- Home
- News Grid
- Local News
- Green Hawk
- Business
- Politics
- School Zone
- Nonprofits
- Missing Pets
- Multimedia
- Arts
- Movies
- Outdoors
- Sports
- News Releases
- Columnists
- Blogs
- Opinions
- Classifieds
- Advertise
- Donate
- Partners
Battle Lines Drawn over Coast Village Road Condo Plan
Proposal to convert Olive Mill 76 gas station into mixed-use project fuels neighbors' ire as depleted Planning Commission hearing looms.
[Editor’s note: The Montecito Inn is three stories tall. The story has been corrected below.]
A brewing battle between a businessman and a group of Montecito neighborhood activists over a proposal to turn a Coast Village Road gas station into a mixed-use condominium complex may come to head Thursday, when the Santa Barbara Planning Commission is to consider approving it.
The project — which the city planning staff supports — calls for building eight market-rate units at the site of the Olive Mill 76 Service Center, 1298 Coast Village Road, in a strip of Montecito that falls under the jurisdiction of the city of Santa Barbara.
The front of the proposed building would be used for commercial space, and the rear would contain the residential units.
Most of the parking would be underground.
The project has been in the works for two years, but it wasn’t until the last couple of months that the opposition mobilized.
A vocal group called Save Coast Village Road charges that the complex will block mountain views and clog an already stressed intersection with Olive Mill Road.
Opponents also say the project would create a canyon-like effect, because of the three-story Montecito Inn across the street, and set a bad precedent for other big buildings on Coast Village Road.
“If this one gets built, then all of these little buildings on the street are going to say, ‘Whoa, I could put a really big building here,’ and all these little shops will become national chains,” said Jeff Farrell, a member of the group, who works at Coldwell Banker next door to the gas station.
Meanwhile, the Montecito Association, which acts as a neighborhood association that makes recommendations to the Santa Barbara City Council, enthusiastically endorsed the project in a letter two years ago, but then sharply rebuked the proposal in another letter drafted less than two weeks ago.
The developer, Santa Barbara businessman John Price, adamantly denies that his Coast Village Road Gateway project will create a canyon effect, saying it is set back from the street farther than any other building in the area. He and the development’s architect, Jeff Gorrell, say it is the only property that size with underground parking in the city of Santa Barbara.
Price and Gorrell also believe the project will benefit the public with its added landscaping, decorative fountain and a red-brick sidewalk along Coast Village Road. In all, the 7,000 square feet of public open space is about five times the amount the developers are required by ordinance to provide, a city official said.
“We’re providing more community space to the public than what the ordinance requires,” Gorrell said. “Which is indicative of the fact that we are not overbuilding.”
They added that the height of the building — 35 feet, with a 40-foot tower — is well under the 45-foot height limit for the area.
“We’re not a monster, and it’s not canyonization,” Gorrell said.
One of the project’s most vocal opponents is the family that owns a residential property directly behind the gas station.
Sandy and John Wallace are unhappy with how the project, as proposed, would come within 10 feet of their garage, despite a zoning ordinance mandating a buffer of at least 17 feet.
“At the same time, they will be 27 feet above us, looking down on our home and entire property and costing us all of our privacy,” Sandy Wallace said in an e-mail to Noozhawk on Thursday.
She said the complex’s driveway would come within inches of the property line, “making evening headlights and noisy tires and traffic be a constant nuisance to us right in our living room and kitchen windows.”
Price has asked the city to make an exception to allow his proposed 10-foot buffer, saying it adheres to the spirit of the zoning ordinance, which is meant to protect residents from encroaching commercial property. The back of his development would be residential, not commercial, and a 10-foot buffer — also known as a setback — is OK in areas zoned for residential development.
City Planner Peter Lawson said he agrees that the request for an exception — or “modification” — is reasonable. He added that he doesn’t think it will set a precedent for other buildings in the area.
“If you walk along Coast Village Road, you will see there are a lot of two- and three-story buildings,” he said. “It’s within the parameters and also the area is pretty well developed out.”
The city annexed Coast Village Road in the 1950s because the area was looking for sewer services, Lawson added. Montecito is not an incorporated city.
Price, who owns about 10 gas stations with his family, said the alternative is to build a bigger service station.
Three years ago, Price said, he realized he needed to do something about his Union 76 station, which was running a deficit.
At first, what he wanted to do was sell more gas, perhaps by converting the 12-hour station into a 24-hour facility.
But he said his land-use consultant, Harwood White — who happens sit on the Planning Commission — advised Price to try something completely out of the realm of his experience as a 32-year veteran of the gas-station business: build an upscale mixed-use condominium complex.
The idea was that, as an annexed finger of the city of Santa Barbara, Coast Village Road was a gateway to Santa Barbara, and a super-sized gas station isn’t a very good gateway.
In addition to the fierce opposition to the project, Price also has faced conflict-of-interest questions regarding his relationship with not only White — who will recuse himself from voting Thursday — but two other planning commissioners.
Commissioner Bruce Bartlett is an architect for a piece of property Price purchased in Goleta and he, too, will recuse himself. (Bartlett started working on Price’s Goleta project seven years ago, before he became a commissioner, Price said.) Lastly, Price is a client of the law firm of the husband of Commissioner Charmaine Curtis Jacobs. She, too, will recuse herself, Price said.
