Edhat Staff
By edhat staff
A new downtown housing development is being proposed that would take over several buildings in the 700 block of State Street, demolishing two of the buildings.
The proposed development by SIMA Corp. is a 36-unit mixed-use commercial and residential building that would demolish the buildings housing the iconic Press Room bar and Restoration Hardware retail store.
The 30,004 square-foot project site would be created through a merger of the parcels at 710 – 720 State Street and 15 E. Ortega Street, demolishing the commercial buildings at 710 State Street and 15 E. Ortega Street. The existing buildings located at 714-720 State Street totaling 6,313 square feet would remain.
The building is proposed to be four-stories with a maximum height of 48 feet and containing approximately 2,320 square feet of commercial space, 36 residential rental units with a mix of studio, one-bedroom and two-bedroom units averaging 802 square feet per unit using the Average Unit-Size Density Incentive Program, and 17 covered parking spaces.
Rendering courtesy of the Santa Barbara City Planning Commission
The project is designed by architect Kevin Moore who incorporated a walkway through the building from State to Ortega Streets.
SIMA Corp., headed by James Knell, owns a variety of buildings throughout California, Oregon, Alabama, Florida, Georgia, and Tennessee. In Santa Barbara they own a good chunk of downtown buildings including 500-510 State Street, 1129 State Street, El Paseo, Victoria Court, and 127 W. Canon Perdido.
In recent meetings, the Santa Barbara City Council has expressed support for increased housing in the downtown area as retail shops remain vacant. The council has also expressed support for more affordable housing projects throughout the city. It’s unclear how many affordable housing units will be incorporated into this project.
Map courtesy of the Santa Barbara City Planning Commission
Although not everyone is on board. Supporters of The Press Room oppose the development project. The British bar has been located on E. Ortega Street for 25 years offering pints and a variety of televisions showing soccer matches.
In June, the Historic Landmarks Commission found the Press Room building at 15 E. Ortega Street did not meet the criteria to be designated a historic resource. The small brick building was built in 1925 originally as a plumbing supply store.
The Press Room on E. Ortega Street (Photo: Historic Lands Commission)
Travis Vassallo created an online petition ahead of the Historic Landmarks Commission decision that racked up over 13,000 signatures to help save the bar.
“It can be argued that the downtown Santa Barbara corridor does not benefit from evicting long-term local tenants in favor of MORE empty commercial spaces and upscale housing developments that do not help the working class,” Vassallo wrote in the petition.
“The Press Room has been a hospitality mainstay in Santa Barbara for over two decades. Its owners James and Carol Rafferty have served the Santa Barbara community in many positive, measurable ways. The Press Room acts as an art exhibition space; they also host local charity and non-profit events and donate thousands of dollars a year to local charities and non-profit organizations. All while being a ‘Mom and Pop’ establishment.”
A public hearing at the city’s Planning Commission is scheduled for Thursday, September 3rd at 1:00 p.m.
This doesn’t look like affordable housing. And 17 parking spaces? Geeez louise. Save the Press Room, down with developers.
So SIMA Corporation owns a lot of real estate in SB that appears to have a good number of vacancies. I wonder why that is…
LOL so are we talking “The Marc” affordable housing ? 1Bedroom 646 Sq Ft – $2,795 – 2,995…. OR 2Bedrooms 844 Sq ft $3,295 – 3,395….From the article “It’s unclear how many affordable housing units will be incorporated into this project.”
There’s not enough housing here? Too bad, pick another place to live. If I’m considered entitled because I don’t want SB to become NY then so be it. Save the Press Room!
Just another example of terminal greed! Leave the Pump Room alone and go away!
that’s the end of beautiful downtown santa barbara
If you live in California, you drive. Period. Parking needs to be 1:1 with the number of occupants or we face certain disaster.
Nurses, teachers, and bus drivers make excellent money. They can live in town, but choose not to. Stop using tax dollars to create even more perks for these government employees. Thank goodness for Transparent California to see the truth about “first responders” – the most politically privileged and well compensated group of employees we have. Now they demand to get discounted housing too? They certainly do have a persistent lobbying group always pitching for them. Time’s up. Market rate housing downtown, or don’t bother.
Off-site stacked parking is appropriate for downtown living. You do need a car, but may not need it all the time or all that close. That is a reality of downtown living.
