Santa Barbara Council Upholds Coast Village Road Condo Project
A 4-3 vote dooms the appeal of opponents of the three-story building that will replace the gas station at the corner of Coast Village and Olive Mill roads.
In a narrow vote, the Santa Barbara City Council gave the go-ahead Tuesday for a local businessman to replace a gas station in Montecito with a three-story mixed-use condominium complex.
The project at 1298 Coast Village Road calls for building eight market-rate condo units at the site of the Olive Mill 76 Service Center, in a strip of Montecito that falls under the jurisdiction of the city of Santa Barbara. The site in question — across the street from the three-story Montecito Inn — is often referred to as the gateway to Montecito.
Specifically, the council Tuesday voted 4-3 to deny the opponents’ appeal of the Planning Commission’s March approval of the project.
Although the council ordered developer John Price to do some additional work with the Architectural Board of Review to reduce the building’s bulk, the decision could be the final word on how tall the building will be: three stories, not two, as opponents were requesting.
The council itself was split on the question of height.
The majority said they were OK with a three-story building, which will reach 35 feet, or 10 feet under what’s allowable by municipal code.
Councilman Grant House added that he appreciates the modest size of the dwellings, whose units on the third story will have low, eight-foot ceilings.
“There’s plenty of very large homes in Montecito,” House said. “To have some that are more modestly sized seems to me something we should support.”
Mayor Marty Blum and Councilwoman Iya Falcone voted no because they said they could not support the three-story component.
“The reason there is so many people here is this is a real precedent,” Blum said. “I don’t want the tallest building to be in the corner” of Coast Village Road.
Also voting no was Councilman Dale Francisco. However, his biggest concern had to do with another matter: a council-imposed requirement that Price pay the city $136,000 for a fund that will promote housing projects affordable to the middle class.
The requirement, suggested by House, was meant to get the developer to conform to the spirit of a proposed amendment to the 4-year-old “inclusionary housing” ordinance, which aims to help retain middle-class workers in one of the nation’s most expensive housing markets.
At Tuesday’s meeting, a whopping 106 people filled out speaker slips to give the council their two cents.
Perhaps because Blum implored the group to refrain from repeating the comments of others in the interest of saving time, most refrained from speaking, although they revealed their leanings on the speaker slips, which Blum read aloud.
The vast majority were in favor of the project.
Richard Berti, who described himself as the owner of another property on Coast Village Road, went so far as to ask the council to allow Price to make the building even taller.
“Give him another three feet,” Berti said. “He’s had to shrink his height (on the third floor) to eight feet, and today that’s just not what people want.”
But there were some detractors in the audience. Among them was preservation activist Kellam de Forest.
“How in God’s name can anyone think that this three-story building won’t disfigure this city and detract from its beauty?” he asked.
Altogether, there were four separate appellants — a rarity for the council. They were Friends of Outer State Street, Save Coast Village Road, Delfina Mott and the nearest neighbors to the north of the property, Sandy and John Wallace.
The Wallaces had taken particular exception to Price’s request that the city disregard how zoning rules call for a 17-foot buffer between the proposed project and their property. Under Price’s proposal, the second floor of his new building would come within 10 feet of the their property.
The council did not care for this idea, but a spokesman for Price’s project said he intends to do away with that component.
Price, who is primarily in the business of operating gas stations, has said the current station isn’t profitable. He said his other option is to double the hours of operation of the current Union 76 station to 24, and increase by six times the amount of gas pumped from there daily. The property’s current zoning allows such a gas station.
Noozhawk staff writer Rob Kuznia can be reached at .
» wrote on 07/15/08 @ 09:42 PM
OK so how is Travis Armstrong going to spin this one. Odd coalition on the Council with this 4-3 vote. I doubt any of the appellants have the horsepower and with Derek Weston as the lawyer, to pursue litigation. This one may be over. Miramar next.
» wrote on 07/15/08 @ 11:57 PM
Thankfully this was approved. We were so embarrassed by the three neighbors behavior. At a party this weekend everyone was in favor or just did not care. Jeff, Danny and the Wallaces were vitually alone against this. It is a good thing for our community. See the one who wants to be the future mayor is about as smart as the one who is mayor.
» wrote on 07/16/08 @ 05:33 AM
In what will eventually be the most important decision that will affect the future of Montecito, 4 members of the City Council failed the residents of the area. Before we know it, Coast Village Road will resemble Chapala in Santa Barbara. Those four who chose to allow development don’t live in Montecito and should not be forgotten in the next election for this vote.
» wrote on 07/16/08 @ 07:37 AM
One small victory for reason and private property rights.
» wrote on 07/16/08 @ 08:08 AM
reply to: SBREADER
Just what make you think the opponents don’t have the horsepower to file a lawsuit. (would you like to make a little wager on this?)
And just what was that nasty implication you made regarding Mr. Weston, who is one of the finest attorneys in town.
» wrote on 07/16/08 @ 08:31 AM
I agree that the City Council members who approved this project should not be forgotten at election time.
They single handedly changed Montecito forever.