Now, Price jokes that he almost wishes he would have gone with Plan A — the gas superstation.
“I’d have a heck of a lot more friends, and a lot less gray hair, that’s for sure,” he said. “But to this day, I think I made the right decision.”
Comments
Noozhawk's comments are moderated, but by posting here you accept your responsibility to follow our rules as part of Noozhawk's shared online community. Please keep your comments civil and helpful. Don't attack other readers personally, and do not use vulgar, abusive or discriminatory language. Use the "Report Abuse" link if a comment violates these standards or our Terms of Use.
» on 03.07.08 @ 09:35 AM
This is the most information I’ve seen on this issue. Excellent report!
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 03.07.08 @ 09:36 AM
I can’t believe we are even arguing about this. Taking out an old servicing station and putting a beautiful building in its place is EXACTLY the right thing to do on this property. This article got it right - the people fighting this are indeed "activists" - looking for something to complain about, just like they did with Ty and Miramar. Please find another hobby and stop giving such a hard time to honest business people trying to do the right thing for our neighborhood.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 03.07.08 @ 10:02 AM
Mr. Price needs to be sure he only states facts. Too many non-truths for me to waste my time pointing out. By the way Mr. Price, the reason for the 17 foot setback to our property is to provide a buffer from commercial property. You are asking to re-zone your entire property to commercial and 17 feet is the law ( and that’s using the loophole, you should be 25 feet away). Let’s stick to it. Sandy Wallace
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 03.07.08 @ 11:04 AM
Why wouldn’t we want to remove an old worn down gas station on Coast Village Road? We need some type of kick in the pants to help our merchants in this area. From what I can see, the new building will be a nice addition to the Coast Village district. We cannot say no to everything - we must find ways to help our local economy and continue to look for new and innovative ways to secure the future of Coast Village and its merchants.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 03.07.08 @ 12:15 PM
When did the Wallaces buy their house next door to the 76 Station? I heard they bought it AFTER Price had presented his plan to the city and they had full knowledge of the project prior to purchase. If full disclosure was made before the Wallaces purchased their property, then their recent shock and awe seems mighty tardy and, as one writer put it, it smacks of being just an idle game of obstruction to entertain bored, moneyed Montecito “activists.�
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 03.07.08 @ 01:17 PM
Some interesting points: All of those who have written to voice their opposition to the building as it is currently proposed, have signed their names to their letters and comments. All of those who have written to say how wonderful this huge building is, with the exception of one, have done so anonymously. Hmmm. For the very short time that the story poles were erected, and the architect’s rendering of the proposed development at that time, both showed the height of the building to be just about even with the eucalyptus tree on the corner. New renderings show the tree has had quite a growth spurt. Also, photographs and artist’s renderings of the corner, show all mountain views blocked by the building when viewed from ground level. New renderings popping up are now viewed from the 3rd floor of The Montecito Inn - one would have to go up that high to get a glimpse of the now obscurred mountains. (Montecito Inn has 3 stories, not 4 as stated.) Most people’s time on CVR is spent at ground level, not 3 stories up. Ask yourselves; do we as residents, who love our town, really need 8 more upscale condos, or is it Mr. Price who needs them? (Btw, I support the Miramar’s rebuilding.) Phoebe Alexiades Resident since 1969
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 03.07.08 @ 02:04 PM
You don’t need a 3 story building to replace this gas station! A 2 story would do well and so would a one story! I see the developer for the pharmacy project is being considerate and respectful of Montecito’s unique nature and hopefully the developer on this gas station project will do the same. Maybe those who see a three story building be at our gateway should consider moving to the big city. Sandy Wallace P.S. How come no one else is signing their names on these comments??????? [Editor’s note: While we would prefer that EVERY commenter sign his or her name, it’s not a requirement at this time.]
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 03.07.08 @ 02:07 PM
I find it refreshing to see that longtime local resident John Price has a vision for 1298 Coast Village Road and is willing to invest in the area. The proposed building will complement the existing architecture of the neighborhood, while providing the area with additional opportunities through boutique shops and places for seniors and young couples to live. Take a good look at these plans - they’re beautiful!
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 03.07.08 @ 02:09 PM
If I was Price I would throw the plans away and run the gas station, put in a tire operation and run both 24 hours a day. Sandy and John - the reason we do not use our names is that you will call us and bug us as you have everyone for the past few months. I will you well but feel you are crazy. Who would not trade a nice building for a 24 hour gas station. You got to have another motive as it makes no since.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 03.07.08 @ 02:11 PM
So Wallace’s I agree the modification to the set back to your property is wrong. If Mr. Price agrees to change that will you drop your opposition so our community gets a nice gateway instead of a 24 hour gas station? Come on now - answer.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 03.07.08 @ 02:38 PM
The question is where will we fill up at. The problem with our current "planning process" is that it does not plan. I don’t mind the project. Could be bad for the neighbors but I do recall the neighborhood near a proposed gas station with market proposed at Patterson and Calle Real shooting down that proposal. The neighbors were correct in citing the problems of a 24 hr operation. You see we are terrible in our cars. Air pollution aside the impact of noise it what is most difficult for nearby homes. Harleys, Ducati racers, boom boxes, 4 inch tailpiped monster diesel truck, etc 24/7/365 is what you don’t want. I suggest support with the proposed condo project it might even add as a buffer from noisey coast village road as well as the ever expanding Hwy 101 mess. (Jason J. Smith)
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 03.07.08 @ 04:06 PM
Sandy, You bought your property after the project was well under way with the city initiating the rezone. You knew exactly what you were getting into so quit your whining. Get me that strawberry milkshake…
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 03.07.08 @ 05:26 PM
At least I can sign my name to my comments. See you at the Planning Commission meeting "guest"! The truth will always prevail in the end!
