Anonymous
By Amy Mayhall
A new home is being built on my street. In my opinion, it is huge, ugly and insulting.
How approval got through on this I may never know. I am nowhere close to a carpenter, an architect or a building inspector. In common terms, think of 7000 square feet. Then imagine a 6900 square foot home is built on it. Yes, this is an exaggeration, but please look at the picture. Would you be willing to walk on the side of the new building and the house next door? This new home swallows its property and the neighbors.
The neighbors on this street have enjoyed an extremely comfortable and handsome looking street. When I moved in ten years ago my first thought was a reminder of the neighborhood I grew up in. Everyone was very kind and they continue to be. When you are out walking your dog neighbors either slow down or completely stop. Most of the other neighbors have lived here for twenty, thirty or many more years.
There isn’t another house sticking up like this new one on my street! There are plenty on the other side of the road, but they are built up against the hills. The Eiffel Tower sticks out above everything but it is beautiful.
We aren’t in the heights of Montecito, but we enjoy absolutely gorgeous sunsets and views of the ocean. After this home is completed, there will be corners cut off of the picture and whole sections replaced by a massive home. It will be intrusive to surrounding neighbors. Change always needs to be considered with care, but not by rudeness.
In 2008 the lot was empty and had the best avocado trees. A few years ago the lot was sold and a very considerate man from Los Angeles had purchased it and went to many neighboring homes and showed us his plans. The plans were perfect. Unfortunately; though expectedly his plans never got approved so again the property was sold. This time someone with money and obviously no patience bought it. He is now building a gigantic home which he can quickly sell and make a large profit.
As we watch the construction of this humongous building, we don’t understand the approval or that it continues. As building in this town takes over, it would be nice to save a few small pieces of wonderful.
Do you have an opinion on something local? Share it with us at ed@edhat.com. The views and opinions expressed in Op-Ed articles are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of edhat.
I agree with the other posters that the picture doesn’t give much of an idea of the relative size of the new house. Each city has building requirements, as does the county. A Google search suggests that you are in Santa Barbara City. If that’s so, then you can check out the plans, permits at the Community Development building at 620 Garden Street — and see if they are building according to plan. Private views are not protected in the City, but as others have said, if neighbors go to the hearings then often their opinions are taken into consideration. …If you’re in the County, it’s a bit more difficult but neighbors are also heard there.
I’m starting to feel bad for the new owner of his home, it sounds like he are she already has neighbors rallying against. Streets change, landscapes change – people can build on their property within code so I’m not sure what to say. What I do know is your picture and description really don’t illustrate the situation other than you don’t like the size and shape of a new home that someone is legally building.
When a neighbor rebuilt their house on the westside recently and added a story, the next door neighbor raised a big fuss and postponed it for months. In the end they had to minimize the windows to that side so that the neighbor could keep their privacy- one big long thin window at head height so you could not look down in the yard. If this was not done to this house, it means the City’s planning department is not being consistent. That is one of the worst parts of this process, the inconsistency. If enough of you are upset about this, request the permit and approval files and make sure all of the steps were followed in the planning and construction. If they weren’t then maybe you can do something. McMansionization is not a good thing.
Change is hard for some people. Maybe because you are “nowhere close to a carpenter, an architect or a building inspector”, you are lacking the creative vision to see what will become of the home once its completed? Or maybe you’re just another NIMBY anti change, I got mine, you get none kind of person? I’m not sure, but I think you should be patient and see what is built. Besides your own homes value will likely increase as a result of new construction in your hood.
The neighborhoods (all of them) used to be just fine. Then people started using lumber rather than adobe for their abodes. It’s been down hill since about 1800. Quit complaining.
