Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Planning And Housing topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council advances ordinance creating objective design and development standards with minor changes
Summary
Council introduced and adopted by title an ordinance creating Title 25 — Objective Design and Development Standards — and amended zoning provisions; council approved staff’s recommendation with a minor modification to an articulation threshold and a typographical correction following public testimony and extended debate.
The Santa Barbara City Council voted Feb. 4 to introduce and adopt by reading of title an ordinance creating Title 25, “Objective Design and Development Standards” (ODDS), and to amend Title 30 of the municipal code to add an objective design review pathway for multiunit residential and mixed‑use projects.
City planners said the standards are intended to provide measurable, verifiable rules for projects that choose a ministerial, streamlined review path under state law. “Objective standards mean there’s no personal or subjective judgment by a public official,” Rosie Deisty, project manager in the Community Development Department, told the council. “The standards are measurable and verifiable.”
Nut graf: The ODDS package sets requirements for building placement, frontage types, massing and façade organization and identifies six architectural styles grouped into three families intended to reflect Santa Barbara’s built character. It preserves the city’s existing discretionary design‑review pathways for applicants who prefer a traditional, subjective review.
Opticos Design principal Tony Perez, a consultant on the project, described the approach as form‑based: map existing building types and streetscapes, then create objective rules that make new buildings compatible with neighborhood character. “What really resonates with people and visitors when you’re walking around…is how the ground floor feels,” Perez said. The standards emphasize Ground‑Floor frontage and pedestrian‑oriented streetscapes.
Council debate focused on three recurring themes: the complexity and length of the new standards, how to balance objective rules with design creativity, and whether a “contemporary” style should be included in areas of the city. Multiple public commenters praised the process and urged approval; some residents and architects recommended removing or narrowing the contemporary style and asked for stronger articulation requirements on very wide building facades.
Council action and amendment: Council Member Sneddon moved staff’s recommendation to introduce and adopt the ordinances. After discussion the council approved an amendment directing staff to correct an attachment that mistakenly showed strikethrough text and to lower one articulation trigger from 80 feet to 60 feet so that additional facade articulation requirements apply at a smaller width. The motion passed unanimously on roll call.
The ordinance package includes a chapter of defined exceptions and a commitment from staff to return within a set period (staff indicated a planned status report after a number of projects or approximately two years) to evaluate the standards’ usability and propose amendments if needed.
Ending: Council adopted the ordinance introduction with the minor edits. The new Title 25 creates a formal objective review path intended to accelerate projects that comply with the standards while retaining the existing discretionary design‑review option.