Too bad the developer not only choses to use the Davies group but he also takes advantage of the poor senior citizens in our community by dragging them in to this, most of whom didn’t want to go to the podium to vote approval, they just stayed in their seats and yelled up to the City Council. Boy, this guy will stop at nothing. Leave the seniors alone. I hope when he’s their age, someone makes him sit on a hard wooden bench for 5 hours straight, all just for a free lunch and a silly sticker??????
Montecitans usually get their way by tying things up in court. They’re smart enough to have already planned this long ago in this project. That’s why Montecito is so desirable and wish they could live here. It’s obvious that the Wallace’s set up their ducks in a row for litigation because they respect their community more than the politicians who are in and out in 4 years time.
» wrote on 07/16/08 @ 08:37 AM
Let’s see here - years of effort and money spent by the developer, approval by the ARB and the Planning Commission (which went from 3-1 to 4-0 in favor based on the comments at the meeting) and the City Council votes to ignore their staff and the Planning Commission approvals. As Richard Berti said “Approve it as is or fire your staff and get a new Planning Board.”
I think the Council is more interested in Montecito money than they are in listening to the overwhelming (3-1) Santa Barbara support for this project. And the project is in SANTA BARBARA CITY limits, not in Montecito (which is in the County of SB) folks.
Then the Council extorts over $150K from Price (not my word, but rather Council Member Francisco’s) for a non-existent ordinance. Of course Price agreed to pay, but you citizens might wonder why real property in SB costs so much. Not exactly the Council’s finest hour.
One more little tidbit for you… Wallace’s building (encroaches onto Price’s property. Might his appeal be an attempt to force Price to give him an easement for the illegal structural encroachment, rather than demolish part of the building to get it back to code? It also turns out Wallace lives in San Luis Obispo (he and his wife are registered to vote there), not Montecito. So much for being a local.
There hasn’t been a new building built on CVR for 20 years, and now you have an idea why. If a fairly straightforward project like this takes years and hundreds of thousands of dollars to approve (and oh by the way it still isn’t a project yet until a re-design is approved) why can Paseo Nuevo and other huge developments get the green light?
» wrote on 07/16/08 @ 08:47 AM
It was fascinating to watch the process unfold at the City Council meeting. With 106 speakers overflowing the Council chambers and running up to 7:00 PM, I was proud of my city residents. I saw a caring community and democracy in action. People care for this special place and are willing to devote hours to express their views to keep it so. I thought that Council members did a fine job with a difficult situation by passing a motion that addressed many of the concerns while basically approving what I believe will be a fitting entry to Coast Village Road. I just hope that the ABR will do a good job when it considers appropriate alterations.
» wrote on 07/16/08 @ 04:39 PM
Hate to be the skunk at the garden party but what exactly is the architectural appeal of Coast Village Road? For every few yards of cute, quaint shops, there are big gaps of nothing. It’s a hodgepodge of architectural styles. A converted gas station is now a liquor store at the street’s marquee corner location, there’s inadequate parking and you’ve got essentially a feeder street running parallel to the main roadway. There are competing styles of buildings, many of which are larger than they should be and most of which just look cheap.
Montecito people need to get over themselves. There is very little charm to protect.
» wrote on 07/16/08 @ 04:53 PM
“Give him another three feet,” Berti said. “He’s had to shrink his height (on the third floor) to eight feet, and today that’s just not what people want.”
Berti is right. And if he’s ten feet under existing code, then give him even more height. Seriously, who wants to live feeling squashed under low, eight-foot ceilings? Are we really going to emulate tract houses of the 60s in Montecito? The two-story vs. three-story argument is flawed vis a vis view blocking. From across the street, the two-story Coldwell Banker building blocks mountain views anyway. So what difference does a third story make? Better, more livable housing units, for one. To build more articulated rooflines, not flat commercial-building looking rooflines for another. Don’t hamper good design with blatant misconceptions.
» wrote on 07/16/08 @ 07:02 PM
Coast Village Road is very special and charming and one would have to live there to know this. I understand it’s difficult to live in Goleta or even Santa Barbara and understand the ambiance and style of CVR. Style is the right word. If you don’t appreciate CVR for what it currently is, then maybe you don’t belong there.CVR is not for everyone, that’s what makes it so special. I challenge you to find someone within a one mile residential radius, (the people that have to live with this project) who is in favor of this boat.
Go back to your own little corner of the world and approve monsterous projects over there. Maybe I’ll come over there and tell you how you should feel and what you should be saying and if you don’t say what I want you to say, I’ll just call you names. Very childish isn’t it?
» wrote on 07/16/08 @ 07:45 PM
CVR is Santa Barbara City not Montecito. How did that happen? My understanding is that CVR was ceded to SB city because the citizens of Montecito didn’t want to pay for sewer improvements. True or false?
And BTW I live within a mile and think this is a great project.
» wrote on 07/16/08 @ 07:54 PM
Peter Jordano loves the project and he live close to the project. Maybe he is crazy? You should go to the City Of SB files and take a look to see what folks wrote letters in support of this project. out of the 750 letters of support 275 were in support and the supporters came from you know where you got it 93108! Can you say Lady Ridley Tree! I wish price would have closed the property down and installed a chain link fence with a sign that states the following.