I think the photo does a pretty good job of depicting that the new house is going way above the roof of the existing house. It never should have been approved. Like A1537 … said, there is a process and people need to make sure they are paying attention when there are changes in the neighborhood proposed. That said, the county sometimes doesn’t see it the way the neighbors do. This project was vigorously and rightfully opposed to no avail. The previous two owners did some shady things, like infill the base so that it started higher than it should have. Plus, although most people who work for the county seem like they want to do the right thing, there are a few rotten apples there who have power trips and will never admit they are wrong. This particular property has been tainted since the neighbor to the east had it and the bad still karma permeates the property. Shame on the county for allowing this to be approved.
You are correct East Beach. Also, if you Google the writer’s name, and head over to her FB page – she has posts which clearly state where she lives. I find it funny b/c that whole area is so congested, so many houses in such close proximity – the OP can deal with that, but not this? Please.
I live in this neighborhood. It’s in the County, not City.
This is the smallest lot in the entire Mission Canyon Heights subdivision. It was split form a bigger lot where the original owner (retired CHP motorcycle cop) raised his family and had a commercial avocado orchard with agg water meter. After his death the lot was spilt and sold to two contactors who used it as a storage yard for their excavation equipment and started the long term grading of the property, leveling out the pad, bringing in imported rocks and fill dirt, and most importantly blocking off the historic, above ground swale that carried storm water from the road on Cheltenham down to Foothill road and Mission Creek. After 8 months of illegal grading, complaints were issued which brought in SB County grading inspector Jeff Thomas. Thomas, never seeing the original grade that carried the storm water diagonally across this lot on the surface, let the owners get exemption from any review of the survey that the county had done back when we were annexed to the city sewer system back in the mid 80’s. Fast forward to the contractors selling the property for a loss, and the County playing their hand in approval, to the next speculative buyer / builder of this monster house on the smallest lot. This second flipper of the property was shot down in the 1st SBAR review as incompatible with the neighborhood, too big, and blocked off the storm water from its historic course across the lot to its exit point. As concerned neighbors, we were proactive from its conceptual review at SBAR Santa Barbara County Architectural Review, all site visits, and public comment sessions. We exercised our concerns with the 2 minutes allotted to each speaker. Often the chair would be more interested in watching the time clock, or their cell phones than listen to our concerns that stemmed from me living here since the 70’s, and knowing the original owners first hand.
The most troubling matter has to do with the ignorance of the newly implemented Mission Canyon Neighborhood design guidelines which were mandated by the SBC Board of Supervisors at a cost to us tax payers of $800,000.00. These, new, guidelines give credence to the premise of Neighborhood Compatibility, light pollution, private views, traffic (parking), and noise. Completely new language to learn for SBAR, Diane Black (head of planning), planners, and Supervisors. This was the 1st test of the guidelines, and apparent that the majority didn’t know about them, or had read them. Our unique, an valuable set of tools for us to go into the future was to offset the mess created on the hillsides during the 80’s boom of ostentatious incompatible growth. This first test of these guidelines is now recognized as a fail in these circles, including the Mission Canyon Homeowners Association, and many land use professionals who are involved here.
The next, biggest, part in a troubling sequence of events, is that the second owners intent to deceive themselves as flippers but touting themselves as connected with Investec. They them bring in Brian Cearnal who is famous for getting through these big oversized homes on small properties. He’s well known, gracious to the point of using first names, and badgering us concerned neighbors who are in opposition. In this second review if sails though unanimously, only to be appealed to the SB County Board of Supervisors. The appeal hearing was a sham, a done deal before we even got there, apparent by Chair Peter Adam’s inception of the appellant’s attorney’s opening remarks.
So now we’re left with what we have, 2 contractors building this 2 story monster with approved plans, overlooking all of the low hung one story homes surrounding it. Zero compatibility. To make matters worse, this home has the living quarters on the second story instead of the normal fist floor, and has a big observation deck on the second story that hovers above the one story homes on Foothill road below. The grading done by the first speculative owner left the downhill (south) end of the property 6 feet higher than the original grade that compounds these problems.
I know we had many things on the record during this long process, all having to do with compatibility, and altering a historic storm water course, and establishing the entry and exit points of where that water should go. This new plan has no implementation to this storm water bringing it to and from this property where it has never gone before.
