Back in April 2022, when the plan was announced to develop the 27.53-acre site at 5669 and 5885 Carpinteria Avenue with a hotel and workforce housing, Carpinterians reacted with horror, insisting that the bluffs must remain undeveloped. Personally, I thought if the land was going to get built on, as the zoning allows, the proposal was close to ideal: “20 acres will be for open space including native habitat restoration, public trails, and [a 7-acre] organic farm. Another 5.93 acres will be for ground-level hardscape including walkways, terraces, driveways and parking all on permeable surfaces. The remaining 1.6 acres will be used for the [99-room] hotel, restaurant, event barn, farm operations and residential spaces.”
I’m bringing all of this back up in detail in the hope that the new proposal—for 191 dwelling units (97 detached single-family homes and 94 townhomes, likely for sale and not rent)—is a ploy to get Carp to reconsider the original one. The new design, by Bassenian Lagoni in Newport Beach, has yet to be made public, but I think we can assume it will use more of the land than the hotel would have.
The state of California does not care that residents want the bluffs preserved; hellbent on adding housing, it is allowing developers to circumvent the bureaucracy once used to stymie unsavory projects. While the 191-unit proposal qualifies for the dreaded Builder’s Remedy provision (also used for the monstrosity proposed behind the Mission in Santa Barbara), the developer is saying it’ll use the density bonus to accommodate the housing instead—and retain the Builder’s Remedy rights if they turn out to be necessary. The plan will start to make its way through the Carpinteria planning process soon.
And bear in mind that the Chevron oil and gas processing facilities nearby (5731 Carpinteria Avenue) are on the verge of being decommissioned, eventually opening up another large site on the bluffs for development.
UPDATE: This post has been edited to remove mention of MGMT Partners, which was the project manager of the original proposal but is not involved in the new iteration.
················
Sign up for the Siteline email newsletter and you’ll never miss a post.
I’m a Carpinteria downtown resident, and I think this is excellent, We already have more than sufficient portions of the Carpinteria Bluffs preserved for future generations. What Carpinteria needs, and desperately, is more housing, and 200 new units will go a long ways towards meeting the 900 units required by California. It will be even better when the Chevron oil and gas processing facilities are decommissioned, which will open up even more space for housing.
Boy you are in the 1% on this issue then.
I find it hard to believe you are actually who you say you are. If, in fact, you are, you are certainly not someone who treasures where you live, and have no desire to preserve it.
Oh well, I guess there are people like you. I am all for new housing. Developing the Bluffs for that purpose seems to be the most destructive. There are more properties available for that purpose than that irreplaceable treasure of nature.
I’m with GOYA. that’s 2% now
Be careful what you wish for…..
As a resident of downtown Carpinteria, this is an excellent idea. We already have sufficient portions of the Carpinteria Bluffs preserved for future generations. What Carpinteria truly needs is more housing, and the addition of 200 new units will significantly help meet the 900 units required by the state of California. This need for housing will be further addressed when the Chevron oil and gas processing facilities are decommissioned, which will create even more space for new housing developments.
Seems strange a “downtown resident” wants to see more development.
Why would that seem strange? I’d love to see more cafés, shops, and even housing downtown.
Totally agree – adding more permanent residents (as opposed to tourists) will help create a more dynamic and vibrant downtown that many locals would love to see.
My guess is that many who rent their homes, particularly the youthful, would want more rental opportunities, shops and vibrancy, and would be less concerned about preservation of the community as it exists today (eventually some of these for-sale homes will be rented).
IMHO I’d rather have service folks that work here, live here, feel they belong and grow civic pride. South of us the civil unrest of the have-nots living on the street is growing. What is the alternative, build a moat.
Absolutely terrible idea to put high density housing in-between a superfund cleanup site and a nature preserve, with the Seal Sanctuary along the oceanfront of this property. Carp residents want this land preserved as open Space for future generations to enjoy. There are other more suitable locations for this development, for example along Via Real west of Bailard Ave. The Surfliner Inn proposal near the train station is an example of appropriate development – it’s downtown, adjacent to non-vehicle transportation, and walking distance to the beach and downtown shops.
