••• The “eight-story apartment tower proposed for behind the Santa Barbara Mission [505 E. Los Olivos Street] is moving closer to reality but still faces significant review under the California Environmental Quality Act. The City of Santa Barbara on May 12 deemed the project application incomplete for the fourth time, but the issues are largely technical and minor.” The Noozhawk article includes quotes from Mayor Randy Rowse about how the 270-unit building is a travesty and how it’ll cause big traffic problems in that area, and yes, absolutely. But what no one in a leadership position in Santa Barbara seems to be doing, unless it’s behind closed doors, is looking for a path to block it for good. If that’s not possible, so be it. But is there? We need big thinking. Can state officials do anything? Can the public be mobilized somehow? Can the property be purchased from the developer? Where are Santa Barbara’s vaunted preservationists? While the state law is at the core of the problem, it was city officials who got us into this mess by allowing the Builder’s Remedy clause to kick in. (Also of note, perhaps more for myself that anyone else: “The City of Santa Barbara has not released a rendering of the proposed tower,” reported Noozhawk. “Any renderings, according to a new state law, are owned by the architect until the application is deemed complete.” My objection to this is not just personal: the public has a right to know what a proposed structure looks like—and nowhere is that more obvious than in the case of 505 E. Los Olivos Street.)
••• “Two Electric Shuttle Services Coming to Downtown Santa Barbara […] New State Street Loop Debuts May 29; MTD’s Downtown-Waterfront Shuttle Returns Following Day.” The free State Street Loop will be “running up and down from Cabrillo Boulevard and the Waterfront to Victoria Street. The Loop will operate Thursday-Sunday from noon to 7 p.m. No app is needed to ride, and riders can hop on or off at clearly marked stops along the way. The Loop will operate using three golf carts, with two holding five passengers and a driver each and one serving as an ADA-compliant cart.” —Independent
••• “Air Force Releases Draft Environmental Impact Statement on SpaceX Plan for Second Launch Site at Vandenberg [….] With the second launch facility plus a boost in the pace at SLC-4, SpaceX expects to conduct 100 Falcon missions a year from Vandenberg. […] The 45-day public comment period on the Draft EIS runs through July 7. […] Written comments also can be submitted via an online form.” —Noozhawk
••• The New York Times looked into the research into the noise caused by rocket launches: “’There is a gap in the science,’ said Kent Gee, a professor of physics and astronomy at Brigham Young University in Utah who is one of the few scientists studying the sounds of spaceflight. ‘We don’t know what people actually find acceptable.’ […] The best time to address rocket noise is before problems become pervasive and entrenched, Dr. Gee said. He is not calling for an end to launches, but says data could point to how to lessen disruptions. ‘If we wait 10 years, it’s too late,’ he said.”
················
Sign up for the Siteline email newsletter and you’ll never miss a post.
Regarding the 505 E. Los Olivos proposed development: I suggest that the site be thoroughly searched for Chumash artifacts, including burial items. I was told by one of the former residents that they frequently uncovered such items when excavating for landscaping projects, etc. I believe such a historically significant burial site would preclude any disturbance/development.
Why are people always against projects like this? Are hey not aware of the housing shortage in Santa Barbara?? What’s wrong with people?? I hope this project gets approved. So what if there’s more traffic in this area.
R.
Come on Rob, you should know by now that changes are a sensitive topic in this town… lol especially in Housing.
There should be an open conversation but people already fight it, not even knowing how it looks like and what really the scope is…
Roy, yes we need more housing, but this project is way too big. There is nothing “wrong with people” we just want to preserve our town and the mountain views that make it so very special. The last sentence in your comment is incredibly insensitive. There is already way too much traffic near the mission.
Roy, I assume you are new to Santa Barbara. Having moved there from So. Cal. in 1981 as a financially struggling, technical school graduate it was challenging. However, the beauty and uniqueness of the area was worth every extra penny. I learned about the many committee’s that existed to keep Santa Barbara beautiful and not be destroyed by unethical, greedy builders from the South. That generation of protectors is now pretty much gone, sadly. After 44 years I am selling my home this month because I am so very saddened about what has happened to our community and its thoughtless, unattractive, multi-story dwellings that have popped up everywhere. What happened to the water crisis/building moratoriums? I lived 3 blocks from the Mission and would walk up to the Rose Garden/Mission property several times a week. The thought of being able to see a 270 unit apartment building in the vista behind the Queen of Missions is nauseating and unforgivable.
