By an “Eastsider”
This Thursday (Match 20), at 1:00 p.m., the Santa Barbara City Planning Commission will meet in the Council Chambers, their usual meeting place, giving them the appearance of gravitas. The sole new item on the Agenda is to consider the latest addition to the venerable Milpas Street landscape, a new item at 418 N. Milpas and 915-923 E. Gutierrez Streets.
If things go as expected, the Planning Commission will rubber stamp the proposal, making a few sighing comments about the size, mass and bulk, but having basically no authority, they will pass it to the Architectural Board of Review (ABR). Maybe one or two of the commissioners will softly mourn the absence of Sheila Lodge who used to speak up for the history and, may we say it in 2025, the soul of Santa Barbara.
This project was at the ABR in a slightly different iteration in August 2022 and they passed it on, urging a few flourishes to at least look like Santa Barbara, a wedding cake setback so that the top of one mountain of the range can be seen from across the street.
The current renderings look more like it’s venturing into state prison or California bank design territory. Unlike the now-happily-deceased proposed UCSB Mungerville, the windows apparently will open.
There are proposed 90 residential units: 29 studios, 46 one-bedrooms, 15 two-bedrooms. All but 15 will be market rate with 9 of the 15 reserved for very low income, the remaining 6 for “moderate income” for Santa Barbara as a whole, not necessarily the Milpas area.
All this will be on 0.95 acres, with very little open space that is not devoted to parking, and access for the 65 parking spaces.
The name “Milpas Gardens” derives not from any present greenery but in homage to the long-ago-moved-to-Goleta La Sumida Nursery and, perhaps, the deceased Katashi Nursery that, some say, was on Milpas and then Haley Street. For the “mixed use” designation, 850 square feet are devoted to commercial on the Milpas side; the yellow sign on Gutierrez claims 1,150 sq ft of commercial space.
All existing vegetation and buildings, notably the Rusty’s Pizza Parlor on the Milpas side, will be removed. Demolished also will be the 9 long-lived-in and well-cared for small cottages on Gutierrez, housing low-income seniors. What will happen to the current residents is not known by this correspondent.
The Planning Commission made a site visit on Tuesday morning and spent about a half hour in front of the doomed cottages, chatting with Community Development staff. On the north side, unusual for Santa Barbara, there will be an extended blank and windowless wall, built right on the property line, cutting off sunlight for most of all of the days to the set of small businesses. Residential properties adjoining to the east and north will also lose light.
This is an AUD project, the Average Unit-sized Density program begun in 2013 and made permanent by the Council in 2023. It has produced rental housing, as intended, but very little of the affordable housing that is needed by Santa Barbara and demanded by the California RHNA requirements.
More significantly, it is a Builder’s Remedy project where the City and its dedicated design processes count for little-to-nothing to the State of California. The planning commission’s website has the Staff Report. All renderings can be seen here.
There is no indication that the developer is planning to have story poles so that we can see the outline of what will be there, the views that will be blocked and how it fits in with the area.
According to the city’s website, “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.”
For this review, the Planning Commission’s role is but advisory; ABR, however, probably has to make findings and the Commission should request them to require story poles so we all can get appreciate the size, bulk and scale of this program and how it will fit in within the Alisos-Gutierrez-Milpas neighborhood.
Hopefully, the Council Chambers will be filled Thursday at 1:00 PM with area residents concerned about our city and what is threatened, errr, promised for Milpas.
Op-Ed’s are written by community members, not representatives of edhat. The views and opinions expressed in Op-Ed articles are those of the author’s. [Do you have an opinion on something local? Share it with us at info@edhat.com.]
Also Read
- Montecito Estate Once Owned By Architect A. Eugene Kohn Lists for Nearly Four Times Its Last Sale Price
- Santa Barbara, San Luis Obispo Rank Among America’s Top ‘Pure Luxury’ Housing Markets, Study Finds
- Op-Ed: Protecting Taxpayers Means Looking Beyond the Politics of Short-Term Rentals
- With 3% Cap, No Rent Banking, Santa Barbara City Council Narrowly Approves Rent Stabilization Directions
- High-End Montecito Estate Fetches $12 Million, More Than Doubling in Value in Two Years
What an ugly thing. How “affordable” will the 9 “low income” units really be? Probably not enough for locals in the vicinity. Jamming 90 units and 65 parking spots in less than a 1/4 of a city block is insanity. Kicking out the low income elderly in the existing homes is cruel.
