Edhat Staff
By the edhat staff
A 66-room hotel proposal for the current location of The Press Room on E. Ortega Street received community pushback during the Santa Barbara City Planning Commission meeting last week.
The proposed four-story hotel development has sparked divergent opinions among city leaders and the local community, leading to a delay in the decision-making process.
The six planning commissioners were split in their views on the hotel proposal. The meeting was marked by a passionate discussion surrounding the potential impact of the hotel on the city’s housing crisis. Ultimately, a decision was made to defer the project, pending further evidence from the applicants that the hotel would not have an adverse effect on housing.
Public comments revolved around the potential consequences of replacing the long-standing establishment, The Press Room, with a hotel. Supporters of the proposal argue that the new hotel would bring economic benefits, including increased tourism and job opportunities. Additionally, they claim that the project aligns with the city’s goals of revitalizing downtown areas. Opponents of the hotel proposal express concerns about the potential loss of much needed affordable housing.
Rendering of hotel proposal from State Street (courtesy)
The project consists of a proposal to construct a 32,799-square-foot, four-story, 66-room hotel including a restaurant/bar on six lots totaling 30,004 square feet. The project also includes 14 parking spaces on the ground floor. The ground floor would contain a 1,364-square-foot restaurant open to the public, a 1,900-square-foot lobby, and guest use conference rooms.
A Lot Merger is required for the properties at 710-720 State Street and 15 E. Ortega Street as part of the project. The 14,455-square-foot buildings at 710 State Street (including 19 E. Ortega) and the 1,000-square-foot building at 15 E. Ortega (the current home of The Press Room) are proposed to be demolished.
Lot merger (courtesy)
In 2020 the property, which is owned by SIMA, was originally proposed to become housing but developers switched to a hotel claiming high construction costs.
During the meeting commissioners made it clear The Press Room has a private agreement with the property owners to relocate and that shouldn’t be taken into consideration when voting on the project.
The meeting concluded with a 5-1 vote to revisit the proposal at a later date.
More sketches of the proposed hotel can be seen here.
Bummer if The Press Room closes. It is a fun bar with the best Guinness in town.
so many armchair contractors here…
By price alone, every single hotel in Santa Barbara is “high end.” Just look at what Goleta has done in the past 10 years (maybe less)….something to marvel about and brings in the big bucks to the City of Goleta:
– Added thousands of affordable housing units (mostly multiple-story apartments/condos).
– UCSB affordable housing for faculty and staff.
– New….Courtyard by Marriott (Storke Rd.)
– New….Hilton Garden Inn (Glenn Annie/Hollister)
– New….Residence Inn (Hollister near the airport tower)
– Updated….Hampton Inn (Hollister/Kellogg area)
– Updated…Motel 6 (Calle Real near Fairview)
– Updated…South Coast Inn (Calle Real)
– Updated….The Leta
The old Super 8 (Hollister/Fairview) is also going to be a big deal for Goleta as it is being converted to housing for the less fortunate.
I get it that Santa Barbara is already overbuilt, but thank goodness that we have a bedroom community in Goleta where they are really picking up the slack. I really missed the boat when I should have bought three or four houses in Goleta instead of only ONE in SB!!!
I expect two reactions to this. The first will be outrage that anything in the city might change coupled with demands to preserve the property exactly as it is in perpetuity. The second will be a call to build subsidized low cost housing and only low cost housing. There seems to be a movement to put a moratorium on the construction of any new housing with a monthly cost higher than what rents were 20 years ago. With these attitudes, it’s no wonder our city is in decline and our state leadership intervened to remove local r strict ions on building. If today’s approach to development had prevailed in decades past none of the buildings and landmarks we love and cherish today could ever have been built.
“Need” has nothing to do with it. “Want” is the correct term dude. $$$$…
Honestly, good point. I’m against the state housing mandates, but there should be a city-lead effort to incentivize developers to build low income housing rather than additional high end hotels.
Dramatically more conservative building codes in the past 20 years have made housing nearly impossible to build afforably. Sure, buildings today are more sound and safer, but building codes continue to get more and more stringent every three years. Everyone just wants to cover their @$$es, so no one will put their foot down to say ‘enough is enough’. California did this to themselves. The people who write the codes get paid to do so, they have incentive to continue to make them more and more onerous – no matter the consequences to the housing crisis.
CHIP Yeah that makes sense. Let’s put wood shake roofs on all new buildings, use antiqued electrical and building code and who needs proper drainage anyway?
“building code of the 1970s when housing was still affordable” and gave you cancer.
I guess you’re right, having people live out of their cars and in creek beds is a much safer and healthier alternative to using the building code of the 1970s when housing was still affordable.
Typical Santa Barbara. A bunch of rich people who live in houses built in the 1970s and earlier enforce regulations to prevent anyone else from building something comparable to what they have.
Sac, most homes in Santa Barbara are older than that. Do you have any basis to support your claim that 1970s houses cause cancer?
