A group of local planners, architects, and preservationists have issued a public statement that opposes the development of two expansive Santa Barbara projects proposed for the Riviera. The proposed projects are said to be built on 505 East Los Olivos Street and 1609-1615 Grand Ave below Alameda Padre Serra. However, its potential impact is of growing concern amongst the architectural community of Santa Barbara.
Highlights
- Architects and planners of Santa Barbara have issued a statement against the development of two proposed housing projects in the Riviera.
- The projects have been proposed on 505 East Los Olivos Street and 1609-1615 Grand Ave.
- The critics have stated concerns over its environmental and cultural impact.
Details of the Statement: Opposing the Impact of the Project
The two proposed projects on 505 East Los Olivos Street and 1609-1615 Grand Ave have sparked debate among members of the community as well as design professionals. While the development would address the housing crisis by adding residential units to the area, the statement argues that the plans do not adhere to the legacy and landscape of the Riviera.
In the statement, the group of professionals also stressed upon the cultural and historical significance of Santa Barbara Riviera, which is home to landmarks such as Old Mission and Mission Canyon. Additionally, it states that these projects could contribute to wildfire risk, increase traffic, and strain the already limited emergency access routes.
The professionals have noted that the steep and narrow streets in the Riviera do not support the proposed high-density development. Expansion could endanger public safety. The group also calls on legislators, local leaders, and planning commissioners to resist this development. They are advocating for more context-sensitive and thoughtful development.
505 E. Los Olivos Project
The project at 505 E. Los Olivos Street, located adjacent to Old Mission Santa Barbara, is proposing an eight-story building containing 270 apartments. Of those apartments, 54 would be considered low-income housing.
The proposal from Los Angeles developers appeared to have leveraged California’s “Builder’s Remedy” law to potentially sidestep local building restrictions. The “Builder’s Remedy” comes into effect when a city or county has not obtained state certification for its housing element. Under this rule, developers can bypass local building restrictions and density regulations for housing developments that include affordable units for very low, low, or moderate-income households. The aim of this measure is to incentivize the construction of affordable housing and address the state’s housing shortage.
These mysterious developers who go by the name “The Mission LLC,” also filed a legal petition in May stating the city’s requirements for a complete application violate builder’s remedy laws after the city stated there was missing information in their application.
Nestled behind the historic Santa Barbara Mission, the proposed development’s scale is unprecedented in the area and is nearly equivalent to the size and scale of the Granada Theatre building.
The nearly 5 acre property holds significant history for the local area as a former monastery and retreat center. It sold in 2021 for $7.5 million, according to Redfin.
Interestingly, the property is adjacent to the former St. Anthony’s Seminary which sold at auction for $16.7 million this summer. The buyer, and their plans for the property, are unknown.
1609-1615 Grand Ave Project
The Grand Ave project is proposing a six story building with 53 unites, 11 of them will be considered low-income.
A preliminary application was approved in May 2023 to build 30 apartment units due to the Builder’s Remedy law. The application was submitted by Craig Martin Smith of the Los Angeles-based Industrial Partners Group and was reportedly the city’s first permit the Builder’s Remedy.
Smith’s multi-family structure is proposed for a vacant double lot at 1609-1615 Grand Ave below Alameda Padre Serra. It was originally described as a Spanish revival-style project with 30 units, six of which will be low-income, with 4,000 feet of outdoor communal deck space, city and ocean views, underground vehicle parking, electric vehicle charging, bicycle parking, and resident storage.
The adjacent lots on Grand Ave sold in December 2021 for $2.6 million, according to real estate listings.
Related Articles
https://www.edhat.com/news/giant-250-unit-eight-story-housing-development-proposed-near-mission-santa-barbara/
https://www.edhat.com/news/30-apartments-proposed-for-lower-riviera-due-to-builders-remedy-law/
Also Read
- Tractor Rollover Sparks Vegetation Fire in Cuyama, One Person Trapped
- Vegetation Fire Burns Nearly 2 Acres in Solvang
- Newsom Launches Free Admission Pass to Over 30 State Historic Parks For Limited Time
- Santa Barbara Beachgoers Warned of Dangerous Waves, Strong Rip Currents Through Thursday
- Lompoc Approves Massive 34,661-Square-Foot Toyota Dealership on Vacant Theater Site
We saw what happened in Palisades. Now these evil developers want to endanger everyone by clogging evacuation routes. The citizens of the city should not be punished because city administrators were out of compliance. The city should never allow this project to proceed. Contact all your representatives.
we can thank our state politicians including Newsom for “LA Developers” being able to sidestep our local building regs.
