.) However, on May 15, 2025, the Planning Commission approved the 73-room addition based on the claim a 100-bed hostel was “built” at the Hostel Property (i.e., 12 E. Montecito Street) (id., at pp. 1,4), notwithstanding concerns raised by Local 11 that the hostel is not in operation, and a highcost boutique hotel appears to be operating at the Hostel Property. (Exh. A, pp. A1-A2.) The Commission approved the Project despite several PC Commissioners expressing concern about this lost hostel. (PC Video 1:35:30-1:37:15.) According to City staff and counsel, it was just made aware of the issue and that it would look into the issue through code enforcement, but suggested that it cannot consider room prices. (Id.) When specifically asked whether Code enforcement would ensure the hostel would be enforced in perpetuity, the City could not provide any firm commitment on what type of action would be taken beyond looking into what the COAs require. (id., at 1:37:15 - 1:38:06.) This presents significant issues in light of the clear intent and purpose of the 100-bed hostel that was intended to serve as LCOA mitigation, the City’s enforcement of LCOA requirements, and the below-listed appeal issues (appeal issues 7 through 17).
7. Substantial evidence demonstrates that a 100-bed hostel was not constructed and operated in the first place.
As discussed above and explained in prior comments, the 100-bed youth hostel served as LCOA mitigation for the 150-room (as then proposed and approved) Waterfront Hotel and 360- room Hilton Resort. (See Exh. A, pp. A1-A2.) The City claims that the hostel was purportedly constructed at the Hostel Property. (PC Staff Report, pp. 4, 44, 50-51; PC Video, 1:35:30-1:38:10.) However, substantial evidence shows that this Hostel Property was initially developed as the Wayfarer Hotel, which provided 27 private rooms (some with a single murphy bunk bed serving two) provided at around $200-$300 a night (well above lower-cost rates), and four shared/dorm hostel rooms (comprised of multiple twin bunk beds) sleeping five persons offered at under $100 a 10 See Ordinance No. 4920, PDF p. 6 (CEQA finding d.4 [environmental alternative without Hostel would be “less consistent with the [LCP] in that the lower income-serving visitor use would not be available”]), p. 8 (CEQA overriding consideration d [“100 bed youth Hostel will be constructed”], p. 11 (entitlement finding CDP finding 1.h [“youth Hostel will provide lodging facilities for lower income visitors”]), https://docs.santabarbaraca.gov/publicaccess/api/Document/AY3SePYLMQmpPb0tf5c1ujF6ÉausU61ogwG TNyQblFmcoCmGOYx0bcYaEbB15U2FVtxEX7ZrlKo63wlfJ2FOsgc%3D/.
Appeal Justification RE: Hilton Santa Barbara Beachfront Resort May 27, 2025
night (i.e., lower cost rates). (See e.g., Exh. B, Figs. 1-2.) Hence, when constructed, it appears that the Wayfarer Hotel offered a mere four shared rooms with a 20-bed capacity at lower-cost levels, and the remainder of the rooms operated as boutique hotel rooms at, near, or above high-cost levels.
This is further confirmed by public documents retrieved from the City’s Community Development Department (“CDD”) Property Records Database, which suggest the following relevant timeline of events:
• On or around April 20, 1995, the City Planning Commission approved a 11,091-sf, two-story, 26-room, 100-bed hostel that would operate 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, with numerous references clearly indicating the intent the property would be used as a “hostel” to provide lower cost accommodations (including indicia in the staff report, findings, COAs, applicant letters, and environmental review). (See Exh. B, Figs. 3-4. 11)
• On or around May 5, 2011, the Commission approved a substantial conformance determination (“SCD”) to allow for reconfigured common areas and increased the number of rooms to up to 31 (while maintaining a 100-bed hostel capacity). (Id., Figs. 3 & 5. 12) Staff
had “initial” concerns about the reconfigured project becoming a hotel and “not meet[ing] the criteria of a youth hostel, which is for affordable accommodations[,]” but the SCD was recommended for approval based on the understanding that it would operate in compliance with HI-USA Hostel standards, and staff’s “Concerns were alleviated based on the following information: … travelers pay per bed and not room … [and] [t]he size of both the bedrooms (double bed @ 150 s.f.) and bathrooms (25 s.f.) are at an absolute minimum and are not typical of a hotel room.” (Id., Fig. 6.
13) At the time, the Rodney James Shull (“RJS”) Memorial Foundation Youth Hostel (working with Central Coast Real Estate, LLC at times) was the would-be owner of the hostel project, which claimed the “100 beds [would] be provided as required by the [COA] for this hostel project[,]” followed by its description of what a hostel 11 See e.g., Zoning Letter (10/7/20) PDF p. 1 (number 4), https://records.santabarbaraca.gov/publicaccess/api/Document/AQfMq1lZbDQ7onaO9uQwEyIpwc2B2jAe4 t6hUÉrKXOvs4PJkacgXBUiekgUjp8cxÉqHvÁX7mÉMISKxH42M48rdw%3D/; PC Staff Report (4/20/95) PDF p. 3 (“youth hostel”), p. 4 (“100-bed Youth Hostel”), p. 5 (“youth hostel), p. 6 (in January 1994, CCC “imposed a requirement that the youth hostel’s size be increased from 75 to 100 bed.”), p. 16 (Coastal Policy 4.4 “met because the hostel will provide lower income lodging facilities that are not presently available in the Coastal Zone.”), p. 21 (Development Plan Approval finding 8 “youth hostel in the proposed location is in substantial conformity with the original conditions of approval for the Waterfront Park and hotel project because a 100- bed hostel will be provided within the Coastal Zone ….”), p. 8 (CDP findings 1 and 2 “project is consistent with policies of the CCC as discussed above … project is consistent with all applicable policies of the City’s Coastal Plan … as discussed above.”), pp. 23-24 (COAs A.5, A7b(1) & b(2), A8, B.4), pp. 31-32 (applicant letter referencing “Youth Hostel Relocation project”, “Youth Hostel guests and personnel”, “Youth Hostel will provide a low cost visitor serving use, which is a priority in the Coastal Zone.”), p. 37 (NegDec for “100-bed youth hostel”),
https://records.santabarbaraca.gov/publicaccess/api/Document/AXUeiPjÉ41M4Q9UnBKAÁN8fn8uSpza4Yp aO5G2ykZ1PkGGANstTpuua3QxU3ZTVDfkqoÉEQNU2aRJSKSUGiU954%3D/. 12 See e.g., Zoning Letter (10/7/20) PDF p. 1 (item 4 citing SCD), https://records.santabarbaraca.gov/publicaccess/api/Document/AQfMq1lZbDQ7onaO9uQwEyIpwc2B2jAe4 t6hUÉrKXOvs4PJkacgXBUiekgUjp8cxÉqHvÁX7mÉMISKxH42M48rdw%3D/; SCD Letter (5/5/11) PDF p. 1, https://records.santabarbaraca.gov/publicaccess/api/Document/AQIaX9W4Y49SlpI2JÉÁSmftH4XxniÁT5Zzi oTi8ziyF0EE6augYInlmqwsVC0ogbPPlFHQtRk4VUAcYKvjBtHzI%3D/. 13 Ibid., see also PC Staff Report (5/5/11) PDF pp. 1-2, https://records.santabarbaraca.gov/publicaccess/api/Document/AXt9kXVklZTW0Ms452d2XVZc6uZC3P2lJx d3ZYLj14tSA7YIcBGuDÉuXICRy8Ug6pBjRCVwj0nhLC6ÁjwZFvowA%3D/.
Appeal Justification RE: Hilton Santa Barbara Beachfront Resort May 27, 2025
is based on Hosteling International website (i.e., “a hostel is a good quality budget accommodations … at an affordable price.”), and suggested that the redesigned project (including “rooms and bathrooms significantly smaller than a low-budget hotel”) allows “for more flexible budget-originated accommodations ….” (Id., Fig. 7. 14)
• Between September 2010 and March 2013, the RJS Memorial Foundation requested various extensions on building permits, which consistently described the project as a “hostel project.”15
• On or around August 12, 2014, the Hostel Property was issued a Certificate of Occupancy (“COO”) for BLD2011-01857 for the “youth hostel” (id., Fig. 3),16 with the building featuring prominent “Wayfarer” signage.
17 • Between February 2015 and September 2020, the Wayfarer Hotel secured alcohol permits.18 Based on the above, substantial evidence suggests that a building was constructed at the Hostel Property, which was intended to operate as a hostel providing lower-cost accommodations.
However, there does not appear to be evidence showing that the Hostel Property actually provided a 100-bed hostel at lower-cost prices at the Hostel Property.
8. Substantial evidence suggests that the purported 100-bed hostel is not available at the Moxy Hotel, which operates as a high-end boutique hotel instead.
As fully explained in prior comments, the Wayfarer appears to have started operating as the Moxy Hotel (i.e., a Marriott brand) sometime in or around February 2024. (See Exh. A, pp. A1-A2.) Substantial evidence shows that the Moxy provides no shared, dorm, or hostel rooms of any kind but instead runs a “boutique” hotel that offers 31 rooms (135-175 square feet (“sf”)) at well over $300 per night (for May 2025 stays) and prices between $272 - $559 for some nightly stays during June 2025 (i.e., closer to peak season). (Id., see also Exh. B, Figs. 8-14.) This is further confirmed by 14 Ibid., at PDF pp. 6-9 (RJS Memorial Foundation Youth Hostel letter 4/24/11). 15 Extension Letters (various)
CDD Property Records (various) PDF pp. 2, 4-6, 10-14, 16, 18-19 (various extension request letters and permit requests),
https://records.santabarbaraca.gov/publicaccess/api/Document/Aao1sEPlPRIDRPCAQQulYoHwxr93o91P9 oXGULYvRl0yCB26RBpÁj2DPqY6ÁWOT8Y5JWEUNo2GL4UaYOÁmU1I6A%3D/. 16 See Zoning Letter (10/7/20), p. 1 (item 5 citing COO), https://records.santabarbaraca.gov/publicaccess/api/Document/AQfMq1lZbDQ7onaO9uQwEyIpwc2B2jAe4 t6hUÉrKXOvs4PJkacgXBUiekgUjp8cxÉqHvÁX7mÉMISKxH42M48rdw%3D/. 17 See 93-Page CDD File (various dates) PDF pp. 26-30 (plans dated 6/16/14 and stamped received by the city 7/8/14), p. 31 (COO BLD2011-01857 description as “hostel”), pp. 34-35 (scanned pictures of finished property),
https://records.santabarbaraca.gov/publicaccess/api/Document/Aa9pldwwCurW527d9omGVzNWMHvhfPg eVz24J5g7OQeztazzwAÉnCTCFCDF588mXSdMÉzKÉn9hkvÁ1SEfX7X9MM%3D/. 18 Ibid., PDF p. 37 (File No. 553889 and stamped received 2/2/15); ABC letter (9/10/20), PDF p. 1 (File No. 619337 dated 9/10/20),
https://records.santabarbaraca.gov/publicaccess/api/Document/AV6VLdP13FKo4AAnT9eHrDfqzehwD5jyÉ MdtaDj8eZJrSÁeHÉtYZmRpGH7txCpJ7QJMyF4SPwOhKxMuAÁggu51g%3D/.
Appeal Justification RE: Hilton Santa Barbara Beachfront Resort May 27, 2025
public documents retrieved from the CDD Property Records Database, which suggest the following timeline of events since 2020:
• On or around February 9, 2021, applications were submitted to permit renovations and rebranding of the “existing 2-story, 31-room hotel” to provide “Marriott Brand” amenities associated with Building Permit No. BLD2021-00242.
19 • On or around January 30, 2023, additional signage was permitted associated with Building Permit No. BLD2023-00272.
20 • Between December 2023 and March 2024, various inspections were completed associated with the renovations of an “existing hotel” associated with Building Permit No. BLD2022- 03096.21
Based on these documents, substantial evidence suggests that the Wayfarer Hotel was operating, or at least considered to be, a 31-room hotel before the renovations began in or around 2021 to become the Moxy Santa Barbara (a Marriott brand), which continues to offer boutique hotel rooms at high-cost levels. However, Local 11 has not been able to find any evidence that the Hostel Property currently provides a 100-bed hostel at lower-cost prices at the Hostel Property, and there does not appear to be any such evidence.
9. Substantial evidence demonstrates that the Hostel Property is not offering LCOAs but instead high-cost rooms under well-established CCC methodology.
As noted above, the 100-bed hostel was intended to serve as LCOA mitigation; however, it appears to offer 31 single or double rooms (approximately 135-175 sf) at prices well over $300 a night, with some cases reaching as high as $559. (See Exh. A, pp. A1-A2; Exh. B, Figs. 9-14. 22) These
19 See Permit Record RE Permit No. BLD2021-00242, PDF p. 9, https://records.santabarbaraca.gov/publicaccess/api/Document/AdFoHPpeg1lo2N2MbKNkgpHcqwWqCwD nbHj2aJFpuCSe7gÉ0o52rzsei6hdq0jcpVacPLwTi5z0Cqj6Á05YgXjo%3D/. 20 Permit Record BLD2023-00272, p. 2,
https://records.santabarbaraca.gov/publicaccess/api/Document/ARyjjccunOB4oD6R9AkJBuLOSfDdPFCxUÉ CcRAfpjaFA0H78Jiz8rEoLsMkN4jIB0pÉI4VVKmV4wjÁV5hzYSvaQ%3D/. 21 See e.g., Inspection Summary for BLD2022-03096 (3/13/24), p. 1, https://records.santabarbaraca.gov/publicaccess/api/Document/AbIZ2suWTwDLNot9a0SiQ90eNOVqmhm AWgB8iVml1NAJ7UaIhx1I7qZ8Y136TRnÁsSS1s9iSjgv1A27hnfz14Fc%3D/; Permit Record (11/8/23) pp. 1, 6, 8,
https://records.santabarbaraca.gov/publicaccess/api/Document/AS6C3dNjcUeczFzj4okcc2sZNOqdllEÁD3pl hKDBhEviG6eMVr8W4Qrwa4mFPdWMFTFKs2ÉOCQMGHFjqHouimv0%3D/. 22 See e.g., Visit Santa Barbara, Moxy Santa Barbara (“boutique hotel communal spaces”), https:// santabarbaraca.com/businesses/moxy-santa-barbara/; id., (printout), https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/ zvkkl56cli2qbiy6babff/santabarbaraca_com_businesses_moxy_santa_barbara.pdf?rlkey=cm609doefxs39i3ucl pt5gy43&dl=0; Marriott, Moxy Santa Barbara (31 rooms provided) https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/ n7lyvuv9uqwaim3eced2r/Funk-Zone-Hotel-with-Pool-_-Moxy-Santa-Barbara.pdf?rlkey=5blvamdet8iv8i4lyo 2lo0sml&dl=0; id., (printout), https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/n7lyvuv9uqwaim3eced2r/Funk-Zone-Hotelwith-Pool-_-Moxy-Santa-Barbara.pdf?rlkey=5blvamdet8iv8i4lyo2lo0sml&dl=0; id., Room Rates (three rooms available [i.e., two 135-sf petite queen rooms with murphy bed, one 185-sf double bed] offered for single night stay [i.e., May 15-16, 2025] ranging from $313 - $359), https://www.marriott.com/reservation/ rateListMenu.mi; id., (printout), https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/x1rhzon1nc35x13j9s1aa/Marriott-FindReserve-Choose-Dates-Rooms-Rates.pdf?rlkey=ekjngffcnnfmrprx5giey4lox&dl=0; Tripadvisor, Moxy Santa Appeal Justification RE: Hilton Santa Barbara Beachfront Resort May 27, 2025
prices are considered high-cost levels under relevant CCC methodology, which has been extensively documented in prior comments submitted by Local 11 in connection to the City’s approval of the 101 Garden Street hotel in 2024 (see Local 11’s comments dated April 4, 2025 attached hereto as “Exhibit C”). (Exh. A, p. A3 [fn. 6]; Exh. C, pp. C5-C10.) In short, based on well-established CCC methodology using statewide average daily rates (“ADR”), the lower cost threshold is set at 75 percent of peak season ADR, the higher-cost threshold is set at 125 percent, and moderate-cost falls in between said thresholds (i.e., 75% – 125%). Based on the 2023 statewide peak season ADR at approximately $200, the lower-cost threshold is approximately $150 per night, high-cost threshold is approximately $250, and the moderate cost falls between $150 - $250. Given that $300 a night is well above the high-cost threshold, this is substantial evidence that the Hostel Property is operating as a high-cost boutique hotel.
10. Substantial evidence demonstrates the Hostel Property has not been constructed, developed, and maintained solely and exclusively as a 100-bed hostel per the DA or maintained in perpetuity for such purposes.
As fully explained in prior comments, the 100-bed youth hostel was an explicit LCOA mitigation requirement. (See Exh. A, pp. A1-A2; see also PC Staff Report, pp. 8, 10.) As discussed above, substantial evidence shows that the CCC required the low-cost hostel when lower cost was considered $20 per night (i.e., about $70 in 2025 dollars), the Specific Plan states the hostel is to operate “in perpetuity as a hostel”, and the DA clearly indicates the 100-bed hostel at 12 East Montecito be “used solely and exclusively for the construction, operation, and maintenance of a 100-bed hostel” (discussed above under subsection B). (See also PC Staff Report, pp. 95 [recital M], 96 [Recital X.d], 101 [§ 8.3], 106 [§ 11.1.2], 114 [§ 27 definitions].) However, Local 11 has not been able to find any evidence showing the Hostel Property has been operating solely, exclusively, and in perpetuity as a 100-bed hostel providing lower-cost accommodation. Instead, it seems the Hostel Property was initially operating in 2014 as a boutique hotel with 27 rooms provided at, near, or above high-cost levels (i.e., $200-$300) with four (4) rooms providing 20 shared beds in total at potentially lower cost (i.e., under $100). Currently, the Hostel Property operates as a 31-room boutique hotel with no shared rooms, offering night stays that are well above high-cost thresholds.
11. Substantial evidence LCOA mitigation is illusory and unenforced, which cannot be deferred to speculative investigation by the City, while the City proceeds to approve the Project.
As fully explained in prior comments, the 2016 DA includes provisions for specific performance as a remedy (i.e., Section 25) and annual reviews to ensure DA compliance (i.e., Section 26). (PC Staff Report, pp. 112-113.) Here, Local 11 and at least one Commissioner raised concerns about the lack of evidence of annual reviews being conducted, particularly as it relates to the missing 100-bed hostel. (Exh. A, pp. A1-A2; see also Video, 1:19:00-1:22:00, 1:31:00- 1:35:30.) Seemingly, no documentation was presented during the Commission hearing demonstrating annual reviews have occurred, much less demonstrate compliance with the 100-bed hostel requirement discussed above (i.e., constructed, maintained, and used solely and exclusively as a hostel).
Combined, this is substantial evidence that the LCOA mitigation has been unenforced and, thus, Barbara (showing 11 deals ranging from $315 - $376 a night), https://www.tripadvisor.com/Hotel_Reviewg33045-d6884241-Reviews-Moxy_Santa_Barbara-Santa_Barbara_California.html; id., (printout), https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/a09casgpupclyado52dyh/MOXY-SANTA-BARBARA-Updated-2025-PricesMotel-Reviews-CA.pdf?rlkey=cjy4922tvuhz7nf0jyub1zsef&dl=0.
Appeal Justification RE: Hilton Santa Barbara Beachfront Resort May 27, 2025
illusory mitigation, which is disfavored.
23 Furthermore, while City staff suggested it will investigate the missing hostel operation as part of a potential enforcement matter (PC Video, 1:35:30-1:38:00), this is speculative and entirely subject to staff’s discretion (i.e., whether to investigate or take corrective action).24
12. Substantial evidence that the City can consider objective and qualitative measures to ensure LCOA mitigation is enforceable.
Referencing coastal policies, City staff claims the City may not fix hotel prices (id.), which suggests that the City is unable to ensure LCOA mitigation is enforced by objective and enforceable conditions. However, these referenced policies are identical under the Coastal Act (i.e., Pub. Res.
Code § 30213) and under the CLUP (CLUP Policy 3.2-12). (PC Staff Report, p. 150.) Yet, numerous hotel projects within the Coastal Zone and coastal plans have been modified and/or conditioned with objective language regarding the price of rooms, which better ensures that LCOAs are maintained and provided. (See Exh. C, pp. C5-C11 [citing various CCC cases that involved LCOAspecific conditions or modified plan language referencing rates]. 25) Also instructive is the Shore
Hotel project in Santa Monica, which was initially claimed to be a 164-unit low- to moderate-priced Travelodge project but was ultimately constructed and operated as a high-cost boutique hotel (discussed in Local 11’s prior comments). (Id., C16-C17.) There, after years of CCC efforts (including successful litigation), the Coastal Commission used specific conditions related to room prices to cure the improper actions taken by that applicant, as well as other corrective actions. 26 Here,
substantial evidence demonstrates that the City has not considered similar enforceable language. / / /
23 CEQA bars reliance on illusory, unenforceable conditions as mitigation. (See 14 Cal. Code Regs (“CEQA Guidelines”) §§ 15126.4(a)(2), 15097; see also Lincoln Place Tenants Ass’n v. City of Los Angeles (2005) 130 Cal.App.4th 1491, 1508 [“Mitigating conditions are not mere expressions of hope.”].) Furthermore, It is ordinarily inappropriate to defer formulation of a mitigation measure to the future absent performancebased measures to guide future decisionmaking. (CEQA Guidelines § 15126.4(a)(1)(B); see e.g., Sacramento Old City Ass’n v City Council (1991) 229 CA3d 1011, 1029 [agency may defer selection of specific mitigation measures when performance criteria are used and agency commits to devising measures that will satisfy those criteria].)
24 The enforcement of municipal and zoning codes is a city function that “involves the exercise of discretion.” (See Haggis v City of Los Angeles (2000) 22 C4th 490, 498.) 25 See e.g., American Tin Cannery Hotel Resort (Appeal No. A-3-PGR-22-0004) PDF pp. 19-21 (LCOA special condition), https://documents.coastal.ca.gov/reports/2024/4/Th15b/Th15b-4-2024-report.pdf; Ocean Avenue Partners, PDF p. 6-7 (special condition regarding LCOA), https://documents.coastal.ca.gov/reports/2023/12/W20b/W20b-12-2023-report.pdf; Santa Cruz Hotel ( (Appeal No. A-3-STC-24-0016) PDF p. 15-16 (LCOA special condition), https://documents.coastal.ca.gov/reports/2024/9/Th8d/Th8d-9-2024-report.pdf; Dana Point Harbor Hotel, PDF p. 19 (CCC proposed modification to LCP language referencing lower cost price calculations), https://documents.coastal.ca.gov/reports/2024/6/F10a/F10a-6-2024-report.pdf; Cannons Seafood Grill (Appeal No. A-5-DPT-18-0046), PDF pp. 41-44,
https://documents.coastal.ca.gov/reports/2021/2/W12a/W12a-2-2021-report.pdf; Hermosa Beach Franco (CDP Application No. 5-20-0597) PDF pp. 5-6,
https://documents.coastal.ca.gov/reports/2021/12/W15c/W15c-12-2021-report.pdf; 26 See Shore Hotel, PDF pp. 1, 13, https://documents.coastal.ca.gov/reports/2020/6/F18a/F18a-6-2020- report.pdf.
Appeal Justification RE: Hilton Santa Barbara Beachfront Resort May 27, 2025
13. Substantial Evidence that the City did not consider LCOA mitigation for at least nine (9) new high-cost hotel units.
As discussed above, the total 100-bed hostel was LCOA mitigation for the then-proposed and approved 150-room Waterfront Hotel (subsequently reduced by 64 rooms), but the Project would allow for a 73-room net increase at the Hilton Resort. (Exh. A, pp. A2-A3; see also PC Staff Report, pp. 1, 4.) The difference amounts to at least a nine (9) room increase (above the number of rooms originally approved) that is completely unaddressed by any LCOA provisions. Under wellestablished policy, the CCC’s preferred method of encouraging and providing new LCOAs is to ensure 25% of new hotel rooms are provided at lower-cost. (See Exh. C, p. C5.) Here, This was not addressed by staff or the Commission. Furthermore, based on the City’s own staff reports used when the Planning Commission adopted this DA (adopted after a 96 DA expired), the TEDR was intended to allow the ability to “transfer the excess rooms on a room-for-room” basis. 27 Substantial
evidence demonstrates that the TEDR option was never intended to allow more rooms to be created, as is the case here, where nine additional rooms would be created (i.e., beyond the previously approved 150-room Waterfront and 360-room Hilton Resort).
14. Substantial evidence the Planning Commission errored in providing adequate “consideration and give appropriate credit” to LCOA issues at bar.
As explained in prior comments, the DA states that the City “shall take into consideration and give appropriate credit” for prior fees, dedications, and LCOAs via the Hostel provision. (Exh. A, p. A1; see also PC Staff Report, pp. 10.) The Planning Commission approved the 73-room expansion of the Hilton Resort, without giving appropriate consideration and credit to the substantial evidence that the Hostel Property has not and continues to not provide a 100-bed hostel or any LCOAs. The simple fact is that the City was expected to receive a 100-bed hostel in exchange for 510 high-cost rooms but instead appears to be willing to accept 550 high-cost rooms with no hostel beds and zero LCOAs
15. Pattern and Practice of City Staff not enforcing relevant LCOA policies on hotel projects.
This Project appears to be at least the fourth hotel project in recent years that has received only minimal consideration and/or enforcement of important LCOA policies.
First, in October 2024, the City approved a 44-room, three-story hotel located at 17-21 W.
Montecito Street (project no. PLN2023-00147).28 There, no LCOAs were required based on staff’s claim that the project would be a moderate-priced hotel and not high-cost based on an internal Moderate Cost Hotel Determination “MCHD” memo.29 (Exh. C, pp. C75-C76 [MCHD memo].) The MCHD memo provided and a Moderate Cost Hotel Provision COA added in response to CCC staff 27 PC Staff Report (4/19/16), p. 4, 28, 67,
https://docs.santabarbaraca.gov/publicaccess/api/Document/AU7q2GU0Hxlkhzz3HSnÁq37cpQtoiw14khH9 C4QWKIQDCpcM1RMkiKIOK1i0HdBpqts98ZO6sfaYÁSJwUePPDJs%3D/. 28 See PC Staff Report (10/3/24), pp. 1, 7,
https://docs.santabarbaraca.gov/publicaccess/api/Document/AX4Gak8AKVI0WIeÁ2itWDEcbNulLfpcYYcCh sL94cNQjf7nAJVWWi2Icswbt7Vat4F44hlF71xJp6HKWwdUHnÁE%3D/. 29 See PC Resolution 12-24, pp. 1,10; MCHD Memo (10/3/24), pp. 1-2, https://docs.santabarbaraca.gov/publicaccess/api/Document/AccehAb51VyByxWY3i6BBLh9WKiUtlzTCNÉ5 r9Emvdu84r3kcrMltKEcxrj5VZKJ8xPplEkepeFGkJuK5i77wqs%3D/.
Appeal Justification RE: Hilton Santa Barbara Beachfront Resort May 27, 2025
concerns regarding the staff report’s failure to adequately analyze the LCOA issue and made various recommendations regarding what additional analysis should be provided (e.g., proposed nightly room rates, median cost of overnight rooms in the City, determine if room meet the definition of luxury overnight accommodations).30 CCC staff also noted why that individual hotel project required this level of analysis because of the City’s failure to amend its LCP with a specific LCOA program. (Id.) Instead of providing this type of objective information—including room rate information—here, City staff determined the project was moderate based on “amenities” that the hotel industry purportedly recognizes as qualifying as a luxury hotel. (Exh. C, pp. C75-C76.) This qualitative approach is incorrect for various reasons, including but not limited to the following issues:
• The qualitative approach lacks the force of law, as it appears to be merely an ad hoc policy crafted by staff on the eve of a project approval.
• The qualitative approach is fundamentally flawed for numerous reasons explained in detail in Local 11’s prior comments, including but not limited to: (a) ignoring CCC’s wellestablished methods; (b) hotel projects can have both high-cost and lower-cost amenities that are not determinative of whether they are considered LCOAs or high-cost accommodations; (c) failing to account for numerous other amenities and factors, particularly those relevant to high-cost boutique hotels; and (d) failure to consider the applicant team’s history of prior projects, such a track record of development/running higher-cost accommodations (e.g., boutique hotels offered at high-cost rates). (Exh. C, pp.
C15-C16.)
• The qualitative approach has been tried and has proven to be spectacularly unsuccessful, as seen at the Shore Hotel in Santa Monica (mentioned above). (Exh. C, pp. C16-C17.) Moreover, City staff has proven unable to enforce qualitative measures, as evident by the 10+ years that it appears the Hostel Property has operated without functioning as a 100-bed hostel, much less being used solely and exclusively as a Hostel (discussed further below as a third example).
Nonetheless, relying on City staff interpretations and without any discussion of daily rates, the City approved the 44-room project with zero LCOAs and no objective means to ensure rates remain moderate prices (i.e., which makes that project more susceptible to unilateral/unabated rate increases).
Second, in December 2024, the City approved a 250-room hotel development with zero LCOAs (i.e., 101 Garden Street), over the objections of Local 11 during City Council meetings and CCC hearings. This was the subject of the letter attached hereto (Exh. C), which speaks for itself and challenged the City’s decision as being inconsistent with CCC LCOA methodology and practice, and for relying on a flawed quantitative and qualitative approach. (Exh. C, pp. C4-C17.) CCC staff rejected the appeal on procedural grounds (which Local 11 disputes) and did not sufficiently address the issue of LCOAs. Relying on City staff interpretations, the City approved the 250-room project with zero LCOA, even though that project is intended to offer rooms at rates that are arguably 30 See Public Comments Received for Item III (17-21 W. Montecito St., PLN 2023-00147), pp. 7-8, https://docs.santabarbaraca.gov/publicaccess/api/Document/Aa3HYsG2FxKUe7gyPtcvxhvGTfHIqRO96pVL Zso5wNMyvqZÁoibmUNnOJgKJPbcffgwWyFq8GPypxRXJuyhQgT8%3D/.
Appeal Justification RE: Hilton Santa Barbara Beachfront Resort May 27, 2025
just below if not above the high-cost threshold with no objective means to prevent rates exceeding high-cost thresholds.
Third, the Hostel Property (12 E. Montecito St.) discussed previously was approved as a 100-bed hostel with the purpose of being LCOA mitigation (in 1995), with an approved physical modification allowing hotel-like improvements subject to the explicit intent to operate as a 100-bed hostel (in 2011), but has been issued numerous building permits allowing the Hostel Property to operate as a 27-room boutique hotel with four shared/dorm rooms providing 20-bed capacity from its initial opening (2014), which now offers zero shared/dorm rooms and provides only 31 boutique hotel rooms well above high-cost levels. This is a clear example of how even extremely small boutique rooms can be considered high-cost rooms that fail to provide LCOAs (much less a hostel). This not only demonstrates staff’s inability to enforce requirements under the Specific Plan and DA, but also the difficulty of enforcing qualitative measures (a matter discussed further below).
Additionally, this is an example of how the qualitative approach leaves far too much discretion to staff to determine what amenities count, divorced from objective criteria. The Hostel Property operates as a boutique hotel objectively priced at high-cost levels (i.e., Moxy Hotel well above $250 a night rate) and offers a variety of higher-end amenities (e.g., pool with towel service, $25 bike rentals, $35 parking fees, $50/night pet fees, laundry service, free coffee/tea, convenience store, Bar Moxy for hand-crafted drinks, cocktails, small plates, and games, advertised for events, meetings, and weddings),31 which is akin to various amenities listed under City staff’s MCHD memo (e.g., pool, restaurant, laundry, breakfast, etc.). (Exh. C, p. C75.) So too, by virtue of being a boutique hotel located in a high-demand area, Moxy can levy high-cost rates because it is close to so many highly sought-after amenities, such as being “minutes from Santa Barbara beaches” and numerous dining and family activities advertised on Moxi’s website as being less than ½ mile of the property (e.g., Helena Bakery, Loquita, Lark, Lucky, Shalhoob’s, Dart Coffee, Oku, Moxi wolf museum, West Beach Leadbetter swimming).32 These nearby offerings are similar to many of the amenities listed in the City staff’s MHCD memo, which is precisely why the Moxy Hotel can levy high-cost rates (as substantial evidence demonstrates).
Hence, relying on City staff interpretations and inaction, it appears that the City has allowed the removal/conversion of a 100-bed hostel into a 31-room boutique hotel offered well above the highcost threshold. This example alone manifestly demonstrates the glaring need for objective criteria that are not susceptible to abuse, which cannot rely on unenforceable aspirations claimed by applicants or on the hope that City staff will exercise its discretion to enforce applicable zoning rules.