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 03.07.08 @ 05:38 PM
Give me a break…now the Montecito Association is butting into CITY affairs with their obstructionist agenda and their amateurish and ever-vacillating opinions? I hope all the property owners along Coast Village Road and all the city decision-makers unite to make one thing clear: these county interlopers have NO stroke in the city. They are dilettante retirees whose less than credible opinions are neither needed nor wanted by we city folk! Montecito Association mind your own business!
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 03.07.08 @ 09:32 PM
As a frequent out of town visitor to Monticeto, the proposed project drawings show a lovely ambiance for the corner - prettier than a gas station!
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 03.08.08 @ 03:35 AM
For everyone reading. You can read the facts and learn everything about this project at http://www.sbcoastvillageroadgateway.com/
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 03.08.08 @ 04:06 AM
I think this is a great idea. This would be a wonderful addition to Coast Village Road.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 03.08.08 @ 04:28 AM
If the Wallaces were to build out in the future which you know they will, how high can they build? what would be their set back? time to dig into the county rules and regulations. price is in the city and Wallace is in the county. I will get back to you on this something smells here and usally when it smell’s it is.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 03.08.08 @ 04:53 AM
if you want the facts about this project i think everyone should go to the project web site. click on The facts and nothing but the facts look and see what Farrall did to the photo sim of the project. this is not right and it is not fair to the project. thank God that the Planning Commisssion will be able to see thru this type of desception. i also find it very interesting if you go back to the picture in the story you will see Farrall and his girlfriend standing infront of both the gas station and the Coldwell banker building. now everyone wants a two story building! ok here you go,in the picture move the Coldwell Banker builing to the gas station site and what do you have? you got it no view! these guys are crazy. and no i will not put my name on this because i do not want Farrall CALLING ME AGAIN!
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 03.08.08 @ 05:04 AM
WHEN IS THE LAST TIME PROPERTY TAX DOLLARS FROM THE 93108 ZIP CODE MADE IT TO THE CITY HOPPERS? WHEN IS THE LAST TIME A MONTECITO RESIDENT HAS VOTED FOR A PC MEMBER OR A MEMBER OF THE CC? HOW MANY AFFORDABLE UNITS ARE THERE IN MONTECITO? BY THE WAY COPUS CAN HAVE HIS 45’ BUILDING YET THE DEVELOPER CAN NOT HAS HIS 35’ BUILDING! LOOK AT THE PROJECT BUILDING IT IS NICE AND IT BELONGS ON THAT CORNER. GO UP TO STORY AND CLICK ON THE SITE. WOW NICLEY DONE MR PRICE!
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 03.08.08 @ 05:06 AM
Why does the owner of the Coldwell Banker building support this project? go wonder!
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 03.08.08 @ 07:02 AM
As someone who has a 24 hour gas station for a neighbor I say, if you want to live in peace EVER again in your life, you would agree with the proposed project. Here is some insight into what your are signing up for… Since you live off the freeway you will have those who have cars with VERY loud exhaust systems, that always seem to wait until 2-4am to fill up. Not to judge but about 80% of the people who have these cars have loud music and seem to crank it up when they are filling up. Let’s talk about their loud/drunk friends that need to get their snacks and sit outside smoking during this time. Because they are at a gas station they usually know they should not smoke on the lot or close to the pumps, so they walk off property and guess where they go? Yup, near my home. Generally they figure it’s the middle of the night, no one will mind if I use this bush on the corner of this person’s yard to relieve themselves. I do not even allow my children to play in my front yard’s grass because I do not know who has peep on it, or if there are cigarette butts hidden in the bushes or grass. One day, I actually found a syringe needle and a baggie with some residue while gardening! What if my child had picked that up??!! Now if it were me and I could go back and reverse decisions made to have a beautiful building with generous set-backs, as you have the good fortune to have as a neighbor, I would do it in a heartbeat! Now I’m stuck in a home that I love but don’t get to enjoy because the gas station next door has taken over my life, 24 hours a day. I understand not wanting a building to butt up to the sidewalk and go up 4 stories, although I would take that over what I have. But I building that is incredibly beautiful and being developed by someone who cares about it’s neighbors, you don’t know how lucky you are. Count your blessings that Mr. Price is a responsible man and isn’t greedy by just wanting to put the most amount of square footage without regard to the surrounding area. Please, make your property values and those around you rise, we need it in our present economy and help Mr. Price along with getting this project going. I don’t want your home life to be intruded upon like mine has been. By the way, I would highly recommend you do not allow this to become a park either, it only attracts transients, which is almost worse because of the danger involved. You do not know what types of drugs these people are on. We had a robbery next door one night and a shot was fired, it was absolutly terrifying. That bullet could have gone into my child’s wall and I can’t even imagine the rest.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 03.08.08 @ 07:25 AM
I’m interested in who these people who oppose the idea of this building are and where they live? Obviously, not addresses, but I would be peeved if someone from another area was opposing a project in my neighborhood. I know Mr. Farrell WORKS next door, but that’s just not the same as living next door… Now is it? Concerned citizen, Paulette Yevlis PS - I’m the one who wrote about living next to a gas station above. I’m just curious…
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 03.08.08 @ 08:50 AM
i checked the county of sb on the set back rules should the wallaces decide to build a new home on their property. the set back for the wallaces would be a five foot set back from the price property and they could build a 25’ building. check out the project web site http://www.sbcoastvillageroadgateway.com this project lives by the rules!
