Santa Barbara’s Best Architect award, a controversial Mission development, and why knowing the facts matters before Election Day.
On November 3, Santa Barbara voters will choose a mayor and three City Council members. Those decisions will influence what our city looks like, how our tax dollars are spent, and what kind of community we leave future generations.
But how much homework do we do before voting?
We read endorsements, recognize familiar names, listen to campaign promises and sometimes assume that an award or recommendation means someone has earned our confidence.
Consider what happened in this year’s Santa Barbara Independent Best Of Santa Barbara contest.
The Best Architect in Santa Barbara?
The Independent named Bildsten Architecture and Planning its 2026 Best Architect, with Jeff Shelton as runner-up.
But readers who followed the Independent’s own reporting might remember something else.
Bildsten Architecture and Planning had been identified in the City’s permitting records in connection with the controversial proposed development at 505 East Los Olivos Street, immediately behind our Historic Santa Barbara Mission.
The proposal calls for approximately 270 apartments and parking in eight stories of residential on the West side and seven stories of housing plus three stories of parking on the East Los Olivos Street side.
Its size, location, and potential effects on historic resources have generated substantial concern and opposition.
And that brings us to a question.
How many people voting for Best Architect knew about the firm’s documented connection to this application—or understood what that connection actually meant?
What the City Has Now Confirmed
After inquiries, I received a written response from Santa Barbara’s Community Development Department on October 29.
The City confirmed:
“The original 2024.07.22 plan set lists Bildsten Architecture as Responsible Agent on Sheet C-1 (Title/Notes Sheet), which was prepared by Obando & Associates Civil Engineers. Responsible Agent changes to The Mission LLC on subsequent submittals.”
In other words, Bildsten Architecture’s name appeared on the original July 22, 2024 plans as Responsible Agent. Later, that designation changed to The Mission LLC.
Think about that.
A proposed eight-story development directly next to one of Santa Barbara’s most treasured historic landmarks – the “Queen of the California Missions” – yet the City says it cannot confirm who the architect is beyond the first application.
The designation “Responsible Agent” does not prove Bildsten designed the building. Nor does the change establish wrong doing.
The city has confirmed that Bildsten Architecture and Planning is clearly listed on the initial proposed documents.
Who prepared the architectural drawings? What services, if any, did Bildsten Architecture provide, and why is Bildsten listed in the original application? Why was its designation changed? And who is professionally responsible for the design?
The questions are important and legitimate.
I emailed Ellen Bildsten two times requesting clarification and received no response.
And What About Grand Avenue?
The Mission proposal is not the only large development raising concerns.
At 1609–1615 Grand Avenue, another Builder’s Remedy proposal calls for a building of approximately 53 units on the Lower Riviera: six stories of residential at the Grand Ave side and two stories of parking partially submerged going down the slope.
The two projects share a development connection through Ben Eilenberg, according to published reporting.
Is Bildsten Architecture and Planning involved in the Grand Avenue project as well?
In July of 2025, more than 65 local architects, designers, and planners, publicly opposed both proposals, raising concerns about neighborhood scale and compatibility.
All these questions remain open and are my new homework assignment.
And that is precisely why checking original documents matters.
Who Really Chooses the Best?
On October 28, I received a letter emailed out questioning its Best Architect selection and the relationships between local architects and advocacy organizations.
The newspaper has explained that readers nominate and vote for the winners.
Fair enough. That is how a readers’ choice contest works.
But a popular vote is not the same as a professional review of qualifications, project history, or community impact.
So how many and who voted? We do not know. Was it the very effective advocates we know as “Strong Towns?”
The award may accurately reflect the preferences of those who participated and who are unknown as to their associations or expertise in the matter.
But it cannot answer the questions raised by the City’s development records.
Voting tells us who received the votes. It does not tell us how thoroughly each voter investigated the choices.
Now Consider Our City Election
Santa Barbara faces major decisions about State Street, housing, historic preservation, infrastructure, and its financial future.
The next mayor and Council will help determine how those decisions are made.
