Re: Appeal of the ABR decision of April 14, re 418 N. Milpas/915-923 E. Gutierrez St.
Dear Mayor Rowse and City Council members Friedman, Gutierrez, Harmon, Jordan, Santamaria, and Sneddon:
Since 1960, Citizens Planning Association has been known in Santa Barbara for working for good planning. It is part of our Mission Statement. We stress civic engagement as crucial to Santa Barbara planning and development, as it is to government as whole.
In July 2018 we spoke to the ABR, opposing the looming, neighborhood-changing 4-story proposal for this same site on Milpas. We thought that the full-to overflowing David Gebhard room of concerned neighborhood speakers would be convincing to the owners of the property as they were to the ABR. But ownership apparently has changed or, at least, the listed names are different. Then, it was a 87-room hotel plus 27 ADU units; now, it is 90 units, including 6 moderate-income, one additional very low incomed, and claimed without specifics to be “affordable”. It’s more massive-seeming, and a bit taller; we don’t know the location of the eponymous gardens.
We write now in support of the appeal of the proposal for 418 N. Milpas / 915–923 E. Gutierrez Street. Simply, as two of the ABR members said, it is not the appropriate size, bulk and scale for this Milpas, lower Riviera area.
Santa Barbara belongs to Santa Barbarans and, historically, we have participated in city land use issues. But residents cannot be expected to participate if they don’t know what is intended, if they’re left in the dark until the actual commission meeting itself. This need for the public to be shown what is planned often seems to be not as well appreciated as it should be.
Area residents used to shop at La Sumida, lured to the nursery by the mountain views. We have followed this project from its first appearance at the ABR. We wrote in March of this year to the Planning Commission, asking for story poles. We were encouraged that the PC, in its Concept Review, recommended to the ABR that story poles be erected.
However, nothing happened. Advertising-like graphics tacked on walls along parts of the 400 N Milpas block and the 700 East block of Gutierrez are not sufficient for neighbors who work on weekdays and do not attend city meetings.
Milpas area is a working-class neighborhood, mostly single-family housing of one or two stories, owners and tenants, most without the time to attend daytime meetings. It’s an historic area, but without the recognition of El Pueblo Viejo. (It’s designation of “high density” was very controversial several years ago!) Story poles are a prime, perhaps only way of showing what is planned, how public views will be impacted, how abutters’ light and shade will be affected. *
Usually, architectural boards of review have the difficult task of balancing the owner’s/the developer’s rights and those of the neighborhood in which the development is to take place. The ABR on April 14 was tasked with specifics, notably compliance with Urban Design Guidelines and Haley-Milpas Design Guidelines.
So, here we are, with the majority of the ABR supporting this massive proposal that has been called “institutional,” like a “1950’s medical building,” and other descriptions that would not be used for development on the Upper East, for instance. It’s 4-stories, a little more than 60′ high at the tower, its 90 units include 9 very low incomed ones, replacing the 8 to-be demolished deed-restricted cottages on Gutierrez, so a net gain of only one very low-income unit for this already rent-burdened neighborhood.
The Urban Design Guidelines specify: “Design developments to complement and enhance the character of Santa Barbara, the surrounding neighborhood, and existing adjacent developments, while allowing each development to retain a distinct visual identity. (…and) Preserve the human scale character of the Santa Barbara grid by using design techniques that reduce the apparent size, bulk, scale, and height of buildings.
The Haley-Milpas Design Manual, describes the Hispanic-Pueblo District in which will be the “Milpas Gardens” saying it has a “design character slightly different from the character of the city’s downtown Santa Barbara Spanish because of its ” *relationship to the existing architectural character, and *strong visual expression for the Haley Street corridor.” Each of these qualities are lacking in this design.
These requirements were not discussed by the ABR, although some of the color and other details in the Guidelines do seem to be respected.
The presentation by the ABR Chair was a conclusory Motion to which 5 of 7 ABR members agreed. Two others opposed, on “compatibility, of size, bulk, mass, and scale.” The apparent lack of consideration of the Guidelines was shocking! The Milpas community and the neighborhood deserves more than such a dismissal of long-standing design standards.
For a non-lawyer, non-architect filing an appeal to the City Council is near overwhelming and yet residents came together to raise the money in a Go Fund Me and a door-to-door hat-in-hand for the Appeal of the ABR’s action before you.
With respect, Citizens Planning Association requests that you, City Council members, support the appeal: Please remand this project for re-consideration, taking into account the venerable Milpas neighborhood, the requirements of both the Haley-Milpas and the Urban Design Guidelines, along with the environmental issues raised in the Appeal, AND with a request for story poles to show the parameters of this project and how it will affect the neighbors.
Sincerely,
Mary Ellen Brooks, President of Citizens Planning Association
(*)Community Development Department: WHEN ARE STORY POLES NECESSARY? Story poles are required on most development review projects subject to review by the Planning Commission or Staff Hearing Officer in order to make the required findings, or when necessary to make a determination on whether the project will result in significant environmental impacts on important public scenic views. Design Review bodies also require story poles or other visual aids in order to make findings regarding appropriate size, bulk and scale, and neighborhood compatibility. (Italics added.)