SIMA did not sell out of the cheapest lowest common denominator tenant just to make a buck, that is why they let their building remain vacant at their expense. There is no such thing as a greedy landlord – they own the property. It is the tenant who is greedy if they demand favored treatment, and offer nothing in return. If a tenant starts out with the attitude the landlord is greedy, smart landlords know to stay well away from ever renting anything to them. Empty building are far better than tenants with bad attitudes – they are nothing but long term nightmares.
Let’s stop this development. This city council is out of control & allowing developers to take over our city.
Why can’t they turn both the empty Macy’s & Nordstrom’s buildings into downtown housing? Time to get creative instead of demolishing everything that makes SB unique & forcing a great local place like the press room to close when we have already lost to many businesses due to COVID-19.
Wendy McCaw owns that property, before it was the New York times, we rented 714 state in 1979 when we opened our 1st Video shop in town. Our big customer was the oil derricks offshore!! Boy has times changed. I remember the pet shop across the street had a caged monkey that would bite your finger if you stuck it too close…her name was Cynthia!
Why don’t they do something with the news press building too, can’t imagine that is making money these days…How many pages is the paper these days??
Maybe her and Arthur, need a new yacht, they were jealous of Mr. Jones big one…Keep up the good work Nipper!!
Agreed, @11:46 The City, Council, its boards and commissions (and former members) contain a network of individuals doing favors for one another. With smoke and mirrors, a wink and a nod, they move undesirable projects along to fruition. Sickening.
In the old days we used to drive 40-50 miles each way to work. Now no one wants to drive?
Spoiled much?
Develop the freeway TJ three lanes so commuting is easier. It’s only about 20 years behind the demand.
As to affordable housing in new construction.
When a new place is built, those that can afford it will move up into it freeing their lower cost rental for those that cannot afford new construction.
If I were to go to Mercedes and tell them to sell me a G Wagon for the price of an Explorer they’d laugh at me.
Why does someone think they have the right to new construction if they can’t afford it?
City is already doing rent control & just cause evictions.
If workers can’t afford to work & live here then don’t. Then when a restaurant needs employees they can pay higher wages.
The restaurant will then charge more for the food.
Why does a hamburger cost the same here as it does in Oxnard & LA? It shouldn’t.
SBGetsalong, you make some good points. But I’d like to see some evidence that people currently in lower cost rentals will be the ones to buy the new condos, thus freeing up the rental. Won’t a lot of these units be bought as second homes by rich out-of-towers? What is to prevent that?
State law says we are restricted to 55 gal of water per person be day – barely enough to take a shower and do the laundry. Why are we building? Why do we have to suffer?
I’ve already almost quit going downtown. I guess that this’ll keep me away more. I’ll be happy to spend my money elsewhere.
10:22 – why should someone subsidize you because you want to live in a well-known premium area? I hear you want to. But I don’t hear why we should fund your demands.
You have to suffer so city employee compensation packages and their lifetime pensions can continue to be funded in full. This is what the voters have demanded. Growth is good since city staff believes it back fills their own compensation and pension packages. Therefore, this self-interested belief in growth is now the tail that wags the dog. Try voting for a different agenda next time. And listening to different opinion leaders in this town.
Yes and that works out great when there is a natural disaster or a family emergency. To run blocks and get a vehicle that may or may not be blocked by someone else or stacked on top of some other cars. Plus, it’s always great to ruin other people’s neighborhoods with your parking needs.
This is crazy, unrealistic and will contribute to making downtown SB a nightmare. You have to have a car to get to the store, Dr appointments, taking kids to school etc… This obscene building is for wealthy second homes and property taxes for the city. There will be no affordable houses and no families will choose to live in a 800 square foot apartment for 4K a month. Wake up.
The Macys building reportedly is in very bad shape and it would make more sense to demolish it than to retrofit it for housing.
Totally agree but the government leaders the people keep electing are under the delusion that adding more apartments will somehow fix the City and making it more “affordable” – but actually it is ruining the city and turning it into a traffic and crime-ridden LA.
Totally agree but the government leaders the people keep electing are under the delusion that adding more apartments will somehow fix the City and make it more “affordable” – but actually it is ruining the city and turning it into a traffic and crime-ridden LA.
