Hot Topic: Supersizing Montecito
Now that our developer-friendly Council has supersized most of lower Chapala, and parts of Anacapa, their attention has turned to a historic part of Montecito, Coast Village Road - which is unfortunately controlled the City Santa Barbara.
The current controversy involves the fate of the Union 76 Gas Station… on the corner of Coast Village Road and Olive Mill Road. The owner/developer, John Price, would like to demolish the gas station, which has been there for 50 years, to build a mixed-used monstrosity. The first of its kind in Montecito.
The project calls for a 40-foot high, three-story, 17,270-square foot building with eight (8) two-story condominiums and approximately 5,000 square feet of commercial space on ground level, and 77 parking spaces… all on a 18,196-square foot lot with sweeping views of the mountains.
The plans for this Orange County-type project are scheduled to be heard at Thursday’s (March 13th) Planning Commission meeting. At some point in the near future, exasperated residents will stand up to these developers, and many elected officials who are in their back pocket, to drive the cement trucks out of town.
Question of the week… is this the development that galvanizes such a revolt?
March 9th, 2008 at 6:58 pm
Before and (proposed) after photos provided by Marco and Jeff Farrell
March 9th, 2008 at 8:43 pm
I don’t think it is. I reviewed the plans published by the city and this building does not measure up to the size of other three story buildings in the coast village area. It seems that any project proposed these days brings out the “too big, too tall” hysteria. However, no one is looking at the cause of so many low-rise medium density buildings being built in the city. It is a double edged sword.
The first edge is the realization by the decidedly left wing government here that the rapidly dropping population of the city is not going to fill the city’s coffers and at a time when government spending is at an all time high. The lefties have now joined with some on the right to bring in much needed work force housing in the form of mixed use buildings in commercial areas where neighborhood objection is usually absent. The hope is that building cheaper housing units will reverse the flow of tax payers out of the city so government won’t have to raise taxes, much.
The other edge of the sword is the nefarious building height limits which may seem like a good idea on the surface, but have generated much of the “medium density” sprawl now cropping up around town. And it will get a lot worse if the tide of population does start to swing back to the positive.
The solution should not be a “revolt” against medium density sprawl, per say, but a revolt against the tired and failed policies that have created it. Carpet bombing the city with overly restrictive architectural limits drives out any intelligent and creative building solutions to the affordable housing problem and only forces the city into a “Stalinist” type of existence where we all become slaves of the government and the city is eventually paved over with a monotonous sea of same height buildings of identical architecture.
Besides, an outrage against a rather small three story building in Montecito seems rather misplaced considering what Cottage hospital is doing in the name of height limits to its flagship hospital.
March 9th, 2008 at 9:23 pm
Hey Editor, your Noozhawk friends are running ad s for John Price and this development. Going to list the ads too?
Editor’s Note: The Montecito Journal has also backed this proposal, so they wouldn’t be alone. But no.
March 9th, 2008 at 9:27 pm
Granted, this proposal has some setbacks and a 40-foot height limit… it may not be as bad as the Chapala “high density” monstrosities, but it is the first of its kind in the once quaint 93108.
PS: It could be this supersizing of Coast Village Road, the upcoming MTD Transit Center, completion of the Chapala Canyon, or the proposals for a four-story hotel on the tiny Hope Ranch Inn lot, but one of these developments will be the straw the breaks the local’s back.
March 9th, 2008 at 10:45 pm
It looks like the Casino. It’s your turn South Coast, why even ask your opinion? Who cares what you think? Is there economic value in it for the County? It’s pretty!!
March 10th, 2008 at 7:41 am
More than the building bulk and scale being inappropriate, it is changing the zoning code and granting modifications that is the most alarming aspect.
The city throws away the zoning code as if it were recycable toilet paper. That is what is the abuse of power and you all had better understand what that means in your own neck of of the woods.
This spot ain’t zoned for this huge development and there is no argument that compels anyone to change it so it can be developed. Wake up folks, the city is coming after what you trust and believe in hammer and tong.
Just say no to massive piecemeal zoning ordinance changes. Especially fostered by a city staff that wants every single development to be 50% “affordable”.
March 10th, 2008 at 8:52 am
Given the choice between the current service station and the proposed building, I would much rather look at the proposed building while entering Coast Village from the South. What is amazing is that the building is only 8 feet higher than the Caldwell Banker building next door.
