I don't think there'd be enough room for outdoor dining, protected bike lanes, increased pedestrian space, and cars. And of that group, I view cars as the outlier that doesn't mix and decreases safety. In general, I am bullish on building more dedicated/protected bike infrastructure to encourage riding as an alternative to driving. Nearly every other street/freeway has been optimized and subsidized for cars already. The popularity of e-bikes should be viewed as a good thing, but let's make it safer for everyone. Specific to State Street, I think that means better separation of lanes from pedestrian areas, better enforcement against unsafe riding, and keeping it closed to cars.
I’m back in my home state of Minnesota for a visit. Frozen pizza is a much bigger thing here than in CA. I dislike most in CA, some are okay from Bristol Farms. Pizza Parlano from Trader Joe’s is not great but serviceable. For REAL frozen pizza, you need to be in MN or WI. Heggies, Pizza Corner, Lotsa Mozza …
Check into KEYT morning show, their reporters are who I turn to for the proper pronunciation on words native flair is “needed”…who decides which words are chosen? Ibiza? Qatar? Jacaranda? Salsipuedes?
Hi Holly, rents on lower State have been trending down over the past several years while upper State, Mesa, Milpas, and the waterfront have increased. Areas of the funk zone and Coast Village are 3-4x what State Street is - it's not the rents that destroyed the small town feel of Santa Barbara. I'm not sure where you get the sense that development is out of control, development in Santa Barbara occurs at a very anemic pace.
City Council makes the policies, not the city manager. While City Council talks a lot about affordable housing, many of their legislative actions discourages the creation of new housing units, makes the construction of housing more expensive, or increases the cost of living in Santa Barbara.
Yes, I was only reinforcing your point. Opposing everything to the bitter end, ends with a bitter ending.
I think it was a compliment. Alice and David would be very happy if they could see this…
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.
Why would that seem strange? I'd love to see more cafés, shops, and even housing downtown.
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."
NIMBYism at its worst. This is why housing is so expensive here and elsewhere in California. Everyone wants housing built somewhere else.
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.
Comments by first-time commenters have to be moderated. It’s an anti-spam measure
The Jacaranda tree is native of the southern hemisphere and grows in most southern South American countries, not only Brazil. Not sure how they would pronounce it in Brazil but for most Spanish speakers it is pronounced with a “Ha” sound like when you’re laughing. ha/ka/ran/dah.
For an audio sample, look up or listen to the song “what else can I do” from the movie Encanto.
How interesting! I tried to leave a comment that was negative towards the city administration and development and it says I’ve already commented.
"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.
When are the people of Santa Barbara going to say enough? Enough of the greedy, developers and city managers! As a resident of Santa Barbara for over 40 years, I must say I’m looking to leave. The development is out of control! the rents on State Street have decimated the small town lovely feel Santa Barbara used to have. Why do we need more development? Because of the greedy developers. Could we please get city administration that actually cares about our beloved “old” Santa Barbara? All of the things that made Santa Barbara. Such a wonderful town are now gone. What next? A Walmart on Street Street??
WAKE UP PEOPLE!!! We are NOT benefiting from any of this! An eight story development next to the mission??? Really? Nobody wants that!
The capitals on SYR look to be a much larger point size than the standard Cal Trans proportional font set up.
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
The city - including all citizens - must continue to fight back against the irresponsible developers who are trying to take advantage of the inane Builders Remedy to build an 8 story apartment tower next to the historic Mission of Santa Barbara. This project goes against the design ethos that has been in place for over 100 years in SB and has made it the incredibly beautiful city it remains today. I call on all SB citizens to protest this project with the city and to boycott the architectural firm - Bildsten Architecture and Planning - which is designing the hideous project.
Then buy it rather than steal it
I hope they do not develop this land. We need open space and nature . Housing can go on other spaces not developed in Carp.
I think it was 39 years ago I first heard about the El Encanto. I was reading a story in the SB Independent, (maybe the other weekly) it was an interview by Dana Brown that took place on the restaurant patio. Dana described the setting as quite magical, or enchanted as the name says.
Back then I worked at San Ysidro Ranch, then the Biltmore as a gardener, while still looking at EE as the goal. Even before that, in the 70's I've read stories about the lifestyles lived on the property. Sounded like fun.
A few years later I got my dream job, "Grounds Supervisor," at El Encanto. I liked to think of it as Head Gardener. That's what I did, more gardening. . . less supervising. From 1991 to late 2001 I was the gardener. I'm waxing about days gone by.
I look forward to this new ownership. Before the Orient Express, then Belmond, the owners were locals. It's something that's been missing in my opinion. If the new owners are from LA, that's a huge improvement. At least this won't be a multi-national corporation to deal with.
My husband and I married here in 1996 and almost every year we dine in the restaurant to celebrate our anniversary. I absolutely loved the old world charm of El Encanto before it was modernized and rebranded by Belmond. I miss the classic patio furniture and lawn swings with yellow cushions and canopies :(
505 E. Los Olivos Street
