Santa Barbara Council upholds Planning Commission approval for Hilton expansion, denies Unite Here Local 11 appeal

The Santa Barbara City Council on Sept. 23 denied an appeal by Unite Here Local 11 and upheld the Planning Commission’s approval of the Hilton Santa Barbara Beachfront Resort expansion at 633 East Cabrillo Boulevard.

The council’s 6-0 vote (Council Member Oscar Gutierrez absent) adopts the planning staff recommendation to deny the appeal and uphold the commission’s decision to allow a net increase of 73 guest rooms and the transfer of more than 43,000 square feet of approved floor area to the Hilton. Council Member Jordan moved to deny the appeal; Council Member Harmon seconded. The motion passed unanimously by members present.

Why it matters: the hearing focused on whether the project relied on an expired development agreement and whether the project circumvents city and Coastal Act policies meant to protect “lower cost” visitor accommodations. Appellants said a 100‑bed hostel that was part of the original Park Plaza approvals and later related development agreements has been allowed to operate as a high‑end boutique property rather than providing low‑cost beds, and that the city should require mitigation before approving transfer of vested square footage. Project proponents and staff said the development agreement was valid and the hostel obligation had been satisfied as a condition of the waterfront project, so the Hilton may receive the vested square‑foot transfer as a matter of contract and municipal code.

Staff outline and evidence Kathy Kennedy, the city project planner, told council the project seeks a net increase of 45,928 square feet and 73 rooms, demolition and reconfiguration of portions of the existing site, and discretionary approvals that include a parking modification, development plan for transfer of development rights (TEDR), a coastal development permit and an addendum to a previously certified EIR. She summarized background going back to the Park Plaza Specific Plan (SP‑1) and the 2016 development agreement that memorialized vested floor‑area rights for the waterfront hotel and allowed a transfer of excess square footage should that waterfront project be reduced in size. Kennedy said the development agreement has been extended multiple times and is currently valid through Dec. 23, 2027, with the TEDR section valid through 2029, and staff found the TEDR application was filed timely and the transfer consistent with the agreement and the city’s municipal code.

Appellant’s case Attorney Jordan Sisson, representing the appellants, argued the development agreement was intended to secure a bargained exchange: luxury hotel rooms in return for a 100‑bed youth hostel providing “lower cost” visitor accommodations. Sisson said the record shows the city and the Coastal Commission expected a continuing operation of that hostel as lower‑cost lodging and that the hostel currently does not provide the low‑cost beds relied on in that bargain. “They were promised a 100 beds, but they got 0,” Sisson said, and he urged the council to enforce the original obligations rather than allow vested square footage to move forward without mitigation, monitoring or on‑site affordable accommodations.

Applicant and owner response The applicant’s legal team and owners countered that the Parker family (the original waterfront developer) constructed a hostel and that a certificate of occupancy was issued in 2014. Cameron Goodman of Price, Postel & Parma told council that American Tradition (the Parker family entity) and subsequent owners completed the mitigation required by the development agreement; once the hostel was sold to an unrelated third party, American Tradition and the current applicant had no operational control or enforcement rights over the hostel. Goodman said the DA has been extended in writing multiple times and that transfers are measured in square footage rather than room count, so the city has no discretion to impose further mitigation on the Hilton transfer. Eli Parker, speaking for the Hilton ownership, said the Planning Commission and Historic Landmarks Commission had both unanimously approved the project and asked council to uphold those decisions so the project could proceed.

Public comment and community concerns Dozens of public commenters addressed the meeting, many urging the council to prioritize or enforce lower‑cost overnight accommodations. Speakers and organizations calling for enforcement included Unite Here Local 11, labor and coastal access advocates, and local nonprofits. Commenters cited county and Coastal Commission analyses showing Santa Barbara County’s coastal zone has a low share of low‑cost rooms and argued that the hostel at 12 East Montecito Street (the Wayfarer/Moxie in public statements) is not functioning as the 100‑bed lower‑cost facility the original approvals intended. City staff and the Planning Commission noted they will investigate compliance and enforcement of the hostel’s conditions of approval separately from today’s quasi‑judicial appeal.

Council questions and deliberation Council members questioned staff and counsel about whether the development agreement’s obligations are a construction obligation or an ongoing operational obligation, whether deed or title conditions recorded the hostel requirement, the timing and validity of extensions to the development agreement, and the legal consequences if the council were to deny the appeal (including potential writs and claims for breach of contract or unlawful revocation of vested rights). Several council members expressed concern about the city’s lack of low‑cost accommodations overall and said the matter points to the need to revisit the local coastal program and city policy. On the legal and procedural questions, staff and the applicant pointed to the 2011 city attorney letter and the 2016 development agreement language that staff says memorialized satisfaction of the mitigation by construction of the hostel.

Outcome and next steps Council denied the appeal and upheld the Planning Commission’s approvals. Staff said it will continue to investigate the operational status of the hostel property and pursue enforcement as warranted; the Planning Commission representative said commissioners had requested that staff investigate and pursue enforcement if necessary. Council members who voted to deny the appeal said they were not endorsing past decisions but were bound by the development agreement, the city’s record and the legal constraints of vested rights.

Votes at a glance - Resolution (Consent): Adopt the 2025–2027 memorandum of understanding between the City of Santa Barbara and the Santa Barbara Fire Management Association and amend Resolution No. 25‑071 (Position and Salary Control Resolution for FY2026) to affect salaries of certain Fire Management Association classifications. Motion to approve consent calendar: moved by Council Member Freeman; seconded by Council Member Santa Maria; outcome: approved unanimously by all present (Council Member Oscar Gutierrez absent). - Resolution (Item 4): Deny the appeal filed by the law office of Jordan Sisson on behalf of Unite Here Local 11; uphold the Planning Commission’s approval of the 633 East Cabrillo Boulevard Hotel Expansion Project (Hilton Santa Barbara Beachfront Resort). Motion: moved by Council Member Jordan; seconded by Council Member Harmon; outcome: denied appeal/upheld Planning Commission, unanimous by all present (Council Member Oscar Gutierrez absent).

What the council did not decide today Council did not change the local coastal program (LCP) or the Coastal Act standards. Several council members said they want staff to explore potential LCP amendments or other policy changes to increase lower‑cost visitor accommodations in the city, a process that would require additional study and likely several months to years and a subsequent Coastal Commission review.

The council action preserves the Planning Commission’s approvals and allows the applicant to proceed through permit processing under the conditions set by the planning and historic commission approvals; separate enforcement work on the hostel’s operating status will continue as an administrative matter.

Ending The council’s decision closes the appeal but leaves unresolved broader policy questions about the availability of low‑cost overnight accommodations on Santa Barbara’s coast and the city’s approach to enforcing long‑standing conditions tied to development agreements and specific plans. Staff signaled it will investigate the hostel’s current operations and report back as needed.