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
We had an unexpected guest in town last Sunday and wanted to dine early; someplace special. El Encanto was not our first choice-but it is where we landed. We enjoyed a delicious meal and fantastic service. I was pleasantly surprised by the menu updates. The serene atmosphere cannot be beat so I do hope El Encanto lands up and we locals can regularly enjoy its ambiance and food for not the crazy unreasonable prices that too many resorts serve up.
Local media has never provided an address for monstrosity proposed behind Olde Mission Santa Barbara.
Agree (music too loud for dining). Do we dance …
or dine? Loud music in a restaurant is instant indigestion. 😆
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.
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.
Seems strange a "downtown resident" wants to see more development.
Thank you for the link to the high tea article. It makes me cringe when local hotel and restaurants insist on using the phrase High Tea to describe their Afternoon Tea experience. I complain all the time but the looks I get, as if I am daft, are equally annoying. As an anglophile and someone who has lived and worked in England for many years, I do know the difference. Following a recent trip to England I posted the difference on my social media and was happy to read comments of thanks for the explanation from my followers. So, thanks Siteline.
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.
The live music at Wylde Works is often so terrible and the open mic nights even worse. I simply couldn't sit and enjoy a nice glass of mead when almost every time someone eventually would sit on the piano seat and hack their way though a song and usually not complete it, or worse, take the mic during open mic night and do the same with a guitar and horrendous vocals. It drove me away as a fairly regular customer.
‘Would you mind explaining why “ $17.975 million is sex on a stick’?
I did google the expression. Still doesn’t make any sense. Alice Erving and David Gebhard are rolling in their graves. Not sure if you even know who they are.
Maybe you should name your newsletter “SnarklineSB”?
100% agree....the days of Jim Armstrong are well over...no one has done the job as well since he left the building...!
Be careful what you wish for.....
Look them up
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.
That restaurant menu is mostly the worst. Hope they will now match the food with the view.
Current homeowners are strained by ‘unaffordable’ taxes, insurance, upkeep. We need an effective CITY MANAGER and with a focus on affordable policy to help residents keep what they have and a city budget that isn’t bleeding at every turn. The ‘affordable’ housing excuse to cram every open space with cheaply built ‘luxury’ has become outrageously foolish, unrealistic and tone deaf.
1000 State Street. Montecito Bank & Trust doorway
I love how passionate the fight has finally become in the bottom of the ninth inning.