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 03.08.08 @ 11:14 AM
Mr. & Mrs. Wallace, Have you ever had the “luxury� of living next to a 24 hour service station? I have. Let me tell you what you’re in for with a station that pumps 300k gallons a month (the volume proposed at the renovated service station is better than 330k gallons per month). Every night around 3:00 am a tanker truck pulls up and starts filling the tanks. This is done late at night because that’s when it’s easiest for the truck to get in and out. The driver is supposed to turn off the motor but that doesn’t always happen. During the process there is a lot of clanking and noise. This happens every night. Next you have the other noises- the general commotion of more than 600 cars a day buying gas. That doesn’t include the people who just stop in for snacks and beer, add another 100 or more. Motorcycles and hot rods cruising in and out on the weekends, all night long, revving motors and squealing tires. Drunks and scumbags run out of downtown looking for somewhere to hang out without being hassled. The loud music that accompanies that. The fights that invariably accompany that. Then you have the last minute liquor run fiends between 1:30 and 2:00 am. Not the quietest bunch of folks. Don’t forget all the delivery trucks have to bring all the merchandise that these people buy. That’s just the noise. Due to liability reasons, 24 hour service stations are required by both the government and insurance companies to be well lit, and boy are they. You complained that the headlights from the residents’ vehicles (boutique shops are not open much past dark on CVR)would shine into your house? Try metal halide flood lights all night long. Better go shop for some new shutters. The bottom line is you knew the property was going to be developed when you bought your house and you made the decision to buy it anyway. I live next to the train tracks not far away but I didn’t tell the Southern Pacific to move its tracks when I moved in. Mr. Price has spent a lot of time and money revising plans and taking community opinion on the project. He has a lot of support for a beautiful project that would serve as a fine gateway to CVR along with the much taller Montecito Inn. Mr. Price also has a right to receive a fair return on his investment. I am sure he would have liked to put a two or even one story building on the property but with what the land pricing, permits, studies, government reviews, insurance, construction costs and people like you holding up the process cost (time is money, after all) it probably just isn’t financially feasible. Generous setbacks, beautiful architecture, underground parking. All are incorporated to show respect for the community and the projects neighbors. Mr. Price has generously offered to let the community purchase the property, some have suggested for a community park. Perhaps your time would be better served working towards that end. Then the homeless would have another nice place to sleep on a warm starlit night. Or pass out during the day. I would have signed this with my name as you have asked, but having read some of the comments above, have no desire to have you walk down and pound on my door or call me during dinner. Instead, I will see you at the Planning Commission meeting when I lend my support to the project.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 03.08.08 @ 11:21 AM
At first, I was hesitant to use this venue to say what I have to say but, with the knowledge that I have about a few issues with this project and my sense of fair play, I feel compelled to put out these comments. This is a situation of trying to play by the rules and then having the rules changed in midgame. It’s also about animosity toward an individual who has done nothing to deserve it. John Price has been aboveboard throughout the process while also meeting with the Montecito Assoc. and the Coast Village Business Assoc. several times over the last couple years. The size and scope of this project should not come as a surprise to any of their members. He has made requested changes along the way when they were feasible. He reduced the driveways to one at the rear of the property at the request of the CVBA. He altered the design of the building to improve the views from across the street. But he did not give into all concessions asked of him by adjacent property owners in return for their approval. He did, however, meet with the Wallaces before they bought their property to review his plans and received their approval at the time and, consequently, they proceeded with purchasing their house. Surely they must have felt his project would ultimately improve their property value as opposed to a service station. But since then they, apparently, have changed their mind and after it became knowledge that their garage sits 6 inches on John’s property, one of several of their demands for John to receive their approval was for him to grant them an easement which he did agree to at no charge to them. Now people are "surprised" and against a project that he is within the current requirements to build, albeit with certain reasonable modifications. He used concepts that, at the time of conception, were what the city was looking for. Now, in the 11th hour, they appear to be changing their tune. And, when it comes to building, any size or height project will involve all the aspects of construction. So are we to understand that no property can ever be developed or improved due to the inconveniences of construction? And why should a property owner be criticized for maximizing his profits if he is fair minded. That’s just good business. Linda Uellner
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 03.08.08 @ 01:57 PM
To Paulette Yevlis, Since you identified yourself, I am happy to respond. My home is a half block away, a 60-second walk to the project site, so I walk by several times a day. But even if I lived across town I would be saddened to see Coast Village Road become built out with lots of large buildings. If the city is willing to change zoning and reduce setbacks for this project, they would probably do the same for the next projects that come up. This project won’t make Coast Village Road a canyon, but it will open the door to that likelihood. Jeff Farrell
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 03.08.08 @ 02:37 PM
A 24 hour gas station would be just hunky dory with me. Have any of you ever driven down CVR at 1:00 AM? It’s a ghost town. Harley Davidsons, hot rods and all the wild, noisy and people you imagine will be filling up from midnight ‘til dawn, don’t hang out in Montecito! They certainly won’t be making special trips here to get gas! It’s 40 cents a gallon cheaper on Carillo St. and Milpas St. (What a bunch of kooks for even suggesting this absurd scenario!) And show me the lovely young couples who can afford condos at $1,500,000! Finally, Mr. Price has offered the corner for sale - given us one year to buy it. Please, Mr. Price, may we know the asking price? That would be a good starting point and I will personally start the fund raising. Maybe Mr. Gunner would buy your property and do something nice for the area like he has planned for his property at the corner of East Valley and San Ysidro. There’s a guy who obviously cares for and respects his community and those who live here. Sorry your greed runs so deep. Lucky’s does quite well with one story - imagine that!
