No CEQA Required; Project Approved
by Bonnie Donovan
No CEQA Required; Project Approved
Did You Know that nearly 100% of project applications at the City Planning Department are deemed CEQA exempt by the planning dept. Additionally, the state is trying to get rid of CEQA and it is our last chance against monstrosities that our city is no longer using because the state is mandating housing. As citizens we can't even seem to force the city to use CEQA when it applies unless we pay lawyers to use it. Good grief! It totally turns the point around.
418 N. Milpas Receives Final Design Approval
The project at 418 N. Milpas/915-213 E Gutierrez has received final design approval without the implementation of story poles or a thorough CEQA review. It raises questions about the city staff's determination that CEQA was unnecessary. A visit to the area clearly indicates that a comprehensive traffic analysis is warranted, as it would have highlighted the potential impacts of the project.
The city's prioritization of bicycle infrastructure over vehicular traffic has significantly altered the accessibility of Alisos Street. The recent modifications, including the installation of concrete islands at intersections and the introduction of restrictive signage, have disrupted the flow of traffic along the length of Alisos. As a result, traveling one block at a time along Alisos Street, then having to make a right turn is challenging. It proves the need for a more balanced approach to urban planning.
In light of these developments, it is essential to reassess the traffic implications of the project and consider the broader impact on the community. A thorough CEQA review could provide valuable insights into how the project aligns with the city's transportation goals while ensuring that the needs of all road users are adequately addressed.
Road to Perdition
Imagine a scenario where a flood, fire, or any imminent threat forces evacuation. The new traffic pattern on Alisos gives drivers no option other than to turn right on Gutierrez straight towards the garage exit of a 90-unit complex just feet from the traffic light. Before reaching it, you'd quickly encounter a bottleneck created by a line of vehicles, comprising both residents and those parked on the already congested neighborhood streets.
Once you navigate through this traffic and make a left onto Milpas, you face yet another obstacle. Milpas Street is undergoing a road diet, which will soon reduce it to a single lane in each direction, further complicating your escape route. This change adds to the delays, making it increasingly challenging to reach a safe area.
Eventually, you may find your way to the freeway or Cabrillo Boulevard to flee the danger zone. However, if you opt to turn left onto Cabrillo, be prepared for another setback. At Los Ninos, you'll encounter the latest road diet, which has recently eliminated a lane in each direction on Cabrillo Boulevard, although bike lanes have been expanded on both sides.
Remember “years ago” when Rob Dayton addressed the council, urging them to expedite the installation of reverse parking at East Beach? He emphasized that the upcoming repaving provided an ideal opportunity for new striping. Unfortunately, they only repaved the parking area, leaving the rest of the road in disrepair resulting in years of vehicle damage due to poor road conditions.
Recently, Cabrillo Blvd underwent significant improvements with the completion of a new roundabout. Interestingly, this section of Cabrillo, stretching from Los Ninos to the roundabout at Las Patos, has been redesigned to reduce the number of lanes in each direction. In place of the lost lanes, a wider bike path has been introduced, complementing the existing bike path located off the road.
Fast forward to the 418 Milpas project, where the developer's attorney has been making threats about pursuing Builders Remedy to increase building height if not approved at the four-story level.
I believe it’s time to challenge this assertion.
If they were to proceed with a builder's remedy project, they would be required to conduct an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) under CEQA, which is designed to safeguard our community.
Currently, the city is compromising public safety by blocking Alisos Street to create a bike path, restricting left turns and straight access. During the approval process for Alisos, officials argued that Milpas Street was unsafe for cyclists, which is true enough. Ironically, they are now implementing a road diet on Milpas, widening sidewalks, and adding bike paths. This pattern suggests that road repairs and improvements are often contingent upon myopic plans for bike infrastructure and not long-term public safety.
We Have Asked Before
As previously requested, we would like to know when the City Council and Staff will reach out to Sacramento (Newsom, Limon, Hart) to initiate measures that safeguard residents from these harmful housing developments. Santa Barbara is a unique community that requires protection.
A Fellow Santa Barbara Resident sent the following
Santa Barbara is fortunate to have a mostly enlightened populace that actively participates in city government (often/sometimes/more or less). Cities work and communities thrive when the people control local government, never the other way around.
“Of the people, by the people, and for the people” means we are accountable to ourselves, as Santa Barbarans and Americans, for planning and zoning, and building a great community, and a great quality of life.
Santa Barbara didn't become what it is by accident.
People come here, fall in love with our town, then some decide to remake it. That means we have to constantly protect and preserve the quality of life we all hold so dear, or it will soon be lost.
I've heard developers from other states talk about how they want to leave their mark, and "improve" what they "love." When allowed, it leaves permanent changes that are often out of step with the Santa Barbara we love.
If you want to make sure something is screwed up, leave the Council alone to do it themselves.
Why? It’s not a lack of skill or energy or some nefarious payoffs. They are 'managed-up' by City Staff from all departments telling them how things are and what can and cannot be done: the invisible, unelected 'government' that has angered much of this country. They learn about laws and face conflicting groups demanding things other constituents don't want. Most do their best. Most are good people.
Lincoln’s proposition — “of, by and for the people” — teaches us that government simply cannot run on autopilot; it will rise or fall to the level of planning and zoning standards demanded by the community it serves.
Local government is the most accountable government we have. The practical impossibility of being heard in Washington, D.C. or Sacramento is obvious when comparing it to speaking your mind at a Council meeting or speaking with your councilmember.
Public participation sometimes works, thank goodness!
