Planning commission urges stronger connectivity, smaller building massing and more affordable units in La Cumbre Plaza concept review

The Santa Barbara Planning Commission on April 3 reviewed a concept proposal to redevelop the southern portion of La Cumbre Plaza at 3845 State Street, a pre‑application for a 443‑unit rental project. Patsy Price, contract planner for the City of Santa Barbara, told the commission that the proposal includes 10% moderate‑income units and a proposed multi‑use path along Arroyo Burro Creek.

Why it matters: the site is in the Upper State Street planning area and in the city’s Average Unit Size Density (AUD) program and is identified in the housing element as a priority redevelopment location. The commission’s comments will guide staff and the applicant as the proposal moves toward a formal application, environmental review and a tentative map for a lot split that would go to the staff hearing officer.

The proposal and key elements

• Project scope and affordability: The applicant described the project as “a 443 unit residential rental project,” with 10% of those units proposed as moderate‑income (44 units) and an in‑lieu payment for the fractional unit. The site was described as roughly 9.45 acres and includes the former Sears building footprint and surrounding surface parking.

• Densities and regulatory setting: Staff noted the site sits partly in the city’s priority housing overlay where AUD rules allow densities up to 63 units per acre and partly in a band within 250 feet of Highway 101 where the allowed density is lower (up to 27 units per acre). Price emphasized that the pre‑application review is intended to test design and general plan consistency before a formal submittal.

• Layout and amenities: The applicant’s team presented a three‑building “wrap” arrangement with parking structures along the freeway edge, three internal courtyards, a central commons with pool and terraces, a roughly 10,000‑square‑foot leasing/amenity building, a proposed 12‑foot multi‑use path along Arroyo Burro Creek (and a 10‑foot multi‑use path along Calle Real), and indoor/outdoor resident amenities. The applicant said the southern and northern portions of the project would likely be built in two phases.

Commission and advisory‑board feedback

Commissioners and staff largely praised elements of the concept while pressing for changes and additional information. Recurring concerns included:

• Building massing and porosity: Several commissioners and members of the Architectural Board of Review (ABR) urged breaking the continuous four‑story perimeter mass into smaller components or adding mid‑block circulation (paseos) to reduce perceived mass and improve pedestrian permeability. ABR had recommended simplifying large arch elements and increasing horizontal emphasis; commissioners asked for additional architectural variation and for massing to be moved toward interior courtyards where feasible.

• Connectivity and circulation: Commissioners repeatedly said the project must do more to stitch the site into the surrounding La Cumbre Plaza and Upper State Street circulation network. Staff and commissioners asked the applicant to show how the proposal will connect to nearby parcels (including the Macy’s redevelopment to the north), pedestrian routes to nearby shopping and transit, and how on‑site drives and a proposed north/south access will function. Staff noted that, with a tentative map, the lot split would go to the staff hearing officer and that decision can be appealed to the Planning Commission.

• Public open space and amenities: Commissioners and public speakers said the project’s internal open‑space program is valuable but asked for more public‑facing open space or improved public connections to existing commercial uses and the movie theater across the creek. Commissioners requested a dedicated play area and a dog run as part of the amenity program; the applicant responded that flexible lawn terraces, a sand volleyball court, pool areas and a dog run were planned.

• Affordable housing and schools: Several commissioners and public commenters urged a higher level of deed‑restricted affordability than the 10% moderate‑income units proposed. Anne Hubbard, superintendent of the Hope School District, said the district’s analysis—shared with local elected officials—projects a need for about 28 additional classrooms to serve growth in the district and called for developer coordination and long‑term planning to address school facility impacts. Steve Johnson, a commenter, argued the plan does not meet certain housing‑element expectations and asked that staff and the applicant address the discrepancy.

• Creek and environmental issues: Staff highlighted applicable general plan policies and the environmental resources element, including creek setback and riparian protection policies. Price said the project will require a biological analysis and identification of top‑of‑bank with any creek impacts addressed in environmental review. Commissioners asked whether creek enhancement or restoration conditions could be required; staff said that would be evaluated during environmental review and in light of the tentative map’s required general‑plan‑consistency findings.

Staff and applicant process notes

Patsy Price and other staff made procedural points for commissioners and the public: the pre‑application concept review solicits comments but is not a formal approval. With the formal application the applicant intends to submit a tentative map for a lot split; that map is a discretionary approval by the staff hearing officer and can be appealed to the Planning Commission. Price also noted the Housing Crisis Act (state law) limits public hearings on qualifying housing developments once an application is deemed complete.

Public comment highlights

Residents and community representatives raised several concerns during the public comment period: Dennis Hamilton (resident) asked about potential effects on the adjacent Housing Authority building and asked what “moderate income” will mean in practice. Anne Hubbard (Hope School District) requested direct coordination and noted the district’s projected classroom shortfall. Steve Johnson (commenter) told commissioners he believed the project conflicted with specific housing‑element allocations and urged postponement or revision.

Commission action and next steps

After discussion, the commission voted to adopt a motion summarizing the comments transmitted to staff and the applicant (the motion lists design changes, circulation/connectivity requirements, additional information to support environmental review, and a request that the applicant consider increasing the amount and distribution of deed‑restricted housing). Vice Chair Boss read a detailed summary motion and the roll call vote was recorded as unanimous. Price and other staff said the comments and ABR minutes will be part of the record as the applicant prepares a formal application, environmental analysis and a tentative map.

Votes at a glance

• Approval of Planning Commission minutes for March 13 and March 20, 2025 — motion to approve minutes passed by roll call (unanimous). (Minutes: moved by Commissioner Barnwell; second not specified in record.)

• Resolution honoring Commissioner Sheila Lodge — adopted unanimously. (Ceremonial resolution read on the record; formal resolution recorded by commission secretary.)

• Planning Commission comments on La Cumbre Plaza (pre‑application concept review for 3845 State Street) — commission voted unanimously to forward the summary of comments to staff and the applicant for the formal application and environmental review.

What will staff and the applicant need to show next

Staff said the formal application must supply the detailed AUD density calculations for each area of the site, complete zoning and setback analysis, a biological assessment and top‑of‑bank mapping for Arroyo Burro Creek, traffic and vehicle‑miles‑traveled (VMT) analysis as part of environmental review, and a tentative map for the lot split. The commission asked the applicant to provide additional sections showing the project in context with adjacent buildings, more detail on creek‑edge elevations, and options to reduce continuous perimeter massing and increase mid‑block permeability.

Ending

Commissioners said the site presents an important opportunity to deliver housing and revitalize a long‑underused mall parcel, but they stressed the need to tighten architectural massing, show clear multimodal connections to surrounding properties (including the Macy’s redevelopment), address school impacts and consider a larger share of deed‑restricted units. Staff and the applicant indicated they will return with a more detailed formal application, environmental analysis and supporting drawings that address the commission’s comments.