December 9, 2005
Ms. Susan Basham
Price, Postel & Parma
200 East Carrillo Street
Santa Barbara, CA 93101
SUBJECT: ST. ANTHONY’S SEMINARY SCHOOL USE
Dear Ms. Basham:
This letter is in response to our recent discussions and two letters from you (dated 11-19-04 & 10-21-04) regarding the potential ownership and use of the St. Anthony’s property by San Roque School Charitable Trust. The thrust of the communication at this point is to establish a mutual understanding of the nonconforming use of the property as an educational institution operating in a one family residence zone without the benefit of a Conditional Use Permit.
Your request is for the City to respond to what you can only describe at this stage in fairly general terms – as being the continued use of the property for educational purposes. In some areas you may have a bit more specific ideas (i.e. changes in the parking layout), but even so you have yet to prepare plans or describe these changes in much detail. You have made requests (A. through J.) for City concurrence on some key land use issues. Rather than a full concurrence, we have been able to discuss several points in general terms and our intent with this letter is to give you as much specific feedback as appropriate at this time. I apologize for the delay in getting this written response to you.
A. Continued land use for educational purposes under the City’s regulations for nonconforming uses and buildings. The basis of the City’s current findings for continued use of the property and buildings is pursuant to Santa Barbara Municipal Code 28.87.030 and .038. In the event that the City adopts new regulations that affect the nonconforming status, a further determination of those regulations effect on this property would need to be made at that time. However, we do certainly recognize the legal nonconforming use of the property for educational purposes, and as more specifically defined below.
We are glad to hear that you are interested in the possible landmark designation for portions of the property and we believe that such designation can be a benefit in terms of confirming improvements to nonconforming structures being acceptable to the City. We suggest that the initial steps for landmark consideration begin as soon as possible. The City’s Historic Landmarks Commission (HLC) has a Designation Subcommittee that would be delighted to meet with the owner and/or their representatives to further explain the meaning, process and effects of such a designation. Please contact me and I will arrange for such a meeting.
B. Boarding school. If a boarding school is proposed it would be considered a new use at this time and a Conditional Use Permit would be required.
C. Leases & other uses. The continued use of the property by existing tenants (Waldorf & Middle School) through new lease agreements is certainly acceptable to the City, provided that their use of the property not exceed historic uses or be less intense. The use of the property by a variety of entities, including the general public, is an area where, unfortunately, the records of users and level of use is a bit unclear. It will be necessary for the City to review and approve of major new user groups or leases in order to determine if a new tenant or user would trigger some form of discretionary approval by the City or whether the proposal is consistent with the allowance for the nonconforming uses. We understand that your intent is to have essentially all uses on the property relate to the primary use as an educational institution or other historic community uses – recreational, spiritual, concerts, etc. We do not expect significant issues to arise based on the general description of uses anticipated and described in your 11-19-04 letter.
D. Maximum Enrollment. The City has recognized a maximum enrollment for the property at 360 students. This determination is documented in a letter to Robin L. Rossi Living Trust dated 10-10-03. Our determination of maximum enrollment is total enrollment and is not as you describe in the 11-19-04 letter as average daily enrollment. We understand that terminology is used by schools keep track of student attendance or other reporting needs, but for the City from a land use perspective – it a simple total maximum of 360.
E. Residential Uses. The property has had residential use in it’s history as an accessory use to the school or the Mission Friars. We agree that such use may continue as generally proposed in your letter. However, we will need to review and approve of the specific areas and improvements planned for the residential use accessory to the school. In particular, we believe the use should be in areas of the buildings previously used as residential or sleeping areas, and that no additional kitchens in dwelling units are allowed.
F. Building Changes & HLC Review. You are correct that the HLC does not have review authority over the interior of the buildings. The City’s Building &Safety Division will be the oversight on what is required for ADA and UBC compliance. A designation of the property/buildings as historic landmarks can offer more flexibility in addressing the City’s building and zoning code issues, and we would be happy to explore this with you further when specific improvements are proposed.
G. Discretionary & Land Use Review. Review by the HLC is focused on compliance with Santa Barbara Municipal Code Chapter 22.22 and is focused on design review and historic preservation – it is not a land use review. The HLC design review is actually discretionary rather than ministerial as stated in your letter. The decisions of the HLC are subject to CEQA and are appealable to City Council.
The land use review you are seeking at this time is an administrative determination on allowances for continuing a legal nonconforming use. There is a limit to the administrative authority for both the continuation of and changes in use in this kind of non-conforming situation. The limitation or standards for review consider any change of use and no increase in the intensity of use is authorized. What could ultimately bring the property into conformance with zoning is a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for educational institutions, quasi-public facilities and other ancillary uses. It is the intent of this review to determine what is allowed without the need for CUP under existing City ordinances; however, we are open to working with you and the others on the property on a CUP, if needed or desired at any time in the future.
H. Parking. Generally speaking changes in the parking layout could be found either to trigger a CUP or as allowed through a substantial conformance determination as an appropriate improvement. The type of change that could potentially trigger a CUP is the addition of a substantial number of parking spaces or new paving in areas that have not been used for parking in the past. We understand that you may propose changes that are better in terms of environmental conditions and drainage (i.e. moving spaces away from the creek bank areas). We are available to review proposed plans and a review by the HLC would also be necessary.
I. Community & Other Uses. This subject is of great interest to us, the neighbors and others in the community (see attached letters). As we have discussed, the City is very interested in establishing a baseline listing of all the various uses that have regularly occurred on site in the recent years. We are open to having those uses continue under the same context as a nonconforming use. We encourage you to continue to work with the neighbors as they have a great desire to understand your clients’ intentions and possible change with regards to informal use of the property by pedestrians (i.e. continuing public access with no fencing of the property boundary; please note that any exterior change such as a fence is subject to review and approval by the HLC). In conversations with your representatives, we understand you do not intend any substantial changes to the public use of the property. So that the City and public have a clear understanding of your intentions with this issue, we would appreciate your written response regarding this matter.
J. Construction & discontinued use. At present, the City’s view of the property is that it is in use for educational purposed with a maximum enrollment of 360 students and a variety of community type uses also take place there. Municipal Code Section 28.87.030.E.5. & 9 provides that that school use may continue. We realize that in the event restoration and improvements are made to the buildings, there would be a time where the use would be temporarily discontinued. As we mentioned, the City would not view such a temporary vacation of a building during construction for rehabilitation as a “discontinuation” of the legal nonconforming use provided that the construction is diligently pursued to completion.
The Saint Anthony’s property is special and the City has an interest in seeing that it continues to be an important part of our community. I trust this letter addresses your specific concerns and p lease feel free to contact for any clarifications or further discussion.
Sincerely,
Bettie Weiss
City Planner
cc: Paul Casey, Community Development Director
Stephen Wiley, City Attorney
James Armstrong, City Administrator
Mayor Blum
F:\USERS\PLAN\BW\St Anthony's12-10-04.doc