The other issue that has always been a problem with that location is that the Coast Village entrance/exit is so close to the 5-way stop intersection. You can regularly see the confusion this causes. From the look of the pictures, the new project completely eliminates that egress from the picture, hopefully allowing traffic to flow more freely.
Change is not always easy, but this is not the huge monster of a building that some would have you believe. This is a sizable lot and 17k square feet over three short levels (as compared to the Montecito Inn) does not seem unreasonable.
You also have to ask what the existing gas station gives to the community other than high prices and a run down image. Looked at honestly, the gas station is what really does not fit in with the image of Coast Village Road.
But that’s just one man’s opinion.
March 10th, 2008 at 8:54 am
For anyone that is interested, there is a website to save coast village road. http://www.savecoastvillageroad.com There are some specifics about how you can get involved if you like.
March 10th, 2008 at 9:40 am
It should be 100% affordable. We have a crisis and we need more projects like this!
March 10th, 2008 at 10:44 am
In response to Greg Knowles post, for an informed decision, you should also review http://www.sbcoastvillageroadgateway.com as there are always 2 sides to every story.
March 10th, 2008 at 11:46 am
That 5 way stop is troublesome. They should install a roundabout.
I don’t get to Montecito very often, but I don’t think I’d want that size of a project on Coast Village Road.
March 10th, 2008 at 12:14 pm
I’m for a roundabout. That would help!
March 10th, 2008 at 2:03 pm
Checked out the site Greg suggested. Looks like Anon #2 and D. Wilson have a point. What do you want to save Coast Village Road from, a new building or an old gas station? I guess you could lobby for taller buildings in town so the outter reaches stay low, like that would ever fly.
March 10th, 2008 at 2:19 pm
Looks like an improvement to me!
March 10th, 2008 at 3:29 pm
I’ll admit it looks like it has potential.
March 10th, 2008 at 4:09 pm
For those so enamored of the gas station, how about building an oil refinery at the intersection?
March 10th, 2008 at 7:12 pm
The world is a wonderful place. It’s people that screw things up.
All of you in support of this monstrosity will probably win. This push to develop bigger, taller, fatter is controlled by the powerful and the wealthy. Those of us who just want to preserve our quality of life have no “pull”.
Development is like a glacier….always moving forward, always destroying the natural beauty in its path. It seems the only solution is to move away from it. It’s all about greed. Nothing more, nothing less. Too bad.
March 10th, 2008 at 7:28 pm
Save your breath. There is plenty of affordable housing in this town. Maybe not for you who wants it 100% at someone elses expense, but everything sells here so it is all affordable for someone. Get over yourself on this issue. Stop acting like a welfare victim.
March 10th, 2008 at 7:31 pm
The photo sims you have are totally misleading and the mailer Jeff Farrell sent out was worse.
Mr. Farrell will lose a veiw from his office window. The commuity will gain a great new gateway.
So how does it compare to Chapala building
height of this building - 35 feet
height of chapala - 50 feet
set back of this building - 10 - 34 feet
set back of this chapala - 0 feet
upper floor set back of this building - 24 feet
upper floor set back of this chapala - 0 feet
Square footage of this building - about 13,000
Square footage of this chapala - about 100,000
Underground parking: This building YES. Chapala NO.
March 10th, 2008 at 7:57 pm
Jamie - agree.
How about we plow over the Miramar. Or better yet leave it as is - looks more like this service station.
Can anyone imagine wanting a decade old service station with underground gas tanks and all the noise, smell and environmental risk - rather than 5000 square feet (about the size of Lucky’s) of retail and 8 modest condos.
So you trade in underground parking for the aged gas tanks -
Oh my - give me the gas tanks - maybe they will leak. And I love the smell of gas. And oh yes the noise - much better with a gas station.
March 10th, 2008 at 8:05 pm
Look at the proposal drawings (available to anyone) and some facts jump out to perhaps counterbalance some of the more emotional opinions: The proposed building is 35′ 6″, not 40′. It is set back 32 feet from the curb, and its 3rd story is set back from 11 to 17 feet from the 2nd story, all to minimize visual bulk. (The Montecito Inn across the street is way “bulkier” - should it be torn down? )
The setbacks also mean that the visibility for traffic at the 5 way intersection is NOT impeded, contrary to what was stated by a certain Montecito realtor in her lengthy diatribe in Sunday’s NewsPress (that diatribe included a graphic of a cluster of buildings from 7 to 12 stories high - anyone remember the term “yellow journalism”?).
Water supply may be an issue - we need an official position from the engineers on that one.