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 03.09.08 @ 03:01 AM
Here is a comparison for you. scroll back up in the body of the story to the picture of Mr. Farrall standing in front of the Coldwell Banker builing. Once you are there slide the Coldwell Banker Builing onto my property and what do you have? no mountain views!By the way the Coldwell Banker builing is two stories. There is one simple reason why i can not go two stories and that is with underground parking the economics do not work. I wish they did! John Price
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 03.09.08 @ 03:27 AM
To Jeff Farrell - I dare you to talk about impacts to your home. First - it is a joke. So you choose a service station with underground tanks selling 24 -7 over a nice building to be close to your home. Second - I live next to a home you sold and you helped the new owners build a huge new home - blocking my views, adding 28 months of construction noise and all together changing my quality of life. You made the big commission and now I sit here and accept the results as it is what is allowed by law and is the basis of the business Mr. Farrell that you work. Yet, now the worm turns and you are losing a view out your office window and you are doing anything to abuse the very business within which you have paid for the home in Monticeto. Shame on you Jeff Farrell.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 03.09.08 @ 04:11 AM
Wallace’s, Don’t kid yourself thinking the price would remain 30 to 40 cents a gallon less than in town. To do the volume stated, the price would be the same or better than the cheapest in town. I imagine the commuters from the South would be stopping by to fill up on the way in or out once the word gets out. Be careful, you might just get what you wish for. Also, I wasn’t aware that the owner of Lucky’s built the property when he opened. I seem to remember that building having been there for at least the last 30 years. Oh, I forgot, you haven’t been a resident here that long, have you? If you really want another restaraunt on Coast village, maybe Mr. Price would consider building a 1 story McDonald’s or Jack in the Box using the existing building footprint instead. There is a lack of affordable food in that part of town.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 03.09.08 @ 04:26 AM
Wow, how bitter. The wallace family had the ability to have input into the project, and supported it. Now they change their minds and act like they have been victimized by the process. What a Los Angeles mentality. I would hope they have made arrangements to have their garage relocated should the project be denied. I imagine the easement was conditioned on the developement going through, and after the way the Wallace’s have attacked and slandered John Price I don’t see any reason for him to continue allowing them to squat on his property. I guess this is just another case of bitter people with nothing better to do trying to make themselves important by holding up projects widely supported by the community, just like the Miramar, Coral Casino and a long time ago, Fess Parker’s Doubletree. Remamber the hobo jungle before that was built? the Wallace’s don’t, they weren’t here then. [Editor’s note: We love passionate debate and revere the First Amendment. But, please, if everyone — on both sides — would confine comments to the issues involved and not the individuals, we’re pretty sure Noozhawk readers would be more inclined to consider your points of view. Thank you for self-policing yourselves.]
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 03.09.08 @ 04:29 AM
Thank you for your response Mr. Farrell. Personally, I’m surprised you are happy with the alternative but everyone is different. Mrs. Wallace, After reading Ms. Uellner’s response and getting more facts on the story, I’m rather sickened that you are actually doing what you are doing. How do you sleep at night? Well, that won’t be a question if you "win" this fight. You’ll be living next to a 24 hour gas station and if you think people aren’t going to stop to fill up in and out of town in the middle of the night, just wait until summer starts. Yes, you just moved into the neighborhood, you do not have a full grasp of what you are signing up for and I tried to give you the benefit of my experience (to help you) and you spat in my face, basically. Since you prefer the lower road here and want to get in the mud, I respectfully bow out of this disagreement. I myself, do not go that low… Good luck, you better get yourself a bottle or two of Tums. -P. Yevlis
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 03.09.08 @ 06:54 AM
Excuse me! The Wallaces live in San Luis Obispo and this is a vacation rental.If you read their Jan 15th letter to the Planning Commission from the Wallaces you will note they are worried about loosing rental income. Jay
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 03.09.08 @ 07:42 AM
If there is any doubt of Mr.Price’s ability to maket gasoline i suggest you stop by any of his locations. Start at the Turnpike Shell located at the corner of Turnpike & Calle Real. I just drove by this morning and you can not get in the place. Well if you cannot get in the Shell station go to his Fuel Depot location accross the street it has more space. You have to plan on waiting for awhile to get a gasoline dispenser. I know one of Mr Price’s old managers who has since moved out of town. I was told that his Fuel Depot locations average 245,000 gallons per month. My Best Friend lives on Turnpike and I have watched the Fuel Depot property over the years. For forty years it was a sleeper little station just like the one on Coast Village Road which did not pump much fuel at all. It was closed and fenced off for a couple of years. Price stepped in cleaned the place up and even with out a food mart the place is lined up to the street since day he opened. Then stop at the corner of Carrillo and Chapala his Shell Station. You should really like that one it is a two story builing, and i will say that by far the best looking station in town. You really need to be carefull with this guy because i think if he walks from this project I personally believe he will make it a personal mission to make his Coast Village Station is one of the top five pumpers in this town and people will drive for cheap gasoline. The reason i know so much about Mr. Price and his operations is that I had to compete with him for many years. It was no fun competing with him but I will say he always played by the rules. One last note the station in the upper village was my station when Unocal sold it to make it a park. BE CAREFULL WHAT YOU WISH FOR J.Jennings
