Two competing gatherings on April 9 — a developer-hosted open house and a concurrent community event organized nearby by preservation advocates — drew strong turnouts and sharply different reactions to a proposed 191-home project on the Carpinteria Bluffs.
At the developer’s open house, organizers of “The Farm Carpinteria” outlined plans for 191 for-sale residences — 94 townhomes and 97 single-family homes — on roughly 27 acres at 5885 Carpinteria Ave., a site now used as a golf driving range and for agriculture.
The property sits next to the decommissioned Chevron facility, Carpinteria City Hall, and the Carpinteria Bluffs Nature Preserve. Developers said hundreds of residents and stakeholders attended to review exhibits and offer feedback.
“It was great to have the opportunity to talk one-on-one with so many passionate, involved neighbors,” said Paul Brenneke, founding partner of Sortis, the project’s lead developer. He said the team worked to design a neighborhood that “fits in with the fabric of Carpinteria,” maintains open space and coastal access, and makes “great strides toward easing the housing shortage.”
The proposal includes 39 affordable for-sale units (20% of the total), split between 19 townhomes and 20 single-family homes.
The development team says it filed a preliminary application in December 2024 under California’s “builder’s remedy,” after the City of Carpinteria lacked a certified housing element. Under that process, certain local development standards are inapplicable if at least 20% of units are deed-restricted for low-income households.
The team also notes the site has Planned Unit Development zoning for residential use; proposes two-story homes set about 200 feet north of the railroad tracks; and an overall building footprint covering approximately 26.7% of the site, below the 30% maximum.
Plans show three pocket parks, private internal streets and alleys with access from Carpinteria Avenue, and a “Coastal Farmhouse” architectural style. Just over four acres on the southern portion would remain undeveloped as publicly accessible open space with maintained trails and native habitat.
Nearby, Citizens for the Carpinteria Bluffs held a simultaneous event at the Carpinteria Woman’s Club, urging residents to oppose what it describes as a “large-scale luxury” development it says would eliminate 27.5 acres of open space bordering the Bluffs Nature Preserve and the Harbor Seal Rookery Overlook. The group reported dozens of attendees signed up for future actions and purchased T‑shirts.
“Typically, proposals of this magnitude are presented at public hearings where regulators can collect comments,” said Patrick Crooks, president of Citizens for the Carpinteria Bluffs. “This was different because the developer believes they are exempt from the normal process, hiding behind a builder’s remedy veil.”
The group argues the project would remove an existing organic farm and replace it with rows of large homes and characterizes the affordable component as insufficient. Crooks said the plan treats nearby coastal amenities — open space, coastal access and the seal sanctuary — as selling points for a private enclave. The group also contends the property has not been offered for sale for preservation despite public interest.
Formed in 1996, Citizens for the Carpinteria Bluffs has previously partnered with the Land Trust for Santa Barbara County on acquisitions including the Carpinteria Bluffs Nature Preserve and Viola Fields (1998) and the Rincon Bluffs Preserve (2018).
The application that was submitted under builder’s remedy was for the same plot of land, but a different project. The first iteration was a 99-room luxury resort, spa, and farmhouse restaurant. Carpinteria residents were vocally opposed to this project as story poles were erected on Carpinteria Ave.
Carpinteria’s Architectural Board of Review asked for substantial changes to the proposal, but the developers scrapped the plan entirely and are now proposing the 191-unit housing development.
Brenneke said more outreach is planned: “A special property like this demands something befitting of its location. We look forward to working collaboratively with the city and the community to craft a mutually beneficial project.”
The April 9 events marked the first broad public presentations of both the proposal and organized opposition. Additional opportunities for comment are expected in the months ahead as the review process unfolds.
Also Read
- Back-to-Back Launches at Vandenberg: SpaceX Starlink Mission and Minuteman III Test
- Above & Beyond: Celebrating the 2026 Santa Barbara County Classified School Employees of the Year
- How California’s 2 Biggest Pension Funds Became a Battleground for Trump Politics and More
- 20 killer whales show up off California coast in unexpected encounter
- Boutique Hotel in Downtown Santa Barbara Listed for Sale at $7.6 Million
“ . . . great strides toward easing the housing shortage.” ” . . . working collaboratively with the city and the community to craft a mutually beneficial project.” I love how Brenneke tries to make it sound like he’s doing something positive.
I’m going no on this project. We don’t need it or want it. See of the powers that be listen to local citizens or get greedy for cash.
What a surprise. Whining and criticizing something that has absolutely no affect on you whatsoever.
Baloney once again. Think harder. Traffic, congestion, development, freeways…
Some of us stand with those against development around here. Shouldn’t be a surprise at all unless you’re transplant.
Yes, we need this project; we have a housing shortage, and it goes a long way towards the 901 homes needed by 2030. It’s also a much better use than the driving range that’s there now. Lastly, there is plenty of the bluff that is currently preserved and protected.
You don’t get to have a say–this isn’t in Goleta. Keep Goleta out ofCarp.
^^^ Cries all day long about SB but lives in Carp. You are a joke.
They should eliminate the single-family units in exchange for more townhomes and studios. There is a serious shortage of affordable housing in Carpinteria (Goleta too), so it makes more sense to build smaller units on less land. Possibly include underground parking or construct three-story buildings to reduce the footprint. I hope that when these units come onto the market that locals are given a preference rather than becoming second/third/etc. vacation homes for part-time or no-time residents.
More dotard drivel based on zero data..
should have left the bluffs a race track.