A 1,000-acre oceanfront property along the Gaviota Coast in Santa Barbara County has been listed for sale for $70 million.
Historically known as Naples or Santa Barbara Ranch, the sprawling parcel at 1000 Calle Real in Goleta features mostly flat to rolling usable land, according to its listing by Berkshire Hathaway HomeServices.
Sitting just northwest of Santa Barbara, the ranch includes one mile of ocean frontage, coastal views, access to the ‘Naples’ surf break and ‘Naples’ reef, an 18-acre lake with bass fishing, and more than 220 legal parcels with Certificates of Compliance, according to the listing.
The property has historical roots stretching back thousands of years and, according to the listing, was the area where Juan Cabrillo first encountered the Santa Barbara region in 1542.
Characterizing Naples as one of the most “historically significant, legally-complex properties along the California Coast, the listing explains that Naples was “the city that was never built” and continues to remain mostly undeveloped.
Past History
For thousands of years, the land that is now Naples was part of Chumash territory, with the village of Kuyamu located in the southwest corner of the present-day ranch, according to the listing.
Under Chumash stewardship, the land was managed through seasonal movement, controlled burns, and careful harvesting to preserve balance among the valley, coast, and mountains.
The ranch takes its name from “an ambitious subdivision map from 1888,” according to the listing. Although the plan outlined streets, blocks, and more than 500 lots, the city remained undeveloped due to lack of infrastructure and economic challenges.
By the late 20th and early 21st centuries, legal development rights were established, but large-scale projects were repeatedly stalled due to economic cycles, land constraints, and opposition from environmental groups and local community members.
Present Controversy
During several public hearings over the 10-year approval process for Naples, there were no public comments supporting the project, according to the Gaviota Coast Conservancy (GCC), a group dedicated to preserving the environmental integrity of the Gaviota Coast.
The County of Santa Barbara faced significant legal pressures over the project and ultimately approved it to avoid punitive lawsuits, according to GCC. The group added that the threat of future development could be addressed through public acquisition of the property.
Instead of future development, GCC advocates for the ranch to be used by the Chumash for cultural purposes, to revitalize grazing lands and prime soils, complete a mile-long segment of the California Coastal Trail, and preserve the rural character of the Gaviota Coast.
Future Plans
With its ocean frontage, rolling open spaces, and storied history, Naples offers a prospective buyer a “lasting, positive legacy,” according to the listing.
It remains unclear whether the property will be purchased by a private developer or if conservation advocates will succeed in a public acquisition.
Also Read
- Counties With The Most Pre-War Homes In California
- ‘Shocking’: What Supreme Court ruling on transgender policy means for California students
- SpaceX targeting early Saturday launch from Vandenberg of 25 Starlink satellites; sonic booms possible on Central Coast
- Lockdown at Carpinteria’s Aliso School Lifted After Report of Handgun Turns Out to be False Alarm
- Local Favorite Home Plate Grill in Goleta Announces Permanent Closure
Anyone know who the current land “owner” is for this property? 70 million is a ton of dough for the “community” and conservation groups to pony up. I’d throw a few bucks at it for preservation and to maintain access to this gem. Anyone have Mackenzie Scott’s number?!!
Mostly usable land? Wait until the new owner wants to use their land.
Non property owners will try and force their agenda and prevent anything from happening.
so was this land stolen from the Chumash?
Were the inhabitants or the heirs of the eastern village ever paid for it?
The Chumash never actually ‘owned’ land, they thought of the land as communal.
Smart folks. Too bad we don’t do that.
Sure—until they were forcibly taken from their preferred homes under the mission system. And under that system they should have been compensated don’t you think? And you’re right that they considered land to be that of the community, and their access to their community’s land was taken from them. But I guess you wouldn’t call that theft. Love to see you have that conversation with the descendants if you know any.
Which meant that they all owned it; it belonged to everyone in their culture, and the point is that it could still be stolen.
Perhaps a little history is in order here.
WE did not take the land, the Spanish missionaries did.
Why do you have to include an insult with every post? You are filled with hate:
Challenge negative thoughts by asking if there is another way to view the situation, rather than assuming malice.
Oh, you just said the Spanish took the land. So that means you believe it was stolen? Yes or no?
Where did I insult you, KAPO? You ARE uninformed about this topic and most others. You ARE a liar. Etc etc…..
