Architectural Board approves 4‑story, 90‑unit mixed‑use project at 418 N. Milpas and 915–923 E. Gutierrez with conditions

The Architectural Board of Review on April 14 approved project‑design plans for a new four‑story, mixed‑use building at 418 North Milpas Street and 915–923 East Gutierrez Street, finding the proposal meets the city’s applicable design guidelines and development standards while attaching follow‑up expectations for detailed mechanical, stormwater and final geotechnical plans.

The project would merge the cited parcels to create a 41,477‑square‑foot lot and build a 108,698‑square‑foot structure containing 90 residential rental units and 850 square feet of commercial space. The applicant said the mix would include 29 studios, 46 one‑bedrooms and 15 two‑bedrooms; nine units restricted to very‑low‑income households, six to moderate income and one workforce unit. The average unit size reported by the applicant is about 632 square feet. The proposal includes 65 residential parking stalls, three commercial stalls and one small loading stall.

Why it matters: The project responds to the city’s Average Unit Density (AUD) program and state density bonus provisions and was described by the applicant as part of a broader strategy to increase housing supply. Neighbors and community groups urged additional environmental review and questioned traffic, flooding and liquefaction risks; board members split over whether the building’s overall massing is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood.

Applicant presentation and design response Jan Hakhauser of Hakhauser Blatter Architecture and Planning and co‑applicants presented design refinements requested at prior hearings, stating the team varied fenestration, rooflines and balcony treatments to break up massing and used tile, awnings and wooden headers to tie the building to the Milpas corridor character. Hakhauser said the design incorporated deep‑set openings, arched pedestrian entries, varied balcony treatments and stepped massing to give visual relief across elevations.

Public comment and core concerns More than two dozen speakers addressed the board during the public‑comment period. Common themes included: flood risk and FEMA mapping, liquefaction and seismic safety, the project’s scale and shadowing on adjacent yards, and traffic and parking impacts on the Milpas corridor. Neighbors described frequent local flooding, existing vehicle congestion and feared increased safety and livability impacts from the new development. One commenter asked for story poles and an updated traffic analysis; another asked for a full CEQA review.

Staff and technical review Planning staff told the board that project environmental review had determined an exemption under state law for infill development, and that the parcel is in Flood Zone X (not in the mapped 100‑year floodplain). Staff also confirmed the site is in an area with liquefaction risk and said a preliminary geotechnical report had been submitted; a final geotechnical report and building permit‑level requirements will be required before construction.

Board deliberations and decision Board members praised the level of detailing but were divided on neighborhood compatibility and massing. Several members said the facade detailing and material palette had improved. Others concluded the project remained too large in mass and scale for the immediate neighborhood.

The board voted to grant project‑design approval. Recorded votes in the hearing transcript are: Chair Anderson — yes; Board member Black — yes; Board member Noon — yes; Board member Sovereign — yes; Vice Chair Whelan — no; Board member 6 — no. Two members explained their “no” votes were because they found the size, mass, bulk and scale incompatible with the neighborhood.

Next steps The board’s approval is for project design only; the project still requires building permit submittals, final engineering, a final geotechnical report, detailed mechanical and stormwater plans, and subsequent final design review (final approval). Several board members asked staff and the applicant to provide clear, specific details on garage ventilation outlets, stormwater tanks and final mechanical locations before final review.

Community context The project sits along the Milpas Corridor and the applicant described it as an implementation of city housing policy and state‑level incentives for housing production. Opponents argued the immediate East Side neighborhood—characterized by small residential lots and local retail—would be substantially affected by the building’s height and massing.