And the lack of parking in the proposed development is completely studid as well – driven by the false ideology that we need to loosen the requirements so that we can “solve” the “affordable housing crisis.” High values are not a crisis. It means its a nice place that is in high demand. Let’s not ruin it with more apartment projects – there are already too many.
Totally agree but the government leaders the people keep electing are under the delusion that adding more apartments will somehow fix the City and make it more “affordable” – but actually it is ruining the city and turning it into a traffic and crime-ridden LA.
And the lack of parking in the proposed development is completely studid as well – driven by the false ideology that we need to loosen the requirements so that we can “solve” the “affordable housing crisis.” High values are not a crisis. It means its a nice place that is in high demand. Let’s not ruin it with more apartment projects – there are already too many.
Indeed, you chose to live in a premium area. It will not come cheap. Nor should it. City budget needs high value property taxes. Not more handout subsidies. 20% handout housing units is already far too many for this city to survive economically. If you did not get on the list for this subsidized 20%, you will simply now have to wait your turn. There will be no more.
11:59: Reminder. Who exactly writes “state law”? Answer, the very people we keep electing. The Monique Limons and the Hannah-Beth Jacksons. Their names are on every piece of “state law” cramming this over-development down our throats. Stop voting for these people and the “state laws” will change overnight. Currently Monique Limon is cramming down the bill that requires lot splits and two duplexes be built in all current single family neighborhoods. You voted for this and now she wants to make it “state law”. Lose the few single family neighborhoods we still have in this town and truly Santa Barbara will be lost forever. Lose the current and geographically limited high end property tax base in this town, and you will have nothing left. And no, you will still not find “affordable” housing for yourself – it is one more window dressing virtue-signaling exercise foisted on you by “progressives”. Or it will now be your turn to kick in the premium neighborhood property tax rates for your “fair share”.
Why do people hate change so much? Is the vibe of the Press Room linked to that location now that there is hardly any Press left in the area? If they lost that site could they not move to another location and serve strong drinks to their regulars there? I have to say, that if it is a choice between building denser and taller developments downtown or developing that old ranch site adjacent to Storke/101 in Goleta, I’d rather keep the ranch vacant and available for the hawks and patronize the new bar in the new building on State Street.
Something is out of whack with our market force system if a landlord can make so much money from their other properties that they can afford to let a big property sit vacant. In a true market economy they would have to drop the rent to fill the space. Maybe their expenses are low because they are paying Prop 13 Commercial Property Taxes? We have a chance to rectify this in the November election.
I used 70 gals a day last month. Haven’t been arrested yet. But keep up the good work of spreading misinformation on social media. 🙁
@10:59 – people like you ask why the state should subsidize renters to live in SB, yet you never ask the REAL question: why do landlords think that renters should subsidize their purchases in SB? This is what has caused exorbitant rents in town. It’s the buyers who purchase properties with the intention of renters paying their mortgage and covering their property taxes. If you can’t afford to BUY in Santa Barbara without relying on RENTERS to cover your costs, BUY SOMEWHERE CHEAPER.
Various viewpoints.
36 residential units averaging 800 sq. ft. equals roughly 54 residents.
Only 17 parking spaces? There will be at least 50 cars, unless this housing is filled with the elderly and or current homeless people not living in their car. Parking in that area was tough tough 25 years ago.
As for those buildings being perfectly good as they are, that’s laughable. Any building constructed today, using today’s standards, would be leaps and bounds better than what is currently there. I know, I was part of remodeling/seismic retrofitting each and every one of those buildings at some point. A new building there would definitely improve the overall safety of the area during a large seismic event. Retrofitting old, while very important, doesn’t compare to the safety of a well built building with today’s standards.
New buildings there would be good for all, except for the lack of parking as currently proposed. Yes I’m a builder and thus bias towards developing, but try to do so sensibly.
As for water, that’s an argument that I am not going to get into as I do not know enough about this project to opine.
I think it would be great to save the press room. However, it is up to the owner of the property to decide how to develop it. If folks want to save the press room, I think the way to do it would be to start a fundraising campaign and either buy the property or buy an easement that ensures the existing structure is preserved. Of course, it is up to the property owner to decide whether they want to make such an arrangement or not. It is unconstitutional to take away someone’s property without due process of law and just compensation. If you take away the property owner’s right to develop, then I think they should be entitled to compensation for the resulting loss of their property’s value.