Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Housing Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Architectural board approves design for 90‑unit Milpas/Gutiérrez mixed‑use project after heated public testimony
Summary
The Santa Barbara Architectural Board of Review voted to grant project design approval for a four‑story, 90‑unit mixed‑use building at 18 North Milpas/915–923 East Gutiérrez Street, finding it consistent with applicable design guidelines despite extensive resident opposition on traffic, flooding and shadowing.
The Santa Barbara Architectural Board of Review on a vote approved project design for a proposed four‑story, mixed‑use building at 18 North Milpas and 915–923 East Gutiérrez Street, finding the project consistent with applicable design guidelines and the city’s zoning standards.
The project team proposes a new 108,698‑square‑foot mixed‑use building on a merged site of about 41,477 square feet, with 90 rental units (29 studios, 46 one‑bedrooms, 15 two‑bedrooms), an average unit size of about 632 square feet, 65 residential parking spaces, three commercial spaces of parking, one small loading space for deliveries and 850 square feet of ground‑floor commercial space. The proposal includes nine units restricted to very‑low‑income households and six restricted to moderate‑income households; the applicant said the project is proceeding under the city’s Average Unit Size Density program and state density‑bonus law and noted a prior SB 330 filing.
Residents urged the board to delay or deny approval at the hearing, citing traffic, storm‑water and seismic concerns. Dozens of people spoke in person and by representative groups. Several neighbors said the site lies within a known liquefaction area and told the board it is subject to flooding during storm events; speakers also described shadow impacts on adjacent backyards and streets and disputed the city’s traffic and environmental findings. One commenter, Jose Gallegos, called the building a “monstrosity” that would block views and sunlight. Another, Natasha Todorovic, urged a full environmental review and said the project “is destroying that quality of life and that brand” of Santa Barbara.
Applicant architect Jano Chauser and co‑applicants described design responses to prior board comments: more variation in fenestration, articulated rooflines, tiled and painted stucco palettes and differentiated massing intended to break down the building’s visual scale along Milpas Street. Chauser said the project was designed to comply with Milpas corridor guidelines and the city’s objective standards and noted the applicant reduced the width of the tower element by roughly 12% compared with an earlier scheme.
City planning staff told the board they had completed an environmental review and determined the project qualifies for an exemption; staff also said the site is not within the FEMA floodplain but is within an area with potential liquefaction risk and that the applicant has submitted a preliminary geotechnical report and must provide a final geotechnical report and implement engineering recommendations at building permit stage.
After public comment and deliberations that focused on scale, massing, shadowing and the level of architectural detail, a member moved to find the design consistent with the applicable design guidelines and to grant Project Design Approval (PDA). The motion included standard findings the board must make: that the project is consistent with the Milpas design guidelines and city zoning, is compatible with the city’s architectural character, and that no known adjacent historic resources or public ocean or mountain views would be adversely affected. The motion passed; two board members recorded “no” votes.
Board members who voted to approve said the applicant had answered many of the board’s prior design questions and had provided the level of articulation and material variation the board requested. Members who voted no said they remained concerned about the project’s overall scale and contextual compatibility with the immediate neighborhood.
The board’s PDA means the project may proceed toward a final design review and building permit submittal; the board indicated it expects additional specificity on landscaping, mechanical equipment screening, parking ventilation and storm‑water details in subsequent submittals. A 10‑day appeal period applies to the board’s action.
Why it matters: The site is on a major mixed‑use corridor where the city and state housing laws shape allowable density and unit sizes; the board’s decision moves a large housing project forward despite sustained neighborhood concern over traffic, flooding and neighborhood character.