Fourth, the Project at bar allows 73 more luxury rooms at the Hilton Hotel (i.e., resulting in a total of 433 high-cost rooms), which is interconnected to the forthcoming Waterfront Hotel with 86 high-cost rooms, and relies on a purported 100-bed hostel that is operating as a 31-room boutique hotel offered at high-cost rates (discussed above). Hence, relying on City staff 31 See https://www.marriott.com/en-us/hotels/sbaox-moxy-santa-barbara/overview/; see also https://www.marriott.com/en-us/hotels/sbaox-moxy-santa-barbara/photos/. 32 See https://www.marriott.com/en-us/hotels/sbaox-moxy-santa-barbara/experiences/; see also https://www.marriott.com/en-us/hotels/sbaox-moxy-santa-barbara/overview/; Google Maps (listing numerous establishments), https://www.google.com/maps/@34.4148838,- 119.6934276,947m/data=!3m1!1e3?entry=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI1MDUyMS4wIKXMDSoJLDEwMjExNDU1SAFQ Aw%3D%3D.
Appeal Justification RE: Hilton Santa Barbara Beachfront Resort May 27, 2025
interpretations and actions, these interrelated projects are an example of zero LCOAs in exchange for 550 high-cost rooms.
Collectively, the above four examples demonstrate a consistent pattern and practice of City staff interpretations, actions, and/or inaction that result in more high-cost hotel rooms at the expense of LCOAs. As previously mentioned, the CCC LCOA policy involves a one-for-one replacement for projects that remove LCOAs, and 25 percent onsite LCOAs for new higher-rate hotel rooms. (Exh. C, p. C5.) Together, these four Santa Barbara projects represent a loss of up to 114 LCOAs and a 100-bed hostel, including:
• 11 LCOAs (25%) at the 44-room project at 17-21 W. Montecito Street. • 63 LCOAs (25%) at the 250-room project at 101 Garden Street. • 100-bed hostel (100%) at the 31-room Moxy Hotel at 12 E. Montecito Street. • 22 LCOAs (25%) at the future 86-room Waterfront Hotel. • 18 LCOAs (25%) at the 73-room addition to the 360-room Hilton Resort.
This cumulative impact exacerbates the lack of LCOAs throughout the City. As fully explained in prior comments, City staff claimed last year that the City has “sufficient economic diversity” in its short-term accommodations (Exh. C, p. C17), despite the fact a 2023 survey shows only one hotel is offered at or below the lower-cost threshold (i.e., 35-unit Rose Garden Inn highlighted in green), two hotels on the high-end of moderate-cost range (i.e., Motel 6 and Lemon Tree Inn highlighted in yellow), with all others considered high-cost rooms. (Exh. C, p. C73.) This is substantial evidence that City decisions involving hotel developments have and continue to result in a lack of LCOAs built within the City. This is precisely why the City, consistent with CLUP Policy 3.2- 4, needs to research and develop a detailed program to add specific requirements for LCOAs (e.g., onsite, in-lieu fees, combination)—as CCC staff reminded City staff just last year.33 Here, when asked by the Commissioner how long the City has been obligated to address this issue, City staff could only answer that it has been “years”. (PC Video, 1:38:00-1:38:35.)
16. Failure to enforce LCOA provisions impacts EJ communities, like hotel workers.
Public access, including the provision of LCOAs, is an essential coastal access issue. The Coastal Commission has routinely affirmed the importance of LCOAs as important public access and environmental justice (“EJ”) issues, as evidenced by workshops and numerous CCC decisions. (See Exh. C, p. C18.34 The failure to adequately enforce LCOA policies acutely impacts EJ communities, including hotel service workers (which the Appellant represents) who often live in inland communities that are unable to access LCOAs within the coastal zone. / / /
33 See Public Comments Received for Item III (17-21 W. Montecito St., PLN 2023-00147), p. 7, https://docs.santabarbaraca.gov/publicaccess/api/Document/Aa3HYsG2FxKUe7gyPtcvxhvGTfHIqRO96pVL Zso5wNMyvqZÁoibmUNnOJgKJPbcffgwWyFq8GPypxRXJuyhQgT8%3D/. 34 See e.g., CCC Public Workshop on LCOAs (10/26/16), PDF pp. 8, 10, 24, 31, 33-36, https://documents.coastal.ca.gov/reports/2016/11/th6-11-2016.pdf; CCC LCOA Presentation, PDF p. 8, https://documents.coastal.ca.gov/assets/lower-cost-coastal-lodging/LCOA-Doc3.pdf; CCC EJ Policy (3/8/19), PDF pp. 4, 7, https://documents.coastal.ca.gov/assets/env-justice/CCC_EJ_Policy_FINAL.pdf.
Appeal Justification RE: Hilton Santa Barbara Beachfront Resort May 27, 2025
17. Inconsistency with applicable and relevant policies and Code findings/requirements.
The above issues indicate inconsistencies with numerous applicable policies, including but not limited to: (i) Public Res. Code § 30213; (ii) Coastal Land Use Plan (“CLUP”) Policies 3.2-4, 3.2- 12, 3.2-14, 3.2-15; (iii) Specific Plan § VI.B.4; (iv) Code-required findings under SBMC § 28.85.040.A (NGMP findings), 28.95.060.D (TEDR findings), 28.95.115 (conflicts with Waterfront Hotel DA),
28.44.150 subd. A & B (CDP Findings). (See PC Staff Report, pp. 50-51, 150.) II. CONCLUSION
In conclusion, the Planning Commission’s approval of the Project Approvals should be reversed because it relied on an expired DA and failed to comply with applicable LCOA policies— based on the 17 appeal issues discussed above. This is supported by substantial evidence, including the materials referenced herein and attached hereto. Thus, Local 11 respectfully asks the City Council to grant the appeal and deny the Project Approvals until the various errors and appeal issues have been cured in a CEQA-compliant environmental review that incorporates additional mitigation, including but not limited to actual LCOAs (e.g., onsite, in-lieu fees, combination, etc.).
Local 11 reserves the right to supplement this Appeal at future hearings and proceedings for this Project. (See e.g., Cmtys. for a Better Env’t, 184 Cal.App.4th at 86; Galante Vineyards v.
Monterey Peninsula Water Management Dist. (1997) 60 Cal.App.4th 1109, 1120.) On behalf of Local 11, this Office requests, to the extent not already on the notice list, all notices of zoning/CEQA actions and any approvals, Project CEQA determinations, or public hearings to be held on the Project under state or local law requiring local agencies to mail such notices to any person who has filed a written request for them. (See Pub. Res. Code §§, 21092.2, 21167(f) and Gov. Code § 65092.) Please send notice by electronic and regular mail to Jordan R. Sisson, Esq., at the address identified on the cover page).
Thank you for considering these comments. We ask that this letter is placed in the administrative record for the Project.
Sincerely,
_________________________________________
Jordan R. Sisson
Attorney for Local 11
ATTACHMENTS:
Exhibit A: Local 11 Comments Hilton Resort Project (5/15/25) Exhibit B: Figures 1-14
Exhibit C: Local 11 Comments RE 101 Garden Street Project (4/4/25)
EXHIBIT A
May 15, 2025
VIA EMAIL:
Planning Commission, City of Santa Barbara ([email protected]) c/o Megan Arciniega, Senior Planner ([email protected]) Kathleen Kennedy, Project Planner ([email protected]) RE: ITEM III.B, PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING SCHEDULED MAY 15, 2025; HILTON SANTA BARBARA BEACHFRONT RESORT (633 E. CABRILLO BLVD.) Dear Chair Wardlow and Planning Commissioners:
On behalf of UNITE HERE Local 11 (“Local 11”), this office respectfully provides the following comments1 to the City of Santa Barbara (“City”) with regard the “Staff Report” (or “SR”) 2 for the above-referenced item involving the Transfer of Existing Development Rights (“TEDR”) that would allow the transfer of approximately 50,000 square feet of development rights from the already approved but not yet built 86-room Waterfront Hotel project (located on Parcel B) to the existing 360-room Hilton Santa Barbara Beachfront Resort (located on Parcel A), resulting in a net increase of 73 guest rooms at the Beachfront Resort. (SR, pp. 5, 8, 11.) According to the Staff Report, the Waterfront Hotel is subject to a 2016 Development Agreement (“DA”) that requires the City to “take into consideration and give appropriate credit” to the applicant for fees, dedication, public improvements already made, including the development of a hostel in order to provide for lowercost visitor accommodations. (Id., p. 8.) Citing this language, the Staff Report concludes, “no additional obligation is required to provide lower cost visitor or recreational facilities beyond what has already been provided.” (Id., at p. 10.)
Based on currently available information and its investigation to date, Local 11 questions this conclusion in light of the following four issues relevant to the project’s compliance with coastal policies relevant to lower cost overnight accommodations (“LCOA”) and the project’s potential impacts on induced demand for affordable housing.
1. WHERE IS THE 100-BED HOSTEL MITIGATION?
The 100-bed youth hostel serves as LCOA mitigation for the 150-room (as then proposed and approved) Waterfront Hotel, where the hostel was purportedly constructed in 2014 at 12 E.
Montecito St. (SR, pp. 4, 44, 50-51.) However, that site seems to have been developed initially as the Wayfarer Hotel, which provided 27 private rooms and four (4) shared “dorm” hostel rooms sleeping five.3 This seems to be less than the 100-bed hostel requirement. Furthermore, per a 1 Herein, page citations are either the stated pagination (i.e., “p. #”) or PDF-page location (i.e., “PDF p. #”) 2 City Planning Commission (5/15/25) Staff Report RE Item III.B, https://santabarbaraca.gov/sites/default/files/filesync/Advisory_Groups/Planning_Commission/Current/0 2_Staff_Reports/2025-05-15_May_15_2025_Item_III_B_633_E_Cabrillo_Blvd_Staff_Report.pdf. 3 See e.g., Visit Santa Barbra, The Wayfarer https://visitingsantabarbara.com/funk-zone/the-wayfarer/; id., (printout), https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/3xb7lv77pzx9ub6e4azzr/ visitingsantabarbara_com_funk_zone_the_wayfarer.pdf?rlkey=dtitodw4z1i17uc4n722mtpa9&dl=0; Hotel EXHIBIT A | page A1
PC Comments RE: Hilton Santa Barbara Beachfront Resort
May 15, 2025
recent phone call with hotel staff,4 the Wayfarer became the Moxy sometime in or around February 2024, and no longer offers shared, dorm, or hostel rooms of any kind, with the majority of the rooms provided being singles with some having the option of a murphy bed. Online, the Moxy Santa Barbara is advertised as having 31 rooms (singles and doubles) and offering single-night prices well over $300 a night.5 Hence, the purported 100-bed hostel seems to not exist at the Moxy hotel, which functions as a high-cost boutique hotel.
2. HAS THE CITY CONDUCTED AN ANNUAL DA REVIEW AND/OR CONFIRMED THAT THE 100-BED HOSTEL IS BEING MAINTAINED?
The City’s 1994 resolution approving the amended Specific Plan had environmental findings and statement of overriding considerations that relied upon the 100-bed youth hostel. (SR, pp. 44, 50-51, 59.) Similarly, the 2016 DA acknowledged this requirement and explicitly contemplated the construction of a 100-bed youth hostel. (Id., at pp. 95-96, 100-101.) The DA definitions included the “Hostel Conditions of Approval” that included the property would be used “solely and exclusively for the construction, operation and maintenance of a 100-bed hostel…” (SR, p. 114.) The DA also included specific performance as a remedy (i.e., Section 25) and annual review of compliance with the DA (i.e., Section 26). (SR, pp. 112-113.) If there is no 100-bed youth hostel being maintained at the Moxy, then is the applicant in compliance with the DA? Furthermore, has the City addressed this during any of the required annual DA reviews?
3. HOW DOES THE STAFF REPORT ADDRESS THE NINE (9) ADDITIONAL HOTEL UNITS UNACCOUNTED FOR BY THE WATERFRONT HOTEL ROOM REDUCTION?
As discussed above, the 100-bed hostel was LCOA mitigation for the then-proposed and approved 150-room Waterfront Hotel, the plans for which were subsequently reduced to 86 rooms (i.e., 64 room reduction). (SR, p. 4.) However, the current project as proposed would allow the Beachfront Resort to increase its rooms from 360 to 433 (i.e., 73 room net increase) (SR, p. 1), which leaves at least a nine (9) room increase (above the number of rooms originally approved) Life, The Wayfarer, Hostel in Santa Barbara (“Shared room that sleeps 5. Each room has five twin-size beds(bunk style) and private, en-suite bathroom … Newly opened in 2014, this Santa Barbara boutique hotel offers 27 private hotel rooms and 4 shared hostel rooms….” https://www.ahotellife.com/hotels/thewayfarer/; id., (printout), https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/ezmcx7dqoy9jkj6wm9ulf/The-Wayfarer-Hostelin-Santa-Barbara-HostelsClub.pdf?rlkey=erlqrese8sm6e54axqnh9wycz&dl=0. 4 Held by this office calling (805) 845-1000 at approximately 1:45 pm on May 14, 2025. 5 See e.g., Visit Santa Barbara, Moxy Santa Barbara (“boutique hotel communal spaces”), https:// santabarbaraca.com/businesses/moxy-santa-barbara/; id., (printout), https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/ zvkkl56cli2qbiy6babff/santabarbaraca_com_businesses_moxy_santa_barbara.pdf?rlkey=cm609doefxs39i3ucl pt5gy43&dl=0; Marriott, Moxy Santa Barbara (31 rooms provided) https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/ n7lyvuv9uqwaim3eced2r/Funk-Zone-Hotel-with-Pool-_-Moxy-Santa-Barbara.pdf?rlkey=5blvamdet8iv8i4lyo 2lo0sml&dl=0; id., (printout), https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/n7lyvuv9uqwaim3eced2r/Funk-Zone-Hotelwith-Pool-_-Moxy-Santa-Barbara.pdf?rlkey=5blvamdet8iv8i4lyo2lo0sml&dl=0; id., Room Rates (three rooms available [i.e., two 135-sf petite queen rooms with murphy bed, one 185-sf double bed] offered for single night stay [i.e., May 15-16, 2025] ranging from $313 - $359), https://www.marriott.com/reservation/ rateListMenu.mi; id., (printout), https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/x1rhzon1nc35x13j9s1aa/Marriott-FindReserve-Choose-Dates-Rooms-Rates.pdf?rlkey=ekjngffcnnfmrprx5giey4lox&dl=0; Tripadvisor, Moxy Santa Barbara (showing 11 deals ranging from $315 - $376 a night), https://www.tripadvisor.com/Hotel_Reviewg33045-d6884241-Reviews-Moxy_Santa_Barbara-Santa_Barbara_California.html; id., (printout), https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/a09casgpupclyado52dyh/MOXY-SANTA-BARBARA-Updated-2025-PricesMotel-Reviews-CA.pdf?rlkey=cjy4922tvuhz7nf0jyub1zsef&dl=0.
EXHIBIT A | page A2
PC Comments RE: Hilton Santa Barbara Beachfront Resort
May 15, 2025
completely unaddressed. These nine new rooms will likely be high-cost and seemingly subject to the Coastal Commission’s LCOA policy (i.e., 25% of the new onsite rooms).6
4. WHY ARE AFFORDABLE HOUSING IMPACTS NOT BEING CONSIDERED LIKE OTHER HOTEL PROJECTS? The Waterfront Hotel project was originally estimated to generate additional demand of 22 affordable housing units (SR, p. 186), and the Specific Plan states developments within the area “shall satisfy the City’s requirement to mitigate any impact the project may have on the City’s housing stock through the creation of new affordable housing as required by Chapter 28.87.300 of the Municipal Code.” (SR, p. 60.) According to the Staff Report, because the Growth Management Program (“GMP”) ordinance had been subsequently revised to remove a finding, “staff has determined that development in the Park Plaza Specific Plan area would no longer be required to mitigate housing impacts based on this development regulation.” (SR, p. 147.) The May 2025 addendum also references the subsequent changes to the GMP ordinance and Redevelopment Agency (which is no longer in effect) as justification why the current Hilton TEDR project “does not need to provide affordable housing construction or the payment of in lieu fees.” (SR, pp. 186-187.) It seems intuitive that a project’s impact on affordable housing demand cannot be mitigated through programs that no longer exist. To the extent these programs were purportedly found “ineffective and outdated” (id., at 186), this would suggest the need to find alternative effective mitigation.
Furthermore, affordable housing impacts should be considered, as the Planning Commission has done before. For example, the City recently approved a 250-room hotel project (i.e., 101 Garden Street) that included six units of employee housing on site and provided $1 million to the City’s affordable housing program trust.
7 While this mitigation is still insufficient (in Local 11’s view), it was more than what is being provided or even considered here. There, while noting changes to the GMP Ordinance, the staff reports still directed the Planning Commission to “consider whether the proposed hotel and associated long-term employment would have an adverse impact on the City’s housing stock, and if so, what are appropriate measures to address it.” 8 In subsequent
hearings, the Planning Commission demanded from that applicant greater information, more demanding methods in the housing impact study, and greater mitigation (e.g., initially the application offered only the six onsite housing units with not fees, then agreed to contribute $500,000 to the City’s housing trust, which it subsequently increased to $1 million before the City’s final approval).
9 Again, without passing judgment on the adequacy of the mitigation proposed in the 6 As discussed further in Local 11’s recent comments to the California Coastal Commission (“CCC”) related to the City’s recent approval of the 101 Garden Street hotel project. (See CCC Hearing [4/10/25] Item Th13a Correspondence, PDF pp. 14-89 [inclusive of exhibits A through C attached thereto], https://documents.coastal.ca.gov/reports/2025/4/Th13a/Th13a-4-2025-corresp.pdf.) 7 See e.g., City Council Staff Report Attachment 2 (11/19/24) 101 Garden Street Resolution, PDF pp. 9 (Section 5, finding E.2 with respect to SBMC § 28.85.040), https://records.santabarbaraca.gov/ OnBaseAgendaOnline/Documents/DownloadFile/Attachment%202%20- %20RESOLUTION.pdf?documentType=1&meetingId=1013&itemId=34572&publishId=22961&isSection=Fal se&isAttachment=True.
8 See e.g., PC Staff Report (4/6/23) 101 Garden Street, pp. 2, 9, https://docs.santabarbaraca.gov/ publicaccess/api/Document/AfP24svz63dSRwaCyn7oDA8XerLgejg3rj0ÁI6RÉF0ÁJSR5yg 1SpÉUY4iJ5Mb4mEH4tsepJsÉfp1fF6BYehhmwE%3D/?ForceDownload=true. 9 See e.g., Supra fn. 7; see also PC Staff Report (8/3/23) 101 Garden Street, pp. 1, 4-6, 9, 93, https://docs.santabarbaraca.gov/publicaccess/api/Document/AfP24svz63dSRwaCyn7oDA8XerLgejg3rj0ÁI6 EXHIBIT A | page A3
PC Comments RE: Hilton Santa Barbara Beachfront Resort
May 15, 2025
101 Garden Street project, it seems intuitively inconsistent for the City to consider adverse housing impacts for that hotel project but not here for the proposed Beachfront Resort TEDR project.
In conclusion, there are live questions about the project’s compliance with the Coastal Act’s LCOA provisions and whether housing impacts are being mitigated. Local 11 urges the Planning Commission to address these issues prior to granting the requested approvals.
Local 11 reserves the right to supplement these comments at future hearings and proceedings for this Project. (See e.g., Cmtys. for a Better Env’t, 184 Cal.App.4th at 86; Galante Vineyards v. Monterey Peninsula Water Management Dist. (1997) 60 Cal.App.4th 1109, 1120.) On behalf of Local 11, this Office requests, to the extent not already on the notice list, all notices of CEQA actions and any approvals, Project CEQA determinations, or public hearings to be held on the Project under state or local law requiring local agencies to mail such notices to any person who has filed a written request for them. (See Pub. Res. Code §§, 21092.2, 21167(f) and Gov. Code § 65092.) Please send notice by electronic and regular mail to Jordan R. Sisson, Esq., at the address identified on the cover page).
Thank you for considering these comments. We ask that this letter is placed in the administrative record for the Project.
Sincerely,
_________________________________________
Jordan R. Sisson
Attorney for Local 11
RÉF0ÁJSR5yg1SpÉUY4iJ5Mb4mEH4tsepJsÉfp1fF6BYehhmwE%3D/?ForceDownload=true; PC Staff Report (2/22/24) 101 Garden Street, pp. 1, 4, 10-12, https://docs.santabarbaraca.gov/publicaccess/api/ Document/AQ41gh4RqÉzxCaBwU2Gn3nWHORTbqqfhROkthn0KsIkz6eV1ooOacmlWVhWK0n9BÉwLdCjgfF1 YCixfFzPhRTPs%3D/?ForceDownload=true; City Council Staff Report (10/1/24) 101 Garden Street, pp. 3, 8- 9, https://records.santabarbaraca.gov/OnBaseAgendaOnline/Documents/ViewDocument/ Council%20Agenda%20Report%20-%20APPEAL%20OF%20PLANNING%20COMMISSION’S% 20APPROVAL%20OF%20THE.pdf?meetingId=1003&documentType=Agenda&itemId=32201&publishId= 22578&isSection=false; City Council Staff Report (11/19/24) 101 Garden Street, pp. 1, https://records. santabarbaraca.gov/OnBaseAgendaOnline/Documents/ViewDocument/Council%20Agenda%20Report%20- %20APPEAL%20OF%20PLANNING%20COMMISSION%27S%20APPROVAL%20OF%20THE%20101%20.pdf ?meetingId=1010&documentType=Agenda&itemId=32580&publishId=22896&isSection=false; City Council Staff Report Attachment 2 (11/19/24) 101 Garden Street Resolution, PDF pp. 9, https://records. santabarbaraca.gov/OnBaseAgendaOnline/Documents/DownloadFile/Attachment%202%20- %20RESOLUTION.pdf?documentType=1&meetingId=1013&itemId=34572&publishId=22961&isSection=Fal se&isAttachment=True.
EXHIBIT A | page A4
EXHIBIT B
Figure 1: A Hotel Life (annotations added) 1
⩩⩩⩩
⩩⩩⩩
1 https://www.ahotellife.com/hotels/the-wayfarer/; Id., printout, https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/27z0vl8i6j9ovtay5frnq/The-Wayfarer-Review-Santa-Barbara-_-A-HotelLife.pdf?rlkey=vic1hwrg1j5p4cyyvvppg0jby&dl=0.
EXHIBIT B | page B1
Figure 1: continued (annotations added)
⩩⩩⩩
EXHIBIT B | page B2
Figure 2: Hostels Club (annotations added)
2 ⩩⩩⩩
⩩⩩⩩
2 https://www.hostelsclub.com/en/hostel/the-wayfarer; printout, https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/ezmcx7dqoy9jkj6wm9ulf/The-Wayfarer-Hostel-in-Santa-BarbaraHostelsClub.pdf?rlkey=erlqrese8sm6e54axqnh9wycz&dl=0.
EXHIBIT B | page B3
Figure 2: continued
⩩⩩⩩
EXHIBIT B | page B4
Figure 3: CDD Property Record: 2020 Zoning Letter 3
3 Zoning Letter (10/7/20) p. 1,
https://records.santabarbaraca.gov/publicaccess/api/Document/AQfMq1lZbDQ7onaO9uQwEyIpwc2B2jAe4t6hUE rKXOvs4PJ kacgXBUiekgUjp8cxE qHvA X7mE MISKxH42M48rdw%3D/
EXHIBIT B | page B5
Figure 4: CDD Property Record: 1995 PC Staff Report (highlights added) 4 ⩩⩩⩩
⩩⩩⩩
⩩⩩⩩
⩩⩩⩩
4 PC Staff Report (4/20/95) PDF pp. 5, 16, 21, 23-24,
https://records.santabarbaraca.gov/publicaccess/api/Document/AXUeiPjE 41M4Q9UnBKAA N8fn8uSpza4YpaO5G2ykZ1PkGG ANstTpuua3QxU3ZTVDfkqoE EQNU2aRJSKSUGiU954%3D/.
EXHIBIT B | page B6
Figure 4 (continued)
⩩⩩⩩
⩩⩩⩩
EXHIBIT B | page B7
Figure 5: CDD Property Record: 2011 CDD Letter (highlights added) 5 5 SCD Letter (5/5/11) pp. 1,
https://records.santabarbaraca.gov/publicaccess/api/Document/AQIaX9W4Y49SlpI2JE A SmftH4XxniA T5ZzioTi8ziyF0EE6aug YInlmqwsVC0ogbPPlFHQtRk4VUAcYKvjBtHzI%3D/
EXHIBIT B | page B8
Figure 6: CDD Property Record: 2011 PC Staff Report (highlights added) 6 ⩩⩩⩩
⩩⩩⩩
6 PC Staff Report (5/5/11) PDF pp. 1-2,
https://records.santabarbaraca.gov/publicaccess/api/Document/AXt9kXVklZTW0Ms452d2XVZc6uZC3P2lJxd3ZYLj14tSA7YIc BGuDE uXICRy8Ug6pBjRCVwj0nhLC6A jwZFvowA%3D/.
EXHIBIT B | page B9
Figure 6 (continued)
⩩⩩⩩
EXHIBIT B | page B10
Figure 7: CDD Property Record: 2011 RJS Memorial Foundation Letter (highlights added) 7 ⩩⩩⩩
7 PC Staff Report (5/5/11) PDF pp. 6-##
https://records.santabarbaraca.gov/publicaccess/api/Document/AXt9kXVklZTW0Ms452d2XVZc6uZC3P2lJxd3ZYLj14tSA7YIc BGuDE uXICRy8Ug6pBjRCVwj0nhLC6A jwZFvowA%3D/.
EXHIBIT B | page B11
Figure 7 (continued)
###
EXHIBIT B | page B12
Figure 8: Visit Santa Barbara 8
⩩⩩⩩
⩩⩩⩩
8 Visit Santa Barbara, Moxy Santa Barbara (“boutique hotel communal spaces”), https://santabarbaraca.com/businesses/moxysanta-barbara/; id., (printout), https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/zvkkl56cli2qbiy6babff/santabarbaraca_com_businesses_moxy_santa_barbara.pdf?rlkey=cm 609doefxs39i3uclpt5gy43&dl=0;
EXHIBIT B | page B13
Figure 9 (Ibid)
⩩⩩⩩
EXHIBIT B | page B14
Figure 10: Moxy Hotel Santa Barbara (highlights added) 9 9 https://www.marriott.com/search/findHotels.mi?pageType=advanced&searchType=NearAddress&destinationAddress.locati on=Moxy+Santa+Barbara&nst=paid&cid=PAI_GLB0004YXD_GLE000BIM5_GLF000OETA&ppc=ppc&pId=ustbppc&gad_source= 1&gad_campaignid=22330797966&gbraid=0AAAAADilniduGEtWtxyOozqPEPSIIERcL&gclid=Cj0KCQjwxdXBBhDEARIsAAUkP 6gSkZnYbT_nDieQLV_bBBCiUH0p9j4ain6MQoZU0Tn6lcSuHj_-KxUaApmREALw_wcB&gclsrc=aw.ds&deviceType=desktopweb&view=list#/0/; see also Marriott, Moxy Santa Barbara (31 rooms provided) https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/n7lyvuv9uqwaim3eced2r/Funk-Zone-Hotel-with-Pool-_-Moxy-SantaBarbara.pdf?rlkey=5blvamdet8iv8i4lyo2lo0sml&dl=0; id., (printout), https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/n7lyvuv9uqwaim3eced2r/Funk-Zone-Hotel-with-Pool-_-Moxy-SantaBarbara.pdf?rlkey=5blvamdet8iv8i4lyo2lo0sml&dl=0; EXHIBIT B | page B15
Figure 11: June 2025 Room Rates 10
10 https://www.marriott.com/search/availabilityCalendar.mi?propertyCode=SBAOX&isSearch=true¤cy=&costTab=total&i sInternalSearch=true&vsInitialRequest=false&searchType=InCity&for-hotels-nearme=Near&collapseAccordian=ishidden&singleSearch=true&singleSearchAutoSuggest=Unmatched&flexibleDateSearchRateDisplay=false&recordsPerPage=40 &destinationAddress.latitude=34.415337&destinationAddress.location=Moxy+Santa+Barbara&searchRadius=50&isTransient =true&destinationAddress.longitude=-
119.692448&initialRequest=true&fromToDate=05%2F27%2F2025&fromToDate_submit=06%2F02%2F2025&fromDate=06 %2F01%2F2025&toDate=06%2F02%2F2025&toDateDefaultFormat=06%2F02%2F2025&fromDateDefaultFormat=06%2F0 1%2F2025&flexibleDateSearch=true&isHideFlexibleDateCalendar=false&t-start=2025-06-01&t-end=2025-06- 02&isFlexibleDatesOptionSelected=true&lengthOfStay=1&roomCount=1&numAdultsPerRoom=1&childrenCount=0&clusterCo de=none&numberOfRooms=1#/1/; see also Room Rates (three rooms available [i.e., two 135-sf petite queen rooms with murphy bed, one 185-sf double bed] offered for single night stay [i.e., May 15-16, 2025] ranging from $313 - $359), https://www.marriott.com/reservation/rateListMenu.mi; id., (printout), https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/x1rhzon1nc35x13j9s1aa/Marriott-Find-Reserve-Choose-Dates-RoomsRates.pdf?rlkey=ekjngffcnnfmrprx5giey4lox&dl=0; EXHIBIT B | page B16
Figure 12: Moxy Hotel Website (May) 11
⩩⩩⩩
11 https://www.marriott.com/en-us/hotels/sbaox-moxy-santa-barbara/overview/.
EXHIBIT B | page B17
Figure 13: Moxy Hotel Room Rates (May)12
12 https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/x1rhzon1nc35x13j9s1aa/Marriott-Find-Reserve-Choose-Dates-RoomsRates.pdf?rlkey=ekjngffcnnfmrprx5giey4lox&e=1&dl=0.
EXHIBIT B | page B18
Figure 14: TripAdvisor May Room Rates 13
13 Tripadvisor, Moxy Santa Barbara (showing 11 deals ranging from $315 - $376 a night), https://www.tripadvisor.com/Hotel_Review-g33045-d6884241-Reviews-Moxy_Santa_Barbara-Santa_Barbara_California.html; id., (printout), https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/a09casgpupclyado52dyh/MOXY-SANTA-BARBARA-Updated-2025-PricesMotel-Reviews-CA.pdf?rlkey=cjy4922tvuhz7nf0jyub1zsef&dl=0.
EXHIBIT B | page B19
EXHIBIT C
Item TH13a, CCC Hearing April 10, 2025
Appeal No. A-4-SBC-24-0054 (101 Garden St. Hotel, City of Santa Barbra) UNITE HERE Local 11 Comments
Oppose Project / Support Appeals
April 4, 2025
VIA EMAIL:
California Coastal Commission ([email protected].) c/o Executive Director, Kate Huckelbridge ([email protected]) RE: ITEM #13A, CAL. COASTAL COMMISSION HEARING SCHEDULED APRIL 10, 2025; 101 GARDEN STREET HOTEL PROJECT (APPEAL NO. A-4-SBC-24-0054) Dear Chair and Honorable Coastal Commissioners, and Staff:
On behalf of UNITE HERE Local 11 and its members (collectively this Office respectfully provides the California Coastal Commission or the following comments1 regarding the proposed 250-room hotel development ( Project located on a 4.5-acre site at 101 Garden Streets. ( Site proposed by Craig Minus ( Applicant and approved by the City of Santa Barbara ( These comments are provided in response to the Project for the above-referenced item,2 where CCC staff recommends against a finding of substantial issue.
In short, Local 11 is concerned about this Project s lack of lower-cost overnight accommodations ( which seems inconsistent with the applicable policies under the Coastal Act ( Coastal and the City s Local Coastal Program ( LCP 3 Under typical CCC practice, 25 percent of the new rooms would be provided at lower cost or equivalent in-lieu fees or a combination thereof.4 Here, the Project provides zero LCOAs. The South Central Coastal District staff recommendation seems to be inconsistent with previous considerations of the Commission, such as the Fairmont Miramar in Santa Monica, where the Commission and staff deeply engaged with this issue. Local 11 submitted a timely Coastal appeal that also highlighted the lack of LCOAs at in this Garden Street Hotel Project, but the appeal was wrongly rejected by the South Central Coastal District staff 11 CCC (attached hereto as Exhibit A)5. We have incorporated our previous appeal in its entirety and further elaborated below with reference to the various figures provided (attached hereto as Exhibit B).
