Mr. Paul Casey
Community Development Director
Santa Barbara Community Development Department
Dear Mr. Casey.
On November 4, 2004, over fifty of the neighbors to the former St. Anthony Seminary site met at 126 East Constance to discuss the neighborhood’s concerns regarding continued public access to the grounds of St. Anthony’s, in light of the site’s pending transfer of ownership. After hearing the presentations from Mary Rose, representing the Spurling family, and Mike Hagen, Headmaster of San Roque School, neighbors were unanimously against any proposals that included fencing off the site to prevent public access. The neighbors did not want to see the Sperlings remove the property from neighborhood use, as was done when the San Roque School, where walls were constructed that obscured the site and its playground from public view. Since acquisition of the San Roque School site, the Sperlings have hired security guards to ensure that basketball courts, once open to neighborhood use, are not used by the public at any time. The Upper East neighborhood would be opposed to any similar actions at St. Anthony’s.
The Old Mission and the adjoining area containing the St.
Anthony’s campus have a long history of open access to the public for a
wide-range of activities including sightseeing, pedestrian walkways, dog
exercise, children’s play, and local youth team sports. The magnificent structure known as the tower
at St. Anthony’s is one of the most photographed sites in
The neighborhood is concerned that the new owners have signaled such a change of use. Any change over what has occurred over hundreds of years should be the subject of public review and input. A “non-conforming use” is allowed to exist if there are no change in circumstances. Disallowing public use of the site and/or installing barriers to public use would be a change in circumstance. Therefore, any change over existing conditions, including precluding public access, should be publicly noticed in sufficient time for the public to comment prior to determinations being made by City staff that would preclude further review. We request an open and transparent planning process to decide the future of this widely revered site. We strongly encourage the City to consider a course of action that provides an opportunity for the neighborhood to voice their concerns.
The City Zoning Ordinance states that a non-conforming use should not include enhancements such that the non-conforming nature of the use is encouraged to exist. Allowing extensive seismic retrofits, while warranted under State law, will extend the life of the use onsite. We are aware that no Conditional Use Permit exists for uses on the site and that the Sperlings have requested permission to continue educational use as an “existing non-conforming use”. However, if the City does not take the opportunity now to review proposed plans, the City will lose a valuable opportunity that it may not have again, as the Sperlings work to keep under the definition of “existing non-conforming use”. The neighborhood surrounding this magnificent City resource respectfully request that the City take this opportunity to work with the new owners and the neighborhood in a public process. Certainly any move to preclude public and visual access to the site should be the subject of a hearing before the Historic Landmarks Commission. The Upper East neighborhood would encourage the consideration of the site as a Historic Landmark, if it were not so designated. The architectural significance of the site should be taken in context of its views that are open to the public and neighborhood. The fact that the open views of the site are a significant visual and aesthetic resource is evident by the site’s use by public garden tours, professional photographers’ work, as well as a visual resource for the Upper East neighborhood.
Thank you for your consideration of our requests,
Sincerely,
The 50 homeowners of the Upper East
(See attached)
W. Scott Burns
(805) 682-1246