Be careful what you decide to build in the name of “progress”which is defined by a forward or onward movement toward a destination.
I was born and raised in Santa Barbara. My family has been in here for about 125 years. How about you how long have you lived in Santa Barbara and how long have you been afraid of progress ??
R.
This was the plot of at least one Parks and Recreation episode.
Sorry…even if a burial is found it will not stop the project. The law is very clear. Burials are the most significant of possible impacts. But they dont stop projects they only slow them down. We are focused on the possibility of cultural resources being discovered.
Thank you for acknowledging where the proper blame for Builders Remedy lies – City Council and staff love to point the finger at the state, which to me is like blaming the speeding law when you get pulled for driving 90 mph. Staff and the council knew exactly what would happen if a compliant housing plan wasn’t submitted in time, and for whatever reason chose not to devote enough resources/attention to it. Now they act all shocked and complain their hands are tied. Ultimately if the project behind the Mission does get built, it will be a colossal monument to the City’s incompetence.
Re: the plans I believe you (or any member of the public) can still view the submitted plans by appointment, the City just can’t publish them online.
Bingo – why couldn’t City respond on time to State/Builder’s Remedy? Too busy trying to get homeless free wifi , too busy looking for new group to study State street and much to busy riding their ebikes.
You get what you elect…
The city is 100% responsible for the State/Builders Remedy fiasco we are in now. I’m not sure what they do on a daily basis besides hiring people to help them figure out what to do!
Those developers are pure evil.
The travesty behind the Mission is a tipping point. This project is irreversible. Once built, there’s no Undo button.
It has pushed me past my limit of being able to sit on the sidelines (sitelines?) and do nothing but complain about the total leadership void in this city. We must act — decisively and immediately — to stop it. Whatever it takes. I call on City leadership to DO SOMETHING NOW, and tell us what the plan is. I won’t hold my breath.
It’s clear that our City leadership has totally abdicated. They’ve got no vision, are putting in no apparent effort, and aren’t willing to fight for what needs to be done — whether that’s against internal inertia, or the overreach by the State of CA.
Have you tried talking to the City Council or Mayor, or head of a department? Every interaction with City leadership reeks of complacency. As one commenter here mentioned: there’s an excuse for everything. Often, blaming the State for why nothing can be done. If you aren’t willing to fight for what needs to be done, step aside.
We are creating a group of people who want to work together on a platform for the future of the city, and ultimately to select people we’ll support in running for office. People who never want Santa Barbara to become an overbuilt LA suburb, but who also want it continuously improve. We’ll settle for nothing less than Santa Barbara being an absolutely world-class seaside small city.
If you want to join the mailing list, we’ll email you as we progress updates and how you can get involved. The site is brand-new, so there isn’t much yet, but join the mailing list to follow along: [www.vision4santabarbara.com](http://www.vision4santabarbara.com/)
The City is restricted by the State Law. Those opposed to this should be talking to the State lawmakers who put this in place, and ask for immediate changes. Complaining to the City might feel good, but it will accomplish nothing on a practical level. The Builders Remedy ship has sailed no matter how much we wish it hadn’t.
You are absolutely right about state lawmakers. But I think it’s an and, not an or. I doubt we as a city have exhausted every last possible option.
Sorry but you are wrong. State Lawmakers are not going to be able to help. If they had any power to intervene ( which they don’t) then they would be obligated to step in on other Cities (which they wont) Its an idealistic viewpoint. We strongly suggest before you hype the community up you learn about the various Housing laws. Start with the 1969 HA, the RHNA. SB330 and the enforcement division of HCD codes and Enforcement. Once you have caught up, then you will see how limited it all is. Ignoring all that prevents focus on the only avenue afforded to the community. CEQA review. Holland and Night produce s list of Housing laws every year and what they do. We suggest starting with 2019 and read every year till 2025. After that you will understand what options are available and what options are just a waste of time. Best of luck.
Just to make my comment a little more useful, here’s the contact info for the state lawmakers NL references.
