8 stories , 270 units and NO visuals. VERY SCARY!
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?
Here is a link to a hypothetical rendering: https://ibb.co/wZMBTCDQ.
I started reading for the real estate ( I'm trying to get back home) but there's never anything in my price range (1.5).
Now I read just for the author's sharp wit. I love it.
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.
you clearly don't understand eminent domain laws
Dahl... the writer to anchor nightmares of a third grader, James and the Giant Peach...
I secretly donated that birthday gift to the local library. Then walked to the adult section and checked out an Ian Fleming Bond novel.
Good report.
Oh god, please don’t tell me that the “Andy” behind that vision4santabarbara is failed right-wing candidate, Andy Caldwell.
Yes it is a monstrosity behind the mission, but Santa Barbara’s very own “election fraud” conspirator has a vision no one wants. I hope this is the last time we see his nonsense on Siteline so it doesn’t be come “Rightline”.
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!
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?
100% spot on. It’s infuriating
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.
I spy my favorite little Summerland beach cottage !! Walk with Me is my favorite part of Siteline. It reminds me to stop and notice all the little things that make this city special.
great post!!!
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
