••• “In no uncertain terms, the Santa Barbara Planning Commission rejected the proposal to overhaul Paseo Nuevo, throwing a wrench into the city staff’s effort to cut a deal with the downtown mall’s leaseholder,” reports Noozhawk. “Members of the commission called for a full stop on the city staff’s proposed idea to turn over the land underneath the mall to the developer as a way to sweeten the deal.” But this part is baffling: “Commissioner Lesley Wiscomb […] objected to the market-rate housing, suggesting that it looked too ‘upscale’ for what Santa Barbara needs. She also said the plan favors out-of-the-area, world-class brands for the retail spots. Instead, she said, Santa Barbara should favor local businesses.”
••• “Governor Signs Bill Requiring Eight-Story Development Behind Santa Barbara Mission [at 505 E. Los Olivos Street] to Undergo Environmental Review [….] Environmental Housing Bill Signed into Law, Creating New Hurdle for Controversial Project.” There developer will undoubtedly file a lawsuit. —Independent
••• “Military Approves Second Site at Vandenberg to Increase SpaceX Launches.” What was it that Dwight D. Eisenhower said about the military-industrial complex? —Noozhawk
••• “In its first seven years, cannabis taxes generated on average $8.5 million a year for the County of Santa Barbara—that’s cultivation and retail sales. For the last fiscal year that just ended in June, cannabis operations yielded the county of Santa Barbara $5 million. This information, presented to the county supervisors this Tuesday, is a continuation of a long, slow downward slide.” —Independent
••• “Developers can build housing inside commercial buildings in downtown Santa Barbara without having to include affordable units.” —Noozhawk
••• “Santa Barbara City Council members Wendy Santamaria and Kristen Sneddon retreated Tuesday night from the proposed 15-page rent stabilization ordinance they drafted, after a backlash over the proposal’s transparency. Santamaria and Sneddon worked with ‘pro-bono attorneys’ and tenant advocates to draft an ordinance that would have capped annual rent increases by 60% of the Consumer Price Index. They bypassed the normal city process, in which new ordinances and changes to existing ones are driven by the city staff, and then shaped by the council. […] The City Council in the end voted 4-3 to direct staff to start a ‘work plan’ to study rent stabilization and return to the full council for discussion by the end of 2025. ” —Noozhawk
••• “The City of Santa Barbara paid an unexpected $4.7 million on soil remediation and other unexpected changes for the Santa Barbara Police Department headquarters currently under construction [at Cota and Santa Barbara]. The project will be delayed for about five months.” —Noozhawk
••• “Lower Tunnel Trail has reopened to hikers and bikers as of [last] Wednesday, after Southern California Edison finished construction for its Mission Canyon Stream Restoration Project. The utility company initially said the closure, which started in early September, could last up to four months.” —Noozhawk
················
Sign up for the Siteline email newsletter and you’ll never miss a post.
Go ELON go!
Is there a form I can fill out to ask the California Coastal Commission for a rebate? I’d like a financial settlement for the time wasted on the politically motivated anti @SpaceX comments and all time spent on how “scary launches are, and how they are Trump associated”- seems like the folks at VSFB are on the side of progress & innovation…..it really stymies me how California minds it’s business despite the stupidity on these commissions. How embarrassing for the CCC- @SpaceX ought to name the new launchpad after them! KABOOOOOM🚀
Liberal mental illness kicks in when they found out he supported Trump
It Never ceases to amaze me why this quite unpleasant Christine chooses to read Siteline and continues to live in California.
Please move to Texas
I agree 100%!!
I am so happy that our leaders are standing up for what’s right.
Giving away public land for developers to make a profit is inexcusable. The developers say “we won’t make enough money otherwise.” Too bad. The land belongs to us. The city should only build affordable housing there and forget about getting a profit. If the developers can’t make it work then let them take the loss… they bought temporary lease holding rights.
Regarding the Old Mission development… again, thank you for doing the bare minimum to prevent such an evil monstrocity from being built. The strain on emergency services personnel during a fire to evacuate or assist those buildings would be devastating. The traffic bottleneck would be so dangerous. It would take over a half hour to evacuate the project behind the Mission… 500 cars!!! That’s like begging for the Camp Fire that happened in Paradise, CA to happen here. Unacceptable!
Your paragraph regarding the Paseo Nuevo complex is incoherent. I just want to make sure other reasonable readers understand that “the city” can’t actually build anything and that if developers “can’t make it work” then we’re not going to have housing, period – affordable or otherwise.
If they can’t make it work then no deal. The land belongs to the city. Affordable housing or nothing. If they lose money I don’t care. They bought the lease as it is. Not as a promise to acquire the land permanently. They are lying about the 6% profit anyway. They’d just charge more at the end and make a ton of money off of land that belongs to all of us.
Roger, with all due respect to your opinion, my opinion is that you are a part of the problem. This thinking is what leads us to what we have, a dead downtown and State St with no light at the end of the tunnel. The solution to State St IS housing. We need people down there, and we need them to shop, eat, and support local businesses. We agree on that. But NOBODY will lose money to build housing. The city does not have the money to build housing. We need business minded people that live in reality to find real solutions that lead to real change and real action.
Where did I say I oppose housing on or near State Street? If we are going to build housing it should be downtown or along our urban corridors. But this situation is unique in that the city is making major financial concessions, some permanent, to a global private equity firm. Under no circumstances should the city gift public land or destroy a parking garage in order to make a project “financially feasible” for private equity. It would be such a major mistake to give away our ground rights to Paseo Nuevo to get this project built. Give them another lease, sure, but it’s unfathomable to give away public land — that’s permanent and we’ll never get it back.