By an “Eastsider”
The 418 N. Milpas / 915-923 E. Gutierrez Street mega-project, also known as “Milpas Gardens,” will be up for discussion at the Santa Barbara City Council on Tuesday — a last chance for Santa Barbarans to speak about this neighborhood-changing project. It’s item 7 on the agenda that begins at 2PM. No specific time is listed.
Edhat posted in March before the Planning Commission’s concept review’s hearing. Since then, it passed the Architectural Board of Review (ABR) whose role is paying attention to design and aesthetics. Their vote was 5-2 to accept the ABR Chair’s motion that the 90 room-4 story AUD building met the two required design guideline manuals.
There was little discussion. Two members of the ABR opposed, based on the size, bulk, scale and massiveness of the proposed project.
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 neighborhood to be affected is now and has always been mostly small one- or two-story houses, including a few rental buildings. For the neighbors, there will be significant quality of life issues with diminished sunlight during most of the days, greatly increased traffic and parking concerns.
The planning commission recommended, as did civic organizations, Citizens Planning Association and Allied Neighborhoods, that story poles be erected so the neighbors could see what was intended. The ABR chose to not follow these recommendations.
An appeal of the ABR decision has been made by Natasha Todorovic. Although it’s in her name only, small donation funds were raised by a Go Fund Me and volunteers walking the neighborhood for the appeal to the city.
The appeal claims that the ABR’s design approval was based on faulty finds and that the project is not compatible for many reasons, including “significant health and safety concerns.” The developers are represented by Beth Collins at Brownstein Hyatt Farber, Schreck, LLC.
City Council page: https://santabarbaraca.gov/government/mayor-city-council/city-council-meetings
Agenda, showing Item 7, with info for Zoom access: https://records.santabarbaraca.gov/OnBaseAgendaOnline/Meetings/ViewMeeting?id=1073&doctype=1
Related Articles
https://www.edhat.com/news/op-ed-90-unit-milpas-garden-behemoth-coming-to-santa-barbaras-eastside/
Also Read
- Counties With The Most Pre-War Homes In California
- Op-Ed: I was misled at the Granada Theatre’s Bethany Hamilton event
- New Warehouse and R&D Building Proposed Near Funk Zone Moves Forward
- California Homeowners Staying in Their Houses Longer Than Most in US, Study Finds
- Historic Ranch on Santa Barbara’s Gaviota Coast Hits the Market for $70 Million
Wil it help? Honestly. Has public opposition ever really stopped major development in this town?
There is a Santa Barbara history of public_ civic _ involvement, in caring for their/our city. Major development may not be stopped but what is being asked for is a redesign, one that respects the area and its history!
Honestly, isn’t that what we all want for our neighborhood? Hopefully, the city council, with district representatives, will recognize that what is trying to destroy this neighborhood, greed, could overwhelm their neighborhoods.
ANON – Oh I know, we have a rich history of public opposition, but that’s my point – it’s never really stopped the greed machine from destroying the once small town charm of SB. Of course, we cannot sit idly by, but what else to do?
Our representatives know the majority of the area’s residents oppose this stuff, yet they keep greenlighting it or allowing it to fall under builder’s remedy laws.
We the people need to do something more to save our town. My question is, what more can we do?
“What more can we do?” We can keep on keeping on. That’s what people used to do! It wasn’t a one-shot effort. True, it has become even harder with limited media, compared with years ago and the “everybody” reading the News-Press. But we DO have media for the people (that’s everybody) and it’s right here! You’re reading it!
Would Edhat and its readers be interested in a regular column on local urban planning actions/changes, what’s happening in SB and what’s happening in Sacramento?
Absolutely yes. Locals need to be regularly informed of this.
I understand. Opposing such developments gets harder and harder with what is going on in Sacramento and how are representatives, especially, Senator Limon, often indicating she opposes ruining the city she represents, abstains rather than voting against her fellow Democrats’ measures that take away local control.
Vote differently.
good response; thanks
What a mess. Why keep trying to ruin our city? Our City Council has lost its way. This ain’t Milpas anymore.
Non of these market rate projects will reduce local home prices. There is an unlimited number of wealthy people across the world who will come to stay in Santa Barbara. More market rate housing just compounds our affordability crisis because will need more working class people to work in grocery stores, hospitals, etc etc.
Why do you think these are being approved to “reduce local home prices”? The shortage in housing across the state and county is for rental housing to accommodate the people who are not in the market to purchase housing. It seems to me this project will do that and help alleviate some of the slum housing and such that is present now. We need to do this sort of thing as decent neighbors, not just for economic returns.
Do you really think that 75 market-rate units are not for economic returns to the owner and manager and whoever else is in charge of the workforce, if they can get one locally? This project is not housing for such local workers.
The populations of US and California have leveled off. Building in Santa Barbara merely lures people from less desirable areas.
Rube – How often do you plan to repeat that lie?