Those aren’t insults. But yeah, like I always say, I DO HATE racists, bigots, people who are OK with rape and people who try to protect/defend child rapists. Why do you not hate them but instead support them?
I’d like to challenge you to be actually honest for once. Can you try that?
You say my comments are incorrect. Ok, name one.
You say I support terrorists because I oppose killing children in an chaotic and unplanned surprise attack. Ok, explain the logic there.
You say Newsom committed fraud. Ok, prove it.
You say we are helping the people of Iran. Ok, explain why we aren’t also helping the people of Gaza, North Korea and Russia?
You say Iran posed a direct threat to the US. OK, articulate it and explain.
Now you say the Chumash didn’t really own this land. Ok, so explain how this land wasn’t still taken from them?
You say a lot of things not based in reality or fact. Why?
KAPO – that’s not very Pono of you, nor do you care about ohana. No, the Chumash had no deed or conveyance proving ownership of the land, but it was home to them and we took it.
I don’t understand why you, of all people with that name, would try to excuse or justify taking land away from Native Americans.
New owners can expect to take 30+ years to develop one inch of that land.
And with good reason.
The US bought the California region from Mexico in 1848 for 15 million dollars.
Wow! $70 million seems like a very good deal for this property. The article states that it has “…an 18-acre lake with bass fishing, and more than 220 legal parcels …” $70 million/220 = $318K and change per lot. That’s dirt cheap when it comes to premium ocean-view property along our treasured coast. I can see developers or wealthy individual developing a community there, complete with fishing/kayaking lake and a nice “clubhouse.” Once developed, each property could be easily worth $10/12/15 million or more. For certain, someone is going to make a boat load of money. I assume in the very near future that surfers will no longer be allowed (too much liability on the owners of the property) to access the beach. If I had the dough, I’d donate a portion where surfers could park without having to cross over the freeway lanes and add restroom/shower facilities. Alas, I don’t have the money to purchase, but if I did I’d certainly allow legal public access to the beach for surfing, fishing, and plain ol’ enjoying. Hopefully, the new owners will do something nice like that.
Oh yeah sure – sounds like someone is living in fantasy land.
Nothing stopping the Chumash from purchasing the land. Would be a great annexation into their reservation. They could build a oceanfront resort and casino on their sovereign property!!!
People who write statements such as the one above should get off the dole, get off the Blackberry, and find an honest living.
In fact they could. It would
require a legislative act but it’s not impossible.
SAIL – if this was their “sovereign property,” why would they have to buy it back?
Being snarky about stolen Chumash land isn’t a great look.
It was never the Santa Ynez Band’s property. Doubtless Sail has no idea and thinks one Chumash person is like any other. Not the case. Sail, assuming you live in SBC you should learn something about our history.
Thanks to Ed’s article here I’m so excited at the idea at least some of this property can be bought for public use! I’ve just sent Ed some thumbnails from my assortment of hi-res aerial pix (and a clip from a SB County map of DPRancho), for a glimpse of how magnificent that area is. I like to imagine how it looked in the Chumash era and before, and for it to join Shalawa Meadow as a place to honor their generations who lived in the two “pueblos” there. Is that where there’s also a popular surf break?
What makes you think any of it will be bought for public use?
Hope springs eternal, balanced by skeptics 😉
It would be nice. Unfortunately the most likely way any of the land becomes available for public use would be a development deal with the County.
John: I the idea of allocating a small portion of this land for public use. Maybe even have a multi-use Chumash “cultural center” where local Chumash could give presentations and talks about the area before the Spanish arrived. Some sort of beach access should also be granted. I suggested in a previous comment that maybe a parking area, restrooms, and or changing facilities. Public access certainly would go a long way with the local community and help with the approval of potentially hundreds of units being constructed. As you say, hope springs eternal and we should all be hoping for the best (not a gated community with security guards for the exclusive use of wealthy part-time non-residents).
More nimrod speculation and fantasy from Bends Knees.
Bees, posts like these sound like they are crafted by a simpleton.
You’re not wrong on this. Most likely scenario for public use/Chumash resources and use is that a developer buys it and throws in a piece of public access and a little parcel for Chumash education to try and buy off public agreement in exchange for building a lot of houses out there. Even then, highly unlikely.