SB has been deteriorating since I was a kid. LA is moving in and pushing us natives out. Shameful.
You’re right, it’s a shame Sac. I’m glad to see you acknowledge that.
But look at how you’ve been voting. Have you ever voted for a non-democrat? I doubt it. This is a VERY blue city in an ALWAYS blue state, you must know this. All blue is failing us here locally, from the City Council all the way up to the Governor. It’s ruining the quality of life in a beautiful town. The old school local Dem party used to be something way different – anti-growth, pro-environment. Now it’s pro-growth and that’s not pro-environment, no way.
And yeah, LA is moving in alright, but that’s a completely different issue.
FYI the State imposed the housing mandates that required the city to zone for an additional 8,000 housing units. (Even more in the County.) The city council is pushing for more affordable housing in that total, but the mandate only requires housing. That’s why most of what is being built is market rate with only a small portion of affordable – and even that is not really affordable to much of our workforce. Blame Democrats in Sacramento for the draconian one-size-fits-all statewide mandates – but there is not much at this point that the city council can do about it.
Thank you for that description of this proposed development. It looks like a massive and sad project that makes things worse not better for people around here. SB is losing it, and so has Gavin. He’s a fool. But hey, it’s ultimately about CA and SB voters – and if they keep voting this way SB will turn into LA, and – mark my words – we here will NEVER have “affordable housing” for all, because that’s an absurd concept. It’s completely unattainable. CA voters who like Gavin have brewed us up recipe for disaster. Simple as that.
Thanks Gavin and your supporters.
BASIC – this has nothing to do with Gavin. Learn to read, dude.
Why do you hate facts and the truth so much? It’s like they give you a rash or something the way you avoid them.
When Governor Newsome signed a suite of housing bills in September including “Builders Remedy” it is about him. Hard to deflect from that fact. The people voted him in and we are getting what he stands for.
SAIL – this project was not part of the housing mandate. This is not affordable housing. This was not what Newsom wanted. That’s my point.
It may not be what he wanted, but it’s what he and the legislature passed. The mandates say nothing about affordability. These units are counted as new units toward satisfying the mandate. They are what the mandates require. (It’s sort of a trickle-down theory – if we build enough new units, older units will be affordable. It just doesn’t work that way here.)
Who in the state gov’t is signing these bills requiring cities like us to build more housing? Autopen?
Sacramento Democrats have taken away Santa Barbara’s ability to decide the future of our city. This project is insane. Enough!
In California, the “builder’s remedy” limits local government’s ability to deny housing projects, and while it applies to all cities, some recent legal challenges suggest that its application in charter cities is still being debated. Santa Barbara is a charter city, but our city council never seems to mention that or really resist these projects, do they?
Meanwhile, Pearl Chase is spinning in her grave.
tMo, True. But while the issue of Charter Cities is debated, projects like these are being approved and built. So they won’t be undone by any subsequent decision.
The actual project provides 9 very low income units and 6 moderate income units. But more importantly, it also provides at least 9 market rate, moderate income units.
A better project would use AB 1287 bonus density and provide 120 units. The AB 1287 project would have the same building envelope; the units would just be made smaller. The AB 1287 project would have 24 units restricted rate, plus 62 moderate income (market rate) units.
The project could be a Builder’s Remedy project, but is not. A Builder’s Remedy project would be required to include 18 units of low income housing (or have all units be moderate income).
90 units w/ 65 parking spaces WHAT?!! I live one block from this(one story house). Parking in the neighborhood already is terrible – almost 0 street parking in the evenings – and weekends are even worse. So they’re going to add about 50+ more cars on the area streets. Also, 4 STORIES. I suggest these clowns walk the neighborhood and imagine a 4 story building in the area – TERRIBLE
This is very very out of line with Santa Barbara.
