Architectural Review Board declines to approve proposed development along Carpinteria Bluffs

CARPINTERIA, Calif. – The Carpinteria Architectural Review Board voted not to recommend a proposed resort on the Carpinteria Bluffs to the City Council on Thursday night during their scheduled meeting.

Instead, the board continued the decision over the proposed Carpinteria Farm Preserve and Bungalows project to allow Carp Bluff, LLC more time to comply with the city's General Plan which would likely require a smaller plan than the current 99-room resort, 41-unit apartment complex, and other associated buildings including a restaurant and events center.

This was the first public comment hearing on the development, and the normally quiet board meeting had a notable difference as an estimated 500-plus people attended the hearing detail the Citizens for the Carpinteria Bluffs, a non-profit community organization.

“The community showed up and left little doubt about its appetite for a luxury resort on the Carpinteria Bluffs,” said Patrick Crooks, President of Citizens for the Carpinteria Bluffs. “From the 47,000 cubic feet of earth removal proposed, to the lost views and incompatibility with the Carpinteria Bluffs Nature Preserve, it’s clear that this intense project is the opposite of the guidance provided by the City of Carpinteria General Plan.”

The meeting had nearly four hours of public comments with several speakers arguing the city's General Plan and Local Coastal Plan explicitly ruled out the development as proposed.

Before the Thursday night meeting, 'story poles' had been placed at the site in early January depicting the proposed building's size and dimensions.

Currently, Tee Time driving range, an organic farm, and multiple acres of undeveloped space occupy the proposed two-parcel site that spans 27.5 acres and goes from the Harbor Seal Overlook to Carpinteria Avenue.

Architectural Review Board Chair Brad Stein was less than impressed with the proposal as presented stating, "Right now, emphatically, where I’m sitting, I would never support this."

"The railroad crossing is really opening yourself up to liability," continued the retired train engineer Stein. "You’re just promoting someone getting hit."

Nevertheless, the board did not outright deny the development of the space and instead made multiple recommendations that focused on reducing the size of the project, protecting existing scenic viewing spots, and considering the impact on Chumash cultural sites and protected wildlife.

The next meeting for the Architectural Review Board is currently scheduled for Feb. 15.