State Street alone involves a Master Plan with an estimated cost approaching $100 million. Major housing proposals are testing the relationship between state housing requirements and local planning standards. Residents are organizing referendum efforts over State Street and rent stabilization.
These are not small issues or decisions.
Before voting, residents can examine Council minutes, candidates’ public statements, campaign-finance disclosures, actual voting records and the costs of proposed policies.
When a candidate claims credit for an accomplishment, who actually proposed it? Who made the motion? Who voted for it? And what was the result?
When an organization endorses a candidate, what policies does that organization support? Does the candidate agree?
When someone promises to protect Santa Barbara’s character, what does that mean when developments such as those adjacent to the Mission and up on Grand Avenue overlooking the city are enabled?
And when someone promises fiscal responsibility, how would that person pay for the projects being proposed? Such as the State Street Master Plan that seems far from a place of being clear of actual scope or cost?
November 3 Is Almost Here
The Independent’s Best Architect award offers a useful reminder about the limits of voting based on reputation.
Bildsten Architecture was named Best Architect by participating readers. But are these readers fully informed about the accomplishments and focus of this architect?
The City’s records separately confirm the firm’s original Responsible Agent designation for the Mission application, while leaving its precise professional role unresolved.
Both facts can be true.
What matters is understanding what each one actually establishes.
The same principle applies to elections. A candidate’s endorsements, popularity or campaign promises are only part of the information available.
Our elected representatives will make decisions affecting Santa Barbara long after the campaign signs disappear.
Did You Know?
An award is not an investigation. An endorsement is not an accomplishment. And a campaign promise is not a voting record.
Before November 3, do your homework. Know the record behind the name. Your vote helps shape Santa Barbara’s future.
After Doing My Homework…
Throughout this election season, Did You Know? has examined candidates’ backgrounds, public records, policy positions, and qualifications. Every voter should conduct their own research and reach their own conclusions.
The columnist’s previously stated endorsements for the November 3 election are:
Mayor: Eric Friedman
City Council, District 4: Monte Wilson
City Council, District 5: Cevin Cathell
City Council, District 6: Anyone but Gabe
U.S. Congress, District 24: Bob Smith
These are my personal choices, based on my research. I encourage readers to investigate the candidates and make their own informed decisions.
******
Ballots are out. Only a few day remain until the Nov 3 election.
If you plan to vote early, start with California Current’s proposition guide and Statewide Candidate recommendations—written from the only point of view that actually pays the bill: the overworked, under-appreciated California taxpayer.
We don’t hand you a cheat sheet and walk away. Every recommendation is backed by clear-headed research. Click the link, read the case, then mark your ballot with your eyes open.
NO on 1. The Con Job
NO on 2. Supersizing California’s Slush Fund
NO on 3. The Forever Tax
NO on 4. Your Money, Their Campaigns
NO on 5. Recall Revenge
NO on 37. Robin Hood in Reverse
NO on 38. Pork Barrel Science
YES on 39. Trust, but Verify
NO on 40. Tax Billionaires Today, Tax Everybody Tomorrow
YES on 41. Sergey’s Silver Bullets
YES on 42. Sergey’s Silver Bullets
YES on 43. Stop Getting Steamrolled by Special Taxes
NO on 44. Bleeding Health Clinics Dry
YES on 45. Pondering Prop 45
Note: Props 41 and 42 share one article.
Governor: Steve Hilton
Lieutenant Governor: Gloria Romero
Secretary of State: Donald P. (Don) Wagner
Controller: Herb Morgan
Treasurer: Jennifer Hawks
Attorney General: Michael Gates
Insurance Commissioner: no good choice, no endorsement
State Superintendent of Public Instruction: Sonja Shaw
*******
Need a little help with the 20 judicial retention choices for the Second Appellate District (Los Angeles, Ventura, San Luis Obispo, and Santa Barbara Counties)? Click here.
They even cheat on the Best Of Contest.
That's a new low.
Putting an 8 story building behind the Mission is grotesque! It would have a big effect on the entire neighborhood. I thought the proposal was dead or at least dealing with strong pushback. Please let us know how we can raise our voices against it. That Jeff Shelton is involved is sad. Thanks for this information.