A developer will be allowed to build a luxury house on the Carpinteria Salt Marsh, a Santa Barbara County Superior Court judge decided on Wednesday.
Despite legal challenges to the proposed house on Salt Marsh, an environmentally sensitive area, Judge Thomas Anderle on Wednesday sided with the California Coastal Commission in favor of the house.
The plaintiffs, Friends of the Carpinteria Salt Marsh, raised a number of issues with the tentative ruling, which denied challenge to the permit. Lawyer for the Friends of the Marsh, Marc Chytilo, brought up the Coastal Commission’s failure to properly engage with the public and give them an opportunity to learn about and comment on the case. He also said the Coastal Commission did not consult Native American tribes on the cultural resources of the site.
“It would have been an opportunity for the commission to affirm for the tribe that dignity could be afforded,” Chytilo said at the hearing. “They did none of that, and as a result, they really missed the mark.”
Another lawyer, Doug Carstens, challenged the tentative ruling further by bringing up safety concerns with the house, which is proposed to be suspended above the salt marsh.
“Experts will swear it’s safe, just like they did for the Titanic,” Carstens said. “But it has to be weighed against the full picture. What’s the evidence that this will be safe compared to the evidence that flooding and sea level rise are inevitable?”
The house, proposed at 501 Sandpoint Road, has long been contested by Carpinteria neighbors over environmental concerns. Environmental experts say construction will threaten hundreds of species that make their habitat in the marsh. The salt marsh also has stormwater control properties, which protect the city of Carpinteria from flooding and debris flows. The University of California also owns a portion of the marsh, which they use for ecological research and teaching.
Regardless, the Coastal Commission approved the permit with a 6-3 vote in May of 2025. According to Chytilo, the Coastal Commission wanted to avoid a takings clause — an unconstitutional government seizing of private property without proper compensation.
At the hearing, Carstens said it’s unacceptable to violate the Coastal Act — which claims that non-coastal dependent properties cannot build on environmentally sensitive areas — when there are alternatives available.
“The Coastal Act is very clear on its protection of Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas,” he said.
Carstens added that the land has many other potential uses that are coast-dependent, and therefore would not violate the Coastal Act. He mentioned installing piers, docks, greenhouse, and using the site for “aquaculture,” which involves raising marine species like shrimp or oysters.
Judge Anderle acknowledged that the issues the plaintiffs raised are significant, and that the case was “certainly not routine.” However, he doubled down on his initial ruling to allow the developers to build.
Mark Massara, the attorney for the project, said the developers welcome local Native American tribes, the UC reserve and the Fish and Wildlife Department as they continue the project.
“I think Judge Anderle tackled the issue well,” he said. “We’re gratified that the court agreed with the Coastal Commission.”