1 Herein, page citations are either the stated pagination (i.e., or PDF-page location (i.e., p. 2 https://documents.coastal.ca.gov/reports/2025/4/Th13a/Th13a-4-2025-report.pdf. 3 See Inclusive of the Local Implementation Plan LIP and Land Use Plan LUP (See https://santabarbaraca.gov/government/priorities-policies/local-coastal-program.) 4 See Gen., CCC Informational Briefing On LCOA Presentation (7/11/24), https://documents.coastal.ca.gov/reports/2024/7/Th7/Th7-7-2024-exhibits.pdf. 5 Also available at: https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/ihpxxvmozy22pmfy7yc4f/2024.12.31_CCCAppeal_Garden-Street.pdf?rlkey=f3vk4qcli6sem1g6knrcwie0v&dl=0. EXHIBIT C | page C1 Local 11 Comments RE: 101 Garden Street Hotel Project
April 4, 2025
Local 11 has considerable interest in this issue as an organization that represents 30,000 hotel and hospitality workers throughout Southern California. Its members live and/or work in the Coastal Zone and believe that working families have the right to access and enjoy coastal resources.
Their access to the coastal zone is adversely impacted when projects do not comply with LCOA requirements such as the case here with this hotel failure to provide any LCOAs.
For these and other reasons discussed below, Local 11 respectfully urges the Commission to either: (a) defer its action today with instruction to South Central Coastal District staff to accept, review, and consider the Local 11 CCC Appeal and provide Local 11 the same time as other appellants during future hearings (e.g., Substantial Issue or De Novo hearing); or (b) reject recommendation and FIND SUBSTANTIAL ISSUE (at least on this LCOA issue) and conduct a future De Novo hearing. I. SOUTH CENTRAL COASTAL DISTRICT STAFF WRONGLY REJECTED LOCAL TIMELY
COASTAL APPEAL
The Staff Report (p. 6) notes two appeals filed by Keep the Funk, Inc. and Steven Johnson.
However, Local 11 also submitted a timely appeal (i.e., Local 11 CCC Appeal) (see Exh. A), which was rejected by the Central Coast CCC staff because (citing 14 Cal. Code Regs. § 13111) Local 11 was not an appellant that personally exhausted the local appeal process (albeit others did).6 Under the circumstances, rejection of Local 11 CCC Appeal was incorrect due to the following issues.
A. AS APPLIED BY SOUTH CENTRAL COASTAL DISTRICT STAFF TO THIS SPECIFIC CASE, CCC REGULATION IS IN CONFLICT WITH THE COASTAL ACT S LIBERAL STANDING REQUIREMENTS. As applied here, the CCC regulation is in conflict with State law, which provides any aggrieved person the right to file an appeal to the Coastal Commission. (See Pub. Res. Code § 30625(a).) The definition of an aggrieved person includes any person who appeared at a public hearing or, by other appropriate means, informed the local government body of its concerns about the Project. (Id., § 30801(b).) Here, Local 11 did appear multiple times and made its concerns known to the City during public hearings. (See Exh. A, pp. A-8.) The plain language of State law requires only that a CCC appellant be an aggrieved person not the additional requirement of personally exhausting the local appeal process. Thus, as applied, the CCC regulation conflicts with State law.
B. A FIFTH CITY APPEAL WAS FUTILE AND UNNECESSARY WHEN FOUR OTHER INDEPENDENT CITY APPEALS FULLY EXHAUSTED ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES. The exhaustion of administrative remedies was satisfied by four City appeals, making a fifth local appeal unnecessary and futile. The exhaustion of administrative remedies doctrine is a jurisdictional prerequisite to judicial review and applicable to coastal commission actions.7 The purpose of exhaustion is to provide a lower decision-making body the opportunity to decide matters within its expertise prior to the intervention of a higher body (e.g., CCC or court).8 The purpose of exhaustion is served if the lower decision-making body had full opportunity to 6 See Central District CCC Staff Letter (1/8/25), https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/5ge8jf8uqg9yad3z7xbvc/Appeal-of-Santa-Barbara-CDP-PLN2019-00052- response-1.8.2025.pdf?rlkey=71v25843ewpank8ofmc5ee6bn&dl=0. 7 See Walter H. Leimert Co. v. California Coastal Com. (1983) 149 Cal.App.3d 222, 232. 8 See Practice Under the CEQA (2d ed. Cal. CEB 2025) § 23.98.
EXHIBIT C | page C2
Local 11 Comments RE: 101 Garden Street Hotel Project
April 4, 2025
receive/respond to facts and theories before making its decision, such as in the case where a city council acts on a matter on appeal submitted by one set of appellants making an additional appeal by other set of appellants superfluous.9 Once an objector has perfected an appeal, separate appeals by other objecting may not be necessary to satisfy this exhaustion requirement.10 Here, the Planning Commission approval of the Project was appealed to the City Council through four independent appeals, and the City Council had the opportunity to address the LCOA issue but failed to do so. (See Exh. A, pp. A-8 [discussing procedural posture], A-11 [listing four appellants and appeals].) Thus, the exhaustion doctrine was satisfied, making a fifth appeal unnecessary and futile.11
In sum, the plain language of State law does not require CCC appellants to personally exhaust and lower administrative remedies were fully exhausted by four independent appeals.
Under the circumstances, Local 11 had standing to have its appeal accepted and considered with this hearing. Local 11 respectfully requests that the Coastal Commission defer its action and instruct South Central Coastal District Staff to accept, review, and further consider Local CCC Appeal including granting Local 11 the same rights as other appellants during any future substantial issue or de novo hearing on this matter. II. SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE SHOWS THAT THE PROJECT IS INCONSISTENT WITH LCOA
POLICIES
Generally, Coastal Commission actions are subject to an abuse of discretion standard, which occurs when an agency fails to proceed in the manner required by law or its order/decision is not supported by the findings, or its findings are not supported by substantial evidence. (See McAllister v. California Coastal Com. (2008) 169 Cal.App.4th 912, 921.) includes facts, reasonable assumptions predicated upon fact, or expert opinion supported by fact; it does not include argument, speculation, unsubstantiated opinion or narrative, clearly inaccurate or erroneous evidence, or evidence of social or economic impacts that do not contribute to, or are not caused by, physical impacts on the environment. (See e.g., Pub. Res. Code §§ 21080(e), 21082.2(c); CEQA Guidelines §§ 15064(f)(5), 15384.) However, that standard does not mean one must uncritically rely on every study or analysis presented by a project proponent especially when it is inadequate or unsupported (Berkeley Keep Jets Over the Bay v. Bd. of Port (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 1344, 1355 [citation omitted].) Nor do courts blindly trust bare conclusions, bald assertions, and conclusory comments without the of the route the . . . agency traveled from evidence to (Laurel Heights, 47 Cal.3d at 404-405 [quoting Topanga Assn. for a Scenic Community v. County of Los Angeles (1974) 11 Cal.3d 506, 515].) Furthermore, while planning agencies enjoy some discretion in interpreting their rules and policies, has limits and courts are not bound by unreasonable interpretations contrary to the plain language of regulations and statutes. (Orange Citizens for Parks & Recreation v. Superior Court (2016) 2 Cal.5th 141, 146, 156-157 [rejecting attempts to the facial where reasonable 9 See Citizens for Open Government v. City of Lodi (2006) 144 Cal.App.4th 865, 876-878 (citing relevant caselaw). 10 See CEB CEQA practice § 23.103.b (citing Lodi, supra, and Newberry Springs Water v County of San Bernardino (1984) 150 CA3d 740); see also Newberry, supra, at 746-47 [appeal to board of supervisors sufficient even though appeal to environmental review board available earlier in process].) 11 This is not a case involving situations where one of the two local appeal processes were not exercised by anyone (see Clews Land & Livestock, LLC v. City of San Diego, (2017) 19 Cal.App.5th 161, 184-91) or case squarely focused on exhausting a specific issue with sufficient specificity (see Stop Syar Expansion v. County of Napa (2021) 63 Cal.App.5th 444, 457).
EXHIBIT C | page C3
Local 11 Comments RE: 101 Garden Street Hotel Project
April 4, 2025
person could conclude that the Property could be developed without a general plan see also Stolman v. City of Los Angeles (2003) 114 Cal.App.4th 916, 928-930 [vacating variance based on zoning administrator s interpretation contradicted by the plain language of the municipal code].) Here, South Central Coastal District staff concludes that the Project does not raise a substantial issue as it relates to LCOA policies under the Coastal Act and local LCP because the proposed room rates supplied by the Applicant are purportedly moderate cost and with non-luxury amenities. (See CCC Staff Report, pp. 2, 29-30.) Local 11 disagrees with this conclusion, which as discussed below is not supported by substantial evidence when considering: (A) the plain language of applicable LCOA policies and well-established precedent set by Coastal Commission actions; (B) the fundamentally flawed quantitative LCOA methodology contrary to Coastal well-established methods; (C) the qualitative LCOA methodology ignores the fact that the Project includes numerous high-cost amenities and room rates; (D) the City and CCC staff fail to address the cumulative impacts of current/proposed policies that have left the Santa Barbara area practically void of any lower cost rooms; and (E) the five factors considered by the Coastal Commission when determining if an appeal raises a substantial issue.
A. STAFF REPORT FAILS TO ADDRESS THE PLAIN LANGUAGE OF APPLICABLE LCOA POLICIES AND
WELL-ESTABLISHED PRECEDENT SET BY COASTAL COMMISSION ACTIONS INVOLVING OTHER
COASTAL DISTRICT STAFF
As a threshold matter, the CCC staff report fails to recognize that the LCOA policies do not exempt LCOA requirements for moderate-cost rooms especially those here that are on the higher range and above higher-cost thresholds. This is clear when considering the following issues:
1. The plain language of applicable LCOA policies under the Coastal Act and City LCP clearly states that accommodations are to be encouraged and provided where feasible there is no exemption for moderate cost accommodations. The LCP Land Use Plan 12 recitals, narrative, and policies are replete with references to the need to protect and encourage facilities serving income ranges (as shown in LUP excerpts in Exhibit B), including but not limited to: (i) Coastal Act § 30213 (lower cost facilities shall be protected, encouraged, and where feasible provided); (ii) LUP Policy 3.2-12 (same); and (iii) LUP Policy 3.2-14 (i.e., new hotel/motel development shall where feasible provide rooms that serve all income ranges). (See Exh. B [Fig. 1]; see also CCC Staff Report, pp. 21, 24.) Nowhere within the LUP does it mention that moderate-cost hotels are equivalent to lower-cost facilities or that lower-cost accommodations are to be encouraged for only high-cost, luxury hotels.13
12 See LUP (Aug. 2019),
https://santabarbaraca.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Services/LCP%20Update/City%20of%20Santa% 20Barbara%20Complete%20Certified%20Coastal%20LUP.pdf. 13 Within the LUP, appears seven time and, as relevant here, only states that the CCC Commission shall not establish method of of low or moderate income for purpose of determining eligibility for overnight room rentals at such facilities. (See LUP, PDF pp. 65, 131, 146 [reference to Coastal Act § 30213 and LUP Policy 3.2-12].)
EXHIBIT C | page C4
Local 11 Comments RE: 101 Garden Street Hotel Project
April 4, 2025
2. Coastal Commission has a well-established method of defining lower-cost accommodations and method of encouraging them in new hotel development. As noted in the CCC Staff Report (p. 29), the Commission has a preferred approach of identifying lower-cost accommodations based on a statewide average daily rate for standard double occupancy, where the lower-cost threshold set at 75 percent of peak season ADR, the higher-cost threshold set at 125 percent, and moderate-cost falling in between said thresholds (i.e., 75% 125%). (See also Exh. A, pp. A-9, A-15, A-27.) As relevant here, the 2023 statewide peak season ADR was $200.52, making approximately $150 per night the lower-cost threshold and $250 per night the higher-cost threshold, with moderate-cost falling in between ($150 - $250). (Id.14) Additionally, the preferred method of encouraging and providing new LCOAs is to ensure 25% of the total proposed new market-rate hotel rooms are provided on-site at lower cost rates including LCOAs on moderate-cost rooms. (See Exh. B [Figs. 2a 2b].) Where that is found to be infeasible, the Commission has permitted the equivalent value in the form of in-lieu fees or a combination of on-site LCOAs and in-lieu fees.15 Furthermore, the CCC has advocated and imposed the LCOA requirement on proposed market-rate hotels, including rooms that are high-cost and on the high-end of the moderate-cost ranges. (See Exh. B [Figs. 2].)
3. Numerous Coastal Commission Precedent throughout the coast set by other Coastal District staff shows the failure to provide any LCOAs is a substantial issue that requires robust feasibility analysis showing full on-site LCOAs is infeasible.
Here, the Project was approved just four months ago with zero LCOAs, without any feasibility analysis demonstrating LCOAs are infeasible, and with South Central Coast District staff recommending no substantial issue. (See Exh. A, p. A-8; CCC Staff Report, p. 2.) This is a stark departure from Coastal Commission precedent on numerous prior hotel cases located in other Coastal Districts (provided below) under varying procedural postures and shows the failure to provide LCOAs is inconsistent with LCOA policies including grounds to find a substantial issue in the appeal context. These cases also show that the developers are reived of this 25 % LCOA requirement only when developers provide a robust feasibility analysis showing LCOAs are infeasible, which must be thoroughly vetted by CCC staff, which is often contested over several iterations and delaying final CCC approval (for months if not years). Below is a brief description of a few of these recent Coastal Commission cases, which are not addressed in the Staff Report. a. South Coast District
Venice Beach Hotel (Appeal No. A-5-VEN-21-0011): On March 10, 2022, the Commission held a Substantial Issue hearing for the Local CDP and determined that the local CDP raised a substantial issue with respect to conformity with the Chapter 3 Coastal Act Policies. Specifically, the Commission found that the analysis did not analyze the Project for consistency with Coastal Act Policy 30213 regarding overnight accommodations, 14 See also Gen., CCC Informational Briefing (7/11/24), PDF pp. 10, 11, https://documents.coastal.ca.gov/reports/2024/7/Th7/Th7-7-2024-exhibits.pdf; CCC Public Workshop on LCOAs (10/26/16), pp. 33-36, https://documents.coastal.ca.gov/reports/2016/11/th6-11-2016.pdf; See e.g., CCC LCOA Presentation, PDF p. 7, 10, https://documents.coastal.ca.gov/assets/lower-cost-coastallodging/LCOA-Doc3.pdf. 15 Ibid.
EXHIBIT C | page C5
Local 11 Comments RE: 101 Garden Street Hotel Project
April 4, 2025
nor did the City require the Project to provide any low-cost overnight accommodations. In December 2022 (20 months after City of Los Angeles approved Project), CCC Commission approved mixed use project including 78-room hotel with 10 lower cost rooms and subject to a $889,000 in-lieu fee. The VPH project received significant staff vetting before it determined full on-site LCOAs was infeasible, even though VPH is a significantly smaller project than the Garden Street Project.16 Below is a brief excerpt from page 38 of the relevant CCC staff report:
Dana Point Harbor Hotels (LCP Amendment No. LCP-5-DPT-21-0079-2): In June 2024 (i.e., 47 months after being approved by the City of Dana Point), the CCC Commission approved a two-hotel project that included the rebuilding of an existing 136-room hotel (100% LCOA at the same price level) and a new 130-room market-rate hotel.17 There, all of the 136 rooms were considered to be under the threshold either under the standard ADR approach (i.e., 75% standard double occupancy) or when adjusted for larger rooms providing more occupancy (i.e., 10% price adjustment for each added occupant).18 Additionally, CCC staff required extensive feasibility analysis from the applicant, and rejected claims that suggested $230 ADR (in 2022 dollars) should be considered lower cost when they are on the higher end of - 19 Furthermore, while CCC permitted LCOAs slightly above the lower-cost threshold, it still required in-lieu fees to account for the difference in price to fund an LCOA program and community benefits package, as well as requiring the 33 LCOAs (25%) associated with the new 130-room market rate hotel.20 16 CCC (12/15/22) VBH Staff Report, pp. 1-3, 32-42,
https://documents.coastal.ca.gov/reports/2022/12/Th16a/Th16a-12-2022-report.pdf. 17 See CCC (5/24/24) HH Staff Report, pp. 8-9, 30-58, https://documents.coastal.ca.gov/reports/2024/6/F10a/F10a-6-2024-report.pdf. 18 Ibid., at PDF pp. 38-39, 19 Ibid., at PDF pp. 40, 45-50. 20 Ibid., at pp. 43-45.
EXHIBIT C | page C6
Local 11 Comments RE: 101 Garden Street Hotel Project
April 4, 2025
Magnolia Tank Farm (LCP Amendment No. LCP-5-HNB-24-0003-1): A 29-acre specific plan allowing 250 medium-density residential units and new hotel with 175 market rate and at least 40 LCOA (18%) were initially recommended for denial by CCC staff21 but was subsequently approved by the CCC Commission after the Project was revised to ensure no less than 25% of the hotel rooms would be LCOAs set at the 75% statewide ADR.22 There, the Commission made it perfectly clear that the 25% requirement was to be applied to the proposed new market rate hotel and that the initial proposal of LCOAs and the method of calculating LCOAs was inconsistent with Coastal Act policies.23 Santa Monica Miramar Fairmont Hotel Project (i.e., LCP Amendment No. LCP5-SNM-21-0020-1 & CDP App. No. 5-21-0139).24 This case included a project involving the redevelopment of an existing 301 hotel rooms and 103 on-site parking spaces with a new mixed-use development with 312 hotel rooms, 60 condos, 6600 square feet of retail space, three cafe restaurants, and 428 parking spaces. However, the Coastal Commission staff was critical of this Project, and a vote was taken to delay the Project until April of 2021.25 The Project was not approved until issues regarding affordable accommodation were settled.
According to the staff report on page 30:
There, the applicant offered to create a 102-bed pod hotel in Santa Monica outside the Coastal Zone, to which staff objected. The applicant then offered to pay $5.1 million in mitigation fees, but the staff requested $6.477 million.26 The Project was ultimately approved by the Coastal Commission in March of 2022, after a thorough discussion and review of the Project.
/ / / 21 See CCC (6/29/23) MTF Staff Report, pp. 1, 9, 14, 15, https://documents.coastal.ca.gov/reports/2023/7/Th13a/Th13a-7-2023-report.pdf; 22 See CCC (6/27/24) MTF Staff Report, pp. 4, 33-37, 71-74, https://documents.coastal.ca.gov/reports/2024/7/W11a/W11a-7-2024-report.pdf. 23 Ibid., at 35, 37 24 CCC (3/10/22) SMMF Staff Report, pp. 1-3,30, 31-35, https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/ja47kqakowf6o6sfjoqmy/Th15b-3-2022- report.pdf?rlkey=ar0mx8dw6rca3jfm58bh5yrei&dl=0. 25 CCC (3/25/21) SMMF Extension Request, PDF pp. 1-2, https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/0pxr2dthcs1kropfylugp/W16a-4-2021- report.pdf?rlkey=2w4b3fgj4f19mf0t7yvsrd6yg&dl=0; 26 Ibid.
EXHIBIT C | page C7
Local 11 Comments RE: 101 Garden Street Hotel Project
April 4, 2025
Ocean Avenue Partners (CDP Application No. 5-22-0799): In December 2023, the CCC Commission approved a mixed-use development including 100 dwelling units and a 120-room hotel with either the preferred option of providing 30 LCOA (i.e., 25% LCOAs) or $4.3 million in-lieu fee.27 There, CCC staff requested and thoroughly vetted the financial feasibility analysis, which staff found failed to adequately demonstrate the infeasibility of providing lower-cost rooms on-site.28 During the December 13, 2023 hearing, Commissioner Cummings advocated in a delay of approval to provide time to consider options for building LCOAs:
are not building the low cost accommodation as we saw, we wentfrom 582 in 1990, 297 in 2018, and I think that we need to maximize that number and I think that being offered, you know the City getting a $120 million out of this and we are asking for increased low cost accommodation in this and I think we need to do more. I would actually prefer we continue this item if we get to an agreement today so that staff can work with developers to get more out of this Project.. I want to see us building low cost (Emphasis added.29)
Cannons Seafood Grill ( Appeal No. A-5-DPT-18-0046): In February 2021 (i.e., 32 months after the City of Dana Point approval), the CCC Commission approved the demolition of an existing restaurant and construction of a new 100-room resort hotel (with 25% LCOAs), which was originally rejected and found to raise a substantial issue when there was no commitment of any LCOAs.30
Santa Monica Shore Hotel ( (CDP Application No. 5-18-0872): In June 2020 (i.e., 5+ years after application for an after-the-fact approval), CCC Commission approved revised findings to grant after-the-fact approval for the demolition of two lower-cost hotels (providing a total of 72 LCOAs) and replacement of 164 room high-cost hotel that included 72 on-site moderate rate rooms with waived and/or reduced resort/parking fees, a 14- room/34-bed lower cost micro-hotel, $2.3 million in-lieu mitigation fee, and overnight youth lodging program providing no-cost overnight stays in the hostel (i.e., 12 nights serving 400 students/children per year).31 There, the Commission had rejected earlier proposals that included only mitigation fees as being inconsistent with Coastal Act § 30213, which was upheld and affirmed by the trial court and court of appeals.32 Furthermore, the ultimate LCOA package was approved only after extensive analysis was provided by the applicant (rigorously vetted by CCC staff), demonstrating full on-site LCOAs at lower cost was infeasible.33 The process at the Shore Hotel should be seen as a cautionary tale of how difficult the after-the-fact enforcement of affordability violations can be, particularly as it 27 CCC (12/13/23) OAP Staff Report, pp. 1-3, 24-44, https://documents.coastal.ca.gov/reports/2023/12/W20b/W20b-12-2023-report.pdf. 28 Ibid., at pp. 39-42. 29 OAP Hearing Video, approximately starting at 10:06:36, https://cal-span.org/meeting/ccc_20231213/. 30 CCC (2/10/21) CSG Staff Report (De Novo Hearing), pp. 1-2, 41-43, https://documents.coastal.ca.gov/reports/2021/2/W12a/W12a-2-2021-report.pdf; see also CSG Staff Report (Substantial Issue), pp. 8, 11, 13-14, https://documents.coastal.ca.gov/reports/2019/9/W25c/W25c9-2019-report.pdf. 31 CCC (2/16/20) SMSH Staff Report, pp. 2-4, https://documents.coastal.ca.gov/reports/2020/6/F18a/F18a6-2020-report.pdf. 32 Ibid., at pp. 3, 23. 33 Ibid., at pp. 36-37, 39.
EXHIBIT C | page C8
Local 11 Comments RE: 101 Garden Street Hotel Project
April 4, 2025
relates to enforcement of qualitative standards (discussed further below on page 15). This case is instructive of how careful consideration should be given on the LOCA issue at the early stages of Project.
Hermosa Beach Franco (CDP Application No. 5-20-0597): In December 2021, CCC commission approved after the fact approval for the conversion of an existing 11-unit apartment into a 9-unit hotel with 2 lower cost units (22%).34 B&J Capital Group Investments (CDP Application No. 5-20-0181): CCC Commission approved a 6-room, high-cost hotel consisting of a conversion of historic single-family residence (i.e., 1 room) and 3-story, 2,742-sf building (i.e., 5 rooms) subject to a $150,000 in-lieu mitigation fee.35
b. Central Coast District
American Tin Cannery Hotel Resort (Appeal No. A-3-PGR-22-0004): In April 2024, the CCC Commission approved a new 225-room hotel resort that included 18 LCOAs (8%) but also a 16-unit/64-bed group wing for shared accommodations ($85 per bed) and extensive unrepresented-group programming targeting lower-income communities for the Group wing for at least 300 bed-nights (half of which would be free of charge).36 There, this LCOA package was only accepted after extensive feasibility/mitigation analysis was provided by applicant, which was fully vetted by staff (i.e., rejecting various methodologies and assumptions that understated the feasibility), and finding a substantial issue with the initial proposal approved by the city.37 This case is illustrative of how large projects approved without on-site LCOAs do raise substantial issues (such as the Garden Street Hotel Project here). (See relevant excerpt from pages 50-51 of CCC staff report.) 34 CCC (12/15/21) HBF Staff Report, pp. 1, 16-21,
https://documents.coastal.ca.gov/reports/2021/12/W15c/W15c-12-2021-report.pdf. 35 See CCC (2/11/21) BJCGI Staff Report, pp. 1-2, 9-16, https://documents.coastal.ca.gov/reports/2021/2/Th14g/Th14g-2-2021-report.pdf. 36 See CCC (4/11/24) ATC Staff Report, pp. 4-5, 42-51, 75-80, https://documents.coastal.ca.gov/reports/2024/4/Th15b/Th15b-4-2024-report.pdf; . 37 Ibid., at pp. 48-51.
EXHIBIT C | page C9
Local 11 Comments RE: 101 Garden Street Hotel Project
April 4, 2025
Santa Cruz Hotel ( (Appeal No. A-3-STC-24-0016): In September 2024, CCC Commission approved a 190-room hotel with 20 lower-cost standard rooms, $5 million inlieu mitigation for a specific off-site LOCA program (i.e., 12-16 lower cost cabins), a Hotel worker Discount Program providing reduced room rates for hotel employees, providing four workforce housing units offered at a subsidized rate (i.e., no more than 30% of worker gross worker pay), a community benefits package including one-time contributions to the Santa Cruz Hostel Society and various amenities (e.g., public paseo, new outdoor spaces, riverwalk improvements, rooftop access for new public viewpoints, a new public restroom, free bike rentals, etc.), and a lower-income group program providing at least 150 room nights per year.38 There, again, a substantial issue was found and the applicant repeatedly altered the Project to increase the LCOA offerings for such a large project during the city approval process and pending action of the Coastal appeal.39 c. San Diego Coast District Encinitas Beach Land Venture (Appeal No. A-6-ENC-22-0049): CCC joint hearing held (10/12/23) (i.e., 14 months after final approval by the City of Encinitas), the Commission approved a mixed-use development including 94 residential apartment (75 market and 19 low-income units) and 36-room hotel with 6 moderate cost and 3 lower cost rooms and subject to a $542,812 in-lieu fee.40 There, again, CCC Staff rejected methods proposed methods that inflated lower-cost thresholds and/or understated feasibility.41
4. Fourth, no reasonable person could conclude that this 250-room Project is providing lower-cost rooms consistent with CCC practice. Here, the Project is proposing 250 rooms ranging between $224 $300 per night, with the vast majority above or near the high-cost threshold of $250 per night.42 (See Exh. B [Fig. 3].) This is well above the $150 lower-cost threshold, where the well-established CCC policy would require 63 on-site LCOA.43 However, the Project provides zero lower-cost accommodation. Additionally, if it is infeasible to provide 63 on-site LCOAs, the Commission could consider in-lieu fees equivalent to this level, which, based on its recent estimate of between $429,000 and $465,000 per unit (recently used during the Santa Cruz Hotel and American Tin Cannery hearing held in September and April 2024, respectively),44 would be around $27.0 - 29.2 million in-lieu fees. However, the Project provides no in-lieu fees. Furthermore, in-lieu fees or a combination of on-site LCOA and in-lieu fees would be permissible only after a thorough feasibility analysis provided subject to rigorous vetting by CCC staff showing it infeasible to provide the 63 on-site LCOA like in other hotel cases discussed above (e.g., HH, SCH, VBH, ATC, EBLV, OAP, SMSH, etc.). However, the Project Applicant 38 CCC (9/12/24) SCH Staff Report, pp. 1-4, 29-38, 61-67, https://documents.coastal.ca.gov/reports/2024/9/Th8d/Th8d-9-2024-report.pdf; id., Staff Report Addendum, pp. 1-9, https://documents.coastal.ca.gov/reports/2024/9/Th8d/Th8d-9-2024-addenda.pdf. 39 Ibid., at pp. 35-36. 40 CCC (10/12/23) EBLV Staff Report, pp. 1, 8, 15-16, 32-34, 39-50, https://documents.coastal.ca.gov/reports/2023/10/Th19a/Th19a-10-2023-report.pdf. 41 Ibid., at pp. 15-16. 42 The blended rate for the 250 rooms is approximately 236.65 per night, which is 118% of the 2023 statewide ADR. (Calculated: [ (number of rooms) (room rate)] / (250 rooms).) 43 250 x 25% = 62.5 rounded up to 63 LCOA obligation. 44 SCH Staff Report, supra fn. 35, p. 37; ATC Staff Reporrt, supra fn. 33, p. 50.
EXHIBIT C | page C10
Local 11 Comments RE: 101 Garden Street Hotel Project
April 4, 2025
has provided no feasibility analysis, and the South Central Coastal District has not conducted rigorous vetting. Instead, it has skipped this necessary fact-finding process, contrary to clear Commission policies and methods of ensuring consistency with applicable LCOA provisions.
In sum, the Project is inconsistent with the plain language of applicable LCOA policies and inconsistent with the Coastal Commission s well-established interpretation and methods of conducting this analysis in other Coastal Districts. Under these circumstances, South Central Coastal District s findings lack substantial evidence, and the interpretation of applicable LCOA policies warrants no deference. This is an abuse of discretion.
B. STAFF REPORT FAILS RELIES ON A FUNDAMENTALLY FLAWED QUANTITATIVE LCOA METHODOLOGY CONTRARY TO CCC PAST PRACTICES. Here, the CCC Staff Report s quantitative determination that the Project is moderate rate is discussed and explained in two paragraphs on page 29. First, the Staff Report estimated the proposed room rates for 4-person rooms (i.e., $240-$300) and 6-person rooms (i.e., $240 - $300)45 (see Exh. B [Fig. 3]) based on the per and purported per data from the 2023 moderate cost study 46 (see Exh. B [Fig. 4]). Next, after noting the 2023 statewide ADR of $200.52 (i.e., moderate-income ranging between roughly $150 $250 per night), the Staff Report proceeds to increase those levels by 10% for each additional occupancy above double occupancy, citing an ambiguous as precedent. (CCC Staff Report, p. 29.) Accordingly, staff concluded the proposed Hotel room rate fell within the adjusted moderate range for a 4-person room (i.e., $180.47 $300.78) and 6-person rooms (i.e., $210.55 - $350.91).47 (Id., [citing Exh. 8, Tbls. A & B].) This conclusion is incorrect for at least the following reasons.
1. The 10% increase for additional occupancy has been used in unique situations only when establishing the lower-cost threshold not to inflate the high-cost threshold. The Staff Report claims that past analyses allow for the 10% bump for added occupancy but fails to cite such cases. In practice, however, this 10% bump has been used in unique situations where lower-cost rooms are actually provided on-site (not the case here) and for the limited purpose of increasing the lower-cost threshold (not the higher-cost threshold as done here).
Instructive are the MTF and HH projects. In MTF, the Commission authorized the 10% bump for the limited purpose of increasing the rates of actual LCOAs provided on-site, and only after that LCP amendment was resubmitted to include a requirement that 25% of the hotel rooms would be set at a lower cost (i.e., 75% of the statewide ADR) subject to 10% bump if there was greater than two occupants.48 Unlike MTF, the Project here provides zero on-site LCOAs, does not apply the 10% bump 45 See CCC Staff Report, Exh. 8 (Table A). 46 See City Planning Commission (2/22/24) Staff Report, PDF pp. 167-170 (labeled Overnight Accommodation Summary),
https://records.santabarbaraca.gov/OnBaseAgendaOnline/Documents/ViewDocument/Attachment%202% 20-
%20GENERAL.pdf?meetingId=1003&documentType=Agenda&itemId=32201&publishId=22588&isSection=f alse. 47 Ibid., (Table B). 48 MTF Staff Report, supra fn. 22, pp. 4, 72-73.
EXHIBIT C | page C11
Local 11 Comments RE: 101 Garden Street Hotel Project
April 4, 2025
for the limited purpose of increasing the lower-cost threshold due to additional occupants, and has committed to no on-site LCOAs. Like the MTF project, the HH project was allowed similar future adjustments to the LCOAs actually provided on site.49 Additionally, this 10% occupancy bump was done strictly to establish the upper limits of the lower-cost threshold. Furthermore, the 10% occupancy bump was done for rooms providing more than standard double-occupancy like a serving a 4-person occupancy.50 Unlike HH, the Project here is providing zero on-site LCOAs, is using the 10% bump to inflate the high-cost threshold, and inflates its cost per night claims by relying on inflated occupancy assumptions (discussed further below).