I’ve lived here since 1979, knew the original owners as friends, and helped them may times clear the water course during the el Niño floods where it rained for two weeks straight.
http://longrange.sbcountyplanning.org/planareas/mission_canyon/documents/Design%20Guidelines/Final%20Design%20Guidelines/Final%20Residential%20Design%20Guidelines%20for%20web%20April%202014.pdf
http://longrange.sbcountyplanning.org/planareas/mission_canyon/documents/Design%20Guidelines/Final%20Design%20Guidelines/Final%20Residential%20Design%20Guidelines%20for%20web%20April%202014.pdf
4. Elements of Design………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..31
Green Design ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………32
Solar Access and Solar Energy Systems…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………33
Firewise Construction ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..35
Building Size, Bulk, and Scale……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………36
Neighborhood Scale………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….37
Second Stories……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..38
Lowering the Eave Line…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….41
Facade Articulation…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….42
Architectural Styles and Features
Congressman Salud Carbajal we want answers on why you allowed your building and planning department to allow this new home at 849 Cheltenham Road in Mission Canyon project approved? And when it was appealed over and over all the way up to an appeal to the Board of Supervisors, you approved it too! This is your district and the Mission Canyon Neighbors WANT ANSWERS!
I live near this project and never got a notice of this proposed house or the appeals, and should have. If I did I would have helped those neighbors that spent so much time, energy and money appealing it. Did you send out notices to the neighbors when it went to the SBAR, Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors?
Mr. Carbajal, have you driven by this project lately? The photo, Amy Mayhall, posted in her EDHAT article on September 19th, 2018 makes the house look tiny compared to what it is now and it is still getting bigger. When I drive down Exeter to go to and from work my stomach turns as do the other neighbors as it is just getting bigger and bigger. Now the neighbors are rallying and learning the corruption that went on and how your staff handled it horrifically.
I did a little research, talked to neighbors and watched both Planning Commission appeals and the Board of Supervisor appeal on the County website. I was in SHOCK! This project, and how it got approved seems very shady to me and my neighbors, and you gave it the final OK months before the election you were running for Congress. RED FLAG! Reading the letters submitted by neighbors and watching the MC neighbors who went to speak against the project, its obvious that our Mission Canyon Community WAS IGNORED! Now we are watching, as planning commissioner Mike Cooney said, “Our beloved Mission Canyon” getting destroyed and we are looking more and more like LA! We don’t live in LA…we live in Santa Barbara!
Here is what happened….
-The vacant lot was sold to Christian Bonillo and Anna La Torre – Bonillo. Anna La Torre is a long time employee of Investec .
-They hired an architect who presented plans to SBAR on April 4th, 2014 of a new home that was 24 feet tall and 2956 Sq. feet gross in size. Note, this lot is a 52 1/2 ft. wide non-conforming lot and 7,000 ft. in total size.
-SBAR turned it down and looking at the comments, they knew this did not conform with the neighborhood and was way to big. Period.
-On Oct. 17th , 2014 SBAR did a site visit. Again, from the comments from that visit it was obvious that it was way to big. Some of the comments on the agenda were; 1. After visiting the site and reviewing the plans, story poles and other site visit may be required after reviewing proposed design. 2. Project is bulky and tall and does not nestle into the site; design needs to better respect the site contours. 3. Consider stepping down the residence with the site and moving it further back on the property, which would help to reduce bulk and scale. 4. The two garages dominate the front of the house; better to combine into one. 4. Consider modifying the roof in the rear of the house with hips and shed porch instead of gables. 5. West elevation has too many windows and towers over the neighbor. 6. Break up the mass of the architecture; consider stepping in the 2nd story.
-On December 5th, 2014 Bonillo/La-Torre hired a new architect, Brian Cearnal. Mr. Cearnal, by his own words does a lot of work for his client Investec and was there to “push the project through” to help them out. He presented a home that was a box, 26 ft. tall (2 feet taller) and 3,446 Sq. feet gross in size (larger then the previous proposed home). These plans were hand drawn, so the SBAR liked it and said that now no story poles were required (why?) and to come back for preliminary approval.
