Housing Project Near Carpinteria Salt Marsh Moves Forward

A Santa Barbara County judge ruled in favor of developers last week, allowing a large single-family home to move a step closer to construction near the environmentally sensitive Carpinteria Salt Marsh.

After the California Coastal Commission greenlit the project in May of last year, advocacy group Friends of the Carpinteria Salt Marsh retained attorneys to fight the approval in court. Their concerns largely focused on its location at 501 Sandspit Road: a vulnerable spot surrounded by ocean, marsh, and estuary with sensitive animal and plant resources.  

The proposal encompasses a nine-acre parcel of land that has been vacant since the 1950s and extends into the ocean. It proposes a 4,843-square-foot house with 3,550 square feet of raised single-story space (on stilts) and a 771-square-foot screened-in carport.

The opponents’ lawyers, including seasoned counsel Marc Chytilo, argued it would be unwise to build there due to the risk of flooding because of sea level rise and other factors. 

Chytilo also contested the way the commission approved the project. He claimed that with their approval, the commission ignored the existence of the Salt Marsh Management Plan — identifying the tip of Sandspit as a conservation priority — as well as requests for consultation from the Department of Fish and Wildlife and tribal groups on potential impacts to biological and cultural resources. The project is adjacent to the Carpinteria Salt Marsh Reserve, managed by UC Santa Barbara, whose concerns went unheeded as well, Chytilo claimed.

Chumash leaders “specifically wanted all contractors to be trained that this is a sensitive site, and to be able to detect the presence of cultural resources, but that was ignored,” Chytilo said.

He said the commission also failed to adequately inform the public and gather feedback. 

Instead, the commission took over the permit application process from the county, which would usually include an Environmental Impact Report and several public hearings, Chytilo said. By putting the project through the commission’s less publicly inclusive process, he charged that they robbed the public of a chance to speak on it.

In a nutshell, Chytilo said, the Friends of the Salt Marsh were concerned that “this parcel should be preserved for the community.” It should not, he added, “be developed for a single-family home that will be impactful and probably have a pretty short lifespan.” 

The developers, however, argued it was a “NIMBY case” brought by the project site’s neighbors and wrapped in a facade of ecological concern. Mark Massara, the attorney for developers Sanddew LLC, said the project includes the restoration of one acre of dune habitat and the removal of invasive ice plant. 

He also noted that during the process with the Coastal Commission, the project was significantly downsized and amended to better fit the area. He said the developers did consult the Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Indians earlier on in the process. Additionally, the commission’s permit requires that they employ Native American monitors during construction as a protective measure, just in case any cultural resources are discovered, though he claims that is unlikely. 

“The opposition … is not only legally meritless but also mystifying given the amazing habitat restoration and careful design that has gone into the project,” Massara said. “I am unaware of any other single-family house project in [Santa Barbara County] with such extensive coastal native habitat restoration.”

The opposition’s arguments were not up to snuff in Judge Thomas Anderle’s courtroom on July 29. He reportedly conceded that the issues raised by opponents were significant, and that the case was “certainly not routine.” However, he ultimately decided the public had a fair hearing on the project and there was adequate consultation with the Coastal Band of the Chumash Nation, allowing the project to move forward.

Chytilo said he and his clients are disappointed about Anderle’s ruling. As the project moves forward, they are looking at options for further legal action, he said.

Massara, on the other hand, was grateful for Anderle’s decision, claiming “the legal challenge from the neighbor is meritless and deserves no legal consideration whatsoever.”