2. The Applicant inflates its occupancy levels counter Coastal Commission Methods While CCC has acknowledged potential cost-savings associated with non-standard amenities (i.e., kitchens and/or larger rooms than a standard hotel room), the Commission considers this on the facts of each case and has not applied any sort of standard methodology to the reduction in 51 For example, the Coastal Commission has suggested a 2-room suite may be considered equivalent to two standard rooms (i.e., serving 4 persons).52 In the HH project discussed above, a was suggested to serve a 4-person occupancy.53 Here, however, the Staff report and Applicant suggests that every single room would serve 4 to 6 persons. For example, it claims 4 persons are served in an extended stay studio king, extended stay 1 bedroom, standard king, and standard 1 bedroom (at $224-$ 260 per night) (Exh. B [Fig. 3 & 4 highlighted in yellow]). To suggest 4 people sleeping in a single bed is unprecedented. These rooms should all be considered merely double occupancy (i.e., 2-person). Additionally, the Applicant and the Staff Report claim 6 people served by the extended stay studio double queen and extended stay 2 bedroom (at $224 - $300 per night), suggesting 6 persons for two beds is unprecedented. Those rooms should be considered serving 4-person like the other 2-bedroom and double bed room hotel rooms (see Exh. B. [Fig. Fig. 3 & 4 highlighted in green]). Thus, the Project provides 152 rooms serving 2-persons and 98 rooms for 4-persons. This is particularly appropriate given the relatively small size of the proposed rooms (discussed further below). / / /
49 HH Staff Report, supra fn. 17, pp. 4, 20,
50 Ibid., p. 38-39
51 CCC Public Workshop on LCOAs, supra fn. 14, pp. 33-34. 52 Ibid.
53 See HH, supra fn. 17, pp. 38-39.
EXHIBIT C | page C12
Local 11 Comments RE: 101 Garden Street Hotel Project
April 4, 2025
3. rooms are small and entirely distinguishable from the rare cases where the value/cost per guest approach has been used.
Here, the Applicant has claimed that the hotel rooms are affordable and provide better for families based on per / per methodology.54 This type of approach has been found appropriate in rare, unique circumstances unlike the situations here, which involves a massive 250-room new hotel development where most of the rooms are 1- bedrooms with the largest being 2-bedroom, all ranging between approximately 362 - 758 square feet.55 For example, the Venice Breeze Suites hotel project (cited by the Applicant) involved a change of use from an existing 31-unit apartment building into an extended stay property.56 Unlike the case here (i.e., massive new development on a large Site), the VBS hotel project was a relatively small project working within an existing building footprint. Also instructive is the Coastal Commission s approval of the Leonard Julian Sunset Beach project in Huntington Beach involving the approval of a 12-unit, 26,000-sf hotel project where the developer claimed a $433.33 peak season rate and $233.33 off-peak rate was affordable because the rooms were larger (i.e., 1,400-1,525 square feet) with multiple bedrooms (i.e., 3 and 4 bedrooms), and were able to accommodate between 6-8 occupants.57 Unlike the LISB project, the Project here is 20 times larger in room count but providing far smaller rooms (both in square footage and the number of extra bedrooms).
4. The Project Provides Zero Lower Costs, and all rooms are provided at, near, or above the High-Cost Threshold.
The table below summarizes the proposed room rates accounting for the above issues, including a more appropriate assumed guest per room number (i.e., column B), adjusting the lowercost threshold to account for added occupancy (i.e., 10% bump per additional occupant over 2 persons) (i.e., column E), with reference to a similar bump in the high-cost threshold (i.e., column E within parenthesis). Also shown in column F is a comparison between the proposed cost per night (i.e., column D) compared to the high-cost threshold (i.e., column E in parenthesis), which is expressed as a percentage whereby 100% means the cost per night is at the approximate high-cost threshold. As shown below, none of the 250 rooms would meet the lower-cost threshold, at least 23 rooms are at or above the high-cost threshold (shown in red), and the vast majority are within 80 96% of the high-cost threshold (i.e., 192 in green), which is considered on the high range of moderate income or market-rate within the statewide context, should not be understood to be lower-cost, and requires LCOA mitigation just like the case in Dana Point Harbor Hotel.58 / / /
54 City CPC, supra fn. 43, pp. 167-170.
55 Ibid., at PDF pp. 85-86, 170.
56 City of Los Angeles (5/20/13) Letter of Determination, p. 1 (DCP Case No. ZA-2012-2841-CDP-CU-ZV-MEL), https://planning.lacity.gov/pdiscaseinfo/document/MTM3NTE30/de98c26c-073f-43dc-b739- b418741a3276/pdd. 57 See CCC (8/8/19) 5-18-0642 Staff Report, pp. 1, 13-14, https://documents.coastal.ca.gov/reports/2019/8/Th17a/Th17a-8-2019-report.pdf; see also id., Staff Report Exh. 4 (Overnight Accommodations Analysis),
https://documents.coastal.ca.gov/reports/2019/8/Th17a/Th17a-8-2019-exhibits.pdf. 58 CCC (5/24/24) HH Staff Report, pp. 40, 45-50, https://documents.coastal.ca.gov/reports/2024/6/F10a/F10a-6-2024-report.pdf., at PDF p. 40, 45-50 EXHIBIT C | page C13
Local 11 Comments RE: 101 Garden Street Hotel Project
April 4, 2025
A B C D E F
Room Type
Guest
per
Room
No. of
Rooms
Cost Per
night
Lower-Cost Threshold
(high-Cost Threshold) [a]
Percent of
High-Cost
Threshold [b]
Ext. Stay Studio
King 2 74 $240 $150 ($250) 96%
Ext. Stay Studio
Double Queen 4 39 $240 $180 ($300) 80%
Ext Stay 1
Bedroom 2 11 $260 $150 ($250) 104%
Ext. Stay 2
Bedroom 4 6 $300 $180 ($300) 100%
Std. King 2 61 $224 $150 ($250) 89.6%
Std. Double
Queen 4 35 $224 $180 ($300) 74%
Std. Double
King 4 18 $240 $180 ($300) 80%
Std. 1 Bed 2 6 $260 $150 ($250) 104%
NOTES:
[a] For 4-person occupancy: (1.2) ($150 low-cost threshold) or (1.2) ($250 high-cost threshold)
[b] (cost per night) / (high-cost threshold)
In sum, the Project is providing zero LCOAs and the vast majority of the Project (i.e., 215 of the 250) rooms are being provided above, at, or near the high-cost threshold and clearly within the upper ranges of moderate cost. The Project is nothing like the value cases, which were all small projects providing much larger rooms with much more square footage per room. Under the circumstances, substantial evidence does not support CCC determination that the Project is consistent with applicable LCOA policies.
C. STAFF REPORT RELIES ON A QUALITATIVE LCOA METHODOLOGY THAT HAS PROVEN DISASTROUS, COUNTER TO CCC POLICY, AND IGNORES THE PROJECT S HIGH-COST AMENITIES. The CCC Staff Report claims the hotel is qualitatively moderately priced by design and operation scheme to add affordability. Therein, it cites the lack of specific purported amenities (e.g., valet parking, multiple full-service restaurants) and inclusion of other affordable amenities (e.g., complimentary breakfast buffet, 119 rooms with kitchens). (See CCC Staff Report, p.
30.) This conclusion is incorrect for various reasons.
1. The Project is qualitatively different and distinguishable from the Prior Coastal cases involving family-serving value hotel rooms.
Here, the Staff Report (p. 30) and Applicant have claimed kitchens and extended stay rooms are more affordable, from a value proposition for families.59 As mentioned above, while kitchens and room sizes may be factors, the Coastal Commission must consider the individual facts of each case. Here, the massive 250 new room hotel development providing relatively standard rooms of limited size (i.e., 1 to 2 bedrooms ranging approximately 362 - 758 square feet) has nothing in 59 City CPC, supra fn. 43, pp. 167-170.
EXHIBIT C | page C14
Local 11 Comments RE: 101 Garden Street Hotel Project
April 4, 2025
common to the rare instances involving small projects providing larger rooms at value, like the VBS hotel project (i.e., change of use from an existing 31-unit apartment) or the LJSB project (i.e., 12-unit hotel, 3 and 4-bed units ranging 1,400 1,525 square feet).
2. The Moderate-Cost Memo and Qualitative Analysis is fundamentally flawed.
Here, the Staff Report essentially reiterates the qualitative approach, which is reflected in its Moderate Cost Hotel Determination memo dated October 3, 2024 (attached hereto as Exhibit C).60 However, the MCHD memo and qualitative methodology is fundamentally flawed and suffers from a variety of other issues listed below, which are fully explained below or in Local CCC Appeal (incorporated herein in their entirety):
a. The qualitative methodology ignores the well-established Commission methodology. The qualitative approach proposed in the MCHD memo makes no references or citations showing the approach used elsewhere. Nor does it address potential inconsistencies with well-established Coastal Commission policies and quantitative methodologies using statewide ADR. For example, the MCHD approach does not address circumstances where a proposed project may not include some of the amenities but nevertheless charges rates above the high-cost threshold such as the case here (discussed above). Furthermore, the MCHD memo proposes a condition to be maintained as a moderate-cost hotel (similar to what was placed on the Project) without any reference to applicable statewide ADR rates or other objective criteria (e.g., MTF, ATC, HH projects, etc.). This can lead to abuse whereby hotel operators could raise rates (well above high-cost thresholds) notwithstanding maintaining similar operations thus making the purported moderate-income rooms highcost without providing any lower-cost accommodations required under LCOA policies. b. The qualitative approach fails to reconcile the fact that the Project includes many high-cost amenities associated with admittedly luxury hotels. For example, the Applicant claims certain Project amenities are low-cost amenities (e.g., self-park, buffet breakfast room, pool, fitness room, conference room, in-room kitchens, outdoor grills, pool and fitness facility, bicycle rentals, guest laundry, walking distance from the beach, and complimentary continental breakfast) but are nevertheless similar to features associated with other high-cost, luxury properties (e.g., Blue Sands Inn, West Beach Inn, Harbor House Inn, etc.). (See Exh. A, pp. A16 (item (d) including footnotes 14 through 16].) c. The qualitative approach fails to reconcile the fact that the Project shares many high-cost amenities listed in the Memo. For example, the Project includes a variety of high-cost amenities (e.g., fitness facility, Bicycle rentals, outdoor grills for recreation, Motor court, Pool, Guest laundry, continental breakfast, buffet breakfast room, extensive conferencerelated and food/beverage-related, etc.) which are similar to high-cost amenities listed in the MCHD Memo (e.g., on-site gym, recreation amenities, porte cochere entry, pool, on-site laundry, breakfast service, etc.). (See Exh. A, pp. A-21 A-23.) This includes the extensive food/drink-related amenities and meeting/conference-related spaces identified 60 See also MCHD Memo, https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/joffvld0cjv0x49i001ud/2024-10- 03_October_03_2024_17-
21-W.-Montecito_Street_Memo_CCC.pdf?rlkey=lnabogg3n1p10bwsjli4owakv&dl=0. EXHIBIT C | page C15 Local 11 Comments RE: 101 Garden Street Hotel Project
April 4, 2025
in the Local 11 CCC Appeal. (Id., [including summary of square footage and excerpts of project plans].)
d. The 2023 MCS and MCHP Memo place undue weight on what they contend the hotel industry classifies as luxury amenities while failing to consider current trends where luxury boutique hoteliers put a premium on proximity to high-demand areas. (Id., at p.
A-24 A-25 [item 2].)
e. The qualitative approach fails to consider additional relevant factors, suggesting the Project will operate as a luxury hotel, such as the team history and associations of developing high-end boutique hotels including but not limited to other upscale hotels within the Santa Barbara region. (Id., at p. A-25.)
3. The qualitative approach was tried at the Shore Hotel and failed spectacularly, as a clear example of how it can be abused.
In 2009, the Santa Monica Shore Hotel ( was initially approved by the Coastal Commission where the applicant proposed to replace an existing budget motel with a 164 low to moderate-price Travelodge hotel with a room rate of $164 per night, no restaurant, and (e.g., averaging 295 sf, 8-ft ceiling heights, basic lobby, swimming pool, small exercise room, standard housekeeping facilities, 750-sf breakfast/meeting room). 61 At the time, the applicant claimed that the new hotel would not contain a restaurant, bar, conferencing facilities, spa, florist, lounge, or similar amenities typically found in more upscale or luxury hotels. According to the findings made then: currently designed, with smaller rooms and limited amenities, the hotel will not be easily converted to a luxury or high-end hotel without major modifications, which will need to be reviewed and approved by the City and Coastal Commission. At that time, the City and Commission can then consider mitigation for the loss of low-cost over-night 62 By 2015, however, the SMSH project was constructed as the as a selfdescribed boutique hotel with 164 rooms larger rooms (approximately. 330 sf), including 20 suites (465 sf), at substantially larger hotel rates for both the room ($309 to $579 per night) and suites (i.e., $669 per night), subject to $35 per day parking fees, and retail space fronting major street (i.e., 1,470-sf restaurant and 3,190-sf retail space).63 UNITE HERE was at the center of this controversial project, and keenly aware of the long and challenging enforcement process that included testimony from Shore workers who risked their jobs to bring forward violations of Coastal conditions.64 The matter resulted in the Commission levying mitigation fees against the applicant, which sued the Commission but was nevertheless upheld by a trial court that characterized the actions as a and switch, obtaining a permit for a moderately priced Travelodge and then constructing a boutique luxury hotel. 65
61 CCC (9/4/15) SMSH Staff Report Addendum, PDF pp. 2-3, 27, 37, https://documents.coastal.ca.gov/reports/2015/9/w28a-9-2015.pdf. 62 Ibid. 63 Ibid., at PDF pp. 2-3, 64 Ibid. 65 Ibid., see also CCC (2/16/20) SMSH Staff Report, pp. 2-4, 20-24, 36-37, 39, 23, https://documents.coastal.ca.gov/reports/2020/6/F18a/F18a-6-2020-report.pdf. 65 Ibid., pp. 3, 23. 65 Ibid., at pp.
EXHIBIT C | page C16
Local 11 Comments RE: 101 Garden Street Hotel Project
April 4, 2025
The SMSH project is a clear example of how qualitative measures are too easily ignored and too difficult to enforce against bait-and-switch tactics. This is particularly true here, where the Garden Street Project already includes many amenities associated with high-cost amenities and other factors (discussed in prior section above).
In sum, under the circumstances of this case, the use of the qualitative study is an abuse of discretion.
D. CITY AND CCC STAFF DO NOT ADDRESS THE CUMULATIVE IMPACTS, CAUSING THE SANTA BARBARA
AREA TO HAVE PRACTICALLY NO STANDARD LOWER-COST HOTEL ACCOMMODATIONS, WHICH IS FURTHER EXACERBATED BY THE MCHD MEMO. The MCHD memo and the Staff Report do not include any discussion of the current lack of LCOAs in the Santa Barbara region. The aforementioned 2023 MCS Study listed existing hotels/motels in the Santa Barbara region (see Exh. B [Fig. 5]), which City finds sufficient economic diversity in the currently offered short term accommodations 66 As discussed above, the applicable lower-cost threshold is $150 and high-cost threshold is $250, with moderate costs being in between or, in some cases, bumped up to around $300 for larger rooms (i.e., 4-person rooms providing double beds). However, when you look at the survey of the existing 58 hotel offerings (shown in Exh. B [Fig. 5]), the survey lists only one hotel below the lower-cost threshold (i.e., 35-unit Rose Garden Inn highlighted in green), two hotels considered on the high-end of moderate-cost range for double bedrooms (i.e., Motel 6, Lemon Tree Inn), with all others considered high-cost rooms. (See Exh. A, pp. A-10, A-27.) This is substantial evidence that the area already suffers from the lack of LCOAs, which is further bolstered by the own LCP that acknowledges that the area has shifted away from cost 67 and, while listing many visitor-serving amenities that are provided at low or no cost (e.g., parks, arts & craft shows, boat viewing, small shops, etc.), does not include hotel rooms provided at lower-cost levels.68 The lack of existing LCOAs is substantial evidence the City is not meeting its LCOA policies, including but not limited to the need to develop a detailed program for LCOAs (i.e., LCP Policy 3.2-4).69 In sum, the qualitative analysis, inconsistent with well-established Coastal Commission methods, fails to consider numerous facts specific to this Project, and has been found too susceptible to abuse as demonstrated by the Shore Hotel enforcement matter. Under these circumstances, the methodology is an abuse of discretion. / / / 66 City CPC Staff Report, supra fn. 43, PDF p. 167, 169. 67 City LUP (Aug. 2019) PDF p. 47, https://santabarbaraca.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Services/LCP Update/City of Santa Barbara Complete Certified Coastal LUP.pdf. 68 Ibid., at PDF pp. 133, 145. 69 Ibid., at PDF p. 145.
EXHIBIT C | page C17
Local 11 Comments RE: 101 Garden Street Hotel Project
April 4, 2025
E. STAFF REPORT FAILS TO ADDRESS THE QUALITATIVE PRECEDENT SET BY THIS PROJECT THAT WOULD
FURTHER ENTRENCH THE LACK OF LCOAS IN THE SANTA BARBARA AREA AND AMOUNT TO A STEP BACK FROM WHAT OTHER COASTAL DISTRICTS STAFF HAVE BEEN ABLE TO ACHIEVE. The Staff Report (pp. 3, 8, 30-33) outlines factors to be considered when making a substantial issue determination, which the South Central Coastal District Staff claims are not raised here. We respectfully disagree for the reasons discussed above and summarized below:
The City actions lack adequate factual and legal support. Here, the action ignores the plain language of applicable LCOA policies and the well-established Coastal Commission interpretation and methodologies. For example, the facts clearly show that the Project provides no lower-cost accommodations, and the Applicant has failed to provide a feasibility analysis demonstrating that on-site LCOAs are infeasible. There is a clear inconsistency with the Project and recent Coastal cases, which the City and South Central Coastal District staff has refused to address in the record, including but not limited to the numerous precedents set by prior Coastal Commission actions. So too, neither the City nor South Central Coastal District staff has addressed the factual similarities between the Project and various high-costs amenities offered by similar hotels and in the MCHD memo.
Nor have they considered the realities of trying to enforce a qualitatively standard, which the Shore Hotel case proves to be extremely difficult and time-consuming.
This is an extensive development inconsistent with LCOA policy requirements. Admittedly, the 250-room Project is extensive but (contrary to suggestions otherwise) is providing zero LCOAs, which is inconsistent with the plain language of applicable policies (e.g., Coastal Act § 30213, LUP Policy 3.2-12) and inconsistent with numerous Coastal Commission precedent.
Public access to LCOAs is a significant coastal resource. Coastal Commission has routinely affirmed the importance of LCOAs as important public access and environmental justice issues,70 as evidenced by workshops and the CCC decisions cited herein.
This Project sets a dangerous precedent. As discussed above, the Santa Barbara region already suffers from a lack of LCOAs (i.e., one out of 50+ hotels offering rooms at lower-cost levels). Here, the Project would add zero LCOAs relying on the new MCHD Memo that relies on vague qualitative factors that has already been proven (in the case of the Shore Hotel) to be difficult to enforce. Additionally, the and CCC approach if replicated would exacerbate the existing problem and perpetuate the lack of LCOAs in the Santa Barbara area. Furthermore, this Project and case would be set backward from the important victories achieved by the Coastal Commission in other Coastal Districts.
The lack of LCOAs raises important Public Access and EJ issues of regional/statewide concern, which has been confirmed repeatedly by the Coastal Commission and in the cases referenced herein. 70 See CCC Public Workshop on LCOAs (10/26/16), pp. 8, 10, 24, 31, 33-36, https://documents.coastal.ca.gov/reports/2016/11/th6-11-2016.pdf; See e.g., CCC LCOA Presentation, PDF p. 8, https://documents.coastal.ca.gov/assets/lower-cost-coastal-lodging/LCOA-Doc3.pdf; CCC EJ Policy (3/8/19), pp. 4, 7, https://documents.coastal.ca.gov/assets/env-justice/CCC_EJ_Policy_FINAL.pdf. EXHIBIT C | page C18 Local 11 Comments RE: 101 Garden Street Hotel Project
April 4, 2025
In sum, all of the relevant factors weigh in favor of finding there is a substantial issue.
III. IN CONCLUSION, DEFER YOUR ACTION TODAY OR FIND SUBSTANTIAL ISSUE For these and other reasons discussed above, South Central Coastal District Staff improperly rejected and ignored Local CCC Appeal. So too, substantial evidence shows that the Project is inconsistent with applicable LCOA policies and Coastal Commission precedent. Therefore, Local 11 respectfully urges the Commission to either: (a) defer its action today with instruction to South Central Coastal District staff to accept, review, and consider the Local 11 CCC Appeal and provide Local 11 time as other appellants during future hearings (e.g., Substantial Issue or De Novo hearing); or (b) reject recommendation and FIND SUBSTANTIAL ISSUE (at least on this LCOA issue) and conduct a future De Novo hearing. Thank you for consideration of these comments. We ask that this letter is placed in the administrative record for the Project.
Sincerely, _________________________________________ Jordan R. Sisson Attorney for UNITE HERE Local 11
ATTACHMENTS:
Exhibit A: Local 11 CCC Appeal (Dec. 2024)
Exhibit B: Figures 1 - 5
Exhibit C: MCHD Memo (10/3/24)
EXHIBIT C | page C19
EXHIBIT A
EXHIBIT C | page C20
EXHIBIT C | page C21
Name: _____________________________________________________ Mailing address: _____________________________________________________ Phone number: _____________________________________________________ Email address: _____________________________________________________ How did you participate in the local CDP application and decision-making process? Did not participate Submitted comment Testified at hearing Other Describe: ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ If you did not participate in the local CDP application and decision-making process, please identify why you should be allowed to appeal anyway (e.g., if you did not participate because you were not properly noticed).
Describe: ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ Please identify how you exhausted all LCP CDP appeal processes or otherwise identify why you should be allowed to appeal (e.g., if the local government did not follow proper CDP notice and hearing procedures, or it charges a fee for local appellate CDP processes).
Describe: ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ 1 If there are multiple appellants, each appellant must provide their own contact and participation information. Please attach additional sheets as necessary.
EXHIBIT C | page C22
Local government name: __________________________________ Local government approval body: __________________________________ Local government CDP application number: __________________________________ Local government CDP decision: CDP approval CDP denial3 Date of local government CDP decision: __________________________________ Please identify the location and description of the development that was approved or denied by the local government.
Describe: ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ 2 Attach additional sheets as necessary to fully describe the local government CDP decision, including a description of the development that was the subject of the CDP application and decision. 3 Very few local CDP denials are appealable, and those that are also require submittal of an appeal fee.
Please see the appeal information sheet for more information.
EXHIBIT C | page C23
4. Grounds for this appeal4
For appeals of a CDP approval, grounds for appeal are limited to allegations that the approved development does not conform to the LCP or to Coastal Act public access provisions. For appeals of a CDP denial, grounds for appeal are limited to allegations that the development conforms to the LCP and to Coastal Act public access provisions.
Please clea
applicable, the LCP and Coastal Act provisions, with citations to specific provisions as much as possible. Appellants are encouraged to be concise, and to arrange their appeals by topic area and by individual policies.
4 Attach additional sheets as necessary to fully describe the grounds for appeal.
EXHIBIT C | page C24
. Appellant certification5
I attest that to the best of my knowledge, all information and facts in this appeal are correct and complete.
Print name_____________________________________________________________ Signature
Date of Signature _______________________
. Representative authorization6
While not required, you may identify others to represent you in the appeal process. If you do, they must have the power to bind you in all matters concerning the appeal. To do so, please complete the representative authorization form below and check this box to acknowledge that you have done so.
I have authorized representative, and I have provided authorization for them on the representative authorization form attached
5 If there are multiple appellants, each appellant must provide their own certification. Please attach additional sheets as necessary.
6 If there are multiple appellants, each appellant must provide their own representative authorization form to identify others who represent them. Please attach additional sheets as necessary. . Identification of interested persons
On a separate page, please provide the names and contact information (i.e., mailing and email addresses) of all persons whom you know to be interested in the local CDP decision and/or the approved or denied development (e.g., other persons who participated in the local CDP application and decision making process, etc.), and check this box to acknowledge that you have done so.
Interested persons identified and provided on a separate attached sheet EXHIBIT C | page C25
EXHIBIT C | page C26
EXHIBIT C | page C27
ATTACHMENT: CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION APPEAL JUSTIFICATION
1. APPELLANT INFORMATION
HOW DID YOU PARTICIPATE IN THE LOCAL CDP APPLICATION AND DECISION-MAKING PROCESS? the California Coastal Commission ( CCC involving the Coastal Development City of Santa Barba 250-room hotel development
Project 1
(e.g., 4/6/23, 2/29/23, 2/29/24) and City Council (e.g., 10/1/24, 11/19/24, 12/10/24). Appellant Local 11 provided written and/or verbal comments to the City during one or more of these public hearings, including comment letters dated October 1, 2024 and November 18, 2024 (attached hereto as Exhibits A and B, respectively).
PLEASE IDENTIFY HOW YOU EXHAUSTED ALL LCP CDP APPEAL PROCESSES OR OTHERWISE IDENTIFY WHY YOU SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO APPEAL (E.G., IF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT DID NOT FOLLOW
PROPER CDP NOTICE AND HEARING PROCEDURES, OR IT CHARGES A FEE FOR LOCAL APPELLATE CDP PROCESSES).
The Project was initially approved by the City Planning Commission on February 29, 2024, which was subsequently appealed to the City Council by: (i) California public benefit corporation ; (ii) California public benefit
corporation ; (iii) Santa Barbara resident Steven Johnson; and (iv) Santa Barbara resident Rich Untermann. These appeals were ultimately denied by the City Council on December 12, 2024, as reflected in the of Final Action letter dated December 13, 2024 (attached hereto as Exhibit C). The issues related to this CCC Appeal have been adequately raised during the abovementioned local appeal process, and there are no further local appeal processes available to Appellant Local 11.
2. LOCAL CDP DECISION BEING APPEALED
PLEASE IDENTIFY THE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION OF THE DEVELOPMENT THAT WAS APPROVED OR DENIED BY THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT. As further shown in Exhibit C, the Project consists of the merger of six lots, removal of all existing structures, and construction of a new 178,929-square-foot ( sf ) hotel containing 250 rooms (130 extended stay rooms, 12 select service rooms) and six affordable housing units (five low-income studios and one moderate-income two-bedroom unit) under State Density Bonus Law, and an 85,298-square-foot subterranean parking garage. The proposed Project is located on a 4.53- acre site at the southwest corner of Garden Street and East Yanonali Street in the City of Santa Barbara, County of Santa Barbara (APNs 017-630-008, -009, -018, -021, -024, and -027) / / / 1 p. # - PDF p. # EXHIBIT C | page C28
4. GROUNDS FOR THIS APPEAL
The Project and granting of the CDP seem inconsistent with the California Coastal Act and the 2
provisions, particularly those issues previously raised during this including: (i) what seems to be too little in the form of workforce housing (i.e., six units) for this sizeable 250-room hotel assumed to require only 60 employees; (ii) the potential for hazards due to sea level rise and exposure to other ground contaminates;3 250 proposed rooms to be highprovided at lower-cost or equivalent in-lieu fees or a combination thereof.4 With respect to the LCOA issue, the Applicant and City maintain that the Project is not a luxury hotel but instead a moderate-cost hotel (despite being above moderate-price levels) largely based on
2023,5 the claim that that the Project does not include amenities or the number of employees associated with a luxury hotel,6 and a Moderate Cost Hotel Provision condition of approval requiring the hotel to be maintained as a moderate cost hotel with future changes to the hotels possibly subject to a CDP amendment or
Community Development Director).7 This assumption regarding moderate versus luxury hotel amenities and generic MCHP condition seems to be an emerging policy developed by City staff as reflected in the Moderate Cost Hotel Determination memo dated October 3, 202 for a different hotel project (i.e., a proposed 44-room hotel project at 21 W. Montecito Street).8 However, the OAA and MCHP Memo are deeply flawed, as
prior comment letters9 and summarized below:
/ / / 2
https://santabarbaraca.gov/government/priorities-policies/local-coastal-program.) 3 See e.g., supra fn. 3, Attachment 6 (Appellant letter dated February 27, 2024, expert baseline Environmental Consulting letter dated May 3, 2023); Attachment 7 (Appellant letters dated March 11, 2024, August 2, 2023, and expert letter David Revell, PhD dated September 11, 2023); Attachment 12 (Appellant letter dated September 24, 2024, expert Lynker Technologies, LLC letter dated September 24, 2024, expert Revell Coastal letter dated September 24, 2024, expert Mark Kram, PhD letter dated September 24, 2024). 4 See Gen., CCC Informational Briefing On LCOA Presentation (7/11/24), https://documents.coastal.ca.gov/ reports/2024/7/Th7/Th7-7-2024-exhibits.pdf.; see also Local 11 prior comments, https://www.dropbox. com/scl/fi/1vkdv8guf45ayszojq4e5/CCC-Comments.final.pdf?rlkey=i3auo5dpg3llfmqq0sg73boy3&dl=0. 5 See e.g., City Planning Commission Staff Report (2/29/24) PDF pp. 167-173, https://records.santabarbaraca.gov/OnBaseAgendaOnline/Documents/DownloadFile/Attachment%202%2 0-%20GENERAL.pdf?documentType=1&meetingId=1003&itemId=32201&publishId=22588&isSection= False&isAttachment=True. 6 See Exhibit C attached hereto, PDF pp. 11 (CDP finding 3). 7 See Conditions of Approval, PDF p. 15 (Condition 5), https://records.santabarbaraca.gov/ OnBaseAgendaOnline/Documents/ViewDocument/Attachment%20%20-%20EXHIBIT.pdf?meetingId= 1013&documentType=Agenda&itemId=34572&publishId=22962&isSection=false. 8 See Memo, https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/joffvld0cjv0x49i001ud/2024-10-03_October_03_2024_17-21- W.-Montecito_Street_Memo_CCC.pdf?rlkey=lnabogg3n1p10bwsjli4owakv&dl=0. 9 See Exhibit A attached hereto, pp. 2-3 (points 2(a) through 2(f)); see also Exhibit B attached hereto, pp. 3-## (points 1 through 4).
EXHIBIT C | page C29
1. distinguish between peak or off-peak seasons, despite clear examples provided by CCC staff
2. Neither the addresses
lack of LCOAs based on statewide ADR methodology. For example, the City claims sufficient economic diversity in its current hotel offering based on a list of 58 hotels. However, based on 2023 statewide ADR during peak season, 56 of those would be considered high-cost (i.e., $250.64 or more), one would be regarded as moderate (i.e., Motel 6 at $231), and one considered lower-cost (i.e., the 35-unit Rose Garden Inn at $123).
3. Barbara market, which is counter to the CCC standard practice of using statewide rates.
4. number of occupants in the hotel rooms, which
artificially lowers the cost-per-guest comparisons.
5. -per-guest methodology to suggest that the proposed
hotel rates present a value for families. While this approach has been used in other limited circumstances, such as a small 12-unit, 26,000-sf hotel project in the City of Huntington Beach (i.e., providing three and four bedrooms ranging between 1,400 - 1525 sf), the 250- room, 178,929-sf hotel Project is much larger development with more opportunities to develop LCOAs onsite and providing much smaller rooms (e.g., mostly one bedroom and some two bedrooms ranging 362 758 sf), which is not remotely similar to the value offered to families.
6. s no mitigation is necessary for this massive new construction project by citing an unrelated Venice Beach project (which is vastly distinguishable).
7. a moderate-priced hotel when similar amenities are provided at admittedly high-scale hotels.
8. t on what they contend the
hotel industry classifies as luxury amenities while failing to consider current trends where luxury boutique hoteliers put a premium on proximity to high-demand areas.
9. team history and associations of developing high-end boutique hotels including but not limited to other upscale hotels within the Santa Barbara region.
10. to minimize for the Project by
claiming, generally, that lower-cost accommodations are more expensive to provide in the Santa Barbara area, but that is not a basis for not providing LCOA here.
11. such
as the case here with the Project claimed to be moderate-priced despite possessing many of the amenities listed as luxury amenities in the Memo.
EXHIBIT C | page C30
Collectively,
LCOA provisions under the Coastal Act (e.g., e.g., Pub. Res. Code § 30213) and LCP (e.g., LUP policies
3.2-4, 3.2-5, 3.2-12, 3.2-14).10 prior comments (see
Exhibits A and B), which are incorporated in their entirety. As such, the City failed to consider feasible mitigation measures and project design changes, including but not limited to project changes requiring the Project to include 25 percent of the proposed rooms to be provided at LCOA or in lieu fees or a combination thereof.
For these reasons discussed herein and the attached/hyperlinked documents, Local 11 respectfully urges the Commission to find substantial issues novo hearing after these issues are adequately addressed to ensure compliance with applicable Coastal-related policies. Appellant Local 11 reserves the right to supplement their comments at future hearings on this Appeal.