Then buy it rather than steal it
200 units on about 28 acres is not high density, but low to moderate density. More housing downtown is desirable, but would require rezoning with much higher height limits than the two-story limits now in place, since we can’t build down, or out, or in, only up.
Nice try. There is enough building planned at the end of Bailard (172+ units) and East of it on Via Real. (139+ units. Once building is completed, the four-way stop intersection of Via Real and Bailard will become a nightmare in the mornings and evenings.
I wish someone would develop off of Foothill instead of crowding an already crowded area.
Local media has never provided an address for monstrosity proposed behind Olde Mission Santa Barbara.
505 E. Los Olivos Street
I hope they do not develop this land. We need open space and nature . Housing can go on other spaces not developed in Carp.
NIMBYism at its worst. This is why housing is so expensive here and elsewhere in California. Everyone wants housing built somewhere else.
This is literally no individual’s backyard but a jewel treasured by a huge majority of the community for the very reasons that make this community great. NIMBYism is real. This has nothing to do with NIMBYism. Try again.
Totally agree! We need to preserve open spaces for everyone‘s wellbeing. Plus, unfortunately new housing is not affordable to those who need it. It only ruins our small coastal communities with more traffic, crowding, etc.
Bravo. I completely agree.
To the Members of the Carpinteria Planning Commission, City Council, and California Coastal Commission:
I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed development of 191 residential units, including 97 detached single-family homes and 94 townhomes, on the 27.53-acre site at 5669 and 5885 Carpinteria Avenue. This letter outlines critical environmental, legal, and policy-based reasons why this project must be rejected or significantly curtailed.
1. Coastal Act Non-Compliance
The project site lies on Carpinteria’s coastal bluffs, a sensitive and iconic coastal resource area. Under the California Coastal Act (Public Resources Code §§30210–30240):
• Development must prioritize coastal resource protection, open space preservation, and maximum public access.
• Replacing open habitat and farmland with high-density residential units fails to meet the Coastal Act’s mandates for environmental stewardship and public benefit.
2. Builder’s Remedy Limitations
The developer intends to utilize the Builder’s Remedy provision to override local zoning. However:
• Builder’s Remedy (Gov. Code § 65589.5) applies only if Carpinteria lacks a state-certified Housing Element.
• If the City has updated and certified its Housing Element, Builder’s Remedy no longer applies, invalidating the developer’s basis for bypassing zoning constraints.
• Even if invoked, Builder’s Remedy does not exempt projects from compliance with objective standards related to health, safety, and coastal environmental protections.
3. California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Deficiencies
Under CEQA, this project would generate significant unmitigated impacts, including:
• Loss of native habitat and open space
• Increased coastal erosion and runoff pollution
• Traffic congestion exceeding local roadway capacities, particularly on Carpinteria Avenue and Highway 101
• Water supply and infrastructure strain, especially in a drought-prone region
• Greenhouse gas emissions inconsistent with local Climate Action goals
Any attempt to rush approval without a full Environmental Impact Report would violate CEQA’s procedural and substantive requirements, exposing the City and developer to litigation.
4. Public Trust Doctrine and Easements
The Carpinteria bluffs have historically been viewed as a public resource. This development threatens:
• Public trust rights for coastal access and scenic preservation
• Potential open space easements or deed restrictions that limit privatization and intensive residential buildouts
We request the City investigate all title restrictions, public trust obligations, and easements prior to considering any entitlements.
5. General Plan and Zoning Conflicts
This proposal is fundamentally inconsistent with:
• The City’s General Plan policies prioritizing open space preservation, environmental protection, and community character
• Zoning density limitations designed to prevent overdevelopment, traffic congestion, and infrastructure overload
A rezoning or General Plan amendment to accommodate this scale of development would require findings of consistency that cannot be factually or legally supported.
⸻
Request for Action
In light of these concerns, I respectfully request that:
1. The Planning Commission and City Council reject this proposal in its current form.
2. The California Coastal Commission exercise its appellate authority to deny or modify the project to comply fully with the Coastal Act’s environmental and public access mandates.
3. The City require a full Environmental Impact Report addressing cumulative impacts, including future Chevron facility redevelopment.
