They can’t stop it, but they can make it prettier.
The 90-unit apartment building proposed for 418 N. Milpas St. in Santa Barbara inched toward approval on Tuesday, but the architect will have to tweak the look of the building to make it “simpler, softer and humbler.”
The project is a so-called Builder’s Remedy development, which means the application was submitted when the city did not have a certified Housing Element. Under such rules, the city has no power to limit the number of units or height of the project. It’s also an average unit-sized density incentive program, which allows for higher density.
“It is an unfortunate dance with the state,” Bob Ludwick, a longtime Santa Barbara resident and part of the development team, told Noozhawk. “But it is hard to dance with three people. We are slow dancing with three people, and the state has heavy feet. Everyone gets stepped on.”
The city’s Architectural Board of Review voted 5-1 on Tuesday to continue the project until April 14 to allow the architects time to work on the aesthetics and “fenestration” of the design. The board has no power to deny the overall project, according to state law, unless there is a health and safety problem.
Architect Jan Hochhauser and attorney Beth Collins made the presentation to the ABR.
Several neighbors spoke at Tuesday’s meeting, held in the David Gebhard Room at 630 Garden St. They expressed a range of emotions, from raising concerns about the size of the project, concerns about parking, and an overall dissatisfaction with number of units and design.
“I will be living in a dungeon,” nearby resident Danny Moreno said.
He owns three properties in the area, and he lives in one of them. He said the size of the proposed building would block the sunlight from entering his home — a health and safety issue.
“You talk about health?” Moreno said. “I will have mold in my house.”
He urged the board to make the project smaller.
“Don’t allow me to live in a dungeon where my health will be an issue,” Moreno said. “If it comes to it, I will sue the city, the Architectural Review Board for invasion of my privacy. You are telling me, ‘We don’t care.’”
Developers want to build the 90-unit project on two parcels, at 418 N. Milpas St. and 915-923 E. Gutierrez St. The project would involve the demolition of eight senior units.
It would include 65 parking spaces, 128 bike stalls, and units ranging from 350 to 974 square feet. Nine of the apartments would be set aside for very-low-income tenants and six for moderate-income tenants. The project would include about 850 commercial square feet.
The development is owned by the Goldenstone Trust, Donald Barthelmess and Carol Kallman. Ludwick manages the eight units. He said any development at the site is at least two years away.
Although several local residents spoke, none of Ludwick’s tenants spoke at the meeting. He said he knows them personally and that the developers will find them housing and are even considering moving the existing units somewhere else in Santa Barbara.
The developers are asking for a height exception to reach 50 feet 9 inches. The building height limit for that part of the Eastside is 45 feet. The highest part of the building would be 64 feet 10 inches.
Another concession the developers are asking for is to have only 65 parking spaces. Normally, one space would be required for each unit, but if 11% of the spaces are for very-low-income individuals, parking can be reduced to a half-space per unit.
Another speaker, Joar Gutierrez, said he will be most impacted by the project. He lives next door. He expressed concerns about the new building blocking the sun and exacerbating flooding problems. He is already next to a tall building and would be “sandwiched” between two buildings, forcing water to collect at his residence.
He said the project wouldn’t do anything to help with affordable housing and would worsen parking congestion on the Eastside. He said most households have two cars.
“They are going to be parking around the street, taking some spots from the neighborhood people living there,” Gutierrez said.
The State of California has passed several laws in recent years designed to force communities to build new housing. In years past, advisory boards such as the Architectural Board of Review and Planning Commission had more influence over local projects. However, some projects submitted when communities did not have a Housing Element certified fall under state law, limiting local control.
“There has been very little housing development because we have been so protective of the character of our location and our historic architecture,” Ludwick said. “It’s now all coming home to roost. The state is saying you have got to provide housing.
“With this project, I cannot solve the housing crisis or the parking crisis, but we have talked about the housing crisis and parking crisis.”