Edhat Staff
By the edhat staff
In a recent conceptual review by Santa Barbara’s Historic Landmarks Commission, a three-story hotel proposal with 44 rooms and a roof deck in the Funk Zone has garnered positive feedback.
The hotel is set to be located between Highway 101 and the Amtrak station, at 17-21 W. Montecito Street. The project plans to demolish the buildings on the site, which currently house Ducati Santa Barbara and were formerly home to Harley-Davidson and Caesar’s Auto Supply. The location is zoned for commercial properties only and not for housing.
The building, created by AB Design Studios, plans to be 18,003 square-feet including a first floor lobby, reception area, lounge, and grab & go section. An underground garage will include 44 spaces for valet parking as well as 8 bicycle parking spots.
Ducati building at 17 W. Montecito Street (courtesy)
While discussions revolved mainly around the inclusion of a roof deck and whether it should be equipped with solar panels instead, commissioners raised various perspectives on the matter. Concerns were voiced regarding noise and exhaust fumes due to the proximity of the freeway. Some expressed doubts about the deck’s appeal, while others believed it would be heavily utilized.
Commissioners also suggested adding more color and “playfulness” to the building’s design, as well as more renderings to better understand the rooftop deck.
The project is currently in the concept review phase, allowing developers to incorporate the commission’s feedback into their design before submitting a formal application.
Rendering of the Montecito Street Hotel as seen from the entrance at 17 W. Montecito Street (courtesy)
I believe the rooftop would get utilized and provide additional revenue to the business – traffic or no traffic.
How many employees will the 44-room hotel require? Where will they live? Perhaps hotels should be required to provide housing for some of their employees, especially when there is a shortage of existing and affordable (for the average hotel employee) housing? See this Indy story re housing: https://www.independent.com/2023/09/12/who-can-afford-affordable-housing-in-santa-barbara/
BIRD – great point! If you are going to build something that requires local workforce in a town where housing is unaffordable for such employees, you should be required to address it in some way. If not, there should be some allowances (financial or otherwise) made for your out of town workforce that must commute hours daily to get to work for you.
Why put the burden on the builder to provide below-market housing than on the operating business to provide a living-wage to its employees?
VOICE – not surprisingly you missed half my comment about allowances in some form. But, let’s look at the living wage idea. Should the hotel be required to pay bellboys, janitors, etc a “Santa Barbara living wage?” That might be tough given the lack of affordable housing here. If you’re going to pull from other communities to make your business run, you should also provide some kind of relief. Perhaps commuting costs (gas, car maintenance) as a bonus. Unlimited paid PTO for all commuting employees. Something to help offset the costs (financially and mentally) of commuting. OR….. don’t build in a town that not only doesn’t need more hotels, but doesn’t have housing for your employees.
VOICE – so are you going to mandate a living wage? Again, would you really expect business owners to pay a “Santa Barbara living wage” to service staff? You keep ignoring the important parts.
And no, just like the whole “if you hate oil spills, stop driving a car” argument is flawed and foolish, so is the “if you don’t like employers who don’t pay enough, don’t go to their businesses” shtick.
It’s weird how you are insisting the private employers do more to solve the housing crisis, but recoil at the thought of the state subsidizing developers to provide affordable housing.
If they were paid more, they wouldn’t have to commute. Why don’t you put your money where you mouth is and don’t patron establishments that don’t pay their employees enough to live here? And what makes you think a tourist town like ours, whose main economic driver is tourism, doesn’t need more hotels?
I don’t like any mandates, you’re oil comment is a false equivalence (a bad one at that), and the state subsidizing developers to build affordable housing is a great idea but the exact opposite of what you proposed/supported which was burdening the business or developer to provide/build/pay for affordable housing.
And 44 parking spaces underground, right near the always-flooded Castillo St. underpass. Brilliant.
If done correctly, they’ll be able to keep the underground parking from flooding, except in the most unusual storms. The question is, will they build it correctly?
Great location for a new hotel! People can actually arrive in SB via Amtrak and easily walk to this place. I hope they are granted the option to build a rooftop deck/patio. What a view it will be….might even be able to see Catalina on a clear day from the deck!!! Most of the things that tourists/visitors want to do, food/drink/shopping/etc., are quite close as well. I’m not sure if they’ll need 44 parking spaces, but probably better to have them than not.
BABY is going to protect them from the homeless along with RHS, who likes old guys who shoot guns in public at kids.
I thought all of the homeless you were ranting about would scare them off.
GT & SacJon: There could be some type of process or “angle” where they would use some of the hotel space for non-public functions and/or events. If “public” events were to take place at this new hotel, there would need to be some sort of nominal presence by some of the locals (could be peeps from Goleta as well…or.from Carpinteria if they wanted to come to SB via Amtrak or MTD…or even bicycle).
Another frickin’ hotel? Ehh, not surprising. Used to be the old Caesar’s Auto Shop location. As in Uyesaka. More LA coming our way. SB’s so going downhill.
This would be a great project, and I can’t imagine any logical reason the city has any rights to stop the property owner from going ahead with it. However, the consensus here on edhat seems to be that new hotels are not allowed. The only acceptable project would be high density low income housing.
There you go with the assumptions again. Hotels are fine, when needed and where they’re appropriate. The location isn’t zoned for residential, so not much they can do there for housing. This seems to be a good spot for something like this.