“this property brought to you by the opponents”
i was at the hearing and the speakers ranked as follows
78 folks for and 28 against. big statement! if you cared so much why were you not there? just i thought not in my back yard.
» wrote on 07/16/08 @ 08:57 PM
Careful what you assume. I stand by my statement that Coast Village Road has no charm. The last I checked, Butterfly Lane, where I have lived since 1991, is not in Goleta. Except for college, I’ve lived in Montecito my entire life. The Gateway Project will enhance the street far more than a gas station.
» wrote on 07/16/08 @ 08:59 PM
So let me see if I understand this correctly. Even though this project has been through 3+ years of governmental and community review; has been approved by both the Planning Commission and now the City Council and forwarded to the ABR to reduce the appearance of bulk and scale, the bitter next door “nay-bors” have vowed to file a law suit to stop it. Remarkable. Against whom and where? Anyone who attended both the Planning Commission and City Council meetings would notice that while support of the project increased, the number of those opposed dwindled. That trend will only continue as the process proceeds.
Instead of figuring out how they are going to move their illegally converted garage several feet to the North (no plans are on record with the County for the conversion. Public Record is a wonderful thing!)they have decided to continue tipping at windmills even though they have thrown everything and everone they could at Mr. Price and lost. Maybe that’s how they do it in SLO County where they maintain their residence (do you love that Public Record or what!?!), but if they were true residents of our community they would understand that this tactic rarely succeeds here. It might behoove them to seek council with other people and companies who have thrown petty and vindictive legal action against Mr. Price when they didn’t get their way and see what they are really in for. Talk about sleepless in Montecito (or SLO). He’s been quite tolerant so far, I don’t imagine that will continue.
Again, why? Do the Wallace’s actually beleive that the backs of residential units behind a better than 20 foot tall hedge will be less desireable to a vacation renter than a 24 hour gas station? Have you seen one of the new modern Unocal stations? They’re straight out of a Las Vegas nightmare. Mr. Price has the ability to change to that format right now, with most of the regulation coming at the State level. Did you see 4 million gallons vs. the 700,000 current yearly volume? I wouldn’t pay the $6000 a month price advertised on-line (see it at http://www.coastalescapes.vacationrealty.com/773 if it hasn’t been taken down yet)on a bet. Is that what you would want to see everytime you pulled into the driveway?Chances are you would never even know the condo’s are there as all the common living/entrance/exit areas are internal. The same certainly can’t be said of a service station. Really now-just what color is the sky in their world?
No, the Wallace’s would be much better served tending to the problem of moving their garage- perhapse they could bring in a local firm they trust, from SLO- and figuring out how to rent out the house portion of the property on a monthly basis for vacations now that the County knows about it. You see, that’s against the law in Santa Barbara. Just one more thing they would have known had they resided in our community.
They won’t of course, but some lessons are harder learned than others.
» wrote on 07/17/08 @ 03:56 PM
back to basics - You are an idiot. No one who lives in Montecito can vote for any Santa Barbara City Council member.
“Those four who chose to allow development don’t live in Montecito and should not be forgotten in the next election for this vote.”
NONE of the Council Members could live in Montecito - because they’d be ineligible to be SANTA BARBARA CITY council members. CVR is in Santa Barbara you numbskull!
» wrote on 07/17/08 @ 04:52 PM
Dear Darren,
You and the Davies Group need a spell checker, proofreader and an education. A year AT MOST, at Santa Barbara City College does not make one a sage.
You have so much to learn (especially about Land Use Laws). Just think by the time you get out of college, you’ll be 50.
My nearest relative is an IRS official, would you like an eraser now or later?
Signing off
and wishing you well
PS It would be nice to be talking about this project, but I guess there aren’t that many good things to say about it.
» wrote on 07/18/08 @ 08:49 AM
Dear Mr. Troll.
As far as I can see, yours is the only comment not on topic here. Maybe if you had taken the time to read all the comments here you could sound more intelligent and not contradict yourself. Unfortunately you didn’t. At best your comment was suitable for waste paper. My personnel advice to the Wallace’s is that they should bow there head and run for the door. There public appearance thus far including Ms. Wallce comment at the city meeting is childish at best. The only person who has shown any respect in opposing this project is the young gentlemen who spoke in behalf of the Montecito inn. Now I will excuse myself from this meaningless waste of a discussion and get on with my life.
[Editor’s note: Thank you for revising that sentence.]
» wrote on 07/18/08 @ 10:35 AM
“Montecito Resident”,
Your post said more about you than I ever could. I have nothing to add.
Good bye.
» wrote on 07/18/08 @ 01:43 PM
it is time to put this to bed!
» wrote on 07/20/08 @ 07:22 PM
I was born in Monecito in 1942 and have not left - SB High, UCSB and so I am a bit inbred. Coast Village Road is cute and quaint but there are parts that are ugly. I am good with replacing an ugly gas station. What is really ugly about Montecito are the hearts of ugly people of Montecito Resident. What is the Davies Group - did they design the new buidling? Clearly you need to travel more and take some meds - you are a bit mean and ugly to others.