4. The City confirm the status of its Housing Element certification, negating any misuse of Builder’s Remedy provisions.
The Carpinteria bluffs are an irreplaceable natural and community resource. Approving this project would irreversibly damage the coastal environment, erode public trust, and contradict California’s longstanding commitment to coastal stewardship.
Thank you for your consideration of this important matter.
Respectfully submitted,
Myself & The Entire City of Carpinteria and its constituents
This message is for BobT.
This is not the correct place for such a message to city employees. I think you should write them directly or better yet go by their office and talk to them in person .
R.
I believe he already did. He is just reiterating here. He wants everyone in th community to see it.
“the developer is saying it’ll use the density bonus to accommodate the housing instead—and retain the Builder’s Remedy rights if they turn out to be necessary. ”
Translation – if you folks don’t like a 200 unit development, wait till you see the 400 unit one we have waiting in the wings.
Change is inevitable, but you can shape what that change looks like. You can’t if you simply fight to stop it. Working with the developer would be beneficial to all.
That was actually the point I was trying to make. If people want to reflexively oppose everything, then they may end up looking at something that looks like the 505 E. Los Olivos Street proposal, and saying “hey you know, that hotel they proposed was pretty nice.”
Yes, I was only reinforcing your point. Opposing everything to the bitter end, ends with a bitter ending.
You can’t blame the state or builder’s remedy if you helped to stop a proposal that included 20 acres of open space. Instead of only opposing the hotel, the community should have fundraised and partnered with a conservation group to preserve the land (like Wilcox/Douglas, San Marcos, etc). Find a rich person who want a park in their name. You can’t just say “no” and not work towards an alternative. Even if this is stopped, the proposals will keep coming.
Nancy Reagan would disagree with your statement. This was her famous quote.
“Just say No.”
Yes, Nancy said that regarding people using drugs, and, of course, everyone started saying No to drugs and stopped, thus solving the nation’s drug problem. Right? No, it did not, the problem got worse, and simply saying “no” to change, won’t stop it either.
Does anyone know if there has been any effort–anywhere in the state–to launch a petition to put a proposition on the ballot to repeal the “Builder’s Remedy”? It seems consistently used as a cudgel to force unwanted development and/or “negotiate down ” ridiculously oversized and inappropriate projects. There appears to be no appetite in state government to remove it, but would the electorate at large want it gone?
Yes. A statewide group known as Our Neighborhood Voices has been working on this for more than a year. Try Googling them. I don’t have specific info so best to go to the source. After this week’s horrendous vote on the budget and the last-minute trailers, the public needs to get very involved to save CEQA.
Yes, there is a Statewide ballot initiative which needs more folks to sign on and support.
OurNeighborhoodVoices.com
Check it out.
https://www.ourneighborhoodvoices.com/#what-is-our-neighborhood-voices
We all need get active, write local and state leaders re: our disapproval of the way they are handling this “housing crisis”. Forced building does not remedy the affordable housing situation since most workforce people still can’t afford these developer’s asking prices. Is the short-sightedness of politicians worth ruining the beauty of California by mass development.?! We cannot be passive on this matter!
NO to development. NO to housing and NO to traffic! When is enough enough? Do you all want to destroy the beauty and spirit of where we live? You want more density, more shopping, then move to a city of your choice but leave our local towns alone! .
we need more housing. the reason we end up with bad development or no development, is because so many oppose all development. Good development happens when the extreme voices on both sides are eliminated and economic and social factors are considered. good development revitalizes a community. change is inevitable and needs to be embraced. if people want it for open space then they should buy it. what if someone liked their land and said it should be open space. open space is good so long as people are willing to pay for it. otherwise it’s just stealing.
BUILDERS REMEDY?? No! Housing density on steroids. It’s time to join hands against this. Make a special note TODAY to join a statewide ballot initiative against this via this link: OurNeighborhoodVoices.com
You’re welcome to buy the parcel so you say NO to whatever you want. Or you can tear down your house and restore the land its sitting on to help preserve the beauty and spirit of where we live
Bruce,
Please go live on an island..!! What is so wrong with growth.?? You are something else.
R.
Roy, your type of thinking will destroy our beautiful community..