Gregg Hart, Assemblyman: https://a37.asmdc.org/contact
Monique Limon, State Senator: https://sd21.senate.ca.gov/contact
To underscore why I disagree that complaining to the City “feel good, but it will accomplish nothing on a practical level,” there are 120 other state lawmakers we need to convince beyond Gregg and Monique. Mayor Rowse and the City Council should be in Sacramento meeting these people and getting votes. We should expect more of our city leadership. I want them all to be as good as the people who work the parking lots :P
OH yes BTW…this project was submitted during the time the City of SB had lost its permitting authority. This means the decision to approve this project or deny it is gone from the playbooks. No appeal, no other authority. It is basically a free project approved once the application is accepted. Right now the City keeps refusing the application over frivolous things. Like someone would say..no application shall be submitted in blue ink…etc The City o f SB only had 3 applications come in during that period. The County of SB had 18 come in. With the way the Housing laws are written, there is no way to prevent this project. You can slow it down and cause financial increases with CEQA, but aside from getting the owners to want to sell the property and having the money its locked in. Just how the law is written.
https://www.hcd.ca.gov/planning-and-community-development/accountability-and-enforcement
Do the city administrators in charge of the housing element still have their jobs? It’s so sad that the citizens are stuck with this monstrosity because of government incompetence.
As a part time resident here for 5 years now it’d become quite apparent the SB city hall “leaders” don’t have a f*cking clue what they are doing and the residents sit behind the hedge lined compounds in silence letting the town get picked apart by special interests and developers. It’s mind boggling how difficult it is to get simple individual permits from the city but they readily give 2 thumbs up to build 8 story apartment complexes near the Mission and it’s historic surroundings. Follow the money. Always follow the money.
100% spot on. It’s infuriating
Is city council blind and other powers? Santa Barbara Old Mission is a National Historic Landmark. 90 feet towering apartments will loom over the Mission bell towers and decimate the photogenic church bell towers and site line. Esthetically, it will no longer be termed, Queen of the Missions. Also, traffic in and out of designated property will be thoroughly congested with Alameda Padre Serra converging with E. Los Olivos and Mission Canyon Rd. Some 15-20 years from now a round-about will be necessary.
Has the Mission Creek been EPAed?
Ironically, the developer has named this monstrosity, Mission LLC.
To all those commenters and interested parties, this will never be built. The developers are from out of town, I believe their name is Sm*%#h. Unlike well known local developer and landlord, Mr. St. George. . . Mr. St. George has dropped all of his pending projects even though he’s as local as the Fig Tree.
So everyone, chill. If Mr. Ed is fleeing SB for greener pastures in SYV, then these kooks from LA don’t have a prayer of building eight stories behind the Mission.
Agree Dan. With that said, our City Council and Mayor should be pushing in Sacramento as well. It simply can’t be built there nor anywhere in town. . Also, who are all the people who will be living in the thousands of residences being built? Just because there will be more doesn’t mean the prices will go down anywhere. One problem we have is out-of-towners rent places and live here very little as well as contribute nothing.
A few years back the city, county and the state tried to get the old bridge over Mission creek and its nearby roads and intersections upgraded to handle today’s traffic along with the big concern, emergency access and evacuations. Money was allocated, designs were created, studies commenced. The entire project was stopped because of a few geriatric citizens who value their nostalgia more than our safety. They were able to squash the project regardless of its public safety necessity because, well, their feelings.
Today, there is a dilapidated old rusting fence, overgrown weeds and corrugated steel piled on an ugly old stone wall that all come together at a narrow bridge. No sidewalk, narrow access and monthly accidents.
So if a few 80 something year old activists could stop something as necessary as a new bridge and roadway because of their foggy memories, what makes you think this type of development will proceed?
1- It’s in a high fire zone.
2- It’s in the archeological protected area which requires a significant amount of site prep and monitoring, and the potential for significant finds.
3- It’s in a historically designated area.
4- It’s covered in protected oaks.
5- It’s in Santa Barbara where there are 1000’s of retired and unemployed people with nothing to else to do but attend meetings and protest.
My guess is the developer is gaming to negotiate for something else altogether and this building, in its current form, is never built. But yeah, the rest of you are spot on. The city of Santa Barbara’s employees continues to fail in their duties and responsibilities. They are inept.
Precisely. Everything you listed (plus much more) will get flagged by the CEQA Environmental Impact Report and will open the door for endless lawsuits… this is how project gets killed
Many commenters say this project won’t be built because it must go through a CEQA review and there are too many possible negative impacts. Please be aware both Newsom and Weiner and their cronies in Sacramento are trying to gut CEQA. They and their new ‘YIMBY’ friends from the tech and real estate industries see CEQA as a ‘barrier’ or ‘impediment’ and are blaming CEQA for our housing ‘crisis’. This argument has been proven false. SB residents need to get vocal about saving CEQA, as residents in many communities in CA. are already doing.