5. Identification of Interested Persons
As mentioned above, the Project received multiple public hearings that included public comments from potentially interested persons.11 Interested persons may include prior appellants, whose contact information is provided on their respective appeals referenced below:
Lozeau Drury LLP, on behalf of SAFER12 Law Office of Marc Chytilo, on behalf of KTF13 Santa Barbara resident Steven Johnson14 Santa Barbara resident Rich Untermann15
Additional interested parties may be known to the City staff, including City Project Planner Kathleen Kennedy, who can be contacted at the following: Kathleen Kennedy, Project Planner; City of Santa Barbara; 735 Anacapa Street; Santa Barbara, CA 93101 ([email protected]). 10 See https://santabarbaraca.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Services/LCP%20Update/ City%20of%20Santa%20Barbara%20Complete%20Certified%20Coastal%20LUP.pdf. 11 See e.g., Planning Commission hearings held on 4/6/23 (Item III.B), 8/3/23 (Item III), 2/29/24 (Item III) and City Council hearings held on 10/1/24 (Item 5), 11/19/24 (Item 15), 12/10/24 (Item 4). All hyperlinked public hearing documents are provided on City website at https://santabarbaraca.gov/government/mayorcity-council/city-council-meetings. 12 City Council Staff Report (10/1/24) Attachment 6, https://records.santabarbaraca.gov/ OnBaseAgendaOnline/Documents/DownloadFile/Attachment%206%20- %20GENERAL.pdf?documentType=1&meetingId=1003&itemId=32201&publishId=22592&isSection=False&i sAttachment=True. 13 City Council Staff Report (10/1/24) Attachment 7, https://records.santabarbaraca.gov/ OnBaseAgendaOnline/Documents/DownloadFile/Attachment%207%20- %20GENERAL.pdf?documentType=1&meetingId=1003&itemId=32201&publishId=22593&isSection=False&i sAttachment=True. 14 City Council Staff Report (10/1/24) Attachment 8, https://records.santabarbaraca.gov/ OnBaseAgendaOnline/Documents/DownloadFile/Attachment%208%20- %20GENERAL.pdf?documentType=1&meetingId=1003&itemId=32201&publishId=22594&isSection=False&i sAttachment=True. 15 City Council Staff Report (10/1/24) Attachment 9, https://records.santabarbaraca.gov/ OnBaseAgendaOnline/Documents/DownloadFile/Attachment%209%20- %20GENERAL.pdf?documentType=1&meetingId=1003&itemId=32201&publishId=22595&isSection=False&i sAttachment=True. EXHIBIT C | page C31
If CCC staff has any issues retrieving any of the documents attached and/or hyperlinked, information provided on the CCC appeal form.
Sincerely, ___________________________________________________ Jordan R. Sisson, Esq.
Attorney for Local 11
ATTACHMENTS:
Exhibit 1: Local 11 City Council Comments (10/1/24)16
Exhibit 2: Local 11 City Council Comments (11/18/24)17 Exhibit 3: City of Santa Barbara Notice of Final Action (12/13/24)18 16 See also https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/1vkdv8guf45ayszojq4e5/CCCComments.final.pdf?rlkey=i3auo5dpg3llfmqq0sg73boy3&dl=0. 17 See also https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/kcf14t0hrkdv1buuieahf/ CC_Comments.Final.pdf?rlkey=ygb935jc336u3xoenonxnztr2&dl=0. 18 See also https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/2dc711vvf4d4ti2xn46sb/2024-12- 13_December_13_2024_101_Garden_St_NFA.pdf?rlkey=ky415e4tncqfkk2miq0isxx1e&dl=0. EXHIBIT C | page C32
EXHIBIT A
EXHIBIT C | page C33
October 1, 2024
VIA EMAIL:
City Council, City of Santa Barbra ([email protected]) c/o Holly Perea, Executive Assistant ([email protected]) Kathleen Kennedy, Project Planner ([email protected]) RE: Item 5, City Council Hearing October 1, 2024; 101 Garden Street Hotel Project Dear Mayor Rowse and Honorable Councilmembers:
On behalf of UNITE HERE Local 11 Office respectfully provides the following comments1 to the City of Santa Barbra City proposed merger of six lots, removal of all existing structures, and construction of a new 178,919 square- sf -room hotel (i.e., 130 housing units (i.e., five low-income studios and one moderate-income two-bedroom unit) Project located on a 4.5-acre site at the southwest corner of Garden and E. Yanonali Streets. Site , within the Specific Plan in 1983.
As discussed below, we are concerns with the Project s potential impacts on housing, compliance with the Coastal Act requirements on Lower Cost Affordable Accommodations ( LCOA(s) ), and the failure to include more robust traffic mitigation and other measures to make the project more environmentally sustainable.
1. The developer could be undercounting its workforce housing impacts by nearly half. Here, the developer claims 6 affordable units are all that is necessary to mitigate the potential increase in demand for housing caused by the Project,2 Which indicates the project would generate demand for 11 housing units in the City.3 However, this suggest that only 6 affordable units is insufficient to mitigate the project s housing impact. Addition, the conclusion is premised on a report that assumes that the 250-room hotel project would require only 60 employees.4 There is no explanation if this includes all part-time, full-time, and seasonal work staff. Furthermore, this fundamental assumption of roughly one employee per four hotel rooms (i.e., ¼ or 0.25 jobs per room) is entirely 5 To the contrary,
substantial evidence shows that the jobs per room ratio should be much higher, such as the City of Los Angeles using a one employee per two hotel rooms ratio (i.e., ½ or 0.5 jobs per room).6 This is a 1 Herein, page p. # - PDF p. # 2
City of Santa Barbra (2/29/24) PC Staff Report, p. 10. 3 See Council Staff Report, p. 9. 4
Supra fn. 1, p. 11. 5
Ibid., p. 148. 6
City of Los Angeles (May 2020) VMT Calculator Documentation, p. 10.
EXHIBIT C | page C34
- term housing impacts under the Specific Plan.7
2. The developer could be skirting its Coastal Lower Cost Affordable Accommodations Responsibilities. There seems to be no change in the project s prior lower cost accommodation analysis.8 Here, the
developer claims the Project is a moderate-cost hotel and not a luxury hotel subject to the Coastal -quarter of all rooms to be provided at lower cost (onsite) or provide inlieu fees to construct commensurate lower-cost accommodations (offsite).9 This conclusion is based
on the potentially flawed reasoning and arguments.
(a) First, the d
rates will be and/or distinguish between peak or off-peak seasons.10 Instead, it relies on a costper-guest analysis that assumes an inflated number of guests to drive down its cost-per-guest analysis. Nor does the developer provide key dates of documents referenced but not included in the staff report, such as its STR, CoStar analysis, the amenities offered at other Santa Barbra hotels, or its California Lodging report. Failing to clearly state what rates will be such as peak and off-peak season and/or annualized average daily rates ( ADR ) seems inconsistent with past Coastal Commission practice.11
(b) Second, the developer claims that the Project is moderately priced based on the local Santa Barbra market, which is counter to the Coastal Commission s standard practice of using statewide rates.12
calculations, room rates range between $240 and $300 per night, which may exceed statewide high-cost
practice.13
(c) Third, the developer inflates its occupant numbers to artificially reduce the cost-per-guest comparisons. Here, the developer claims the price per person would be under $70 per person, which is comparable to other nearby lower-cost accommodations. However, the developer inflates how many people would stay in its rooms and does not provide an apples-to-apples comparison. For example, the developer claims a studio king (with a kitchen), one bedroom (with kitchen), and standard one bedroom (wet bar) would each serve four guests (at $240-260 per night), when other hotels listed by the developer assume only two guests for standard and deluxe/superior king/queen rooms. When correct, an apples-to-apples comparison shows these rooms are being offered at roughly $120-130 per guest, which is comparable to other establishments the developer claims to be upscale, such as: Presidio ($92.50 per occupant for 7 Supra fn. 1, p. 121. 8
Supra fn. 2, p. 3. 9
Supra fn. 2, p. 12; see also supra fn. 1, pp. 15-17, 167-170 10 Supra fn. 1, p. 170. 11 See e.g., Dana Point Harbor Hotels (LCP-5-DPT-21-0079-2) Coastal Staff Report, pp. 30-58, https://documents.coastal.ca.gov/reports/2024/6/F10a/F10a-6-2024-report.pdf; American Tin Cannery Hotel Resort (CDP No. A-3-PGR-22-0004) Coastal Staff Report, pp. 42-51, 75-80, https://documents.coastal.ca.gov/ reports/2024/4/Th15b/Th15b-4-2024-report.pdf; Magnolia Tank Farm (LCP-5-HNB-24-0003-1) Coastal Staff Report, pp. 33-38, 71-77, https://documents.coastal.ca.gov/reports/2024/7/W11a/W11a-7-2024-report.pdf. 12 See e.g., CCC (12/15/22) Venice Beach Hotel Project, pp. 35-37 ($255 annualized 2022 ADR); CCC (3/9/22) Laguna Beach Hotel Project, pp. 27-28 ($217 annualized 2019 ADR); CCC (2/10/21) Dana Point Hotel Project, pp. 42-44 ($216 annualized 2019 ADR for non-pandemic conditions). 13 Ibid., see also American Tin Cannery Hotel Resort, supra fn. 11, p. 48 ($240 per night based on Pacific Grove LCP methodology); see also Magnolia Tank Farm, supra fn. 11, p. 36-37 (applying statewide methodology).
EXHIBIT C | page C35
superior queen); West Beach Inn ($124.50 per occupant for queen); Harbor House ($118.50 per occupant for standard king); and Blue Sands Inn ($126.50 per occupant for standard king). (d) Fourth, the developer does not explain how amenities provided are evidence of a moderatepriced hotel when similar amenities are provided at admittedly high-scale hotels. The developer claims the Project is designed as a moderately priced hotel with various low-cost amenities (e.g., self-park, buffet breakfast room, pool, fitness room, conference room, in-room kitchens, outdoor grills, pool and fitness facility, bicycle rentals, guest laundry, walking distance from the beach, and complimentary continental breakfast).14 However, these and other features of the Project15 are similar to other high-scale properties (e.g., Blue Sands Inn, West Beach Inn, Harbor House Inn, etc.).16
(e) Fifth, the developer cites an unrelated Venice Beach project to suggest no mitigation is necessary for this massive new construction project. Here, the developer claims the amenities provided at Breeze Suites project for which the Coastal Commission did not require mitigation.17 However, that was a 2013 project involving a change of use from an existing 31-unit apartment building into an extended stay property,18 which is entirely different from the case at bar, which is a massive new 250-room development.
(f) Sixth, the developer should not shift its obligation to provide lower-cost accommodations by claiming that accommodations are too expensive in Santa Barbra. The developer claims that the However, the area is admittedly more expensive than other areas of the state, which is an existing problem exacerbated by projects that do not provide their fair share of lower-cost accommodations that acutely impact inland communities that cannot access affordable overnight accommodations. Continuing this trend merely shifts the burden to neighboring coastal communities to provide accommodations that the developer is evading.
3. The developer fails to consider meaningful mitigation measures to address traffic, energy, and landscaping impacts which would also have the co-benefits of reducing the P emissions and GHGs. Here, the over-40-year-old Specific Plan requires traffic mitigation, water conservation, indigenous/drought-resistant landscaping, and energy conservation measures.19 However, the alternative transportation incentives are primarily informational and related to bike rentals.20 There is no consideration of additional measures that would significantly reduce the impacts caused by the nearly 4 million annual VMTs generated by this Project.21 The City should consider TDM , such as a hotel-specific mandatory 14 See PC Staff Report, supra fn. 1, pp. 168-169. 15 Project features include library, bar, lounge, 208-sf market open 24 hours, media salon, meeting rooms, living room, breakfast area, outdoor seating areas with spa, courtyard with pool and spa and jacuzzi, fitness room, and a 7,500-sf roof deck. (See PC Staff Report, supra fn. 1, pp. 1, 9, 16.) 16 See e.g., Blue Sands Inn (full kitchens, walking distance to beach, bikes, pool, Pet friendly, free parking) (see Visit Santa Barbara, Travel Weekly); West Beach Inn (walking distance to beach, Kitchen/Kitchenette, spa, outdoor pool, hot tub, room service, free parking, laundry services, continental breakfast) (see Travel Weekly, Visit Santa Barbara); Harbor House Inn (e.g., kitchens, free parking, bikes available, walking distance to beach, ___) (see Travel Weekly, Visit Santa Barbara, Harbor House). 17 See PC Staff Report, supra fn. 1, pp. 168-170. 18 See City of Los Angeles (5/20/13) Letter of Determination, p. 1 (DCP Case No. 19 Supra fn. 1, 115-124 20 Ibid., at pp. 8, 12, 18, 41, 65, 106-107 21 AQ/GHG Analysis, PDF p. 105 EXHIBIT C | page C36
commuter reduction program that could include 100% employee participation and various incentives like:
Participation in guarantee ride programs for employees who need to respond to emergencies arising when normal public transit is infeasible; Incentivize employee carpool/vanpool through access to preferential parking spaces or hotel valet service or both;
Subsidized transit passes for hotel workers and patrons; and Dedicated shuttle service for hotel patrons toward nearby destinations.22 So too, the City should consider maximizing solar panels on the site, greater energy/water efficiencies by requiring the project to meet at least LEED Silver and/or CalGreen Tier 1 or 2 standards and other mitigation measures recommended by public agencies like CAPCOA, OPR, CARB, and others.23 In sum, we have concerns with this project and ask the City to not approve the project until the matters discussed above are addressed. Thank you for your consideration.
Thank you for consideration of these comments. We ask that this letter is placed in the administrative record for the Project.
Sincerely, _________________________________________ Jordan R. Sisson 22 See e.g., Santa Monica Municipal Code § 9.5.130(B)(2)(b); https://www.octa.net/getting-around/rideshare/ocrideshare/employers/guaranteed-ride-home-program/; https://www.ci.healdsburg.ca.us/ AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Item/3098?fileID=21731; 23 CARB 2022 Scoping Plan, 4, 7, 24, 29 & Appendix D, pp. 23, https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our-work/programs/ab-32- climate-change-scoping-plan/2022-scoping-plan-documents -Local Action, pp. 1-8, 7-9 & Appendix D, p. 2, https://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/app_b_local_action_final.pdf; CAPCOA (Dec. 2021) Handbook for Analyzing Greenhouse Gas Emission Reductions, Assessing Climate Vulnerabilities, and Advancing Health and Equity, pp. 31-32, 73, 76, 80-96, https://www.airquality.org/ClimateChange/Documents/ Final%20Handbook_AB434.pdf; CAPCOA (Aug. 2010) Quantifying GHGs and Mitigation, pp. 64-74, https://www.contracosta.ca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/34123/CAPCOA-2010-GHG-Quantification-PDF; SCAG (Dec. 2019) Final Program EIR, pp. 2.0-18 2.0- - and transportation impacts), https://scag.ca.gov/sites/main/files/file-attachments/ fpeir_connectsocal_complete.pdf?1607981618. EXHIBIT C | page C37 EXHIBIT C | page C38
November 18, 2024
City Council, City of Santa Barbara ([email protected]) c/o Holly Perea, Executive Assistant ([email protected]) Kathleen Kennedy, Project Planner ([email protected]) RE: ITEM #15 ON CITY COUNCIL HEARING SCHEDULED NOVEMBER 19, 2024; 101 GARDEN STREET HOTEL PROJECT (PLN2019-00052)
Dear Mayor Rowse and Honorable Councilmembers:
On behalf of UNITE HERE Local 11 ( Local 11 this office respectfully provides the following comments1 to the City of Santa Barbara ( City regarding the above-referenced 250- room hotel development ( Project located on a 4.5-acre site at 101 Garden Streets. ( Site proposed by Craig Minus ( Applicant These comments supplement Local 11 s testimony at the City Council hearing held on October 1, 2024,2, 3 regarding the Project s compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act ( CEQA the City s Local Coastal Program ( LCP 4 and the Coastal Act ( Coastal Act Of particular concern is the Project s lack of lower-cost overnight accommodations ( LCOA and what seems to be an emerging LCOA policy developed by City staff when making moderate-cost hotel determinations.
In short, Local 11 shares many of the same concerns raised by others during this approval process, including what seems to be too little in the form of workforce housing (six units) for this sizeable 250-room hotel assumed to require only 60 employees, the potential for hazards due to sea level rise and exposure to other ground contaminates (to name a few).5 Local 11 is also concerned that the proposed Garden Street Hotel Project may constitute a higher-cost hotel, which, under typical California Coastal Commission ( CCC practice, would require 25 percent of the new 1 Herein, page citations are either the stated pagination (i.e., p. # or PDF-page location (i.e., PDF p. # 2 See e.g., City Interactive Agenda for City Council Hearing (10/1/24) Item 5 (listing various supporting documents),
https://records.santabarbaraca.gov/OnBaseAgendaOnline/Meetings/ViewMeeting?id=1003&doctype=1. 3 see also City Council Staff Report CC Staff Report (10/1/24) PDF pp. 12, 15, https://records. santabarbaraca.gov/OnBaseAgendaOnline/Documents/DownloadFile/Council%20Agenda%20Report%20- %20APPEAL%20OF%20PLANNING%20COMMISSION%E2%80%99S%20APPROVAL%20OF%20THE.pdf?do cumentType=1&meetingId=1003&itemId=32201&publishId=22578&isSection=False&isAttachment=True. 4 See Inclusive of the Local Implementation Plan LIP and Land Use Plan LUP (See https://santabarbaraca.gov/government/priorities-policies/local-coastal-program.) 5 See e.g., supra fn. 3, Attachment 6 (Appellant letter dated February 27, 2024, expert baseline Environmental Consulting letter dated May 3, 2023); Attachment 7 (Appellant letters dated March 11, 2024, August 2, 2023, and expert letter David Revell, PhD dated September 11, 2023); Attachment 12 (Appellant letter dated September 24, 2024, expert Lynker Technologies, LLC letter dated September 24, 2024, expert Revell Coastal letter dated September 24, 2024, expert Mark Kram, PhD letter dated September 24, 2024).
EXHIBIT C | page C39
Local 11 Comments RE: 101 Garden Street Hotel Project
November 18, 2024
rooms to be provided at lower-cost or equivalent in-lieu fees or a combination thereof.6 The Applicant and City staff maintain that the Project is not a luxury hotel, but instead, a moderate-cost hotel based on an overnight accommodations analysis, purported design features of and amenities missing from the development, and conditions that would ensure the development would remain moderate-cost. 7
Similar concerns were raised by CCC staff involving a staff report for a different hotel project (i.e., the proposed 44-room hotel project at 21 W. Montecito Street) ( Montecito In an October 1, 2024 letter, CCC staff informed City staff that the staff report failed to provide key analysis on LCOAs and what kind of information should be included, as well as reminded the City of coastal policies requiring the City to research and develop a detailed program to add provisions involving LCOAs.8 Two days later,9 City staff responded with a brief list of what amenities it felt qualified as a luxury hotel, and provided a condition of approval similar to that used in the Project.
Both hotel developments present similar concerns regarding the City s ongoing duty to protect, encourage, and where feasible, provide for LCOAs. Albeit vastly different in size and scale, the staff s approach and rationale taken in the modest 44-room Montecito hotel project is remarkably similar to the approach and arguments proffered in the 250-room Garden Hotel Project case at bar resulting in strikingly similar outcomes under this emerging policy developed by City staff as reflected in the Moderate Cost Hotel Determination memo dated October 3, 2024 ( Memo 10 However, as discussed below, this Memo sets a troubling precedent for the current and future hotel developments. For example, the Memo relies too heavily on an amenities list that is too vague and susceptible to abuse, which seems to be the case here where the Garden Street Hotel Project appears to include many of the amenities listed in the Memo as a luxury amenity. Also troubling is the use of an outdated amenities list, which ignores current trends, where established luxury boutique hoteliers put a premium on proximity to high-demand areas such as the case here with the Project. Furthermore, the Memo fails to require any of the key information urged by Coastal staff, like relevant hotel room rates, Citywide hotel data, or anything remotely close to the fact-based objective data routinely used by CCC decision-makers.
For these reasons, Local 11 respectfully requests that the City: (1) Instruct staff to rescind the Memo and develop a high-cost/luxury accommodation policy consistent with established CCC policies; and (2) stay action on the Garden Street Hotel Project until a proper LCOAs study is conducted and addressed in a revised CEQA-compliant review. 6 See Gen., CCC Informational Briefing On LCOA Presentation (7/11/24), https://documents.coastal.ca.gov/ reports/2024/7/Th7/Th7-7-2024-exhibits.pdf.; see also Local 11 prior comments, https://www.dropbox. com/scl/fi/1vkdv8guf45ayszojq4e5/CCC-Comments.final.pdf?rlkey=i3auo5dpg3llfmqq0sg73boy3&dl=0. 7 Planning Commission Staff Report PC Staff Report (2/29/24) PDF pp. 167-173. https://records.santabarbaraca.gov/OnBaseAgendaOnline/Documents/DownloadFile/Attachment%202%2 0-%20GENERAL.pdf?documentType=1&meetingId=1003&itemId=32201&publishId=22588&isSection= False&isAttachment=True. 8 See CCC letter RE PLN2023-00147 (10/1), https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/tu4ku7ipybtpge6y7hsqx/CDP2023-00147-CCC-CommentLetter_10.2.2024-002.pdf?rlkey=en1uq3xkd7ujfuq9fa4qjp9vb&dl=0. 9 See PC Letter RE 21 W Montecito (10/3), https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/joffvld0cjv0x49i001ud/2024-10-03_October_03_2024_17-21-W.- Montecito_Street_Memo_CCC.pdf?rlkey=lnabogg3n1p10bwsjli4owakv&dl=0. 10 See Memo, https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/joffvld0cjv0x49i001ud/2024-10-03_October_03_2024_17- 21-W.-Montecito_Street_Memo_CCC.pdf?rlkey=lnabogg3n1p10bwsjli4owakv&dl=0. EXHIBIT C | page C40 Local 11 Comments RE: 101 Garden Street Hotel Project
November 18, 2024
The remainder of this comment letter highlights four key issues with the Memo, which was not made available to this office until after the Garden Street Hotel hearing, but is relevant to the determination that the proposed Garden Street Hotel did not need to provide LCOAs
1. THE MEMO S AMENITIES LIST APPROACH IS TOO VAGUE AND SUSCEPTIBLE TO ABUSE. The Memo looks to the hotel to determine what qualifies as luxury amenities. (Memo, p. 1.) This is problematic because, in practice, it seems to mean that hotel developers themselves are deciding whether an amenity should be considered a luxury or not. This, however, is a clear conflict of interest. The Memo does not explain how it determined whether an amenity should be considered luxury or not. Furthermore, the Memo does not specify how many of these amenities are needed before a hotel finally tips the scales into luxury. Is it 3, 6, 9, 15 .? For example, the Garden Hotel Project may feature the same or functionally similar amenities as those listed in the Memo. (Compare Memo, p. 1 (including, e.g., onsite gym, recreation amenities, porte cochere entry, pool, onsite laundry, breakfast service,) with PC Staff Report, PDF pp. 16, 37, 41, 46, 56-57, 60, 62, 67, 82-83 168 (Fitness facility, Bicycle rentals, outdoor grills for recreation, Motor court, Pool, Guest laundry, continental breakfast, buffet breakfast room, extensive conference-related and food/beverage-related [discussed further below]).) The amenity list approach is simply unworkable, leading to arbitrary decision making. Here, for example, the Applicant argued that, unlike luxury hotels with full-service restaurants and large conference facilities, the Garden Hotel Project provided only limited food-and-beverage and limited conferencing (PC Staff Report, PDF pp. 16, 37, 168.) Despite its characterization as the Project does provide extensive food and beverage services and conference space. (See table below.)Here, again, these seem capable of functioning similarly as a distinct/separate VIP lounge, which are also listed as a potential luxury amenity under the Memo (p. 1).
Additional Amenities (See PC Staff Report, PDF pp. 62, 82-83 [Project Plan Sheets A-001.1, A-004.1B, A-004.1C])
Food/Drink -Related: 3,274-sf of
interconnected seating for food/drink-related
uses (up to 250 occupants), including:
1,863-sf Lounge,
1,514-sf bar right next to a
409-sf kitchen,
542-sf market, and
346-sf library
Meeting/Conferenced-Related: 5,738-sf of
interconnected seating/meeting/conferencerelated services (up to 350 occupants), including:
2,800-sf of meeting room spaces
2,161-sf living room/breakfast areas
485-sf buffet
292-sf food prep area
(continue following page)
EXHIBIT C | page C41
Local 11 Comments RE: 101 Garden Street Hotel Project
November 18, 2024
EXHIBIT C | page C42
Local 11 Comments RE: 101 Garden Street Hotel Project
November 18, 2024
/ / /
EXHIBIT C | page C43
Local 11 Comments RE: 101 Garden Street Hotel Project
November 18, 2024
Also unpersuasive is the Applicant s argument regarding cost-per-guest methodology and value to family, which is precisely the same type of argument made by an applicant in 2019 seeking approval for a 12-unit hotel with eight 3-bedroom (1,400-sf) units and four 4-bedroom (1,525-sf) units totaling roughly 26,000-sf of development in the City of Huntington Beach.11 There, the developer claimed a $433.33 peak season rate and $233.33 off-peak rate was affordable because the rooms were larger (1,400-1,525 square feet), multiple bedrooms (i.e., 3 and 4 bedrooms), and able to accommodate between 6-8 occupants.12 Here, in comparison, the Garden Street Hotel Project has 20 times more units (i.e., 250 units) and nearly seven (7) times more square footage (i.e., 178,919 sf). (PC Staff Report, PDF pp. 1-2.) Additionally, most of the rooms in the Project are 1- bedrooms with the largest being two-bedrooms, all of which are far smaller in size than in the referenced 2019 case (i.e., ranging between 362 - 758 sf). (Id., at PDF pp. 85-86, 170.) In sum, the Memo is not objective and is too susceptible to abuse, such as the case here with the Garden Street Hotel Project.
2. A LIST OF OUTDATED AMENITIES IS NOT IN KEEPING WITH CURRENT TRENDS, WHERE ESTABLISHED
LUXURY BOUTIQUE HOTELIERS PUT A PREMIUM ON PROXIMITY TO HIGH-DEMAND AREAS LIKE THE COAST. The Memo places undue weight on what amenities the hotel industry classifies as luxury and whether the hotel has enough of them included in the proposed development. (Memo, p. 1.) First, the relationship between amenities and the cost of the hotel is correlative not causative. The list of amenities is primarily focused on qualifiers of traditional flagship or chain hotels and resorts, which may be considered outdated.13 Today, hotels in high-demand areas are some of the most desirable and profitable hotels, where guests place a premium on unique experiences offered and close proximity to high-demand areas rather than on hotel amenities. This is particularly true in the Coastal Zone, where access to the beach is the primary draw, such as the case for the Project, which is walking distance to a public beach (PC Staff Report, PDF p. 16.) Staff implicitly acknowledges this when it admits that the City has higher than the statewide average daily rates due to its proximity to the coast and the higher land, construction, and labor (Id.) / / / 11 Compare PC Staff Report, PDF pp. 168 with CCC (8/8/19) 5-18-0642 Staff Report, pp. 1, 13-14, https://documents.coastal.ca.gov/reports/2019/8/Th17a/Th17a-8-2019-report.pdf; and with Staff Report, Exh. 4 (Overnight Accommodations Analysis),
https://documents.coastal.ca.gov/reports/2019/8/Th17a/Th17a-8-2019-exhibits.pdf. 12 Ibid., 13 See e.g., How Do The Hotel Amenities Offered By A Boutique Hotel Differ From Those Offered By A Chain Hotel?, https://blog.bottlestore.com/how-do-the-hotel-amenities-offered-by-a-boutique-hotel-differ-fromthose-offered-by-a-chain-hotel/; The Difference Between a Boutique Hotel and a Hotel, https://www.casagangotena.com/blog/accomodation/difference-between-boutique-hotel-and-hotel/; Boutique vs Regular Hotels, https://www.hotelcloudnine.com/boutique-vs-regular-hotels-unveiling-capetowns-finest/; 15 Trendy Boutique Hotels in Santa Barbara, https://santabarbaraca.com/itinerary/15- trendy-boutique-hotels-in-santa-barbara/.
EXHIBIT C | page C44
Local 11 Comments RE: 101 Garden Street Hotel Project
November 18, 2024
This is particularly relevant in the Garden Street Hotel Project because the Applicant team are all associated with high-end boutique hotel development. For example, the Project designer, Cearnal Collective,14 also designed the Harbor View Inn,15 Kimpton Canary Hotel,16 Mason Beach Inn,17 and Palihouse Spanish Garden Inn hotel projects,18 which are all Santa Barbra hotels according to Applicant s list of Santa Barbara Accommodations. (PC Staff Report, PDF p. 169.) Similarly, the Project developer, Dauntless Development,19 is linked to the acquisition of highend/upscale hotel projects in Hawaii,20 New York,21 Washington D.C. area,22 Pasadena,23 and other higher-end locations including the 31-room Waterman/Moxy Hotel in Santa Barbara s Funk Zone ( now considered the #1 tourist destination in Santa Barba 24 and the 87-room boutique Steward, Tribute Portfolio Hotel also in the City.25 The Applicant does not list the Steward but claims the Waterman Hotel is moderate despite pulling $400+ average daily night rates during peak and off-peak seasons for a double bed. (PC Staff Report, PDF p. 169.) This type of substantial evidence is not factored in the Memo.
/ / / 14 PC Staff Report, p. 41; see also https://www.independent.com/2022/05/27/new-250-room-garden-streethotel-back-on-the-citys-radar/; Cearnal Collective Hospitality Portfolio (listing Harbor View Inn, Kimpton Canary Hotel, Mason Beach Inn, and Palihouse Spanish Garden Inn hotels projects), https://www.cearnal.com/projects/hospitality-design-1. 15 Cearnal Collective Project page, https://www.cearnal.com/projects/harbor-view-inn-north-wing; 16 Cearnal Collective Project page, https://www.cearnal.com/projects/hospitality/canary-hotel; 17 Cearnal Collective Project page, https://www.cearnal.com/interior-design/mason-beach-inn; 18 Cearnal Collective Project page, https://www.cearnal.com/projects/hospitality/spanish-garden-inn; 19 See PC Staff Report, PDF, p. 41; see also https://www.independent.com/2023/04/12/can-of-worms-orcan-of-whoop-ass/. 20 See e.g., OC Business Journal (110-room AC Hotel by Marriott Wailea Maui, 200-room Residence Inn by Marriott Maui Wailea, 144-room Residence Inn Pasadena), https://www.ocbj.com/tourism/marriott-familyoffshoot-adds-trio-olson-assets/. 21 (358-room Hampton Inn by Hilton New York Times Square and 288-room Home2 Suites by Hilton New York Times Square), https://www.costar.com/article/1948581556/us-hotel-management-twin-bridgeshospitality-adds-two-new-york-city-properties. 22 See e.g., (Crystal City Marriott, a 343-key hotel in Arlington, Va.), https://commercialobserver.com/2024/01/private-equity-firm-dauntless-buys-crystal-city-marriott-for66m-in-latest-hotel-buy/; (216-key Hilton Garden Inn Bethesda (Md.)), https://www.hotelmanagement.net/transactions/dauntless-capital-partners-buys-hilton-garden-innbethesda-downtown; (200-key Moxy Washington D.C. Downtown and the143-key Courtyard by Marriott Washington, D.C.), https://commercialobserver.com/2021/12/dauntless-capital-partners-acquires-two-dchotels-for-152m/. 23 See e.g., (314-room Courtyard by Marriott Pasadena/Old Town), https://lwhospitalityadvisors.com/wpcontent/uploads/2022/01/Q4-2021-Sales.pdf; (144-room Residence Inn Pasadena), https://www.ocbj.com/tourism/marriott-family-offshoot-adds-trio-olson-assets/; 24 https://eastern-re.com/property/waterman-santa-barbara/; LinkedIn Post From CEO of Palomar Capitals, https://www.linkedin.com/posts/hugh-j-ward-iii-a3018b78_realestate-marriott-hotel-activity6955672061314789376-ZpcK. 25 https://www.pdbcollaborative.com/portfolio/the-steward/; LinkedIn post, https://www.linkedin.com/posts/debra-cummings-75043b14_the-steward-to-debut-in-santa-barbara-thisactivity-7036803242642575360-TlXn?trk=public_profile_like_view; EXHIBIT C | page C45
Local 11 Comments RE: 101 Garden Street Hotel Project
November 18, 2024
3. THE MEMO IGNORES CLEAR DIRECTION FROM CCC STAFF TO LOOK AT PROPOSED RATES AND EXISTING CONDITIONS. The City must enforce its coastal obligations, and that includes ensuring high-cost hotels are providing LCOA obligations. To this end, the City must determine if a project is a luxury high-cost project or not. However, for both the Garden Street and Montecito hotel projects, Coastal staff has been critical of the City s failure to analyze the LCOA issue properly.26 They have reminded the City of its duty to encourage LCOAs where feasible and that the City should look into the proposed night room rates as well as existing costs for hotel rooms in the City. Staff has even provided examples of CCC cases and how the issue can be looked into. (See excerpt below.) Despite all of this, the staff s Memo fails even to use the word rate much less look into the matter. Instead, it focuses on amenities seemingly as a proxy for what rates will be. No good purpose can be served by refusing to look at the most relevant data. Here, proposed rates are the best indicator if a hotel project in this location will be high-cost or not. Failing to address this issue squarely leads to adverse results (as discussed below).
