The Architectural Board of Review on Nov. 10 continued concept review for a proposed two‑phase, 443‑unit rental housing project at 3845 State Street (the former Sears and auto center site at Lacumbra Plaza). After a detailed applicant presentation and extended public comment and board discussion, the board voted unanimously to continue the item indefinitely and to instruct the applicant to return with targeted design revisions and a limited story‑pole proposal for two public corners.

What the proposal includes: case planner Patsy Price summarized the application as demolition of two existing commercial structures and construction of two 4‑story residential buildings on a 14.19‑net‑acre legal lot, to be split by tentative parcel map into a 9.39‑net‑acre parcel for the new housing. The applicant describes 443 rental units (35 studios, 194 one‑bed, 191 two‑bed, 23 three‑bed), 478 vehicle parking spaces (surface, tuck‑under and structured) and 487 bicycle spaces. The submittal also proposes approximately 50,900 cubic yards of cut and 5,100 cubic yards of fill and an approximately 10,000‑square‑foot leasing/amenity building. Patsy Price noted the application is incomplete but close to a completeness determination and that, because this is a housing project, state law limits the project to five hearings once deemed complete.

Design changes shown to ABR: applicant representatives (Dave Eady, landscape architect Scott Baker and architect RC Ali) presented a substantially revised visual program intended to respond to earlier ABR and planning commission comments. Team highlights included: a 12‑foot multiuse path and bus pullout on Calle Real; reoriented trash access away from Calle Real; expanded plaza and publicly accessible spaces (dog amenity and multiuse path along Arroyo Burrell Creek) totaling roughly a half acre of publicly accessible open space; scaled‑down tower elements; simplified rooflines and elevations; reassigned parking‑structure articulation (reduced three‑story arched openings to two‑story colonnades with smaller openings above); and stepped building massing to follow site topography.

Public comment and concerns: in‑person speaker Steven Busch urged the board to require story poles so neighbors can visualize the scale. Virtual speaker Steven Johnson criticized the proposal’s affordable housing approach, saying the assigned moderate‑income housing allocation (131 units) would not be realized in the current design and that the average unit size (approximately 850 sq ft) was large for a priority overlay site; he suggested splitting one‑bedrooms into studios and increasing car‑free moderate units. Fred Sweeney (public comment) urged the applicant to hire a designer versed in Santa Barbara architecture and criticized the tower elements and scale.

Board concerns and direction: ABR focused heavily on massing, elevation treatment and neighborhood compatibility. Key recurring requests and concerns were:
- Authenticity to Santa Barbara architectural character: several commissioners urged the team to provide inspiration images and to more convincingly translate Santa Barbara motifs (arched arcades, punched windows, tile roofs, proportions) rather than rely on repetitive vertical recessed slots that read as vertical bands.
- Horizontal composition and fenestration: commissioners asked the team to study paired/punched windows, vary fenestration sizes by floor (smaller windows at the top), reduce repetitive verticality, and explore stronger base/body/cap composition or material banding (stone or heavier base treatments) to reduce the “billboard” effect from Calle Real and the freeway.
- Massing and public interface: commissioners encouraged moving massing toward the center, stepping the fourth floor back as much as feasible, breaking the long facade into distinct wings, and studying a paseo (public connection) that links courtyards to surrounding circulation networks.
- Story poles: the board generally supported a targeted story‑pole plan for key public vantage points (the Lacumbre/Calle Real corner and the side‑street corner) rather than poles across the entire 10‑acre footprint; staff and applicant were asked to propose a practical compromise and a limited set of pole locations.

Board action and motion: Board member (mover) moved and another board member seconded a motion to continue the item indefinitely. The motion (passed unanimously) included direction that the applicant return with:
- revised architectural language and precedent images demonstrating a clear approach to Santa Barbara character or a justified contemporary alternative;
- revised fenestration and material strategy (consider punched windows, stone or banding, and smaller upper‑floor windows);
- study of a paseo to increase public porosity and courtyard connectivity;
- analysis of feasible fourth‑floor stepbacks to reduce perceived mass on primary pedestrian frontages; and
- a limited story‑pole proposal identifying a small set of vantage points (two primary corners) and a modest plan to communicate street‑level height and scale to the public.

Next steps: the applicant will return with a focused response to ABR direction and a proposed targeted story‑pole plan for board consideration. The board did not make project‑level compatibility findings and took no final approvals at this hearing.