1970s was more than 20 years ago. Talk to a structural engineer and ask them how much more stringent today’s building code is compared to 2003.
CHIP – swing and a miss! I didn’t say 1970s homes cause cancer. I was referring to the pre-late 70s codes that allowed for things like lead paint and asbestos.
Chip’s idea to roll back building codes is wrongheaded. But it’s true that code changes are *sometimes* pushed by manufacturers who have new products to sell.
4:46 – Just making stuff up on the fly again.
I think you bring up an excellent point regarding building codes. Perhaps we could get an initiative on the ballot that would be the equivalent of prop 13 for the building code. It would initially revert all building code requirements to what they were in the 1970s and then severely restrict any additions to the code in the years ahead. This would make building a home a faster and much less costly process.
We need another hotel? One with 14 parking spots for 66 rooms? Why?
I understand why the city allows new housing to be built with inadequate parking. But there’s no excuse for allowing a hotel. People won’t be riding their bikes here for vacation, and many who come by plane or train will rent cars.
At the end of the day how could they determine the hotel project would not “not have an adverse effect on housing?” The lots which could provide provide housing now cannot provide any housing. It is past time for a hotel moratorium. – And we need to increase the TOT with the new funds to go to the Santa Barbara Housing Authority.
Goleta is not the bedroom community of Santa Barbara; Oxnard and Lompoc are where the working and supporting population of Santa Barbara live. Those people living in single-family homes are served by these people, who spend three hours a day in traffic gridlock just to assist the doctor or check your groceries or help the plumber. Get real and look at the freeway at five pm or at 7:30 am. These people deserve to live here and to have a private life. They cannot spend quality time with their families and often have problems in relationships because they compromise their personal time to serve the needs of rich local residents who require and demand their services. Try to hire a local person to help you in your business. There are none available. This is because they cannot afford to live here. We need to value and respect these people who give up having a normal life to work here. Build low-cost housing by denying developers permits for moderate and expensive homes, and only issue permits for low-cost housing. The developers and architects will figure it out. Make areas like Montecito and Hope Ranch and North Patterson be responsible for the burden of finding land for these developments. Force rich immigrants from other areas to compete for existing single-family homes. Prevent people from redeveloping homes just for profit. We need a whole city that supports its working people. Just rent low-income units to people who work here. Make some rules that support all of the people, not just the rich or tourists. No More Hotels!
Hummm I thought this was to become a low cost housing???? We need low cost housing , only because of rise in rents and cost to buy.
How does this work? We have a major hit to us with Covid ‘ and unemployment, and a major infrastructure of people come to our country with out jobs or anything .
So that somehow brings up the largest increase in everything’ where’s this money coming from???? That little area that gets used greatly for the Fiesta, very little parking, which we now need, since we can’t park anywhere on state street. I’ve seen a great many of the stores close. I see a lot of junky stores with all this really cheap stuff , that should cost a dollar or less. Everything is 50 to 75 percent higher, all I see is people doing injustice to themselves in the long run, but jump on the inflation band wagon , then wonder why your business closes in a year.
What we need is common since to the future.
This can’t keep going on like this.
What do the people need and want?
Tell me what Santa Barbara is now becoming?
The greed – 66 rooms, but provide only 14 parking spaces. No problem, park across the street at the Ortega parking garage and take up value parking space. How will that benefit us?
Sarah Clark (acting … parking manager): “fewer people are parking in city lots”. So there are plenty of spaces available in downtown lots.
If there is space in the city lots it’s probably because there aren’t as many stores and businesses to come to. If we revitalize the downtown shopping zone, but have not provided parking, people still won’t come. And no, they won’t all take the bus or ride bikes. Do we have a City Planner, and if so, do they have any sense at all?
I think we are on the precipice of a new and very different SB. The bungalow I live in is on an R-2 lot which used to mean 2 residences. Now that has been doubled to allow 4.
There are many old wooden bungalows like the one I live in that cannot stand forever. Single wall construction and old pipes etc.
I have no doubt that SB east side will one day be 4 to 6 story apartments or condos.
I am afraid the days of the single story bungalows are ending.
Change Happens….
66 units (all studios, average size 400 sqft) would better address community needs than 66 hotel rooms (whose average size is close to 400 sqft). But for 66 studios, 7 would have to be very low income, and 4 would have to be moderate income. The developer has done the math: there are no restrictions on hotel room rates.
I also want to add that my landlord just lost ALL insurance and many renters don’t know that MANY insurance companies are leaving CA due to fires.
He told me that his policy, to which he paid premiums for 35 years was at the end about $3600 annually. To get new coverage was $20K a year!!!! I no longer think it is just greed for landlords; it is the insurance companies taking the money for decades and then dumping people. My rent will go up because of this for sure…Ugh
LAST thing Santa Barbara needs is another F#@<+= HOTEL!! Ughhhhhhhhhhh. We need affordable housing for LOCALS.