/ / / 26 See PC Staff Report, PDF p. 164-166; see also CCC Montecito Letter (10/1/24), p. 1-3, https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/tu4ku7ipybtpge6y7hsqx/CDP2023-00147-CCC-CommentLetter_10.2.2024-002.pdf?rlkey=en1uq3xkd7ujfuq9fa4qjp9vb&dl=0.
EXHIBIT C | page C46
Local 11 Comments RE: 101 Garden Street Hotel Project
November 18, 2024
4. THE MEMO FAILS TO CONSIDER WELL ESTABLISHED HOTEL RATE CALCULATIONS OR THE CITY S CHRONIC LACK OF LCOAS. The Memo fails to reference anything remotely close to the type of information and data expected by CCC. There are numerous examples of CCC methodology, whereby moderate-cost rooms fall between the lower-cost and high-cost threshold of 75% and 125% (respectively) of the statewide average daily rates ( ADR during peak season (i.e., July and August) for single rooms up to double occupancy.27 There is no explanation for the Memo s refusal to apply this type of information to its determination, such as the case in the Garden Street Hotel Project where the City did not adequately consider this statewide ADR as previously raised in our prior comments.28 Also not considered or mentioned in the Memo is any citywide reporting on room costs, as requested by CCC staff. This is troubling since it is clear the City has an existing LCOA problem. For example, CCC staff has previously determined that 2023 statewide ADR during peak season (July/August) was $200.52,29 making moderate-cost hotels ranging between $150.39 and $250.64 (i.e., 75% and 125% of ADR, respectively) with lower-cost and high-cost hotels falling above and below that range. Based on peak season rates listed in the Summary s Exhibit A (PC Staff Report, PDF p. 169), 56 of the 58 hotels would be considered high-cost (i.e., $250.64 or more), one would be moderate (Motel 6 at $231), and one lower-cost (Rose Garden Inn at $123). In fact, the 35-unit Rose Garden Inn30 is the only hotel listed under the statewide peak-season ADR ($200.52). While the Applicant and the City may find sufficient economic diversity in the currently offered short-term (id., at p. 167), that is not consistent with LCP policies requiring protection, encouragement, and provision of LCOAs or ensuring new developments serve all income (Id., at pp. 164-165 [LUP Policy 3.2-4, 3.2-12, 3.2-14].) Like Santa Monica, Santa Barbara does not provide adequate, affordable lodging options, making new lower-cost lodging facilities especially important here as explained by the Coastal staff late last year when considering a 120-room/100- dwelling unit project in Santa Monica.31
27 See e.g., CCC (12/15/22) Staff Report A-5-VEN-21-0011 (Wynkoop Properties, LLC), pp. 35-37 ($204.14 ADR average based on July/August 2022 statewide rates), https://documents.coastal.ca.gov/reports/2022/12/Th16a/Th16a-12-2022-report.pdf; CCC (1/19/24) Staff Recommendation LCP-6-OCN-23-0035-1 (Coast Highway Incentive District), pp. 33-34 (noting peak season or annual average could be used, including $147.83 ADR average based on 2022 statewide rates), https://documents.coastal.ca.gov/reports/2024/2/Th18a/Th18a-2-2024-report.pdf; CCC (3/9/22) Staff Report A-5-LGB-21-0060 (Highgate Hotels), pp. 27-28 ($173.26 ADR based on July/August 2019 statewide rates), https://documents.coastal.ca.gov/reports/2022/3/W12a/W12a-03-2022-report.pdf; CCC (2/10/21) Staff Report A-5-DPT-18-0046 (Harbor Bluff Corp.) pp. 42-43 ($173.26 based on July/August 2019 statewide rates), https://documents.coastal.ca.gov/reports/2021/2/W12a/W12a-2-2021-report.pdf; CCC (2/6/24) Addendum 5-14-1785-A2 (Lido House, LLC), p. 8-10 (200.52 ADR average based on July/August 2023 statewide rate), https://documents.coastal.ca.gov/reports/2024/2/Th13a/Th13a-2-2024-addenda.pdf. 28 See https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/1vkdv8guf45ayszojq4e5/CCCComments.final.pdf?rlkey=i3auo5dpg3llfmqq0sg73boy3&dl=0. 29 5-22-0799 (Ocean Avenue Partners, LLC and Belle Vue Plaza), PDF pp. 30, https://documents.coastal.ca.gov/reports/2023/12/W20b/W20b-12-2023-report.pdf. 30 https://santabarbaraca.com/businesses/rose-garden-inn/. 31 See CCC( 11/30/23) Ocean Avenue Partners, LLC, p. 36 (noting the importance of providing lower cost accommodation where jurisdiction prior stock has dwindled and new facilities are lacking), https://documents.coastal.ca.gov/reports/2023/12/W20b/W20b-12-2023-report.pdf; id., at p. 42 availability of affordable lodging in the coastal zone is a major determinant of public access. New visitorserving amenities built along the coast are not meaningfully available to inland communities if those communities cannot afford to visit the coast for longer periods of time or EXHIBIT C | page C47 Local 11 Comments RE: 101 Garden Street Hotel Project
November 18, 2024
In conclusion, the Memo is deeply flawed and inconsistent with established CCC methods, which infects the City s review of the Garden Street hotel. For these reasons, Local 11 respectfully requests that the City (1) Instruct staff to rescind the Memo and develop a luxury accommodation policy consistent with established CCC policies; and (2) stay action on the Garden Street Hotel Project until a proper LCOAs study is conducted and addressed in a revised CEQA-compliance review.
Thank you for consideration of these comments. We ask that this letter is placed in the administrative record for the Project.
Sincerely, _________________________________________ Jordan R. Sisson Attorney for UNITE HERE Local 11
EXHIBIT C | page C48
EXHIBIT C | page C49
NOTICE OF FINAL ACTION
CITY OF SANTA BARBARA COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT
Date: December 13, 2024 Application Number: PLN2019-00052 Name of Applicant: Carolyn Groves, Dudek
Name of Owner: The Wright Family H. Limited Partnership Tony Bortolazzo, Agent
Project Address: 101 Garden Street
Project Location: Corner of Garden St and E. Yanonali St in the City of Santa Barbara, County of Santa Barbara
APN Number: 017-630-008; 009; -018; -021; -024; and -027 Project Description: The project consists of the merger of six lots, removal of all existing structures, and construction of a new 178,919-square-
-income studios and 1 moderate -income two-bedroom
unit) under State Density Bonus Law, and an 85,298-square-foot subterranean parking garage on a 4.53-acre site rooms would not have kitchens.
larger groups. Guest amenities include library, bar, lounge, 208-square-foot market, media salon, meeting rooms, living room, breakfast area, outdoor seating areas with spa, courtyard with pool and spa, fitness room, and a 7,500-square-foot roof deck. The main entrance to the hotel would be from Garden Street, with secondary entrances from E. Yanonali and Santa Barbara Streets. The project includes 267 vehicle parking spaces (238 subterranean and 29 at-grade) and 52 bicycle parking spaces (32 subterranean and 20 at-grade). Eight bicycle rental parking spaces are also provided for guests.
Three onsite trees would be removed (California Pepper, Date Palm, Mexican Fan Palm) and 17 onsite trees would be protected. Landscape plans include installation of approximately 185 new ornamental trees onsite.
Five street trees (4 Mexican Fan Palms, 1 Cork Oak) would be removed, and 24 street trees would be protected.
There would be 13 new street trees along E. Yanonali Street and Santa Barbara Street. Grading is estimated to consist of 25,900 cubic yards cut/export and 4,600 cubic yards fill. The project also includes restoration of the wetland/drainage area and 15-foot-wide buffer area located along the Garden Street frontage.
The discretionary applications required for this project are:
A. A Parking Modification to allow less than the required number of parking spaces (Santa Barbara Municipal Code (SBMC) §28. 90.100 and SBMC §28.92.110.A.1); B. A Development Plan to allow the construction of approximately 153,000 square feet (net) of nonresidential development (SBMC Chapter 28.85);
C. A Coastal Development Permit to allow the proposed development in the Appealable and Non-Appealable The project requires an environmental finding pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15183.
EXHIBIT C | page C50
Notice of Final Action
This is to inform you that on November 19, 2024, the City Council of the City of Santa Barbara, on appeal, approved an application for a Coastal Development Permit for the project listed above. The project is located in the Appealable and Non-Appealable jurisdictions of the City s Coastal Zone. On December 10, 2024 the City adopted a Resolution memorializing the decision and findings from November 19th appeal hearing.
The decision is based on the following findings and conditions:
See attached Resolution No. 24-142, which includes findings and conditions as approved by the City Council.
The Coastal Development Permit is subject to the following conditions:
See attached Resolution No. 24-142, which includes findings and conditions as approved by the City Council A Coastal Development Permit expires three years from the date of issuance, unless otherwise explicitly modified by conditions of approval.
If you, as an aggrieved party or applicant, disagree with the decision of the City Council regarding the outcome of this application, you may appeal the decision to the California Coastal Commission. An appeal may be filed with the Coastal Commission by (1) an aggrieved party, (2) the applicant, or (3) two members of the Coastal Commission. Such appeals must be filed in the office of the Coastal Commission not later than 5:00 PM of the tenth working day following receipt of sufficient notice of the final local governmental action. In the case of an appeal by an applicant or aggrieved party, the appellant must have first pursued appeal to the City to be considered an aggrieved party. If you have any questions or comments regarding this matter, contact Kathleen Kennedy, Project Planner, at (805) 564-5470, extension 4560.
Attachments:
1. City Council Resolution No.24-142
2. Reduced site plan
3. Vicinity Map Document1
EXHIBIT C | page C51
EXHIBIT C | page C52
EXHIBIT C | page C53
EXHIBIT C | page C54
EXHIBIT C | page C55
EXHIBIT C | page C56
EXHIBIT C | page C57
EXHIBIT C | page C58
EXHIBIT C | page C59
EXHIBIT C | page C60
EXHIBIT C | page C61
EXHIBIT C | page C62
EXHIBIT C | page C63
Vicinity Map – 101 Garden Street
4.53-acre project site
EXHIBIT C | page C64
EXHIBIT C | page C65
Figure 1: City LUP Excerpts (highlights added)1
1 See
https://santabarbaraca.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Services/LCP%20Update/City%20of%20Santa%20Barbara%20C omplete%20Certified%20Coastal%20LUP.pdf. EXHIBIT C | page C66 EXHIBIT C | page C67
EXHIBIT C | page C68
Figure 2a: Excerpts of CCC Public Workshop on LCOAs (10/26/16), pp. 35-362 2 https://documents.coastal.ca.gov/reports/2016/11/th6-11-2016.pdf. EXHIBIT C | page C69 Figure 2.b: CCC LCOA Presentation, PDF pp. 7, 103
3 https://documents.coastal.ca.gov/assets/lower-cost-coastal-lodging/LCOA-Doc3.pdf. EXHIBIT C | page C70 Figure 3: Applicants Overnight Room Rates4
4 See CCC Staff Report Exhibits, PDF p. 15 (Exh. 8 [Tbl. A]), https://documents.coastal.ca.gov/reports/2025/4/Th13a/Th13a4-2025-exhibits.pdf. EXHIBIT C | page C71 Figure. 4: Applicants 2023 MSC5
5 See City Planning Commission (2/22/24) Staff Report, PDF pp. 167-170 (labeled Overnight Accommodation Summary), https://records.santabarbaraca.gov/OnBaseAgendaOnline/Documents/ViewDocument/Attachment%202%20- %20GENERAL.pdf?meetingId=1003&documentType=Agenda&itemId=32201&publishId=22588&isSection=false. EXHIBIT C | page C72 Figure 5: Santa Barbra Accommodations List6
6 Ibid.
EXHIBIT C | page C73
EXHIBIT C | page C74
City of Santa Barbara
Planning Division
Memorandum
DATE: October 3, 2024
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Kelly Brodison, Associate Planner
SUBJECT: Moderate Cost Hotel Determination, 17-21 W Montecito Street This memorandum is intended to respond to the letter from Tyler Liddel, Coastal Program Analyst of the California Coastal Commission, dated October 1, 2024, regarding the does recognize certain amenities as qualifiers to be recognized as a luxury hotel, including but not limited to the following:
Golf course
Onsite gym
Spa/wellness center
Full-scale restaurant
Celebrity chefs
Turn down services
On-site laundry
Pool
Recreation amenities/sport courts
Game center
Room service
Grand lobby
Porte Cochere entry
Concierge
Breakfast service
VIP lounge
As shown on the project plans, the proposed hotel does not include any of these amenities. The lobby area doubles as the singular access into the hotel and to a modest seating area, bar, and meeting room; there is not a separate or distinct VIP lounge; the - service snack area. The rooftop deck includes a limited food service component (not a full-service restaurant) accessible to hotel guests only. The hotel does not have a pool or spa, wellness, recreation, or game facilities. While valet parking is proposed, to allow the EXHIBIT C | page C75
parking garage to be efficiently parked, the vehicle entry does not include a Port Cochere or concierge service. These design elements result in the lack of a luxury hotel rating and as such, qualify the hotel as a moderate cost hotel, consistent with Coastal Act section 30213 and Local Coastal Program Coastal Land Use Plan Policy 3.2-12 Lower Cost Visitor and Recreational Facilities.
To ensure the hotel continues to adhere to these qualifications, staff recommends the following condition be added:
Moderate Cost Hotel Provision. The project shall be maintained as a moderate cost hotel in accordance with Coastal Act section 30213 and Local Coastal Program Coastal Land Use Plan Policy 3.2-12 Lower Cost Visitor and Recreational Facilities. No changes shall be allowed that would result in a change to its status as a moderate (lower cost) accommodation, such as the addition of amenities that are typically associated with a luxury hotel (e.g., e.g., spa/wellness center, pool, on-site laundry facilities, multiple fullservice restaurants, or an increase of 10% or more of the identified 20 necessary hotel employees). Any proposed change may only be approved through a substantial conformance determination or Amendment to the Coastal Development Permit, the level of which review shall be determined by the Community Development Director.
EXHIBIT C | page C76
ATTACHMENT 2
PLANNING COMMISSION
STAFF REPORT
REPORT DATE: May 8, 2025
AGENDA DATE: May 15, 2025
PROJECT ADDRESS: 633 E. Cabrillo Blvd. (PLN2022-00443)
Hilton Santa Barbara Beachfront Resort
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Planning Division
Megan Arciniega, Senior Planner
Kathleen Kennedy, Project Planner
I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The Hilton Santa Barbara Beachfront Resort is located on a 23.56-acre lot at 633 E. Cabrillo Blvd. and is comprised of 329,780 square feet of floor area. The resort includes 360 guest rooms, a lobby, meeting/banquet space, restaurants, bars, spa, salon, retail shop, back of house areas (e.g., offices, storage rooms), swimming pool, tennis courts, and 931 parking spaces.
The proposed project consists of a 50,195-square-foot addition to Building B (Bougainvillea), as well as the removal of 2 guest rooms and the reconfiguration of 6 guest rooms in Building B. The project includes the demolition of Building A (Azalea), a 4,027-square-foot building with 8 guest rooms, and the demolition of the tennis courts and 240-square-foot tennis shop. The total number of guest rooms would increase from 360 to 433 guest rooms (a net increase of 73 guest rooms).
The total square footage of the hotel would increase from 329,780 square feet to 375,708 square feet (a net increase of 45,928 square feet).
The proposed project also includes lanai pools, swimming pool, spa, outdoor fire pit lounge area with bar, new landscaping, storm water improvements, soil and groundwater remediation, and public improvements. A total of 22 trees would be removed, 33 trees would be relocated, and 47 trees would be protected. Fifty new trees are proposed.
The total number of vehicle parking spaces onsite would be reduced from 931 spaces to 880 spaces. The adjacent Waterfront Hotel (not yet constructed at 433 E. Cabrillo Blvd.) would be allocated 100 of the spaces through an existing parking easement agreement, resulting in a total of 780 parking spaces for the Hilton hotel project. Valet parking during peak events would provide an additional 71 parking spaces. Bicycle parking spaces would increase from 58 to 100.
Development would occur in the westerly portion of the project site, towards S. Calle Cesar Chavez, except for installation of stormwater improvements and repaving of some parking areas, which would occur in the northern portion of the site. See Exhibits B and C for project plans and applicant letter, respectively.
III.B Item III.B Page 1 of 388 ATTACHMENT 3
Planning Commission Staff Report
633 E. Cabrillo Blvd., Hilton Santa Barbara Beachfront Resort (PLN2022-00443) Report Date: May 8, 2025
II. REQUIRED APPLICATIONS
The discretionary applications required at this hearing under the purview of the Planning Commission are:
A. A Parking Modification to allow less than the required number of vehicle and bicycle parking spaces (SBMC §28.90.100 and §28.92.110);
B. A Development Plan to allow the construction of 2,810 square feet of net new nonresidential floor area allocated from the minor and small addition categories (SBMC Chapter 28.85);
C. A Development Plan for a Transfer of Existing Development Rights Permit to transfer 43,118 square feet from the Waterfront Hotel (433 E. Cabrillo Blvd.) to the project site (SBMC §28.95);
D. A Coastal Development Permit to allow the proposed development in the Appealable and Non-Appealable Jurisdiction of the City’s Coastal Zone (SBMC §28.44.060); and E. Consideration of an Addendum to a previously certified Environmental Impact Report.
Project Design Approval and Final Design Approval by the Historic Landmarks Commission (HLC) will also be required for the project at a later date, if the Planning Commission approves the project (SBMC Chapter 30.220).
APPLICATION DEEMED COMPLETE: September 27, 2024
DATE ACTION REQUIRED: March 26, 2025 (extension granted) III. RECOMMENDATION
If approved as proposed, the project would conform to the City’s Zoning and Building Ordinances, including the Park Plaza Specific Plan (SP-1), and policies of the General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan. Therefore, Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the project, making the findings outlined in Section IX of this report, and subject to the conditions of approval in Exhibit A.
Item III.B Page 2 of 388
Planning Commission Staff Report
633 E. Cabrillo Blvd., Hilton Santa Barbara Beachfront Resort (PLN2022-00443) Report Date: May 8, 2025
Vicinity Map of 633 E. Cabrillo Blvd. (outlined in yellow) Park Plaza Specific Plan No. 1
Item III.B Page 3 of 388
Planning Commission Staff Report
633 E. Cabrillo Blvd., Hilton Santa Barbara Beachfront Resort (PLN2022-00443) Report Date: May 8, 2025
IV. BACKGROUND
In the 1970’s, the Fess Parker family acquired ownership of approximately 33 acres of undeveloped waterfront property. In 1981, an application for a Specific Plan, subdivision to create three lots (Parcels A, B, and C), Development Plan for a hotel and conference center, Parking Modification, Zone Change, and General Plan land use designation change was approved by the Planning Commission, the City Council on appeal, and then by both the Coastal Commission (Application No. 4-81-205) and City Council (City Resolution No. 81-092, Park Plaza Specific Plan). The proposal involved the development of a hotel and conference center on Parcel A, the subject site, and Parcels B and C were reserved for public park and recreational facilities in conjunction with public parking. Other allowed uses for Parcels B and C included visitor-serving uses (not hotels), recreational and open space facilities, and mixed-use development. The City Council also certified the Park Plaza Environmental Impact Report (Earth Metrics, Inc., August 31, 1979).
In 1986, in accordance with the Specific Plan, the Parker family constructed a 360-room hotel and conference center on Parcel A. (The hotel was originally called the Fess Parker Red Lion Inn. In 1996, DoubleTree (a Hilton brand) acquired the hotel, and it became the Fess Parker Doubletree Resort. The hotel was renovated in 2018 and renamed the Hilton Santa Barbara Beachfront Resort.) In conjunction with the hotel development on Parcel A, a public parking lot with 17 parking spaces was developed along the west side of S. Milpas Street, and approximately 2.1 acres of land was provided as public open space in front of the hotel along E. Cabrillo Blvd.
In 1994, the City Council adopted an Amended Specific Plan (See Exhibit D – Park Plaza Specific Plan, Resolution No. 94-030), which allowed for the development of a 150-room hotel on Parcel B (Waterfront Hotel) and a park on Parcel C (Chase Palm Park) and also required the development of a 100-bed youth hostel (a lower-cost overnight accommodation). Among other requirements, the Parker Family deeded land to the City for the park and made annual monetary contributions for maintenance of the park.
Council also certified the Waterfront Park, Hotel and Youth Hostel Final Environmental Impact Report (Interface, June 18, 1993). Since that time, a number of revisions have been made to the approved Waterfront Hotel project, including a reduction in the number of hotel rooms from 150 to 86. The Waterfront Hotel has not been constructed; however, the youth hostel at 12 E. Montecito St. was completed in 2014.
In 2003, the Planning Commission approved amendments to the conditions of approval for the DoubleTree Resort on Parcel A, including deleting conditions that limited conference center capacity, hours, and number of non-hotel guests. A parking modification was approved to allow 1,050 vehicle parking spaces instead of 1,817 spaces, 50 bicycle spaces instead of 133 spaces, and an amendment to assign 100 spaces on the site to the future Waterfront Hotel. The Planning Commission also certified the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (Rincon, March 2003). The approval also removed the Specific Plan requirement that water use be limited to no more than 2.4 acre-feet/acre annually.
Although the Planning Commission, and subsequently the City Council (Resolution No. 03-076), approved the removal of the water use limitation from the Specific Plan, the required Local Coastal Program Amendment was not sent to the California Coastal Commission for approval. Therefore, the water use limitation is still in effect.
Item III.B Page 4 of 388
Planning Commission Staff Report
633 E. Cabrillo Blvd., Hilton Santa Barbara Beachfront Resort (PLN2022-00443) Report Date: May 8, 2025
In 2023, a Substantial Conformance Determination was made to allow repairs to the existing pool and deck; new fencing; and the addition of "lanais" to guest rooms near the pool.
V. SITE INFORMATION AND PROJECT STATISTICS
A. SITE INFORMATION
Applicant: Trish Allen, SEPPS
Property Owner: Fess Parker-Red Lion Hotel, Carl A. Mayfield, Vice President Site Information
Parcel Number: 017-680-013 Lot Area: 21.85 acres
Coastal Land Use Plan: Hotel and
Related Commerce-I
Zoning: HRC-1/SP-1/S-D-3 (Hotel and
Related Commerce / Park Plaza Specific Plan
No. 1, Coastal Overlay
Existing Use: Hotel and Conference
Center Topography: Generally flat, 3% slope
Adjacent Zoning and Land Uses
North: M-1, C-2, S-D-3 Union Pacific Railroad
East: C-2, P-R, S-D-3 Public Right-of-Way (S. Milpas St./ Calle Puerto Vallarta)
South: P-R, S-D-3 Public Right-of-Way (E. Cabrillo Blvd.) West: HRC-2, SP-1, SD-3Public Right-of-Way (S. Calle Cesar Chavez) B. PROJECT STATISTICS
Existing Proposed
Nonresidential SF 329,780 375,708 (net new 45,928)
Hotel Guest Rooms 360 433 (net new 73)
Item III.B Page 5 of 388
Planning Commission Staff Report
633 E. Cabrillo Blvd., Hilton Santa Barbara Beachfront Resort (PLN2022-00443) Report Date: May 8, 2025
VI. ZONING ORDINANCE AND POLICY CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS
A. ZONING ORDINANCE CONSISTENCY
Standard Requirement/
Allowance Existing Proposed
Setbacks
-E. Cabrillo
-S. Calle Cesar Chavez
180 feet for 2 story
33.5 feet
120 feet
>33.5 feet
180 feet
>33.5 feet
Building Height
3 stories, 45 feet with
height-setback relation
study
Building A:
approx. 14-16
feet
31’-6” feet
Parking
-Vehicle 1,469 spaces 931 spaces
851 spaces*
(780 regular
spaces;
71 valet spaces)
-Bicycle 209 spaces (1/7 vehicle
spaces) 58 spaces 100 spaces*
-Waterfront Hotel –
parking easement 100 spaces 100 spaces
*Modification requested
With the approval of the Modifications described below, the project would meet the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance.
1. PARKING MODIFICATION
Vehicle Parking. In 2003, a Parking Modification was granted to allow 1,050 vehicle parking spaces instead of 1,817 spaces. A current survey of the parking supply indicates that there are currently 931 vehicle parking spaces onsite. The parking supply does not include the 17 public parking spaces that are located on the east end of the parcel adjacent to Milpas Street.
With the proposed hotel expansion, the western portion of the parking lot would be reconfigured, resulting in a reduction in the number of onsite parking spaces from 931 spaces to 880 spaces. As noted above, 100 of the existing Hilton Hotel parking spaces would be allocated to the Waterfront Hotel, via an existing parking easement agreement, resulting in a total of 780 parking spaces for the Hilton Hotel. An additional 71 valet parking spaces would be provided in the eastern area of the existing parking lot during peak events, for a total of 851 spaces. Because the number of proposed parking spaces is less than the zoning requirement, a Parking Modification is requested.
The Parking Study (ATE, 2/5/2024) reviewed the parking demand for the hotel (guests and employees), hotel restaurants, meeting /banquet space, spa/salon, and retail shop, concluded that the proposed parking supply of 851 spaces (780 regular and 71 valet) would meet forecasted peak parking demands for the project. The project is forecast to generate a peak shared parking demand of 685 spaces during the day and 695 spaces during the evening on weekdays (resulting in a surplus of 166 (day) and 156 (evening) Item III.B Page 6 of 388
Planning Commission Staff Report
633 E. Cabrillo Blvd., Hilton Santa Barbara Beachfront Resort (PLN2022-00443) Report Date: May 8, 2025
spaces), and a peak shared parking demand of 685 spaces during the day and 688 spaces during the evening on weekends (resulting in a surplus of 166 (day) and 163 (evening) spaces). Because the project would meet the forecasted parking demand, the findings for the Parking Modification can be made. (See Exhibit E – Parking Study).
Bicycle Parking. In 2003, a Parking Modification was granted to allow 50 bicycle spaces instead of 133 spaces. A current survey of the parking supply indicates that there are currently 58 bicycle spaces onsite. Based on the number of vehicle spaces required without the Parking Modification (1,469 vehicle spaces), the required number of bicycle spaces would be 209. The proposal includes an increase in bicycle spaces from 58 to 100.
The hotel will continue to provide bicycle rentals to guests through a third party vendor.
With the increase to 100 bicycle spaces and the third party bicycle rentals, it meets the anticipated demand.
2. DEVELOPMENT PLAN
The existing hotel development consists of 329,780 square feet of nonresidential floor area. The proposed project requires an additional 45,928 square feet of net new nonresidential floor area. A total of 2,810 square feet would be allocated from the minor and small addition categories per the City’s Nonresidential Growth Management Program and a total of 43,118 square feet would be transferred from the Waterfront Hotel through a Transfer Of Existing Development Rights (TEDR) (see TEDR section below).
The findings for the Development Plan can be made because the proposed project complies with all applicable requirements of the General Plan, Coastal Land Use Plan, Specific Plan, and the Zoning Ordinance. Additionally, the proposed project is consistent with principles of sound community planning because the hotel is a permitted use described in the Specific Plan and meets all of the other required criteria in the Specific Plan and Zoning Ordinance and is consistent with the Coastal Land Use Plan. The proposed project would be consistent with development regulations within the Specific Plan related to aesthetics and community character because the Historic Landmarks Commission made preliminary comments regarding the Project Compatibility Analysis Findings. Finally, the proposed development is consistent with the policies of the City of Santa Barbara Traffic Management Strategy because the project would not result in a traffic impact as described in the traffic analysis provided in Section VI.B below.
3. COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT
The project requires a Coastal Development Permit in accordance with SBMC §28.44.060. Most of the hotel parcel is located within the Non-Appealable Jurisdiction of the Coastal Zone, however, the area being redeveloped, at the western side, is in the Appealable Jurisdiction. Coastal Development Permit approval requires findings that the project is consistent with the policies of the California Coastal Act, all applicable policies of the City’s Local Coastal Plan, all applicable implementing guidelines, and all applicable provisions of the Municipal Code. Policy consistency is discussed in Section VI.B below.
Item III.B Page 7 of 388
Planning Commission Staff Report
633 E. Cabrillo Blvd., Hilton Santa Barbara Beachfront Resort (PLN2022-00443) Report Date: May 8, 2025
4. TRANSFER OF EXISTING DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS (TEDR)
In 2016, the City Council approved a Development Agreement between the City of Santa Barbara and American Tradition, LLC (formerly the Parker Family), which gives assurances to the parties regarding the development of the Waterfront Hotel on Parcel B (See Exhibit F-Development Agreement). The Development Agreement includes the process for transferring existing development rights from the Waterfront Hotel to the Hilton hotel. The Agreement states that in the event the Waterfront Hotel project reduces the total entitled square footage originally approved by the City (142,647 square feet), some or all of the unused development rights up to a maximum of 66,834 square feet can be transferred to the Hilton hotel parcel.
Currently, the approved Waterfront Hotel project includes a total of 86 hotel rooms and approximately 97,948 square feet of the 142,647 total square footage previously approved. This leaves approximately 44,699 square feet of development rights available for transfer. The proposed project requests a transfer of 43,118 square feet through the Transfer of Existing Development Rights (TEDR) Permit process.
In regard to the transfer to the Hilton hotel project, the Development Agreement states that “In its review of any application to transfer development rights from the Hotel Parcel to the Fess Parker Hotel Parcel, the City shall take into consideration and give appropriate credit to the Parker Family for those fees, dedications and public improvements made by the Parker Family in satisfaction of its obligations under Development Agreement No. 1, including without limitation its provision of lower-cost visitor accommodations through development of the Hostel, provision of parks and open space through the dedication of the Park Parcel and ongoing annual payments to the City of park maintenance fees, and the provision of traffic and circulation improvements through the payment of fees for the installation of the traffic signal at U.S. 10 I / Cabrillo Boulevard and expansion of Calle Cesar Chavez.”
“Given the physical proximity of the Hotel Parcel to the Fess Parker Hotel Parcel and the similarity of uses at the properties, the City shall use, where appropriate, all applicable reports, environmental documents, studies and other documents prepared by or on behalf of the Parker Family for the development of the Hotel Parcel in its review of any proposed development on the Fess Parker Hotel Parcel resulting from a transfer of development rights from the Hotel Parcel to the Fess Parker Hotel Parcel.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, the City may request additional information or studies with respect to any proposed development of the Fess Parker Hotel Parcel resulting from a transfer of development rights from the Hotel Parcel to the Fess Parker Hotel Parcel and any proposed transfer of development rights from the Hotel Parcel to the Fess Parker Hotel Parcel shall be considered a new development proposal on the Fess Parker Hotel Parcel and shall require a separate development plan application and the requisite environmental review and approvals from the City at such time as the Parker Family may request such transfer.”
Those portions of the Development Agreement underlined above by staff are addressed in sections VI.B Policy Consistency and VII. Environmental Review below.
Item III.B Page 8 of 388
Planning Commission Staff Report
633 E. Cabrillo Blvd., Hilton Santa Barbara Beachfront Resort (PLN2022-00443) Report Date: May 8, 2025
The findings for the TEDR can be made because the developments on both the sending site (Waterfront Hotel) and the receiving site (Hilton hotel) are consistent with the General Plan, Zoning Ordinance, and all applicable provisions of the City’s Municipal Code; the Waterfront Hotel received approval of a project with a reduced amount of square footage that has been determined to be appropriate for the neighborhood; and the Waterfront Hotel has the square footage available for transfer. In addition, the development will comply with any additional specific conditions for a transfer approval, as noted in the Development Agreement.
5. CONSISTENCY WITH THE PARK PLAZA SPECIFIC PLAN (SP-1) The project is consistent with the permitted uses and development regulations (e.g., visual and aesthetics, recreational and open space, housing) of the Amended Park Plaza Specific Plan (SP-1), as shown in the consistency analysis provided in Exhibit G.