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 03.09.08 @ 10:22 AM
See the News Press opinion letter today by Phoebe Alexiades As I read her letter today about a very beautiful and fitting replacement to a decades old service station, I was evident either she was unwilling to learn the facts or she knew the facts and was willing to misrepresent them. Either way it indicates that those fighting this very fair and fitting plan for Coast Village Road are afraid of the facts. The fact is that today the gateway corner of Coast Village Road and Olive Mill is presently developed with a service station and has impacts of it own that Ms. Alexiades choose to forget in her effort to demagogue. The proposed building reduces nearly ever impact and the few it does not reduce are far outnumbered by those that do. Traffic, noise, odors and environmental risk are greatly reduced. And while water use is higher – however is it compares to local uses it equals for the entire proposal what a typical home in Montecito uses. Ms. Alexiades states that a small retail building of 5000 square feet with eight modest condos must create more traffic than exist today as a full service gas station. Common sense along with the traffic experts concluded that this proposal not only improves the beauty of the corner, it also reduces traffic by 371 trips each day. Ms. Alexiades knows this fact and choose not to share it. She also states Coast Village Road struggles with cars – yet fails to share that this will be the only building in Montecito and maybe one of only two in the county of this small size that provides underground parking. She outlines the underground parking as one of the ills, but fails to mention that the parking provided as a benefit It gets better as Ms. Alexiades moves from ignoring the facts to pure fear mongering as she attempts to compare this building with one at least eight times larger on Chapala Street. This building is modest in the factual comparison (35 foot tall and 13,000 square foot – about the median of building heights on Coast Village, yet offering the most generous set backs from the street at the ground floor and even more set back on upper floors). The Chapala she chose to compare is eight times larger in square footage and is more than 50 foot tall, and offers no set backs. This is about as fair of a comparison as the Montecito Library with the Library of Congress. Just as the proposed building is dwarfed by the Chapala comparison, the use of this example illustrates how desperate those opposed are to find an argument to oppose a building that was given rave reviews until a few selfish people took it on to fabricate an issue.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 03.09.08 @ 10:26 AM
Okay the best part of this for me are the owners of the Montecito Inn. They have the tallest building. They have massive density. They fill our streets with cars as they do not have enough parking. They are funding the opposition because they do not want the small tower as it competes with them And the truth is they know this building is nicer than theirs and will make their building look horrible as it is not anywhere as nice as the proposed.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 03.09.08 @ 01:09 PM
Over all what a great idea. Replace a dirty run down gas station with a wonderful building. First - this is not an economic play, Price feel in love with an idea. Lets say yes before he wakes up. What a joke those opposed have become.. A small handful in Montecito have become so selfish and so self centered that nothing else matters but their power. Look at the Miramar. Look at butterfly beach. And look at the huge homes. For some this represents every thing that is wrong with America. I got mine and you can do nothing to compete. Time to grow up. With all due respect Mr. Wallace - should we talk your track record? Lets hope not. Jeff - I have known you for decades - I am shocked and saddened. Danny - what’s up? Your folks give you the Inn to run and now you are a nimby? Oh my of my - - what a mess we weave.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 03.10.08 @ 03:03 AM
I don’t need a 24-hour minimart and gast station down the street from my house, and I’m sure my neighbors don’t want to see it either. Some nice retail instead makes much more sense, especially for that corner. And if it comes with some condos, I really don’t mind - as long as it looks nice, which from all the plans on their website, I’m convinced it will. Good luck with this project. I hope you get it approved.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 03.10.08 @ 08:05 AM
HA! It is just so good to see another city, like Santa Barbara, that is growing way too fast, only due to the greed factor, AND while not upgrading a freeway that was designed 60 years ago and very overloaded. They all get what they deserve. Very high priced, congested, tense living.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 03.10.08 @ 10:02 AM
Interesting. there hasn’t been any commecial growth on Coast Village Road in years if not decades. this project doesn’t add growth, just changes use with less probable impact. Way too fast?
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 03.10.08 @ 10:05 AM
Perhapse the Ferrels’, Wallace’s and other like minded Montecito residents can explain why the 101 hasn’t been widened or upgraded, while communities to the North and South have been in favor of it?