-On February 20th, 2015 Mr. Cearnal received preliminary approval from the BAR.
*NEIGHBORS APPEALED THE BAR’S DECISION TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION. I urge everyone to watch these Planning Commission meeting and the Board of Supervisors meeting on the County website.
-On July 22nd, 2015 the project was presented to the Planning Commission. Planner J Ritterbeck looked very nervous when making his presentation on why the Planning Commissioners should approve this project and even saying that it is in compliance with the MISSION CANYON RESIDENTIAL DESIGN GUIDELINES. I urge people to Google Mission Canyon Residential Design Guidelines and clearly you will see it is in complete opposition of the Guidelines the Board Of Supervisors and Planning Commissioners just adopted a year +/- before this appeal. And which took 5 years to create and just under $1 MILLION dollars to create to avoid exactly what is happening right now at 849 Cheltenham Road. When watching it, the commissioners were asking question after question and looked very disturbed on how this got approved by the BAR and how it impacted the immediate neighbors and Commissioner Hartmann even said that the neighbors shouldn’t be paying for improvements or affected by this project like it appears it is going to. Finally, our district’s Planning Commissioner, Mike Cooney, was ready to make a motion and he was going to uphold the appeal (against staff recommendations) and then the other Commissioners were following. Then Diane Black got up, interrupted and asked if Investec’s Brian Cearnal, his clients and the Commissioners were in agreement that they withdraw upholding the appeal and instead Mr. Cearnal meet with the Commissioners and make adjustments and meet in a few weeks. Everyone agreed and set the next date for it to be heard.
-September 2nd, 2015 the 2nd Planning Commission meeting was held. Mr. Cearnal made a few small adjustments. Lowered it 2 feet in height, this was the height the 1st architect proposed. Made a few adjustments on the 2nd floor 350+ sq. foot open patio looming over the neighbors and put up some screening for privacy. It was obvious that the Planning Commissioners were swayed to approve this project. My guess would be by the County Staff and Investec/Brian Cearnal’s connections. In the public file there are emails to Planner J Ritterbeck from Brian Cearnal inviting him over for drinks while this highly sensitive appeal was happening. Also, many letters were written and submitted to SBAR and neighbors came again to speak expressing their concerns about this project and asking they not build this big of a home as it is not compatible to the neighborhood. Those voices were overlooked and, what seemed to be very reluctantly the Planning Commissioners approved the project. Looked very fishy to me once again.
*NEIGHBORS APPEALED THE PLANNING COMMISSIONS DECISIONS TO THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS.
-May 3, 2016 the appeal was brought to the Board of Supervisors. NOTE: 7 MONTHS PRIOR TO THE ELECTION MR. CARBAJAL WAS RUNNING FOR CONGRESS. County Planner for this project, J Ritterbeck’s and Alex Tuttle presentation was an embarrassment and was meant to deceive the Board of Supervisors. They clearly didn’t have answers and you could see that the BOS could care less with their body language. There were 8 speakers that were opposed to the project and 0 speakers supporting the project. Two of the speakers opposed to the project were involved in creating the MISSION CANYON DESIGN GUIDELINE’S and on the Mission Canyon Association board. Also, a slew of letters and one speaker noted his was missing. You asked Investec’s Brian Cearnal, “Mr. Cearnal, how much difference in the footage of the previous home compared to this home?” Mr. Cearnal answered, “We lost almost 1,000 Sq. Feet”. THAT IS A LIE! What happens when it is clear Mr. Cearnal lies to get his project through? The numbers are the numbers…they don’t lie. WE, the Mission Canyon Neighbors, WOULD LIKE TO RE-APPEAL THIS PROJECT AND HAVE A FAIR HEARING! Lastly, YOU approved this project and 100% went against what the community was against, with valid concerns and there were so many things that were proven in the appeal that were 100% against the Mission Canyon Residential Design Guidelines! Also, there would have been more neighbors involved if the County staff noticed the neighbor’s properly. I would have, but I was in the dark.