This circa-1953 passage comes from the preamble to California’s open government law. It is timelier than ever:
“The people of this State do not yield their sovereignty to the agencies which serve them. The people, in delegating authority, do not give their public servants the right to decide what is good for the people to know and what is not good for them to know. The people insist on remaining informed so that they may retain control over the instruments they have created.”
Our general plan and our zoning ordinance was carefully worked out during a four-year process of input at literally hundreds of community wide meetings, and with compromises made by all sides. It resulted in rules that are there for a good and valid reason—to protect our quality of life, and not to be taken so lightly (and given away) by this council.
Note to Council: This is not your city to give away. You do not own it! The people own it. The people have put their trust in you to represent us, to manage it, and to above all preserve it and protect it. Those city rules, requirements, restrictions, are the community’s rules; they were hard fought and put in place to protect us. The citizens expect our council to honor them, and enforce them, and take the rules seriously, and not to be given away to a developer at the drop of a hat—especially in the name of lousy 20% affordable units!
Mrs. Cowan
Please Help
Residents on the Eastside have started a GoFundMe to raise money for their appeal. They need your help!
Deadline to Oppose SB79 Has Passed
The deadline to send a letter in against SB79 was April 16, 2025. SB 79 is a proposed bill that makes it easier for developers to tear down small homes, stores, or empty buildings — and replace them with much bigger, taller buildings, even if the neighborhood doesn’t want it. Essentially, it is Big Brother taking over neighborhoods with the power of the State behind it.
Cities like Santa Barbara have rules to protect small neighborhoods and make sure buildings fit in; that they are "compatible." SB 79 would take away more of the city's power to say "no." Essentially, developers from New York, Boston, Chicago, could walk in and control the size and style of new buildings; they are trying that already.
Imagine a neighborhood with one-story bungalows then suddenly someone builds a giant four-story building right next to yours — blocking your sunlight, your view, and making everything crowded — and you couldn’t stop them. Then someone decides they want a view, so they build right next door, but it is taller than the four-story; developers start competing and the City has no voice, no power, no recourse.
More information about SB 79 is available at Catalysts.
The Influx Continues
We encourage you to begin drafting letters regarding the various laws being voted on by our elected representatives. You can easily do this from the comfort of your home or office.
Below is a letter submitted by one of our fellow citizens:
“RE: Opposition to Senate Bill 79 – Stop the Erosion of Local Control
“Dear Senators, I am writing as a concerned California resident to respectfully express my strong opposition to Senate Bill 79 (SB 79).
“This bill represents yet another effort to erode local control and impose a one-size-fits-all solution on cities and counties across California. SB 79 would override established zoning and community planning tools by streamlining multifamily housing approvals—even in areas that face serious challenges such as flood risks, traffic congestion, liquefaction, wildfire danger, or aging infrastructure.
“Already you have turned our beautiful City against itself. Developers from Chicago, Boston, and other cities and states are pouring in to take advantage of your ill-considered ideology. Neighbors are turning against City Hall. Boards trying to do the right thing turn against one another. You are creating chaos, divisiveness, and destruction.
“As an example, we have a four-story 90-unit proposal going into a FLOOD ZONE that is highly prone to LIQUEFACTION next to one- and two-story bungalows, blocking their sunlight, creating toxic mold. Our city officials are telling us there is nothing they can do, wringing their hands, and refusing to take calls with the only remedy, ‘Take it to Sacramento.’
“Many communities, especially those in coastal and hillside regions like ours, have complex environmental, historical, and infrastructure constraints that cannot be ignored in the name of expediency. SB 79 would undercut meaningful public input, completely silence local planning boards that are already running from us in frustration, and force cities to accept projects that pose serious health, safety, and environmental consequences. ENOUGH. STOP IT NOW!
“We are not opposed to new housing. We are opposed to reckless development. Responsible growth must be context-sensitive, environmentally sound, and locally guided. By preempting charter city authority and CEQA review, bills like SB 79 are already destroying neighborhood character, and public trust in our democratic planning process.
“Please stand with communities that are trying to build a better future through local accountability and balanced planning. I urge you to vote NO on Senate Bill 79.
“Thank you for your consideration.
“Sincerely,
“Natasha Todorovic
“Santa Barbara, CA 93140”
(It is easy to go to the portal and create an account: California Legislature Position Letter Portal )
California Legislature Position Letter Portal
Yes, the city council did just approve another $1,450,000 for its failed Promenade.
Mayor Randy Rowse opposed this decision, while council member Oscar Gutierrez recounted his brief visit to Tijuana, contrasting it with TIA Juanna, and expressed satisfaction over the closure of a street there. However, it is important to note that we are not Tijuana, Oscar, even though some similarities are now evident.
I received a reply regarding my Public Record Request on Joe Holland.
I will include it in next week's column, as I needed my IT specialist to install OUTLOOK, which was the only way I could access the document.
•••
Sign up for the Neal Taylor Annual Fishing Derby (flyer below)
Encourage your children, grandchildren, nieces, and nephews to disconnect from their devices and enjoy a delightful day outdoors.
Thanks Bonnie, I was going to write a letter to the editor at Noozhawk but you say it way better than I could have. I would only add one thing. A few weeks ago I watched a meeting of the ABR about this awful project, I was watching on the city of SB You Tube channel.
At the same time the movie, "It's a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World" was playing on TCM on my tv. I looked from one screen to the other and thought, which is more crazy?
Thank you Bonnie as always..
Jerry Shalhoob