All part of the World Economic Forum’s plan – no ownnership no vehicles…… Only the elites will have mobility….. Klaus Schuab: “You will own nothing and be happy.”
Folks – You voted for this.
I have oft said that this is the future of the east side. The single wall construction bungalows are 100 years old and aging. Enjoy the east side now as it is bound to be a densely populated area soon.
65 spots for 90 units??!! NOT a good plan.
Santa Barbara is being destroyed one project at a time… My family moved here in the late 60s and it breaks my heart to see this once gem of a town being remade, and certainly not in any sort of good, positive way. This certainly will not benefit Santa Barbara‘s citizens in any way shape or form. In fact, it will impact our lifestyle very negatively.
You got that right. I think those who have and continue to support our Governor and liberal City Council in their efforts to create “affordable housing” and continue to do so are THE problem. If these voters hadn’t voted the way they did we wouldn’t even be talking about this mess. We hear their calls for “affordable housing” almost everyday around here. They’ve brought this on. Maybe they never even knew how much better SB and Goleta were as communities even just 20 years ago, not to mention 50 or more…
It’s a disgrace.
You get it!
Santa Barbara gave up its approval authority by defying the state and filing its “new” approval plans too late. Complaining about a self-inflicted wound is unseemly. Where are all the people clamoring for affordable housing when plans like this are posted?
Where are the usual Gavin supporters here? Maybe even they know this sucks, or maybe not? Maybe just afraid to come out to reinforce their never-ending support of this flawed “affordable housing” concept they wholeheartedly bought into. No surprise.
What a mess!! Eyesore. Like coming into Goleta from out West now, all those units lining south bound 101 ?
It really is a mess in Santa Barbara and it’s our own darn fault. You would think that Goleta would have learned a lesson seeing SB degraded, but they continue to pack new units into nearly every available space. The City of Goleta seems to have an insatiable appetite for building, which is fine to a point, but how about leaving a little bit of “elbow room.” There is less and less green space in the GV and soon much of it will be gone, including all that open space west of Winchester Canyon. If you fortunate enough to have enough money, you can purchase one of them multi-million dollar properties going up at Naples/Santa Barbara Ranch (I think that’s where they’re going in). Coastal Commission where are you? And to the Eco groups, are there no endangered mice, red-legged frog, land-based snowy plovers, or rare owls?
Packed a fair amount of fantasy into that post, eh?
The City of Santa Barbara will become a small Los Angeles North. This 90 unit monster, along with other planned Milpas projects will bring more congestion to Milpas Street. The 500 plus units proposed for El Paseo will be unmanageable with so many people stuffed into the apartments. The City Council has turned itself into a runaway housing machine.
The people that live here don’t need housing, so these multi-hundreds of units will only serve to bring in more people and more congestion. Most of the units built will be at market rates that working people cannot afford now. We are witnessing the beginning of the end of a beautiful city’s charm and livability. This will be cast in concrete,
SB is deteriorating in the name of progress. The east side is just another move as we progress. As has been said around town for many years: SB will eventually be a town of the rich and the poor.
There is also another 4 story 82 unit behemoth going in just a few blocks away on the 700 block of Milpas, with construction starting any day now. As well as another 23 unit complex approved for the 500 block of Milpas too. So the 400, 500 and 700 block of Milpas will have about 225 new units! That could potentially add to over 400 vehicles to these few blocks.
-These giant apartment complexes are not helping with affordable housing issues, they’re basically enriching developers that can bypass zoning rules and allowing more people to move here.
-Already there are parking issues and having almost 225 new units within a few blocks of each other is going to cause a parking and congestion nightmare.
-This new design looks like a state prison with no green areas and goes well over the zoning height. The complex that was approved on 700 block Milpas does not come close to the architectural standards of Santa Barbara and from the looks of this rendering neither does this one.
-These new complexes offer nothing to the neighborhood, there will be zero or maybe 1 small commercial space.
People should be outraged, this builder’s remedy is ruining our quaint town. No one that lives here wants Santa Barbara to turn into a big city.
