Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Housing Presidio Springs topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Historic Landmarks Commission continues review of Presidio Springs senior-housing plan after weeks of debate
Summary
The commission praised the Housing Authority's effort to add 104 low-income senior units at Presidio Springs but asked architects to break down large wall planes, add more human-scale detailing and clarify phasing and displacement mitigation. The project was continued for redesign.
The Santa Barbara Historic Landmarks Commission continued its concept review of a multi-phase Presidio Springs redevelopment on July 15, asking the Housing Authority and design team to return with changes to reduce the project's apparent massing and to add more human-scale detailing.
Housing Authority deputy executive director Dale Ozanne told the commission the phased plan would replace aging apartments on a roughly block-sized site with two new buildings in phase 1, delivering a combined 104 low-income senior units built under the city's AUD program and state density bonus law. Ozanne and the design team said the proposal was intended to minimize permanent displacement: only the first 10-unit building would be vacated for phase 1 construction, and residents would be offered relocation assistance and a right to return.
Commissioners focused most of their discussion on mass, bulk and scale along Garden Street and De la Guerra Street. Several members said long, uninterrupted plaster wall planes and uniform fenestration made facades read as institutional rather than residential. "We need more playfulness and human scale," one commissioner said, urging the team to study balconies, deeper recessed openings, a defined base material and larger landscape trees to break the perceived wall-like frontage.
Design comments from the panel asked the applicant to: explore ways to make 4th-floor elements read as 3-story on the street, add a stronger base treatment at the ground plane, vary materials and colors between Building A and Building B, refine courtyard and paseo connections for resident use and public permeability, and show how the project would meet objective project-compatibility findings without reducing legally required density.
Staff clarified that because the proposal uses state density bonus provisions, the commission's review must focus on objective compatibility findings (public health, safety and objective design criteria) and cannot require reductions in unit count that would make the project infeasible. Commissioners asked staff to provide clearer guidance on which design adjustments remain within the city's authority.
Public comment included a resident who said construction will be deeply disruptive, worried about tree removals, potential asbestos and the mental and physical strain of temporary relocation. The applicant team said they have held resident meetings and will offer assistance to affected tenants.
After discussion, a motion to continue the application for further design study and to return with materials, elevations, and clearer massing solutions passed by roll call. The commission directed the team to prioritize strategies that break down long wall planes and that strengthen transitions between interior corridors and outdoor courtyards.
The Housing Authority and design team said they would return with revised plans addressing those points; the staff and applicants noted additional hearings are required under the city's review process before final approvals and any lot split is acted on.