In the last decade (2010s), approximately 6.2 million people moved out of California, while 4.9 million moved in, resulting in a net loss of 1.3 million residents. According to the California Department of Finance, from 2011 to 2015, the state experienced a significant imbalance between those leaving and those arriving, though the overall net migration rate was relatively small. More recently, from 2022 to 2023, there was a net loss of 37,203 people, according to RubyHome, with 144,472 people leaving and 107,269 moving in. The most popular destinations for those leaving California are Texas, Arizona, and Nevada, according to Business Insider.
AI responses may include mistakes. Learn more
California exodus – Wikipedia
According to Census Bureau estimates, 6.2 million people left the state in the 2010s decade, while 4.9 million moved in: a net los…
Wikipedia
How Many People Are Leaving California (2025) – RubyHome
Apr 21, 2024 — Key California Population and Migration Stats. From 2022 to 2023, 144,472 people left California. From 2022 to 2023, C…
RubyHome
Who’s Leaving California—and Who’s Moving In?
May 6, 2021 — Much has been made of the California exodus to other states, and rightly so. This migration, over the decades, has the …
Public Policy Institute of California
Californians Are Leaving for These States – 2024 Study – SmartAsset
Oct 16, 2024 — Key Findings * Texas is the most popular destination for Californian transplants. California lost the most residents …
SmartAsset
Again, more people are leaving California than moving in, data shows. Where are they going? | Lifestyle | uniondemocrat.com
The Union Democrat
10 States Californians Are Moving to – Business Insider
Oct 25, 2023 — While nearly 818,000 people left California during this period, only 475,800 moved there, new US Census Bureau migrati…
Business Insider
You really need some more authoritative and current sources.
https://www.gov.ca.gov/2024/04/30/californias-population-is-increasing/
Relevant quotation:
“SACRAMENTO – California’s population increased by 67,000 people last year to 39,128,162, according to new data released today by the California Department of Finance (DOF). The state’s population growth can be attributed to an increase in legal foreign immigration and natural population increasing. This is the first year since 2020 that the state has seen a net increase.”
Post the census website since people apparently do not know how to use google.
Compared to SB almost every place is less desirable. I really doubt it’s the buildings that are drawing people here.
rubaiyat: People come and go from California for any number of reasons. Many people, companies, and corporations have gone to other states where it makes more tax sense for them. A wealthy person who moved from Cali to another state for tax purposes can certainly afford to rent/live here for extended periods while claiming their residence elsewhere. One thing that our wealthy and generous state provides is complete social support for others who need that support. Our generosity is certainly one of the reasons why our state has somewhere close to 40% of the total population of unhoused individuals in the United States (plus, the weather along the coast is pretty good, say compared to somewhere like Chicago, Baltimore, etc.).
How many parking spots are being provided with this proposal?
Not enough, guaranteed.
“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.”
How many apartment units are planned for this development?
It’s in the title – 90 units
The 9 very low income units would be for the now existing cottages that are deed-restricted for seniors who are low-incomed. Some of those tenants have already been evicted, it has been said. 75 of the units would be market rate.
I’m confused. Didn’t the majority of the people vote for the policies and officials to create more affordable housing. Or is it just the MAGAs opposing building more housing here where there is not enough housing?
More housing, more supply might lower the cost of housing plus the required percentage of affordable housing units.
Who opposes more housing? Did they vote for this City Council, Newsom, higher taxes?
I wish that someone, anyone who says that increasing the number of market rate housing units, as will be done here with 75 of the 90 total, creates affordability of housing would give comparable examples of where that is happening. Here, rented cottages, with an unknown (to me) number of senior tenants will be guranteed housing, although some of them have already been evicted.
90 units with “65 residential parking stalls” so do the freaking math. This will put a minimum of 25 MORE cars on the neighborhood street parking – that is IF you ASSUME there is ONE care per unit – very very dumb and inconsiderate to the neighborhood. Make them have AT least ONE parking spot per unit… jeezers!
Look closely at the top rendering and you can see that they’ve superimposed the front of Rusty’s onto the project in a cynical attempt at fooling locals that their beloved pizzeria will still remain on site, when, in fact, it’s set to be demolished. For that deception alone this project should be thrown out and these developers run out of town.
It is utterly dumbfounding why people think that this proposed monolithic and completely out-of-character-for-the-neighborhood project is going to beautify and in any way help with Santa Barbara’s “housing crisis.” This proposal is so massive in its oppressively negative effect on the look and feel of the area that the Architectural Review Board wisely decided to deny the erection of story poles. The ABR didn’t want people to see just how mammoth this development might be. It will block out sunlight in nearby homes, FFS.
More traffic, more competition for street parking. Built right out to the edges of the sidewalks, blocking out views of the mountains. But —- more to the point —- meant to provide housing mainly for those who can afford “market rate.” We all know what that means. 75 more units dedicated to the wealthy. Not by any means providing any truly substantial amount of “affordable housing,” not with a piddly 15 units offered at lower cost. (“Affordable housing” in Santa Barbara? Get real.)
Milpas “Gardens,” indeed. Where’s the greenery? More apt: “Milpas More Concrete and Stucco.”
And, yes. Santa Barbarans protesting projects has helped, in the past, to stave off some massive projects. As I recall, “La Entrada,” as it was first proposed (lower State) was nicknamed “La Enchilada.” That particular project was held up for years. Delayed by locals until the proposed project eventually ended up pared down and became much less of a monstrosity.