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 03.10.08 @ 11:27 AM
My, what a friendly little discourse you have going on here. I simply must weigh in, but where oh where do I begin? For starters, I don’t understand how anyone can fault a property owner for wanting to achieve the highest and best use of his property. Owning property is an investment, and if you don’t agree, answer me this: when was the last time you ever sold your house for less than you initially paid? So, Mr. Price made an investment and now wants to capitalize on it. I say good for him. It’s simple economics, folks, and don’t say you wouldn’t do the exact same thing if you could. Besides, he’s doing everyone on the road a favor, so it’s really no wonder at all that other property owners in the area support the project. They know it will add value to their own properties, resulting in a higher return on their own investments. (The fact that some tenants, who only rent or lease space, feel they should have some say in what the people who actually own property can do only shows that ego knows no bounds—but, alas, that is a discussion for another day.) I saw comments that apparently intended to disparage the proposed condos because they are "upscale" (like that’s a bad thing) and will cost $1.5 million (perish the thought!). Well, that’s pretty much in line with everything else in the area. I can’t afford one, but I certainly don’t begrudge someone else who can. Some say Mr. Price is greedy. To them, I make this offer: put your money where your mouth is and offer your property for sale at a fraction of its market value, and I promise to be first in line to buy it, regardless of what’s next door. Then there’s all the talk about the mountain views. From what I can see, the only mountain views affected by this project are from the Montecito Inn. Do you really think hotel guests are so enthralled with their front row view of a gas station? So the lower level rooms lose a mountain view - they gain a view of some lovely Santa Barbara style architecture. Meanwhile, the Inn can charge even more exorbitant rates for their now exclusive "mountain view rooms." Everyone wins! Now, about those setbacks. Hmm, there’s an interesting topic. The neighbors bemoan the fact that their garage (not their house, mind you, but their garage) will be a mere 10 feet from the proposed structure. It seems to me that if the garage wasn’t encroaching on Mr. Price’s property in the first place, number one, and if it had itself been built with the appropriate setback, number two, then the proposed structure would be 20 feet away ... from the garage! And last, but certainly far from least, I am baffled by the vehemence of the opposition to this project. I would think folks would be happy with just about any project if it meant getting rid of an old and somewhat dilapidated gas station. Let’s presume for the moment, and just for the sake of argument, that Mr. Price was proposing to tear down a commercial building and replace it with a brand new gas station as the "Gateway to Montecito." I can just hear it now: "Oh, the lights!" "Oh, the fumes!" "Oh, the noise!" "Oh, the traffic!" "Oh, the eyesore!" "We simply can’t let a project with so many negative impacts be approved!" Mr. Price’s project promises to reduce all those impacts, and yet he still faces opposition? I guess I just don’t get where the NIMBY ("Not In My Back Yard") mentality is coming from, especially when one considers the alternative. Let’s face it, the subject property is THE very first thing travelers from the south see when they exit the freeway in Montecito. Should their first impression be a cookie-cutter 24-hour fuel-and-fly gas station? Or would we rather it be an architectural gem that actually welcomes visitors and gives them their first glimpse of the, dare I say, upscale atmosphere of Coast Village Road? I’m baffled that there’s even a debate. Mr. Price could not have chosen a better name for his project, as it truly is a "Gateway" to the community. I, for one, will do a happy little jig when it is approved. Thanks for allowing me to comment. Roni De Coster
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 03.10.08 @ 01:17 PM
Since seeing this yesterday I have talked with dozens of residents who agree that those opposed have gone too far. That the mailer they sent to Montecito was over the top and they are blowing this up as way too much. I say yes to a nice building and no to the damn oil companies. I say yes to homes, and no to oil changes. I say yes to landscaping as people come to visit my family and no to black top and a car wash. I say yes to property rights that have helped us all build equity in our homes and no to selfishness. Now I get why Ty Warner washed his hands. These people are sick - get a life will ya,
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 03.10.08 @ 02:52 PM
101 widening didn’t happen because a group of people from Montecito calling themselves "Grassroots 101" decided they knew best for all of us and fought it until the money was finally used elsewhere. Now it is still going to happen but at a much greater expense, time, and inconvenience. It would all be done by now if it had gone through in the first place. And, one more time, there is a group who think they know best and are using their influence to prevent this project from going forward. The alternative is possibly a busier and larger service station with no curb appeal at the Gateway. Beware of what you wish for.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 03.12.08 @ 02:44 AM
Price’s plan has been distorted by the tiny, but loud, minority opposing it. It’s good to see some fact-based postings regarding height, setback, etc. Even though the project is in the City of Santa Barbara, it clearly looks like the gateway to Montecito and deserves better than a gas station. The project is not as high or as bulky as the Montecito Inn and has great setbacks to preserve views and maintain traffic visibility. Price seems to have done everything possible to make this project beautiful and in accord with the neighborhood, but as always, the NIMBYs and BANANAs are out in force. Do what is good for the community, not for a few neighbors, raze the gas station and build this project. Robert C. Meltzer
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 03.12.08 @ 09:42 AM