This project is a garish parody of development. Eight stories behind the Mission, or anywhere in this town, should never be an option. You’re not against development if you oppose this project. Anyone living here and who enjoys the lifestyle and the town would never want this project to proceed.
To separate fact from fiction and from the unfathomable:
1) When a city is out of compliance with the state, there is a provision called Builder’s Remedy. A planner friend who passed on the contract for assembling and presenting the city’s ‘Housing Element’ (due to the city’s disorganization) told me when they missed their deadline with the State of CA. It sounded like a big deal at the time and so I wondered to myself, what happens now? Well, 505 E. Los Olivos for one.
2) This project is so ridiculous for our town that I think the B.E. law can, should, and will be challenged. So far it has been challenged in court anywhere in CA to my knowledge. We need to focus on how the city is planning on handling this. They have been justifiably sued 6 ways to Sunday before in similar ways – and lost much of our money most of the time. But this particular development is different, has to be opposed, and the case is ripe for challenge. This developer is a public enemy of the entire community. We need to know the city’s plans on mounting the fight and hold them to it. We need transparency as the law allows and as is appropriate. Maybe they can’t divulge everything, but we need to know they got this on the radar and won’t fail.
3) I think the courts may rule the B.E. law can’t be so draconian so as to cause ruin the aesthetics an entire community. The people of this community did not cause this problem and we should not bear the consequences of the city’s incompetence. The ramifications of the law extend out for 50-75 years for innocent citizens. It is too punitive a solution and I suspect judges, who tend to mitigate damages, might try to find a middle road or reject the remedy due being so incongruous. It turns Nimby into Bhaaa! or Build Housing Almost Anywhere Anyway Anyhow. Sorry Roy, the answer to bad planning is not worse planning.
4) I like the other ideas. No stone should be left unturned. We should fight back with all options.
5) It is doubtful – though possible – that we could raise enough money to buy this property. The developers will not sell for what they bought it for. Getting 270 apartments here is a gold mine for them. If for instance they made $150,000 per apartment (if they sold out) that = $40 mil. Not bad a for few years work. However, we do have our resident billionaires here, and there is entitlement risk + many unknowns on this development. So it’s worth exploring. Developers are optimistic by nature, so they probably think they’ll make 55 mil. So, the stakes are high. At any rate, it would take 30m probably to get a place at the talking table. You would need a commercial broker to push this through, a good one. Hopefully they do it pro bono. I realize I’m throwing out big and general numbers, but they can be refined and things can be quantified better by the ‘experts’. Building costs are extremely high and if the developers know they will face unrelenting opposition, they will start to consider other options. This is a war of attrition. Let’s win it.
Out of the 5, buying the property is the only choice, thats if they are willing to sell.
What happens now…the developer appeals to Court and will win because it is extremely clear the City has been stalling by requiring frivolous things. It will be an eye opener when the court comes down on them. All anyone needs do is look at the outcome from court case in Goleta, Shelby ranch. It was a builders remedy project and the City got slapped over its frivolous reasons.
Bottom line everyone needs to support the public process of ceqa review.
https://opr.ca.gov/ceqa/getting-started/?embedded_webview=true
John please refrain from writing such a long comment. Just so you know I only read the first 2 sentences and got bored and stopped. Next time think of others before you write such a long comment.
💀😂
Any renderings the architect does are owned by them. But a third party with the right credentials and software can make an accurate rendering based on the plans the architect submits for approval. These can be done from different views to see what the project will look like.
Has anyone considered having the city purchase the property by eminent domain and using it for low-rise public housing, maybe including some public parkland? It seems the recent purchase by the developer would assist in determining “fair market value” by the court, not an outlandish figure that the developer might ask of a philanthropist.
you clearly don’t understand eminent domain laws
Does anyone know why the three golf carts on State St. are running as a group [as observed yesterday, 5/31]? Are the drivers still in training mode? If that is to continue, couldn’t the three carts be connected, like a train, to lower operating costs?
I saw told it was due to ADA (only 1 of the carts is accessible). Connecting them would make sense, the frequency isn’t great with them clustered.
They said they are clustered in Oder to keep bigger groups of people together. They have an electronic feedback survey in the carts if you want to give feedback about frequency, route, etc
Does anyone know why they didn’t buy three ADA compliant vehicles? Seems like a no brainer. And better serving an occasional group shouldn’t override better [i.e. more frequent] service to the majority of users who are not part of a large group.