-Our city should sue the Builders Remedy and not just comply to this insanity that is happening all over town.
*Please everyone write to the planning commission, Salud Carbajal and city council members in your district.* and attend any public meetings.
Salud?? He’s all for this. And so are all our local politicians as well. They wanted this all along, and they’re in charge. Dem voters voted for more housing. They’re getting it!!
Hey, just FYI, I was down on my boat doing some work this week and the new patrol boat came through doing their rounds. I had an informative discussion with the officers on board and that price tag makes perfect sense. I mean, for anyone who cares to get the facts.
Yeah, but that means getting out of the armchair.
Builders build—that’s their job, and like everyone else, they do it to make money. Anyone who builds housing should be rewarded (enriched) for their work. But builders don’t operate in a vacuum; they build only what the government permits or requires. If new developments are ruining our quaint town, don’t blame the builders—blame the majority of voters who voted for the politicians that created these policies.
“The government you elect is the government you deserve.” ― Thomas Jefferson
100% agree. The majority of voters here in SB and Goleta have gone all in on politicians who want more development. They’re getting want they want. Those who didn’t go that route aren’t. It’s just the way that it goes, and maybe before it’s gone off the deep end folks will start to realize.
I like that quote. So true.
Pretty schizophrenic of you to go from complaining about any regulatory laws to suddenly promoting them,
Schizophrenic? More details please.
You know, contradictory. Cognitively dissonant. Uncharacteristic.
But, knowing next to nothing, you need to be taught about every comment.
I was looking for examples, not a definition?
If they aren’t providing space for cars, will the developers,mor the approving agencies, fund additional bus service? It’s absurd to pretend people don’t need cars when our existing public transit is so lame. (Yes, MTD does a fine job with the money they have, and most of the drivers are great people. But there are not enough runs and not enough coverage.)
the Developer needs to build the full 80 units. The first 70 units cover the permits and fees and years of delays and carry costs and overstandard construction costs to meet the Spanish guidelines to get the project approved by the city, and the last ten units are his profit.
Drivel.
uhhhh truth, sorry honey
Yes. Glad you recognize what you said was drivel.
Thank goodness the drought is over! With thousands of new housing units proposed, yes thousands it’s a good thing we expanded our water reservoirs and the drought is over.
Oh wait we are in a drought and they did not expand our water reservoirs.
SB is in a D2 Severe drought.
At least the freeway will finally be three lanes just in time to throw more cars on the road and make us a mini LA.
And that means building or expanding the schools? Classrooms are already at capacity.
Well at least it’s local builders and architects, oh wait. No it’s not locals.
https://droughtmonitor.unl.edu/CurrentMap/StateDroughtMonitor.aspx?CA
I agree that local and state governments need to increase water storage capacity. The last major dam built in California was completed in 1979. The state approves dams. And which party controls the state government? Since the 1970 election, the Assembly has almost always been under Democratic majority. The Senate has been under Democratic control since 1970 (except from 1973 to 1975). We have the knowledge and resources to eliminate water shortages—the only missing factor is a government that prioritizes it.
“The government you elect is the government you deserve.” -Thomas Jefferson
“…expanding the schools” Why would we? The local district anticipates a 22% decrease in attendance from 2017-18 to 2027-28. If increased housing leads to greater educational demand, then we may need to expand school capacity.
“…the freeway will finally be three lanes.” We need at least three lanes. Why? Because a significant and increasing portion of traffic on Highway 101 in Santa Barbara is just passing through the city.
“…builders and architects, oh wait. No, it’s not locals.” And neither are many of the local government, construction, maintenance, and healthcare workers. Many travel to Santa Barbara for work because they can’t afford housing here. Local or not. The cost of housing should be based on the lowest possible construction costs. Prioritizing affordability ensures more efficient resource allocation, reduces overall housing expenses, and increases accessibility for buyers and renters.
Bogus celebrity quotes (TJ never said that), faulty reasoning, and a lack of attention to the detrimental effects. Yup, must be someone who doesn’t know any better and gets his world view from a distorted social media bubble.