Robert C. Meltzer has it a bit wrong and the name calling is uncalled for. I would try to convince the residential "nimby" neighbors that the proposed project is in their best interest. I am not sympathetic to developers per se except when the proposal benefits the neighbors. Otherwise you will have degraded conditions that result in degraded neighborhoods. I moved from Santa Barbara to Montecito due to the gradual degradation of my Santa Barbara home. The City’s processes focuses nicely on visuals but often fails to properly consider adjacent uses. You can have an apartment adjacent to a carwash or a single family residence adjacent to a 24 hr gas station complete with a carwash and vacuum cleaner operation in the City. This developer could propose a nightclub and of course it would be approved. Believe me this city could really degrade the adjacent parcels. This project could be a benefit to the neighbors and the community! Even though this project may be a bit large overall I hope the closest neighbors carefully weigh the alternatives. By the way "the community" can indeed act self-serving and ignore the neighbors who are stuck in the middle of this project. Lastly, perhaps the people tucked far away on a private lane are the real NIMBY’s. But lets not try to call names. Jason J. Smith
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 03.14.08 @ 06:58 AM
Jason (and kudos for using your name): If you are referring to "NIMBY" or "BANANA" as name-calling I would observe that those terms are generally accepted anywhere I’ve lived in the U.S with groups of the Not In My Back Yard or Build Absolute Nothing Anywhere Near Anything ilk, just like "Developer" is used to identify as a group those involved in property development. I tend to think of name-calling as more in the line of "numbskull’, "stupid", "idiot", and similar terms, all of which I have been called in various SB blogs (but not this one). If, however, I have offended any NIMBYs, BANANAs, or Developers by so calling them, I apologize. And I think I missed where I "have it a bit wrong"?. BTW, I am neither a developer nor in the pocket of a developer. But I did find it amusing and typical that Travis Armstrong’s editorial characterized any positive support of the project as due to a "well-funded PR campaign", while the negatives were clearly the "grass roots" forces of truth, justice, and the American Way (my interpretation). I happen to believe that a beautiful gateway to Montecito (even though it’s actually Santa Barbara) would be better than a 24 hour gas station. I’m not sure what your private lane comment is about. Most of the non-anonymous public negative commentary I’ve seen (I don’t give much weight to anonymous comments) are from people very close to the building site. over to you…
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 03.17.08 @ 12:48 AM
Sorry to respond so late. I consider name calling exactly what you did. The wrong part was that you used the NIMBY and BANANAS word to incite. Those that use the name calling approach usually live far a way from a business district and often are secluded behind cu-de-sacs, long drives, gates in heavily regulated communities with their own restrictive CC and Rs. Got it? Best Regards, Jason J. Smith
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 03.20.08 @ 05:11 AM
Mr. Smith: I hate to point out the painfully obvious, but most of the name-calling in this case has emanated not from some anonymous residents of distant cloistered communities, but from neighbors just next door, across the street, and over the fence from the project site. These most vocal project opponents have employed the "name calling approach," as you dub it, with a vengeance. (According to them, Mr. Price greedy, a liar, inconsiderate and disrespectful—and if you don’t believe me, re-read the comments below.) Given their proximity to the project site, when the term NIMBY is used to refer to certain opponents in this case, it is true in it’s most literal sense. If it incites, then perhaps those to whom it applies ought to rethink their positions. In my experience, the more defensive one becomes, the more truth the accusation likely carries. But that’s just one armchair psychologist’s observation. Mr. Meltzer: THANK YOU for reminding us all what tends to be forgotten: this project is in the City limits. Montecito might like to claim Coast Village Road as its own but, when presented with the option some years ago, declined to be incorporated. So, imagine my surprise when I got an email yesterday from Marty Blum, Mayor of the City of Santa Barbara, stating: "I have also received a letter from Supervisor Salud Carbajal asking the City to have the Montecito Planning Commission review the project. I have indicated my support of that review." The County believes it should weigh in on a City project? And the City Mayor thinks that’s a good idea?? Are you kidding me??? Just as the City does not weigh in on projects in the Upper Village, the County has no jurisdiction over projects on Coast Village Road and should have no say in this project whatsoever. Where does this supervisor get off, anyway? Leaves me to wonder: who is the master who pulled that puppet’s string? Anyone care to ‘fess up? I know, I know—I won’t hold my breath for an answer. It’s pretty obvious that the rules of fair play are out the window and that shady back room deals are the tactics of the day. Whoever you are, you have officially crossed the line from opponents to obstructionists. Can you say abuse of process? How about denial of equal protection? I’m sure Mr. Price has a good lawyer, but if he doesn’t, I’d be happy to make some recommendations, because if that happens, I smell a lawsuit a-brewing! Roni De Coster
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 07.14.08 @ 08:16 PM
Well well well, what will Davies group do with themselves after this project gets approved. Believe me, we won’t be hiring them. First of all, if I were to spend that much money on a PR group, I’d want to make sure they can spell and use simple grammar correctly.
All I can say, the opponents will prevail on this project as the laws are ALL ON THEIR SIDE!!!!! and all without the Davies group.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
More Local News »
Chargers Fall to Peninsula in Hard-Fought Tennis Matchup
Dos Pueblos finds strength in singles, with freshman Joshua Wang battling back and winning a tiebreaker
Local Triathlete Lauren Capone Claims Wildflower Amateur Title
Capone, a member of the Elite Racing Team, earns the overall amateur women’s title
Santa Barbara SC Girls U17 Red Team Wins Cal South State Cup
The team now advances to the regional playoffs June 13-17 in Denver
Doubles Run Ends for Chargers in Semifinals of League Tournament
Dos Pueblos' Josh Wang and Patrick Corpuz fight hard but fall to SBHS duo
Doubles Teams Take the Courts in Channel League Boys’ Tennis Tournament
Chargers play tough through close sets
Weather: Fair 56.0º
Search Noozhawk »