B. POLICY CONSISTENCY
The project must be found consistent with the California Coastal Act and the City’s Local Coastal Program (LCP) which implements the California Coastal Act, as well as the General Plan (for Development Plan findings). A complete list of applicable policies is provided as Exhibit H.
The project site is located at the western edge of the East Beach neighborhood of the General Plan. The East Beach neighborhood is bounded on the north by Highway 101; on the south by Cabrillo Boulevard; on the east by the City limits; and on the west by Santa Barbara Street. The East Beach Neighborhood is one of the more diverse neighborhoods in the City from a land use perspective. The East Beach neighborhood between Santa Barbara Street and Milpas Street is currently developed with a diverse mix of industrial, manufacturing, hotel-motel, residential, and public facility uses. The entire neighborhood is in the City’s coastal zone.
The project site is also located within the East Beach Component Area of the LCP Land Use Plan (LUP), which is smaller than the East Beach neighborhood of the General Plan, as it does not include the industrial area or extend as far west as Santa Barbara St. Over half of the land use is Parks/Open Space that includes Chase Palm Park, several other parks, the Santa Barbara Zoo, and the Andrée Clark Bird Refuge. The remainder of this Component Area is a mix of hotels, motels, apartments, condominiums, and general commercial.
There are Coastal Act, LUP, and General Plan policies applicable to the proposed project that address public access; visitor serving and recreational facilities; scenic resources and visual quality; coastal hazards and safety; circulation and parking; storm water management; biological resources; cultural resources (archaeology); and energy.
PUBLIC ACCESS
The proposed project is consistent with Coastal Act section 30252 and LUP Policy 3.1-29 (OffStreet Parking for New Development and Substantial Redevelopment) because the project would enhance public access to the coast by providing adequate parking facilities, and the parking demand analysis concluded that the proposed parking would meet the demand of the project.
Item III.B Page 9 of 388
Planning Commission Staff Report
633 E. Cabrillo Blvd., Hilton Santa Barbara Beachfront Resort (PLN2022-00443) Report Date: May 8, 2025
VISITOR SERVING AND RECREATIONAL FACILITIES
The LUP states that overnight accommodations are an important component of visitor-serving facilities, allowing the public to access and recreate at the coast. Coastal Zone overnight accommodations represent over half of the City’s total inventory of overnight accommodations.
The proposed project is consistent with Coastal Act section 30213 and LUP Policy 3.2-12 (Lower Cost Visitor and Recreational Facilities), which states that lower cost visitor and recreational facilities shall be provided, and that developments providing public recreational opportunities are preferred; and LUP 3.2-14 (New Hotel and Motel Development), which encourages a range of rooms and room prices in order to serve all income ranges. The project is consistent with these policies because, as stated in the TEDR section above, the Development Agreement states, “the City shall take into consideration and give appropriate credit to the Parker Family for those fees, dedications and public improvements made by the Parker Family in satisfaction of its obligations under Development Agreement No. 1, including without limitation its provision of lower-cost visitor accommodations through development of the Hostel, provision of parks and open space through the dedication of the Park Parcel and ongoing annual payments to the City of park maintenance fees.” Therefore, no additional obligation is required to provide lower cost visitor or recreational facilities beyond what has already been provided.
SCENIC RESOURCES AND VISUAL QUALITY
The proposed project includes the removal of a one-story building and tennis courts and the construction of a new three- story addition that would change the visual character of the project site. A height setback relation study was prepared to demonstrate that the proposed project would not negatively impact views of the mountains from Cabrillo Boulevard or the beach.
The project is consistent with Coastal Act Section 30251, LUP Policy 4.3-3 (Design Review), LUP Policy 4.3-4 (Visual Evaluation Requirement), LUP Policy 4.3-5 (Protection of Scenic Resources and Public Scenic Views), LUP Policy 4.3-6 (Obstruction of Scenic View Corridors), and LUP Policy 4.3-7 (Compatible Development), as well as General Plan Environmental Resources Element Policy ER29 (Visual Resources Protection), and General Plan Land Use Element Policy LG12.2 (Building Size, Bulk and Scale) because the project would be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood, would not obstruct scenic corridors or block scenic views, and the project compatibility analysis findings can be made by the Historic Landmarks Commission. The project is also consistent with General Plan Visual Resources policies V3.0, and V3.2, which also address scenic view corridors and setbacks on E. Cabrillo Blvd. to preserve views.
COASTAL HAZARDS AND SAFETY
The project would also be consistent with LUP Policy 5.1-25 (Tsunami Permit Conditions) because the owner would assume the risks of the tsunami hazard zone through the recordation of a deed restriction.
The project would also be consistent with General Plan Safety Element policies S13 (Liquefaction) by complying with the requirements of the geotechnical report submitted with the building permit application and General Plan Safety Element policy S62 (Hazardous Materials) because the project includes soil and groundwater remediation in compliance with all applicable regulations.
Item III.B Page 10 of 388
Planning Commission Staff Report
633 E. Cabrillo Blvd., Hilton Santa Barbara Beachfront Resort (PLN2022-00443) Report Date: May 8, 2025
CIRCULATION AND PARKING
The project would also be consistent with General Plan policies related to circulation, parking, and public improvements, including General Plan policies C6.3 (Transit Pass Program) by providing employer paid transit passes; General Plan policy C7.7 (Bicycle Parking and Other Needs) by providing secure parking, storage, and lockers; General Plan policy CE5.4.2 by increasing the width of the parkway on S. Calle Cesar Chavez; General Plan Policy CE5.7.1 by increasing the width of the sidewalk on S. Calle Cesar Chavez; and General Plan CE7.4.1 by incorporating valet parking into the project.
OTHER APPLICABLE POLICIES
The project would also be consistent Coastal Act section 30231 and LUP Policy 4.2-22 (Storm Water Management) and because the project would control runoff and comply with the City’s Storm Water Management Program.
The project would also be consistent with Coastal Act section 30240 and LUP Policy 4.1-36 (Bird Breeding and Nesting) because the project would protect nesting birds during construction activities.
The project would also be consistent with Coastal Act section 30244 and LUP Policy 4.4-10 (Archaeological Monitoring) because the project would provide archaeological monitoring during construction activities.
The project would also be consistent with General Plan policies ER5.1 (Energy Efficient Buildings) and ER6.6 (Solar Energy) because the project would incorporate energy efficient design and provide for solar photovoltaic arrays.
TRAFFIC GENERATION/ CONSISTENCY WITH TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT STRATEGY Transportation Planning Staff prepared a preliminary traffic analysis of the traffic effects of the proposed project (new 50,195-square-foot, 73-room hotel addition). The City of Santa Barbara’s traffic model was used to determine traffic effects using the model’s specific traffic generation rates, which vary based upon use and location. The proposed project is in Model Area 3 has an AM Peak Hour Trip (PHT) rate of 0.24 trips per 1,000 square feet and a PM PHT rate of 0.33 trips per 1,000 square feet. Using these rates, the project would generate a net increase of 12 AM PHT and 16 PM PHT. Distributing these trips to the city grid would not use one percent or more of the intersection capacity at any of the identified future 2030 anticipated impacted intersections.
Therefore, the proposal would not constitute a project specific traffic effect.
Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT). The proposed project a 50,195 SF addition and net increase of 73 guest rooms will generate greater than 250 and below 1000 net vehicle trips per day. The project can be assumed to have the VMT characteristics of the Growth Management Program Development Area below City Average. No further analysis is required.
VII. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
An Environmental Impact Report (EIR) Addendum was prepared for the proposed project (see Exhibit J – EIR Addendum). With the application of two mitigation measures from the Waterfront Hotel EIR (as conditions of approval), related to archaeological resources, all impacts would be less than significant.
Item III.B Page 11 of 388
Planning Commission Staff Report
633 E. Cabrillo Blvd., Hilton Santa Barbara Beachfront Resort (PLN2022-00443) Report Date: May 8, 2025
VIII. DESIGN REVIEW
The project site is located in El Pueblo Viejo Landmark District and requires review by the Historic Landmarks Commission (HLC). The project was reviewed by the HLC on two occasions (meeting minutes from August 17, 2022 and May 10, 2023 are attached as Exhibit I). On May 10, 2023, the HLC continued the project to the Planning Commission with comments that the Commission appreciated the Applicant addressing the comments from the previous review; was split on the removal of the lawn; felt the lanai pools not necessary or potentially a hazard; generally supported the pool location; and provided other comments regarding other design elements. The Commission found that there were no impacts to the view corridor and that the Project Compatibility Analysis Findings have provisionally been met.
IX. RECOMMENDED FINDINGS
The Planning Commission finds the following:
A. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW (CEQA GUIDELINES §15162 AND §15164) The Planning Commission has considered the Addendum dated May 15, 2025 together with the previously certified Park Plaza Environmental Impact Report (Earth Metrics, Inc., August 31, 1979), and Waterfront Park, Hotel and Youth Hostel Environmental Impact Report (SCH# 92091038) (Interface, June 18, 1993), Red Lion Resort Final Supplemental EIR (SCH #95121040) (Perspective Planning, July 1996); and Doubletree Resort Final Supplemental EIR (SCH #2001081069) (Rincon, March 2003) and finds that the Addendum reflects the independent judgment of the Planning Commission and has been completed in compliance with CEQA. Therefore, the Addendum, together with the previously certified Environmental Impact Reports, is adequate for this project. On the basis of the whole record, including the Addendum, the previously certified CEQA documents, and any public comments received, the Planning Commission finds that the project changes described in the Addendum will neither create any new significant effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects on the environment, nor present new information of substantial importance pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §15162.
B. PARKING MODIFICATION (SBMC §28.92.110)
1. The Parking Modification will not be inconsistent with the purposes and intent of the Zoning Ordinance (Title 28), which are to serve the public health, safety, comfort, convenience, and general welfare and to provide the economic and social advantages resulting from an orderly planned use of land resources, and to encourage, guide and provide a definite plan for the future growth and development of the City. The hotel will provide alternative transportation incentives with the updated visitor information program and updated transportation demand management program, as described in Section VI of the Staff Report dated May 8, 2025 and documented in the conditions of approval.
2. The Parking Modification will not cause an increase in the demand for parking space or loading space in the immediate area because the project is expected to meet the parking demand onsite based on the Parking Study (ATE, 2/05/2024), as described in Section VI of the Staff Report dated May 8, 2025.
Item III.B Page 12 of 388
Planning Commission Staff Report
633 E. Cabrillo Blvd., Hilton Santa Barbara Beachfront Resort (PLN2022-00443) Report Date: May 8, 2025
C. DEVELOPMENT PLAN (SBMC CHAPTER 28.85):
1. The proposed development complies with all applicable provisions of the Zoning Ordinance, including the 1994 Amended Park Plaza Specific Plan, and as described in Section VI of the Staff Report dated May 8, 2025.
2. The proposed development is consistent with the principles of sound community planning because the hotel is a permitted use described in the Park Plaza Specific Plan and meets all of the other required criteria in the Specific Plan, Zoning Ordinance, and Coastal Land Use Plan, as described in Section VI of the Staff Report dated May 8, 2025.
3. The proposed development will not have a significant adverse impact upon the community’s aesthetics or character in that the size, bulk or scale of the development will be compatible with the neighborhood based on the preliminary Project Compatibility Analysis provided by the Historic Landmarks Commission as described in Section VIII of the Staff Report dated May 8, 2025, and the proposed project would be consistent with development regulations within the Specific Plan related to aesthetics and community character, as described in Section VI of the Staff Report dated May 8, 2025.
4. The proposed development is consistent with the policies of the City of Santa Barbara Traffic Management Strategy (as approved by City Resolution No. 13-010 dated March 12, 2013, and amended per Resolution No. 20-042 dated June 23, 2020) as expressed in the allocation allowances specified in SBMC §28.85.050, Traffic Management Strategy, as described in Section VI of the Staff Report dated May 8, 2025.
D. TRANSFER OF EXISTING DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS (SBMC §28.95.060)
1. The proposed development plans for both the sending site (Waterfront Hotel) and the receiving site (Hilton hotel) are consistent with the goals and objectives of the General Plan, Zoning Ordinance, and all applicable provisions of the City’s Municipal Code; and
2. The proposed developments will not be detrimental to the site(s), neighborhood or surrounding areas because the Waterfront Hotel, an approved project, has been determined to be appropriate for the neighborhood, and the Historic Landmarks Commission stated that the Hilton hotel project is compatible with the neighborhood based on the preliminary Project Compatibility Analysis, as described in Section VIII of the Staff Report dated May 8, 2025.
3. The floor area of proposed nonresidential development on the receiving site (Hilton hotel) does not exceed the sum of the amount of Existing Development Rights transferred when added to the amount of Existing Development Rights on the receiving site and does not exceed the maximum development allowed by the applicable zoning of the receiving site, as described in Section VI of the Staff Report dated May 8, 2025.
4. Each of the proposed nonresidential developments on the respective sending site (Waterfront Hotel) and receiving site (Hilton hotel) will meet all standards for review as set forth in Section 28.85.040 (Development Plan Findings) and all provisions of Chapter
28.95 because the development plan findings were made for the Waterfront Hotel and can be made for the Hilton hotel; and the specific conditions for a transfer approval Item III.B Page 13 of 388
Planning Commission Staff Report
633 E. Cabrillo Blvd., Hilton Santa Barbara Beachfront Resort (PLN2022-00443) Report Date: May 8, 2025
included in the 2016 Development Agreement regarding square footage and analysis of the proposed Hilton hotel project have been met, as described in Section VI of the Staff Report dated May 8, 2025.
5. Development remaining, or to be built, on a sending site (Waterfront Hotel) is appropriate in size, scale, use, and configuration for the neighborhood and is beneficial to the community because the project has received all applicable land use and design review approvals.
E. COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT (SBMC §28.44.150)
1. The project is consistent with the policies of the California Coastal Act related to public access; visitor serving and recreational facilities; scenic resources and visual quality; storm water management; biological resources (bird nesting); and cultural resources (archaeology), as described in Section VI.B of the Staff Report dated May 8, 2025.
2. The project is consistent with all applicable policies of the City’s Local Coastal Plan, all applicable implementing guidelines, and all applicable provisions of the Municipal Code related to public access; visitor serving and recreational facilities (including Coastal Act section 30213 and LUP Policy 3.2-12, Lower Cost Visitor and Recreational Facilities); scenic resources and visual quality; coastal hazards and safety; storm water management; biological resources (bird nesting); and cultural resources (archaeology), and meets the required parking demand, and is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood, as described in Section VI.B of the Staff Report dated May 8, 2025.
Exhibits:
A. Conditions of Approval
B. Project Plans
C. Applicant's letter, dated April 30, 2025
D. Park Plaza Specific Plan (Resolution No. 94-030) and Map E. Parking Study (ATE, February 5, 2024)
F. Development Agreement between City and American Tradition, LLC G. Consistency with Park Plaza Specific Plan
H. Applicable Policies
I. HLC Minutes, dated August 17, 2022 and May 10, 2023
J. Addendum to an Environmental Impact Report
The Park Plaza EIR, Waterfront Hotel EIR, Red Lion Supplemental EIR, and DoubleTree Supplemental EIR can be viewed on the City’s website: https://www.santabarbaraca.gov/hilton Contact/Case Planner: Kathleen Kennedy, Project Planner ([email protected])
630 Garden Street, Santa Barbara, CA 93101
Phone: (805) 564-5470 x4560
Item III.B Page 14 of 388
EXHIBIT A
DRAFT PLANNING COMMISSION CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
633 E. CABRILLO BLVD.
HILTON SANTA BARBARA BEACHFRONT RESORT
PARKING MODIFICATION, DEVELOPMENT PLAN, DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE TRANSFER OF EXISTING
DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS, AND COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT
May 15, 2025
I. In consideration of the project approval granted by the Planning Commission and for the benefit of the owner(s) and occupant(s) of the Real Property, the owners and occupants of adjacent real property and the public generally, the following terms and conditions are imposed on the use, possession, and enjoyment of the Real Property:
A. Order of Development. In order to accomplish the proposed development, the following steps shall occur in the order identified:
1. Obtain all required design review approvals.
2. Submit an application for and obtain a Building Permit (BLD) to demolish any structures / improvements and/or perform rough grading. Comply with condition E “Construction Implementation Requirements.”
3. Record any required documents (see Recorded Conditions Agreement section).
4. Permits.
a. Submit an application for and obtain a Building Permit (BLD) for construction of approved development and complete said development.
b. Submit an application for and obtain a Public Works Permit (PBW) for all required public improvements and complete said improvements.
Details on implementation of these steps are provided throughout the conditions of approval.
B. Recorded Conditions Agreement. The Owner shall execute a written instrument, which shall be prepared by Planning staff, reviewed as to form and content by the City Attorney and Community Development Director, recorded in the Office of the County Recorder, and shall include the following:
1. Approved Development. The development of the Real Property approved by the Planning Commission on May 15, 2025 consists of an addition to Building B (Bougainvillea) of approximately 50,195 square feet, resulting in a net increase of 73 guest rooms, for a total of 433 guest rooms; demolition of Building A (Azalea), a 4,027-square-foot building with 8 guest rooms; demolition of tennis courts and 240- square-foot tennis shop; construction of lanai pools, swimming pool, spa, outdoor fire pit lounge area with bar; new landscaping; storm water improvements; soil and groundwater remediation; and public improvements, as described in the Applicant Letter dated April 30, 2025, and as shown on the plans signed by the chairperson of the Planning Commission on said date and on file at the City of Santa Barbara.
2. Uninterrupted Water Flow. The Owner shall allow for the continuation of any historic flow of water onto the Real Property including, but not limited to, swales, natural watercourses, conduits and any access road, as appropriate.
Item III.B Page 15 of 388
DRAFT PLANNING COMMISSION CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
633 E. CABRILLO BLVD., HILTON SANTA BARBARA BEACHFRONT RESORT MAY 15, 2025
PAGE 2 OF 16
3. Recreational Vehicle Storage Prohibition. No recreational vehicles, boats, or trailers shall be stored on the Real Property.
4. Landscape Plan Compliance. The Owner shall comply with the Landscape Plan approved by the Historic Landmarks Commission (HLC). Such plan shall not be modified unless prior written approval is obtained from the HLC. The landscaping on the Real Property shall be provided and maintained in accordance with said landscape plan, including any tree protection measures. If said landscaping is removed for any reason without approval by the HLC, the owner is responsible for its immediate replacement.
5. Storm Water Pollution Control and Drainage Systems Maintenance. Owner shall maintain the drainage system and storm water pollution control devices in a functioning state and in accordance with the Storm Water BMP Guidance Manual and Operations and Maintenance Procedure Plan approved by the Creeks Division.
Should any of the project’s surface or subsurface drainage structures or storm water pollution control methods fail to capture, infiltrate, and/or treat water, or result in increased erosion, the Owner shall be responsible for any necessary repairs to the system and restoration of the eroded area. Should repairs or restoration become necessary, prior to the commencement of such repair or restoration work, the Owner shall submit a repair and restoration plan to the Community Development Director to determine if an amendment or a new Building Permit, or Coastal Development Permit, is required to authorize such work. The Owner is responsible for the adequacy of any project-related drainage facilities and for the continued maintenance thereof in a manner that will preclude any hazard to life, health, or damage to the Real Property or any adjoining property.
6. Tsunami and Seiche Liability Limitation. The Owner acknowledges that the project site may be subject to hazards from tsunamis and/or seiches. The Owner assumes the risks of injury and damage from such hazards in connection with the permitted development. The Owner waives any claim of damage or liability against the City for injury or damage from such hazards. In the event of a tsunami and/or seiche hazard event that damages the development, the Owner shall remove all recoverable debris associated with the development from the beach and the ocean and lawfully dispose of the material at an approved disposal site. Such removal shall require authorization through an emergency and/or regular Coastal Development Permit process.
C. Design Review. The project, including public improvements, is subject to the review and approval of the Historic Landmarks Commission (HLC). The HLC shall not grant project design approval until the following Planning Commission land use conditions have been satisfied.
1. Screened Backflow Device. The backflow devices for fire sprinklers, pools, spas and/or irrigation systems shall be provided in a location screened from public view or included in the exterior wall of the building, as approved by the HLC.
Item III.B Page 16 of 388
DRAFT PLANNING COMMISSION CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
633 E. CABRILLO BLVD., HILTON SANTA BARBARA BEACHFRONT RESORT MAY 15, 2025
PAGE 3 OF 16
2. Location of Dry Utilities. Dry utilities (e.g. above-ground cabinets) shall be placed on private property unless deemed infeasible for engineering reasons. If dry utilities must be placed in the public right-of-way, they shall be painted “Malaga Green,” and if feasible, they shall be screened as approved by HLC.
D. Requirements Prior to Permit Issuance. The Owner shall submit the following, or evidence of completion of the following, for review and approval by the Department listed below prior to the issuance of any permit for the project. Some of these conditions may be waived for demolition or rough grading permits, at the discretion of the department listed.
Please note that these conditions are in addition to the standard submittal requirements for each department.
1. Public Works Department.
a. Approved Public Improvement Plans. Public Improvement Plans as identified in condition D.1.d “S. Calle Cesar Chavez Public Improvements” shall be submitted to the Public Works Department for review and approval.
Upon acceptance of completed public improvement plans, a Building permit may be issued if the Owner has bonded for public improvements and executed the Agreement to Construct and Install Improvements (Not a Subdivision).
b. Water Rights Assignment Agreement. The Owner shall assign to the City of Santa Barbara the exclusive right to extract ground water from under the Real Property in an Agreement Assigning Water Extraction Rights.
Engineering Division Staff prepares said agreement for the Owner’s signature.
c. S. Calle Cesar Chavez Public Improvements. The Owner shall submit C1 public improvement plans for construction of improvements along the property frontage on S. Calle Cesar Chavez. Plans shall be submitted separately from plans submitted for a Building Permit and shall be prepared by a licensed civil engineer registered in the State of California. As determined by the Public Works Department, the improvements shall include new and/or remove and replace to City standards, the following:
approximately 265 linear feet of 6 foot wide sidewalk/ 90 linear feet of 8 foot wide and approximately 265’ of 4 foot wide landscape parkway, driveway apron modified to meet Title 24 requirements with a maximum width of 36 feet, 275 linear feet of curb and gutter, 200 feet of curb only in the median, one Mid-block and one Standard Diagonal access ramp, two Type 1 City Standard Detail Drop Inlets, approximately 400 linear feet of 15” Storm Drain Pipe, approximately 85 linear feet StormTech Chambers, public drainage improvements with supporting drainage calculations and/or hydrology report for installation of drainage pipe, Storm Drain Chambers, or connection to existing City storm drain, preserve and/or reset survey monuments, protect and relocate existing contractor stamps to parkway, supply and install directional/regulatory traffic control signs per the CA Item III.B Page 17 of 388
DRAFT PLANNING COMMISSION CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
633 E. CABRILLO BLVD., HILTON SANTA BARBARA BEACHFRONT RESORT MAY 15, 2025
PAGE 4 OF 16
MUTCD during construction, storm drain stenciling. Any work in the public right-of-way requires a Public Works Permit.
• The S. Calle Cesar Chavez driveway is required to be converted to a standard commercial style driveway, or the radii shall be reduced to 12’-0”.
• Root pruning and root barriers shall be performed and installed with the new sidewalk.
• Median modifications are required to maintain a minimum 20-foot curb to curb width in the northbound direction between E. Cabrillo Blvd and the median opening for the driveway. Restriping of the roadway is required to provide a minimum 2-foot shoulder next to the median, a 12-foot travel lane, and a 6-foot bicycle lane. An opening in the median shall be provided that aligns with the new pedestrian access ramp for crossing S. Calle Cesar Chavez. If the Waterfront Hotel (433 E. Cabrillo Blvd.) project moves forward first, these changes may not be needed or may be altered.
d. Haul Routes Require Separate Permit. Apply for a Public Works permit to establish the haul route(s) for all construction-related trucks with a gross vehicle weight rating of three tons or more entering or exiting the site. e. Construction-Related Truck Trips. Construction-related truck trips for trucks with a gross vehicle weight rating of three tons or more shall not be scheduled during peak hours (7:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m.) in order to help reduce truck traffic on adjacent streets and roadways. f. Agreement to Construct and Install Improvements. The Owner shall submit an executed Agreement to Construct and Install Improvements, prepared by the Engineering Division, an Engineer’s Estimate, signed and stamped by a registered civil engineer, and securities for construction of improvements prior to execution of the Agreement.
g. Encroachment Permits. Any encroachment or other permits from the City or other jurisdictions (State, Flood Control, County, etc.) for the construction of improvements (including any required appurtenances) within their rights of way or easements shall be obtained by the Owner.
h. Valet Parking Agreement. A recorded valet agreement is required before issuance of a building permit. To be reviewed and approved by the Public Works Director and City Attorney.
i. Valet Operations.
(1) A valet operations plan is required to manage parking operations during peak events with 900-1,000 guests as described in the Parking Study (ATE, February 5, 2024).
Item III.B Page 18 of 388
DRAFT PLANNING COMMISSION CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
633 E. CABRILLO BLVD., HILTON SANTA BARBARA BEACHFRONT RESORT MAY 15, 2025
PAGE 5 OF 16
(2) Valet parking services must ensure a parking attendant will be on duty at all times that the facility is in use and provide sufficient staff and facilities to ensure that automobiles are moved promptly. If, at any time, the valet operation is unable to satisfy the parking demand, and queuing or double parking occurs, the operation shall be temporarily closed until the demand can be properly handled.
(3) Valet parking, vehicle storage, pickup, drop-off, or vehicle movements shall not use any street, alley, or City owned parking facilities, or interfere with any right-of-way without approval of the Public Works Director. Valet shall not remove or interfere with automobile or bicycle parking required for any use.
j. No Loading Activities on E. Cabrillo Blvd. No loading activities shall occur on E Cabrillo Blvd. All loading activities shall take place onsite. k. Transportation Demand Management Improvements. The alternative mode incentives identified in condition G.4 “Transportation Demand Management” that require physical improvements shall be shown on the project plans.
l. Visitor Information Program. Submit a copy of the updated Visitor Information Program required by condition G.5 “Visitor Information Program” for approval by the Public Works Director.
2. Community Development Department.
a. Recordation of Agreements. The Owner shall provide evidence of recordation of the written instrument that includes all of the Recorded Conditions identified in condition B “Recorded Conditions Agreement” to the Community Development Department prior to issuance of any building permits.
b. Drainage and Water Quality. The project is required to comply with Tier 4 of the Storm Water BMP Guidance Manual, pursuant to Santa Barbara Municipal Code Chapter 22.87 (treatment, rate and volume). The Owner shall submit a hydrology report prepared by a registered civil engineer or licensed architect demonstrating that the new development will comply with the City’s Storm Water BMP Guidance Manual. Project plans for grading, drainage, stormwater facilities and treatment methods, and project development, shall be subject to review and approval by the City Building Division and Public Works Department. Sufficient engineered design and adequate measures shall be employed to ensure that no unpermitted construction-related or longterm effects from increased runoff, erosion and sedimentation, urban water pollutants (including, but not limited to trash, hydrocarbons, fertilizers, bacteria, etc.), or groundwater pollutants would result from the project.
Item III.B Page 19 of 388
DRAFT PLANNING COMMISSION CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
633 E. CABRILLO BLVD., HILTON SANTA BARBARA BEACHFRONT RESORT MAY 15, 2025
PAGE 6 OF 16
c. Energy Conservation Plan. An updated Energy Conservation Plan shall be submitted for review and approval by the Planning Division, as required by the Park Plaza Specific Plan.
d. Water Conservation. Provide documentation that the project will require less than 2.4 acre feet per year per acre (approximately 56.5 acre feet per year) (AFY) of potable water, as required by the Park Plaza Specific Plan. e. Remediation Action Plan. Owner shall submit the Final Remediation Action Plan and Soil Management Plan approved by Santa Barbara County Environmental Health Services. All remedial action shall be completed by the Owner in compliance with all applicable statutes, ordinances, regulations, and other provisions of law and in a manner consistent with current regulatory guidelines and industry standards. County Environmental Health Services shall oversee all related work and remedial action. The approved Final Remediation Action Plan and Soil Management Plan shall be implemented as part of the construction of the project.
f. Tree Protection Measures. The tree protection measures in the Arborist Report (Bill Mellett Design, October 30, 2023) shall be shown on the plans. g. Archaeological Monitoring Contract. Submit a contract with an archaeologist from the most current City Qualified Archaeologists List to oversee monitoring during all ground-disturbing activities associated with the project, including, but not limited to, grading, excavation, trenching vegetation or paving removal and ground clearance. The contract shall be subject to the review and approval of the Environmental Analyst. The archaeologist’s monitoring contract shall include the provisions identified in condition D.2.h “Requirement for Archaeological Resources” below. h. Requirement for Archaeological Resources. The following information shall be printed on the grading plans:
If archaeological resources are encountered or suspected, work shall be halted or redirected immediately and the Environmental Analyst shall be notified.
The archaeologist shall assess the nature, extent, and significance of any discoveries and develop appropriate management recommendations for archaeological resource treatment, which may include, but are not limited to, redirection of grading and/or excavation activities, consultation and/or monitoring with a local Barbareño Chumash representative.
If a discovery consists of possible human remains, the Santa Barbara County Coroner shall be contacted immediately. If the Coroner determines that the remains are Native American, the Coroner shall contact the California Native American Heritage Commission. A local Barbareño Chumash representative shall be retained to monitor all further subsurface disturbance in the area of the find. Work in the area may only proceed after the Environmental Analyst grants authorization.
Item III.B Page 20 of 388
DRAFT PLANNING COMMISSION CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
633 E. CABRILLO BLVD., HILTON SANTA BARBARA BEACHFRONT RESORT MAY 15, 2025
PAGE 7 OF 16
If the discovery consists of possible prehistoric or Native American artifacts or materials, a local Barbareño Chumash representative shall be retained to monitor all further subsurface disturbance in the area of the find. Work in the area may only proceed after the Environmental Analyst grants authorization.
i. Native American Monitoring. Contract with a local Chumash tribal representative for monitoring during all ground disturbing activities associated with the project including but not limited to, vegetation or paving removal, grading, excavation, and trenching. The contract shall be subject to the review and approval of the Environmental Analyst. The local Chumash tribal representative and archaeologist's monitoring contract shall include the following provisions:
If unknown tribal cultural resources are encountered or suspected, work shall be halted or redirected immediately and the City Environmental Analyst shall be notified.
The local Chumash tribal representative monitor shall assess the nature, extent and significance of any discoveries and develop appropriate management recommendations for tribal cultural resource and archaeological resource treatment. This may require additional consultation with other Chumash tribal representatives.
Resulting management recommendations may include, but are not limited to, archaeological investigations to determine the spatial extent and characteristics of the resources, possible alternative construction methods to avoid the resource, and continued monitoring by the local Chumash tribal representative and archaeologist.
If a discovery consists of possible human remains, the Santa Barbara County Coroner shall be contacted immediately pursuant to Health and Safety Code Sections 7050.5 and Public Resources Code Sections 5097.94, 5097.98, and 5097.99. If the Coroner determines that the remains are Native American, the Coroner shall contact the California Native American Heritage Commission to identify the Most Likely Descendant, who shall work with the project applicant to determine the appropriate disposition of the remains in a location that ensures their preservation in perpetuity. Work in the area may only proceed after the Environmental Analyst grants authorization.
j. Arborist’s Monitoring. Submit to the Planning Division an executed contract with a qualified arborist for monitoring of all work during construction. The contract shall include a schedule for the arborist's presence during grading and construction activities, and is subject to the review and approval of the Planning Division.
Item III.B Page 21 of 388
DRAFT PLANNING COMMISSION CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
633 E. CABRILLO BLVD., HILTON SANTA BARBARA BEACHFRONT RESORT MAY 15, 2025
PAGE 8 OF 16
k. Transfer of Existing Development Rights. The documents transferring the development rights (43,118 square feet) from the Waterfront Hotel at 433 E.
Cabrillo Blvd. to the project site shall be submitted to the Community Development Director for review and approval prior to execution. Once the documents affecting the transfer of rights has been executed and recorded, evidence of the recording shall be submitted to the Community Development Department.
l. Air Quality and Dust Control. The Owner shall contact the Santa Barbara County Air Pollution Control District (APCD) to finalize the regulatory requirements, and best practices related to dust control and emission reduction, that were suggested in the APCD letter dated November 16, 2023.