The monstrosity planned behind the Mission is bad enough, but Grand Ave? Do the homeowners across the street or up the hill have no remedy against the 6 story building that will block their million $$ views and property value?
We need to do whatever is legally possible to stop these, especially the Mission development. Changing the whole character and view of our iconic Mission is one thing, putting residents in extreme danger is quite another.
Just one more reason Americans are so unhappy – money talks louder than anything else.
As Rowse said about the Los Olivos project: “I think if there’s ever going to be a time when I join in on civil disobedience, that might be it,”
Funny, I was thinking about the Monkey Wrench Gang yesterday…
Rowse is full of hot air. I’d like to see him take stand on anything. So far he’s only put his foot down against food trucks a decade ago.
Damn State of California requiring all this housing without regard to local aesthetics/resources/safety. Not really the developers fault for exploiting a loophole but they have no soul.
These projects MUST be stopped! As a SB native, I hate to see our city turn into LA. This “Builders Remedy” has to be stopped. It’s going to ruin our city. We need local control NOW before it’s too late.
Why didn’t the city send in the paperwork on time if they knew this could happen?
Maybe the Schmidts could jump in to save this property! Some interesting exotic plants growing there, including an enormous Dracaena draco, some Mission-era stonework. The back of the property drops down to Mission Creek. It would made great open space, or could be developed as a retreat facility. So wrong to put apartments there, absolutely the wrong use of that property, in that neighborhood. If someone with very deep pockets and created a conservation easement, it could provide some tax relief while protecting the land.
“The “Builder’s Remedy” comes into effect when a city or county has not obtained state certification for its housing element.”
Thanks again Gavin, you’re a real pal!
But hey, lots of folks here in SB and most of wealthy, liberal CA communities were all in on him. You reap what you sow.
BASIC – hey….. pssst…. just a little tip, but Newsom does not run SB City or SB County.
You’re welcome.
Wake up call!! He’s THE reason why this monstrosity and all these other massive developments can even be considered here. His housing mandate? Ever heard of it?
You’re welcome…
LOL you never know what you’re talking about. Please keep it to yourself.
I know you hate Newsom, we all do. You blame him for everything including the weather. Just give it a rest.
Man, I wish we had an edit button! Didn’t there used to be one years ago?
Anyway, what I meant to say is, “You blame him for everything probably even including the weather.”
I wouldn’t lie about something here. That’s what you do, BASIC!
This is so simple, Sac. Who mandated all this building? Will you answer? I know you voted for him…just admit it.
It’s not on Newsom. Do some simple research.
“Rediscovering the California builder’s remedy
If it’s possible for someone to unearth a forgotten law, Elmendorf can rightly claim to have excavated the builder’s remedy.
The Legislature added the provision to the government code in 1990, but no one used it for decades. In the one case Elmendorf found where someone tried — a homeowner in Albany, just north of Berkeley, who wanted to build a unit in his backyard in 1991 without adding a parking spot — local planners shot down the would-be builder.
Elmendorf stumbled upon the long-ignored policy 28 years later while researching East Coast laws that let developers circumvent zoning restrictions in cities short on affordable housing.
He started tweeting about it. He even dubbed the California law the “builder’s remedy,” borrowing the coinage from Massachusetts.
“I think it’s fair to say that people in California had forgotten about the builder’s remedy almost completely until I started asking about it on Twitter,” he said. “I think those twitter threads led some people to say, ‘huh.’”
https://calmatters.org/housing/2023/06/california-builders-remedy/
News flash – he’s mandated local housing development here. You disagree?
You’re right, Sac. Our local city council and the board of supervisors SHOULD run the city and county. But Sacramento’s across-the-board housing mandates require 8000 new units in the city alone with minimal affordability requirements. The “builders’ remedy” was created by the same state lawmakers. Newsom may not run the city or county, but the state certainly sets the parameters and limits local power.
ANON – true, but blaming him for the failure of our local government to not follow the law is misplaced. It’s like putting all the blame on the legislators who made the law instead of the people who broke the law.