Here is a link to a hypothetical rendering: https://ibb.co/wZMBTCDQ.
Looks strangely like the monstrosity in the Valley… Seems as though the Chumash are expanding their Santa Ynez reservation into the heart of SB…
When the project first came to light, I went and looked at the submitted elevations, and I recall it descending down the hillside—so it wasn’t nearly as bad as this. But the plans were preliminary, and much may have changed since then. (Noozhawk states that “the project is proposed to be 90 feet high,” but it’s not clear what the starting point is.)
Re 505 E Los Olivos: My grandfather had a framed photo from Windsor Soule, the architect firm that made an alteration on Caroline Hazard’s “Mission Hill” property (603 mission Canyon Rd was called, and which is now 505 E Los Olivos). This was all unbeknownst to me this week, when I started researching who I could deliver this bit of historical memorabilia- framed photo to.
Here’s what I found out:
-The current structures of 505 E Los Olivos are on the SB city historical resource inventory list. “ Several resources on site as part of the important Hazard estate:sandstone walls, Mission Hill house, a Victorian house constructed in 1885, St. Mary’s Retreat House AKA Dial Residence, a Tutor house constructed in 1920. at 505 E Los Olivos St. APN 025-150-009”
Don’t you think there would have to be a review at this historical department? Or is that overridden in the builder’s remedy as well?
-This used to be the Unitarian Universalist Sanctuary and on their website it says that this was a Chumash settlement, so there probably is something still to be addressed in that respect.
-In an Independent article, it seemed to say that the original proposed structure would be within 25 ft of Mission Creek. So it had to be moved over in a subsequent update. But aren’t the creek setbacks typically 50 ft back? This may be an issue that remains to be addressed?
There was no Chumash settlement on that side of the Mission. It was on the other side of the Mission. The nearest village on that side was up rocky nook park closer to foothill rd.
It is possible that random resources might be found on this property, temporary settlement around building walls during the 1700s is not uncommon. We are watching this project closely.
8 stories , 270 units and NO visuals. VERY SCARY!
Are there noise disturbance and environmental fees imposed for rocket launches at Vandenberg? There should be. SB/Goleta should benefit as this is a disturbance for all.
that is akin to charging road fees for cars using the roads. Of course a launch is loud….for 12 seconds?
If the city got their shit together and permitted more housing development in the downtown corridor we wouldn’t have to worry about this Mission development. Honestly, 270 new housing units is a great idea… on State Street. Now you have over 500 new regular patrons for retail and dining downtown. And guess what? People who live close by won’t need to drive State either. Win-win-win.
Please, don’t come to this city with good ideas…
They will hire consultants for a ton of money and dismiss the idea and do something else
Hmmm lots of chatter on this site. Unfortunately not one will work.
Everyone must remember that this crazy housing project ar 505 E. LOS Olivos is not like any other before.
You cannot fight it, you are not supposed to. The City cannot stop it and are not supposed to. If the developer takes the City to court, they will loose hands down. The Housing Act trumps all local claims. If you read the reason the ‘application ‘ is being denied you will see its for frivolous reasons. Recent Housing Court cases, judges have pointed this out. Every local government is to do what it can to make the process go as smooth as possible. So far the City of SB has been abusing its process. This is the only time the City can have any say during the application period. Once accepted the clock starts ticking and reviews begin, architecture, planning, Ceqa, city council, all to be done in 180days. Basically each will only get 1 meeting before its final.
If a development project meets development standards then the City and City council cannot do anything to stop it. So anyone who is trying to apply public pressure is wasting time and effort, that includes state officials. Dont waste valuable time. The biggest contribution the public can do is take part of the CEQA review process. Make viable arguments not just say No, it looks dumb. Take the time needed to learn CEQA
https://opr.ca.gov/ceqa/getting-started/?embedded_webview=true
Be useful and not useless.
A good CEQA Comment can force more studies to be done, this creates a financial impact, best thing we all can do it make them pay for it good.
The state and local lawmakers responsible for this will face ZERO consequences because all of you ranting about this here will continue to vote for the same type of ineffective community organizers with zero real world experience, who only tout the regulations they pass rather than the results they provide.
Why can’t they launch rockets out in the desert or mountains, away from towns and homes? It’s rather disturbing to hear those loud crashing sounds and having all the windows rattling. It sounds like an earthquake or a gunshot and it scares the crap out of the animals.
Question: How is this shaking and rattling affecting the San Andreas fault line?
What are you even talking about?