JULY 21-28, 2022
FUNK ZONE PROJECT CONT’D FROM P. 7 project forward to the city’s Planning Commission, ruling that it “provisionally met” the criteria for the city’s design guidelines. Boardmember Steve Nuhn, who is also an architect at Cearnal Collective, recused himself out of conflict of interest; Dennis Whelan voted against the motion, saying the size was not appropriate for the area and that he “didn’t think it was compatible” with the surrounding neighborhood. The board left plenty of comments for the Planning Commission to work with, suggesting that planners rearrange the proposed 18,000 square feet of commercial space to foster more traffic to the courtyard “paseos” and public spaces inside. The bulk of the project’s height, the board agreed, was packed into the middle of the design, and there was eventually an agreement that public views were not affected because, technically, the city only considers views for “specific gathering” spaces, and the Funk Zone did not have parks or spaces that would be affected. As the design is tweaked and makes its way through the eight-step review process — from application to ABR concept review, city staff review, Planning Commission for recommendations, City Council for approval, back to ABR for a project and final design approval, and finally building permit approval — there
will surely be lengthy discussion on each of the concerns brought up by community members. But with the city in the midst of a housing crisis, the question will be whether the city can afford not to build a project of this size. And if the public outcry is too great, the question becomes whether there exists a large-scale project that the city’s residents would stand behind, and if so, what would that project look like? Neil Dipaola, the developer behind SOMOfunk, and the rest of the ownership team are convinced that this project is exactly what the city needs. The project’s 38 affordable units amount to more than any other privately funded developments over the last 24 years, they say, and it drew support from the notoriously critical Housing Authority. The developers say they also intend to enforce a “locals priority” criteria for the 142 apartments and 13 condominiums in attempt to keep out-of-town applicants from using the units as short-term rentals. “It’s a very, very big project,” said boardmember Leon Olson. “However, to accomplish the housing that is desirable, size matters.” Santa Barbara’s Planning Commission will take the next in-depth look at the project, though a date has not been set. n
COURTS & CRIME
COU RTESY
Gaviota Alliance Wins vs. Hollister Ranch
T
he long, rolling breakers along the coast of Hollister Ranch have led many a surfer to combine funds with fellow surfers to buy a parcel of the ranch. It’s the only way to drive past the gatehouse guards and down to the beach — unless you paddle in from the ocean or walk the shoreline. Over the years, public advocacy groups have been litigating to gain access over land to the property’s beaches. The Hollister Ranch Owners’ Association has always fought it in courts. When Hollister reached a private agreement with the Coastal Commission in 2018, Santa Barbara Superior Court Judge Colleen Sterne noted it had been negotiated without public notice, saying, “My due process bone is twitching” of the backroom deal. The Gaviota Coastal Trail Alliance then joined the case as an intervenor and successfully overturned the settlement. The State of California voided the agreement last week, and the Hollister group argued the Trail Alliance 8
THE INDEPENDENT
JULY 28, 2022
INDEPENDENT.COM
had accomplished its goals and did not need to participate further. On Monday, July 25, Judge Sterne disagreed, stating that the Alliance and the state were effectively adversaries over the settlement and did not have identical interests in the case. Marc Chytilo, an attorney for the Alliance, greeted the news cheerfully: “In for a penny, in for a pound. We’re there until there’s access.” Hollister attorney Beth Collins of Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck indicated her clients were interested in “resolving outstanding issues as expeditiously as possible” and in the meantime would continue their private access program for “persons from underserved communities, tribal members, scientists, and educators.” The next battle in this decades-old struggle is a dispute over details of an easement involving the YMCA. That motion is expected to be heard in September. —Jean Yamamura