All requirements shall be reproduced on the plans.
m. Contractor and Subcontractor Notification. The Owner shall notify in writing all contractors and subcontractors of the site rules, restrictions, and Conditions of Approval. Submit a draft copy of the notice to the Planning Division for review and approval.
n. Letter of Commitment for Neighborhood Notification Prior to Construction. The Owner shall submit to the Planning Division a letter of commitment to provide the written notice specified in condition E.1 “Neighborhood Notification Prior to Construction” below. The language of the notice and the mailing list shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Division prior to being distributed. An affidavit signed by the person who compiled the mailing list shall be submitted to the Planning Division. o. Letter of Commitment for Pre-Construction Conference. The Owner shall submit to the Planning Division a letter of commitment to hold the PreConstruction Conference identified in condition E.2 “Pre-Construction Conference” prior to disturbing any part of the project site for any reason. p. Design Review Requirements. Plans shall show all design, landscape and tree protection elements, as approved by the appropriate design review board and as outlined in Section C “Design Review,” and all
elements/specifications shall be implemented on-site.
q. Disaster Evacuation and Safety Plan. Provide an updated Disaster Evacuation and Safety Plan subject to approval by the Fire Department and Planning Division, as required by the Park Plaza Specific Plan. r. Conditions on Plans/Signatures. The final Resolution shall be provided on a full-size drawing sheet as part of the drawing sets. The following statement shall be signed prior to issuance of any permits:
Item III.B Page 22 of 388
DRAFT PLANNING COMMISSION CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
633 E. CABRILLO BLVD., HILTON SANTA BARBARA BEACHFRONT RESORT MAY 15, 2025
PAGE 9 OF 16
The undersigned have read and understand the required conditions and agree to abide by all conditions.
Signed:
_____________________________________________________________ Property Owner Date
_____________________________________________________________ Property Owner Date
E. Construction Implementation Requirements. All of these construction requirements shall be carried out in the field by the Owner and/or Contractor for the duration of the project construction, including demolition and grading.
1. Neighborhood Notification Prior to Construction. At least twenty (20) days prior to commencement of construction, the contractor shall provide written notice to all property owners, businesses, and residents within 300 feet of the project area. The notice shall contain a description of the project, the construction schedule, including days and hours of construction, the name and phone number of the Contractor(s), site rules and Conditions of Approval pertaining to construction activities, and any additional information that will assist Building Inspectors, Police Officers and the public in addressing problems that may arise during construction.
2. Pre-Construction Conference. Not less than 10 days or more than 20 days prior to commencement of construction, a conference to review site conditions, construction schedule, construction conditions, shall be held by the General Contractor. The conference shall include representatives from the Public Works Department Engineering and Transportation Divisions, Community Development Department Building and Planning Divisions, the Property Owner, Archaeologist, Architect, Arborist, Landscape Architect, Biologist, Geologist, Project Engineer, Contractor and each Subcontractor.
3. Construction Contact Sign. Immediately after Building permit issuance, signage shall be posted at the points of entry to the site that list the contractor telephone number, construction work hours, site rules, and construction-related conditions, to assist Building Inspectors and Police Officers in the enforcement of the conditions of approval. The font size shall be a minimum of 0.5 inches in height. Said sign shall not exceed six feet in height from the ground if it is free-standing or placed on a fence. It shall not exceed 24 square feet.
4. Construction Hours. Construction (including preparation for construction work) shall only be permitted Monday through Friday between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. and Saturdays between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m., excluding the following holidays:
Item III.B Page 23 of 388
DRAFT PLANNING COMMISSION CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
633 E. CABRILLO BLVD., HILTON SANTA BARBARA BEACHFRONT RESORT MAY 15, 2025
PAGE 10 OF 16
New Year’s Day January 1st*
Martin Luther King, Jr. Day 3rd Monday in January
Presidents’ Day 3rd Monday in February
Memorial Day Last Monday in May
Independence Day July 4th*
Labor Day 1st Monday in September
Thanksgiving Day 4th Thursday in November
Following Thanksgiving Day Friday following Thanksgiving Day Christmas Day December 25th*
*When a holiday falls on a Saturday or Sunday, the preceding Friday or following Monday, respectively, shall be observed as a legal holiday.
When, based on required construction type or other appropriate reasons, it is necessary to do work outside the allowed construction hours, contractor shall contact the City to request a waiver from the above construction hours, using the procedure outlined in Santa Barbara Municipal Code §9.16.015 Construction Work at Night.
Contractor shall notify all residents within 300 feet of the parcel of intent to carry out said construction a minimum of 48 hours prior to said construction. Said notification shall include what the work includes, the reason for the work, the duration of the proposed work and a contact number.
5. Construction Storage/Staging. Construction vehicle/ equipment/ materials storage and staging shall be done on-site. No parking or storage shall be permitted within the public right-of-way, unless specifically permitted by the Public Works Director with a Public Works permit.
6. Construction Parking. During construction, free parking spaces for construction workers shall be provided on-site or off-site in a location subject to the approval of the Public Works Director.
7. Bird Breeding and Nesting. Activities that could impact nesting or breeding birds protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (including tree trimming, tree removal, construction activities, noise, vibration, or lighting) within or adjoining ESHAs, creeks, wetlands, special wildlife areas, or known nesting or breeding areas shall be prohibited during the nesting and breeding season for birds (February 1- August 30) where feasible.
If it is not feasible to complete such work outside the bird nesting and breeding season, then work may be approved subject to a condition requiring bird nesting and breeding surveys. These surveys should be performed by a qualified biologist no more than fourteen calendar days prior to the start of any activities that could impact nesting or breeding birds. If active nesting or breeding is found, activities that could impact the nesting birds shall be prohibited until any active nest is vacated. If any activities must occur to remediate an imminent danger, measures shall be implemented to avoid and minimize impacts to nesting birds.
Item III.B Page 24 of 388
DRAFT PLANNING COMMISSION CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
633 E. CABRILLO BLVD., HILTON SANTA BARBARA BEACHFRONT RESORT MAY 15, 2025
PAGE 11 OF 16
In the event that an active nest not previously identified is discovered during any tree trimming, tree removal, or construction activity, the contractor shall immediately cease all activities in the area of operations and shall notify the City’s Environmental Analyst. Thereafter, a qualified biologist must inspect the site and follow the abovementioned procedures to protect the nesting birds.
8. Tree Protection Measures. Trees shall be protected with fencing as described in the Arborist Report (Bill Mellett Design, October 30, 2023).
9. Air Quality and Dust Control. The project shall comply with the regulatory requirements, and best practices related to dust control and emission reduction, included in the Santa Barbara County Air Pollution Control District letter dated November 16, 2023, or as updated pursuant to Condition D.2.l.
10. Onsite Archaeological Monitoring. Onsite monitoring by a City-Qualified Archaeologist and as appropriate, a City-qualified Barbareño Chumash Site Monitor, is required for all grading, excavation, trenching, vegetation or paving removal, ground clearance, and site preparation that involves earthmoving operations.
F. Prior to Certificate of Occupancy. Prior to issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy, the Owner of the Real Property shall complete the following:
1. Repair Damaged Public Improvements. Repair any public improvements (curbs, gutters, sidewalks, roadways, etc.) or property damaged by construction subject to the review and approval of the Public Works Department per SBMC §22.60. Where tree roots are the cause of the damage, the roots shall be pruned under the direction of a qualified arborist.
2. Complete Public Improvements. Public improvements, as shown in the public improvement plans or building plans, shall be completed.
3. Archaeological Monitoring Report. A final report on the results of the archaeological monitoring shall be submitted to the Environmental Analyst within 180 days of completion of the monitoring or prior to the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy / Final Inspection, whichever is earlier.
4. Native American Monitoring Report. The Applicant shall submit a final report on the results of the tribal cultural resource monitoring to the Environmental Analyst within 180 days of completion of the monitoring, or prior to the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy / Final Inspection, whichever is earlier. The report shall include a statement as to the duration of monitoring completed, any resources encountered, and a conclusion that any potential impacts to the resource were satisfactorily addressed.
5. New Construction Photographs. Photographs of the new construction, taken from the same locations as those taken of the story poles prior to project approval, shall be taken submitted to the Planning Division.
6. Removal of Storage Containers. The storage containers occupying parking spaces on the eastern side of the project site must be permanently removed.
Item III.B Page 25 of 388
DRAFT PLANNING COMMISSION CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
633 E. CABRILLO BLVD., HILTON SANTA BARBARA BEACHFRONT RESORT MAY 15, 2025
PAGE 12 OF 16
G. General Conditions.
1. Compliance with Requirements. All requirements of the city of Santa Barbara and any other applicable requirements of any law or agency of the State and/or any government entity or District shall be met. This includes, but is not limited to, the Endangered Species Act of 1973 [ESA] and any amendments thereto (16 U.S.C. § 1531 et seq.), the 1979 Air Quality Attainment Plan, and the California Code of Regulations.
2. Waterfront Area Parking District. The Owner shall waive the right to protest the formation of a waterfront area parking district as required by the Park Plaza Specific Plan.
3. Transportation Demand Management. The following alternative mode incentives shall be incorporated into the project as required by the Park Plaza Specific Plan.
Owner shall be responsible for ensuring compliance with the following provisions:
a. Shuttle Service. A shuttle service to the airport and train depot, bus depot, and other hotels shall be provided.
b. Bicycle Parking. A total of one hundred (100) bicycle parking spaces shall be provided for the hotel use, including 8 covered employee spaces. c. Shower and Locker Facilities. Employee shower and locker facilities shall be provided and maintained as approved by the Public Works Director. The showers shall be available for use by employees before and during work hours. Notice of these facilities shall be provided when employees are hired. d. Bus Routes and Schedules Posted. Notice of MTD bus routes and schedules shall be placed and maintained up to date in a central (public) location accessible to employees.
e. Bus Passes. The Owner and/or all employers shall contact the Metropolitan Transit District (MTD) to purchase bus passes or the equivalent for their employees. These passes shall be provided free of charge to employees who request them for travel to and from work. Notice of the free passes shall be provided to existing employees and new employees when they are hired. A copy of any agreements/correspondence with MTD shall be provided to the Public Works Director prior to issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy for the project.
f. Guaranteed Ride Home. In the event of an emergency or work requirement that interferes with the normal transportation arrangement of any employee using mass transportation, a carpool, or a vanpool to get to work, the Owner or employer shall provide cab fare, a company car, or other means to guarantee a free ride home.
4. Visitor Information Program. An updated Visitor Information Program shall be prepared and implemented, subject to review and approval by the Public Works Director. The program shall include, but not be limited to:
Item III.B Page 26 of 388
DRAFT PLANNING COMMISSION CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
633 E. CABRILLO BLVD., HILTON SANTA BARBARA BEACHFRONT RESORT MAY 15, 2025
PAGE 13 OF 16
a. Provide links to alternative transportation sites on the company website. b. Provide information to visitors via email (prior to them coming) regarding alternative transportation available in Santa Barbara.
c. A means of providing train, bus, and airline schedules and maps to prospective hotel guests.
d. A means of providing hotel guests with information on alternative transportation modes, schedules, and maps of access to the Central Business District, beach area, and other local and regional points of interest. In addition, the hotel operator shall contact the Metropolitan Transit District to purchase bus and/or shuttle passes or tokens for hotel guests. Explicit notice of the free passes shall be provided to hotel guests upon arrival, and these passes shall be available to any guests who request them. e. Advertisement for and solicitation of meetings and other events which includes explanation of the City's clean air and energy reduction goals and an explanation of the benefits of using alternative and active transportation modes.
f. A means of coordinating special events with the City so that appropriate traffic controls, rerouting, and timing of events can be achieved. g. Bicycle rentals shall be provided for hotel guests. The rental bicycles shall not use the bicycle spaces required for guests and employees.
5. Recyclable Material Use and Collection for Hotels. Hotel operators shall encourage guests to recycle by using recyclable materials, and providing sufficient and appropriate receptacles, such as recycling containers, in each room. Recyclable material and green waste collection and pick-up areas shall be provided on-site for the hotel operations. A minimum of 50 percent of the area devoted to holding trash for the project shall be used for recycling purposes.
6. Recyclable Material Use and Collection for Restaurants. Restaurant operators shall encourage guests to recycle by using recyclable materials, and providing sufficient and appropriate receptacles, such as recycling containers. Recyclable material (and green waste) collection and pick-up areas shall be provided on-site for the restaurant operations. A minimum of 50 percent of the area devoted to holding trash for the project shall be used for recycling purposes.
7. BMP Training. Training on the implementation of Best Management Practices (BMPs) shall be provided to every employee by the property owner/management in order to prevent or reduce the discharge of pollutants to storm water from buildings and ground maintenance. The training shall include using good housekeeping practices, preventive maintenance and spill prevention and control at outdoor loading/ unloading areas in order to keep debris from entering the storm water collection system.
Item III.B Page 27 of 388
DRAFT PLANNING COMMISSION CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
633 E. CABRILLO BLVD., HILTON SANTA BARBARA BEACHFRONT RESORT MAY 15, 2025
PAGE 14 OF 16
8. Approval Limitations.
a. The conditions of this approval supersede all conflicting notations, specifications, dimensions, and the like which may be shown on submitted plans.
b. All buildings, roadways, parking areas and other features shall be located substantially as shown on the plans approved by the Planning Commission. c. Any deviations from the project description, approved plans or conditions must be reviewed and approved by the City, in accordance with the Planning Commission Guidelines. Deviations may require changes to the permit and/or further environmental review. Deviations without the above-described approval will constitute a violation of permit approval.
9. Litigation Indemnification Agreement. In the event the Planning Commission approval of the Project is appealed to the City Council, Applicant/Owner hereby agrees to defend the City, its officers, employees, agents, consultants and independent contractors (“City’s Agents”) from any third party legal challenge to the City Council’s denial of the appeal and approval of the Project, including, but not limited to, challenges filed pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (collectively “Claims”). Applicant/Owner further agrees to indemnify and hold harmless the City and the City’s Agents from any award of monetary damages, attorney fees, or court costs made in connection with any Claim.
Applicant/Owner shall execute a written agreement, in a form approved by the City Attorney, evidencing the foregoing commitments of defense and indemnification within thirty (30) days of being notified of a lawsuit regarding the Project. These commitments of defense and indemnification are material conditions of the approval of the Project. If Applicant/Owner fails to execute the required defense and indemnification agreement within the time allotted, the Project approval shall become null and void absent subsequent acceptance of the agreement by the City, which acceptance shall be within the City’s sole and absolute discretion. Nothing contained in this condition shall prevent the City or the City’s Agents from independently defending any Claim. If the City or the City’s Agents decide to independently defend a Claim, the City and the City’s Agents shall bear their own attorney fees, expenses, and costs of that independent defense.
II. Time Limits:
A. NOTICE OF MODIFICATION APPROVAL TIME LIMITS:
The Planning Commission action approving the Parking Modification shall terminate three (3) years from the effective date of the approval, per Santa Barbara Municipal Code §30.205.120, unless:
1. An extension is granted by the Community Development Director prior to the expiration of the approval; or
Item III.B Page 28 of 388
DRAFT PLANNING COMMISSION CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
633 E. CABRILLO BLVD., HILTON SANTA BARBARA BEACHFRONT RESORT MAY 15, 2025
PAGE 15 OF 16
2. A Building permit for the use authorized by the approval is issued and the construction authorized by the permit is being diligently pursued to completion and issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy.
B. NOTICE OF DEVELOPMENT PLAN and TRANSFER OF EXISTING
DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS TIME LIMITS:
The Planning Commission action approving the Development Plan, Transfer of Existing Development Rights shall expire four (4) years from the date of approval per Santa Barbara Municipal Code §28.85.090, unless:
1. A building or grading permit for the work authorized by the development plan is issued prior to the expiration date of the approval.
2. The Community Development Director grants an extension prior to the expiration of the approval.
C. NOTICE OF COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT TIME LIMITS:
The Planning Commission action approving the Coastal Development Permit shall expire two (2) years from the date of final action upon the application, per Santa Barbara Municipal Code §28.44.230, unless:
1. Otherwise explicitly modified by conditions of approval for the coastal development permit.
2. A Building permit for the work authorized by the coastal development permit is issued prior to the expiration date of the approval.
3. The Community Development Director grants an extension of the coastal development permit approval. The Community Development Director may grant up to three (3) one-year extensions of the coastal development permit approval. Each extension may be granted upon the Director finding that: (i) the development continues to conform to the Local Coastal Program, (ii) the applicant has demonstrated due diligence in completing the development, and (iii) there are no changed circumstances that affect the consistency of the development with the General Plan or any other applicable ordinances, resolutions, or other laws.
D. NOTICE OF TIME LIMITS FOR PROJECTS WITH MULTIPLE APPROVALS (SBMC § 30.205.120):
If a project requires multiple discretionary permits or approvals, the expiration date shall be measured from date of final action of the City on the longest discretionary approval permit or approval related to the application (excluding design review approval), unless otherwise specified by State or federal law.
Item III.B Page 29 of 388
DRAFT PLANNING COMMISSION CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
633 E. CABRILLO BLVD., HILTON SANTA BARBARA BEACHFRONT RESORT MAY 15, 2025
PAGE 16 OF 16
4. The Community Development Director grants an extension of the coastal development permit approval. The Community Development Director may grant up to three (3) one-year extensions of the coastal development permit approval. Each extension may be granted upon the Director finding that: (i) the development continues to conform to the Local Coastal Program, (ii) the applicant has demonstrated due diligence in completing the development, and (iii) there are no changed circumstances that affect the consistency of the development with the General Plan or any other applicable ordinances, resolutions, or other laws.
E. NOTICE OF TIME LIMITS FOR PROJECTS WITH MULTIPLE APPROVALS (SBMC § 30.205.120):
If a project requires multiple discretionary permits or approvals, the expiration date shall be measured from date of final action of the City on the longest discretionary approval permit or approval related to the application (excluding design review approval), unless otherwise specified by State or federal law.
Item III.B Page 30 of 388
EXHIBIT B
PROJECT PLANS
633 E. Cabrillo Blvd.
Hilton Santa Barbara Beachfront Resort
PLN2022-00443
May 15, 2025
Project plans for the May 15, 2025 Planning Commission Meeting are available for viewing electronically at: SantaBarbaraCA.gov/PC.
After the hearing, the plans will be transferred the city’s Archived Agendas & Documents system.
Item III.B Page 31 of 388
30 April 2025
Planning Commission
City of Santa Barbara
630 Garden Street
Santa Barbara, CA 93101
RE: Hilton Santa Barbara Beachfront Resort; 633 E. Cabrillo Blvd.; APN 017-680-013; PLN2022-00443; Project Description/Applicant Letter
Dear Planning Commissioners:
On behalf of Fess Parker-Red Lion Hotel, owner of the Hilton Santa Barbara Beachfront Resort, we are pleased to submit this Project Description/Applicant Letter as part of the project Planning Application (PLN) submittal materials for the addition to Building B (the Project) proposed at 633 East Cabrillo Boulevard, more commonly known as the Hilton Santa Barbara Beachfront Resort (Hilton SB).
I. Background
Given the project area development history, we have provided an overview of the key components as they relate to the subject site and proposed Project.
In the 1970s, the Parker Family acquired ownership of approximately 33 acres of undeveloped waterfront property located within the City of Santa Barbara. The City and the Parkers began to revitalize the waterfront area, specifically along Cabrillo Boulevard.
As part of the revitalization plan, the existing Hilton SB was constructed (formerly known as the Fess Parker Hotel, a Doubletree Hotel, and before that the Fess Parker Red Lion Hotel).
In 1981, the Santa Barbara City Council adopted Specific Plan No. 1 Park Plaza (the Park Plaza Specific Plan) to govern the following parcels:
• Parcel A - Hilton SB (633 E. Cabrillo Blvd., APN 017-680-013); • Parcel B - Santa Barbara Waterfront Hotel (433 E. Cabrillo Blvd., APN 017-680-009 Hotel site, “South Parcel” and 103 S. Calle Cesar Chavez, APN 017-113-037 Santa Barbara Waterfront Hotel Parking Lot site, “North Parcel”)1 and, 1 Following the 1981 Specific Plan, the North Parcel was subsequently split into two parcels. APN 017-113-036 is dedicated to parking for the Waterfront Hotel and APN 017-113-037 is the American Tradition parcel.
EXHIBIT C Item III.B Page 32 of 388
633 E. Cabrillo Blvd. – Hilton SB; Planning Application Project Description/Applicant Letter
30 April 2025
• Parcel C – Chase Palm Park (321, 223, & 221 E. Cabrillo Blvd., APN’s 017-680-011, - 012, and -004)
As part of the implementation of the Park Plaza Specific Plan (SP-1), the City of Santa Barbara entered into a Development Agreement (the Agreement) with American Tradition, LLC (formerly the Parker Family), recorded on December 20, 2016 and rerecorded on July 6, 2017 [see Attachment 1]. The Agreement identifies that in the event the SB Waterfront Hotel project on Parcel B uses less than the total entitled square feet originally approved by the City (142,647 square feet for hotel rooms/nonresidential floor area) (Ord. No. 4950 and Reso. No. 032-07), some or all of the unused development rights up to a maximum of 66,834 square feet can be transferred to Parcel C (the Hilton SB parcel).
At this time, the entitled SB Waterfront Hotel will include a total of 86 new hotel rooms and use approximately 97,948 square feet of the 142,647 total square footage allowed (PLN2016-00284 and BLD2021-02682). This leaves approximately 44,699 square feet of unused development rights. This Project proposes to transfer approximately 43,118 square feet of the unused SB Waterfront Hotel development rights on Parcel B via a Transfer of Existing Development Rights (TEDR) to the Hilton SB site on Parcel C in order to construct an addition consisting of 73 net new guest rooms2.
II. Zoning and Existing Site Development
The subject property is 21.85 acres with an average slope of 3%. It is zoned HRC-1 (Hotel and Related Commerce Zones)/ SD-3 (Coastal Overlay)/SP-1 (Park Plaza Specific Plan No.1), contains a General Plan Land Use Designation of Hotel and Related Commerce and is located in El Pueblo Viejo District.
Hilton SB is comprised of ten (10) buildings of between one and three stories. The 360- room hotel is 329,780 SF which includes an ~24,909 SF conference facility and a 389-seat restaurant. The hotel also includes a multitude of amenities such as a pool, fitness center, tennis courts, bar and expansive open spaces. There are currently 931 existing parking spaces (100 of which will become parking for the SB Waterfront Hotel through the grant of an easement when the SB Waterfront Hotel is developed). Following the proposed improvements, the Project site (excluding the SB Waterfront Hotel’s parking easement area) will have 780 striped parking spaces.
2 The Project will add approximately 50,195 square feet of building area to the existing Hotel and will replace some existing guest rooms for a resulting number of 73 new guest rooms.
Item III.B Page 33 of 388
633 E. Cabrillo Blvd. – Hilton SB; Planning Application Project Description/Applicant Letter
30 April 2025
See section IV below for additional detail regarding access and parking and to the data provided on the project plans cover sheet, T.01.
The surrounding land uses are as follows:
North – Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR)/Industrial uses;
South – Palm Park, East Beach;
East – Cabrillo Park; commercial, hotel, and residential use; and West - Vacant Parcel (entitled SB Waterfront Hotel project) and Chase Palm Park III. Proposed Project and Specific Plan No. 1
The proposed Project consists of an addition to Building B (Bougainvillea) of approximately 50,195 SF, resulting in a net increase of 73 guest rooms to the Hilton SB. The Project also proposes the removal of existing 4,027 SF Building A (Azalea) to make way for the following improvements: an adult swimming pool with a heated outdoor spa, outdoor fire pit lounge area and bar, landscaping, stormwater improvements, soil and groundwater remediation, and public improvements. The Project also proposes the removal of the existing tennis courts and the existing 240 SF structure housing the current tennis shop. The area of work is proposed to occur in the westerly portion of the parcel, toward South Calle Cesar Chavez and East Cabrillo Boulevard.
In addition to the base zone district, HRC-1 (Hotel and Related Commerce Zone), Specific Plan (SP) No. 1 includes development standards that inform the Project. These standards include required setbacks, height, water conservation and drainage, to name a few. SP No. 1 limits the building height to two (2) stories, not to exceed thirty (30) feet; however, there is a provision for a maximum building height of three (3) stories, not to exceed 45 feet, provided that HLC is supportive of the height studies to demonstrate protection of public mountain views. See Section VI below which provides a summary of Historic Landmarks Commission (HLC) feedback, and their request to supplement the height setback relation study that was presented.
In summary, the Project is consistent with the applicable development standards contained in SP No. 1, and the architecture of the proposed expansion of the hotel will be compatible with the existing architecture and consistent with the architectural styles within El Pueblo Viejo.
Nonresidential Growth Management Program & Transfer of Existing Development Rights An application for a nonresidential development project is regulated by the City’s Nonresidential Growth Management Program, Santa Barbara Municipal Code Section
28.85, such that new nonresidential floor area must be allocated from either the Item III.B Page 34 of 388
633 E. Cabrillo Blvd. – Hilton SB; Planning Application Project Description/Applicant Letter
30 April 2025
small/minor additional floor area categories or via a Transfer of Existing Development Rights (TEDR).
As stated previously, the Project proposes an approximate 50,195 SF addition to Building B, utilizing: 43,118 SF of TEDR from the Waterfront Hotel, square footage from the demolition of the existing buildings (Building A (4,027 SF)and the tennis shop (240 SF), and a square footage allocation from the minor/small additions categories of 2,810 SF (190 SF was previously allocated for the cooking cabana), resulting in a net increase of 73 guest rooms.
IV. Access, Parking and Parking Study
The project proposes to retain the existing driveway access and egress that currently exists from Calle Puerto Vallarta and South Calle Cesar Chavez. The project will include public improvements along Calle Cesar Chavez to provide a six (6)-foot wide sidewalk and four (4)-foot wide parkway in compliance with the City’s Pedestrian Master Plan and consistent with the public improvements that were required for the Waterfront Hotel.
A Parking Study has been prepared by Associated Transportation Engineers (ATE), dated February 5, 2024, which reviews the Project’s Zoning Ordinance parking requirements, calculates the Project’s peak parking demands, and evaluates the adequacy of the proposed parking supply.
The Project will be located in the area of the existing tennis courts and parking spaces located on the western side of the property requiring a reconfiguration of the parking lots in this area, a change in parking circulation, new landscape planters and permeable pavers. With the changes to the existing parking lot resulting from the Project, and after grant of the easement to the SB Waterfront Hotel, the total parking supply available to the Hilton SB will be reduced from 931 spaces to 780 spaces. Further, the Project proposes implementation of valet parking in the eastern area of the existing parking lot during peak events to accommodate an additional 71 vehicles. Refer to the updated Parking Study which includes the proposed valet parking operations. The ATE Parking Study concludes that the proposed parking supply of 851 spaces (780 regular and 71 valet) would meet forecasted peak parking demands.
V. Storm Water Management
The proposed Project requires Tier 4 compliance with the City’s Storm Water Management Program for the area of disturbance. As stated previously, the proposed improvements are focused on the westerly portion of property, improving approximately
3.4 acres of the 21.85-acre site. Given that the subject property is larger than 2 acres, Item III.B Page 35 of 388
633 E. Cabrillo Blvd. – Hilton SB; Planning Application Project Description/Applicant Letter
30 April 2025
Santa Barbara Municipal Code section 22.87.101 allows for a case-by-case determination of the project site area in which to achieve storm water compliance.
Flowers & Associates, Inc., has prepared a Preliminary Drainage Analysis and Storm Water Compliance Report, dated May 2024. The existing site conditions, such as drainage areas, drainage patterns and groundwater levels, have been taken into consideration to achieve optimum storm water treatment for the project area. The project components include: 1) Reduction of peak flows for storms up to the 25-year storm; 2) Storm water volume reduction; 3) Water quality treatment of 1-inch storm of the project’s defined impervious area. This treatment will be achieved by adding StormTech DC-780 Chambers along the northern boundary of the parking lot and installing catch basin filters to the existing catch basins. Existing and new catch basins in this area will be fitted with FloGard catch basin insert filters for stormwater pre-treatment. Stormwater from the site will be conveyed via storm drains that connect to an underground StormTech chamber basin for stormwater treatment and retention.
Underground StormTech DC-780 Chambers with pre-treatment devices are proposed within the project area and are designed to treat roof runoff from the new building and hardscape throughout the project area. In summary, the Report demonstrates that the proposed project meets and exceeds the City Tier 4 storm water requirements for treatment, volume reduction, and flow rate control.
VI. Remedial Action Plan
The proposed Project includes remediation efforts at the site in alignment with the Interim Remedial Action Plan (IRAP) to address the remediation of residual volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and metals in soil at the western portion of the hotel. Extra testing has been planned and a Final Remediation Action Plan and Soil Management Plan will be prepared and approved by Santa Barbara County Environmental Health Services, which will oversee the work and remedial action. The Plan may include removing contaminated soil, installing systems to prevent harmful vapors from getting into future buildings, and treating or properly disposing of polluted groundwater found during construction. Remediation shall be implemented as part of the construction of the Project.
VII. Historic Landmarks Commission
A Pre-Application Design Consultation hearing was held before the Historic Landmarks Commission (HLC) on August 17, 2022. In general, the HLC was supportive of the Project, stating positive comments associated with the 3rd floor and a request to provide Item III.B Page 36 of 388
633 E. Cabrillo Blvd. – Hilton SB; Planning Application Project Description/Applicant Letter
30 April 2025
additional view shed studies. Suggestions were made to simplify the proposed architecture and detailing when the Project returns for further review.
On May 10, 2023 a concept review hearing was held before the HLC. The Commission stated their appreciation of the thorough presentation and how their previous comments were addressed. Overall, the Project was well received, the Commission found the view corridors to be supportable as presented with no negative impacts, and the Project Compatibility Analysis Findings were provisionally met.
VIII. Visual Resources
The proposed Project must comply with the City’s Coastal Land Use Plan Scenic Resources & Visual Quality Policies and those contained in SP-1. The Project plans include visual studies from various vantage points and 3D perspectives demonstrating that the Project will not impact significant public views, specifically views from Cabrillo Boulevard (shoreline) toward the upper foothills and mountains beyond will be preserved. Further, the visual studies demonstrate that the Project is visually compatible with the existing onsite development and the surrounding adjacent development. Refer to Sheets G05 – G07 and A11.01 – A11.04.
The City’s coastal policies also include tree protection and replacement policies. The proposed Project has been sited and designed to preserve and protect, to the extent feasible, existing mature trees. A Tree Protection, Removal, and Relocation plan is included in the Project materials, see Sheet L0.1. Of the 100 existing trees, 47 will be protected in place, 33 will be relocated on-site, 22 will be removed, and 50 additional trees are proposed to be planted. Additionally, the proposed landscaping and irrigation will be compliant with water conservation policies.
IX. Discretionary Applications
The Project includes the following discretionary actions for consideration:
1. A Transfer of Existing Development Rights SBMC §28.95.
2. Development Plan Approval to allow an addition consisting of non-residential square footage via an allocation from the Minor and Small Addition categories and a Transfer of Existing Development Rights per SBMC §28.85.
3. A Coastal Development Permit to allow development in the Non-Appealable Jurisdiction of the Coastal Zone per SBMC §28.44.060.
Item III.B Page 37 of 388
633 E. Cabrillo Blvd. – Hilton SB; Planning Application Project Description/Applicant Letter
30 April 2025
4. A Parking Modification to allow for less than the required number of parking spaces (vehicular and bicycle), per SB MC §28.44.060.
X. Project Justifications
The proposed Project is carried out in a manner consistent with the City’s Zoning Ordinance and Specific Plan 1, including the applicable policies in place for development in the Coastal Zone. The intent of the property zoning and General Plan Land Use Designation of Hotel Related Commerce is to allow for visitor-serving development, and the subject site will continue to provide a location to hold corporate events and conferences that support the local economy.
Additionally, the Project design, mass, bulk, size and scale has taken into consideration the applicable City Coastal Policies associated with protection of visual resources and will be further reviewed by the City’s Historic Landmarks Commission for compliance with these policies, as well as meeting the standards of high-quality architecture, use of materials, and high-quality landscaping.
The requested parking modification to allow less than the required number of vehicle and bicycle parking spaces is justified in consideration of the shared parking analysis contained in the ATE Parking Study (February 5, 2024) which concludes that the proposed on-site parking supply meets the forecasted peak parking demands.
This concludes our Applicant Letter/Project Description as part of Hilton SB PLN submittal to the Land Development Team and Planning Commission.
Please do not hesitate to call me if you have any questions or require additional information related to our submittal.
On behalf of the applicant and project team, we thank you for your consideration of the proposed project.
Sincerely,
SEPPS Land Use Consulting
Trish Allen, AICP
Principal Planner
Item III.B Page 38 of 388
633 E. Cabrillo Blvd. – Hilton SB; Planning Application Project Description/Applicant Letter
30 April 2025