-On November 4, 2016 the project came back to SBAR for final approval. They asked that the wood header over garage be removed and have plant quanities.
-On November 18th, 2016 the BAR gave the project final approval as presented.
-Investc’s Anna La Torre – Bonillo and Christian Bonillo put it on the market with approved plans. It was sold to a 849 Cheltenham LLC and on the mail box it has the name of Ryan Heinberg phone number 919-949-9179 as a contact number.
-They broke ground and here we are today.
I URGE EVERYONE TO GOOGLE THE MISSION CANYON RESIDENTIAL DESIGN GUIDELINES, DRIVE BY THIS GROTESQUE, HUGE HOME, READ THE EDHAT ARTICLE BIG HOUSE SMALL LOT ON SEPTEMBER 19th, 2018 & WATCH THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND BOARD OF SUPERVISOR MEETINGS ON THE COUNTY WEBSITE.
Congressman Salud Carbajal please respond to the residences of Mission Canyon on why you and your staff let this happen. Why you completely ignored the Mission Canyon Design Guidelines you adopted? Why you now have set a precedence for all future building in Mission Canyon to be built like this? This is what happens when your staff in Building and Planning are unethical! Since Investec’s Brian Cearnal lied to you at the Board Of Supervisors meeting, this should invalidate the appeal and we want this project stopped and this situation investigated properly without your staff harassing and taking away the rights of homeowners to speak out and oppose projects safely.
Signed, Concerned Mission Canyon and Santa Barbara County Homeowners & Neighbors
SBPADDY thank you for your comment and support. Calling the press and getting answers from the building and planning department along with Mr. Carbajal’s office, would be a GREAT HELP. If more of our neighborhood called KEYT (doesn’t CJ Ward have a tip line program?), KSBY, Independent, SB News Press, Noozhawk, and get another updated article in EDHAT would be a great start. If this project gets overlooked, Mission Canyon for our future generations will turn into LA. Thank you for your interest in helping and this project needs to following the MC Design Guidelines, and so do any future projects.
FYI, I wrote to Salud Carbajal twice and KEYT once and received no replies from either.
Dear Mission Canyon neighbors,
If you think 849 Cheltenham was a big house on a small lot, the proposed house at 895 Cheltenham is a much bigger house (by 80% totaling 4861 sq. ft. of living space and over 6200 sq. ft of structure when garages and decks are considered), on an even smaller lot (smaller by 77% totaling 6068 sq. ft. of land). Note, there will be less land than building!
I would very much appreciate it if the people who wrote comments regarding 849 Cheltenham on this op-ed (santabarbara1222, LOVE DUKE, wahine, EastBeach…) would please contact me with neighborly advice on how best to proceed to protect our community.
MissionCanyonSantaBarbara@gmail.com
You do realize Assemblywoman Monique Limon, state senator Hannah-Beth Jackson, with help from former Assemblyman Das Williams virtually took over and cancelled all local design review and controls in the past few years.? Plus there is now a great deal of state-mandated weasel-room to over-build any lot in any zoning in any neighborhood depending on how the present their plans. Are they claiming they are now building an “ADU” in addition to the original SFR, in which they can push well into prior set backs and rent this entire property out as an official duplex? Have you seen the floor plans? ADU’s can be scammed to get a lot of extra square footage and over-ride all prior design guidelines, with no enforcement follow up it is actually being used as a rentable duplex. This is what your state elected representatives (Jackson-Limon-Williams) did to you; while Salud Carbajal was probably asleep at the wheel. All neighborhood and local zoning guidelines and restriction got tossed out in the past few years, since this project originally started. State declared “housing crisis”, remember? Ended by fiat decades of local planning, zoning and design control everywhere in this state.