Absolute waste of time and effort. This entire area is hell-bent on self-destruction and doesn’t give a rat’s posterior about what the residents think, as long as gazillionaires, developers, politicians, and tourists are served. This is no longer our home; it’s an amusement park for tourists, and income generation for developers and politicians. We pay for the meal…they eat it. Simple.
Leave.
People of santa barbara want more housing and don’t want it at the same time. What developer is going to rent apartments at below market rates out of the goodness of their heart? And if the City mandates it (a futile effort in the long term), what developer will build apartments and not make money? There is little to no incentive for anyone to build housing as it is. I live in the area and I support this, Milpas needs new life.
I hear ya’. All we hear from a good part of the voting public here is how we need more affordable housing: “We need folks to be able to live where they work, they yell – teachers, nurses, etc. So is it EVERYONE who wants to live here or works here that should be able to afford that? Makes zero sense. Sounds like Socialism.
CA politicians are listening, from Newsom on down to Rouse and the CC. And they like votes, of course. The problem is this is a flawed experiment that is ruining the quality of our and many other cities in the name of a fallacy of “affordability”. Ain’t going to work. This project is a perfect example. Fail. Milpas doesn’t need massive, expensive, market rate buildings like this. Build baby build.
also, if Santa Barbara does not meet the state requirement for new housing, builder’s remedy will kick in and produce more projects that will actually destroy the beauty of Santa Barbara. See the proposed housing development behind the Mission.
This became a builder’s remedy project at the last minute; it had qualified for such but they only invoked it just before the hearing. SAnta Barbara is meeting the higher incomed levels of housing required. What it’s not doing is meeting the low income requirements; and for some of them, the new very low-income number, 9, has to be weighed, given that 8 (or more) in the 8 cottages would have their homes demolished. They say that others will be “affordable by design”, an absolutely meaningless concept in Santa Barbara.
BASIC – “Sounds like Socialism.”
You prove here on a daily basis that you have no idea what that word means.
Who should we blame for this disaster? We can all thank the progressive politics in Sacramento for this. Their ‘builders remedy’ laws allow for these type of monstrosities that will quickly destroy Santa Barbara’s unique character. Thanks Democrats!
As usual, the pinhead gets it backwards.
Really Anon? How is that exactly? You’re completely wrong. You should know that Gavin Newsom and those who support him are responsible for this building mandate here in CA. We wouldn’t be talking about half of these massive building projects if it weren’t for Newsom. Be careful how you vote if you value your community, unless you like L.A. of course.
Yet another pinhead speaks.
This is the future of the entire east side as the old bungalows age out. The parcels are so valuable for higher rise buildings. It will never be the same so enjoy now.
Yeah, you very well may be right on that, unfortunately. I saw a list of over a dozen massive housing developments in the works by the City yesterday and it was amazing – 4 stories and 50-70 units is about the average size coming to our town very soon! Several are much larger than that. Can’t wait for the traffic and can’t imagine prices will come down enough to call anything “affordable”, no matter how much gets built. It’s crazy.
Your parents really screwed up, they could have prevented this.
Talk about a sociopath…
So you support this project. Figures, from an LA guy. Cool. Maybe you should go back.
Nope, wrong as usual. I’m saying that you blame everyone but the people at fault–you people who have been here for generations and sold this town out.
It’s a great thing for any of the folks who are lucky enough to score one of these units. Same goes for the units to be built on W Canon Perdido, Macy’s, and Sears projects. Normally, more units would reduce the demand, but in SB, more units simply means more people from around the country who can pay “full boat” to live in Paradise. Goleta is a bit different story because it has so much more available land for building. The Yardi project on South Fairview is slated for close to 500 units (just guessing, but that means around 1,000 residents and at least 500 vehicles, 1000s of extra toilet flushes per day, hundreds of loads of laundry, showers, and so on. Won’t even get into electrical usage…holy-moly! Looks like the Glen Annie project is going ahead…same issues. UCSB continues its massive housing projects with nearly no environmental oversight. For Goleta, increasing the tax base is imperative, whereas in SB it’s not such a big deal.
From decades of apartment management I can say there will be 1 car per bedroom/studio.
29 studios means 29 cars. 46 one bedrooms means 46 cars. 15 two bedrooms means 30 cars. For a total of 102 cars not counting visitors.
Some will have less but some will have more but the total will be 102, meaning 37 cars added to the street.
Look at the neighborhood around the Cottage Hospital housing at the old St Francis Hospital site, the streets used to be nearly empty now they are packed with cars. Cottage claimed people would not have cars as they would provide shuttles to work. What about going to Grocery stores? Costco? Soccer games? Home Depot? A spouse that works in Goleta? Santa Barbara is car dependent it is very hard to get around without one.
Yeah you’re spot on about the Cottage takeover of the St. Francis neighborhood. That’s turned into a street parking hassle for everyone living near there. Planning isn’t happening too well in the City Planning Dept. It’s turned into building at all costs.