More retail space would be a plus - most of CVR’s retail space is now occupied by realtors, banks, and title companies. Personally, I’d rather see an attractive building and fountain at what most people see as the entrance to Montecito instead of a gas station.
March 10th, 2008 at 8:07 pm
As we argue about this modest building - we have serious funding, gang and education problems that could use your energy.
I love that Village Properties - who dedicate time and give lots of money to the community and esp education are supportive and Farrell who does nothing is opposed.
The selfishness is amazing.
America has become Rome before the fall - esp in Santa Barbara.
March 10th, 2008 at 8:42 pm
No sympathy for anyone posting here. Just like to say I like the proposed building. The photos show what is fleeting view of someone coming from the Biltmore….in their car. So what! We need homes for people of all income levels. Don’t you all like people? What’s wrong with you. Why do you hate me for wanting to buy a home here? And why aren’t those who would want to throw the cement trucks outta town not protesting the freeway widening. Now that’s a manmade canyon to protest!
March 10th, 2008 at 9:18 pm
I’ve been around this town long enough to know when spin-masters are at work. The pro-Price people sound a lot like Davies Communications. There is a very strong push to get this project approved, and it’s not just innocent bystanders who are supporting this development project. It is professional propagandists. Some of the comments here and on BlogaBarbara are too, too slick. Beware.
March 10th, 2008 at 10:36 pm
I have been driving through the 5 way stop intersection in Coast Village since I learned how to drive and I have always enjoyed watching the tourists completely bungle navigating the intersection. I think we should keep it the way it is.
March 11th, 2008 at 8:56 am
There is no nature beauty in a gas station. Get rid of it. I fully support this project.
March 11th, 2008 at 9:47 am
A Hot Topic indeed.
It is not that opponents have so much the like for the gas station, rather a dislike for a 17,270-foot structure on an 18,196-foot lot.
PS: A warm welcome to new bloggers coming to join this important discussion. The traffic was through the roof (no pun intended) yesterday. A quick reminder that arguments for or against this project can be made without name calling - those comments that do will be deleted. A diversity of opinions, anonymous or attributed, are always welcomed on Santa Barbara’s Blog.
March 11th, 2008 at 10:10 am
Would everyone please identify themselves so readers can sort out the self-interest from the truly community-minded?
March 11th, 2008 at 10:44 am
I like Bill’s comment about pro-project responses. More of the same trash talk from the united no-nothing-never crowd; “If you don’t agree with us, you must be an Orange County developer”. There may be some propaganda out there, Bill, but most of us just want a little reasonable discussion, without the automatic rejection of everything the N3’s don’t like.
March 11th, 2008 at 12:20 pm
I Did a search on the City’s website and couldn’t find any information about this project. The information both pro and con is much better here.
March 12th, 2008 at 6:36 am
Everything is about money and power in this town and in just about every other town as well. The city council is going to do whatever they want and we should just shut-up and quit yer bitch. Better yet just move and bitch somewheres else. Ya all can go round and round about what should or should not be and if it is good or not good.It does not matter, unless you are on the council and have bigger persuasive balls than the other council members.
March 13th, 2008 at 7:19 pm
Love the project, hope it happens so we can have a beautiful gateway to our community rather than a gas station. I’m sure if there are ANY changes proposed for this site, the developer will have those few activists on their tail! These people think if they yell the loudest they are representing all, they are sadly mistaken by this tactic.
March 13th, 2008 at 10:47 pm
Right you are, Nicole. But in the N3 (no-nothing-never) world, you are just an Orange County developer (OCd). Now I never joined the N3 religion, so I never got brainwashed. As a result I’ve been called an OCd so often, I’ve thought about changing my humble SB address to Laguna Beach, just to add some truth to the accusation.
Ha ha, just kidding you N3’s. You ain’t gonna get rid of me that easily!
March 14th, 2008 at 11:38 am
Finally (after the Planning Commission meeting, of course), the NewsPress prints an article with pictures and facts instead of misleading graphics and opinions.
BTW congrats to Editor for “A quick reminder that arguments for or against this project can be made without name calling - those comments that do will be deleted”. Here’s to more educated and civil discourse on any and all projects and to the elimination of character-assassination, name-calling and other general insults - whichever side of the debate you may be on.
Robert C. Meltzer
March 14th, 2008 at 1:33 pm
Is the developer saying it’s my way or the highway? That’s what I’m hearing. If you don’t approve my project as proposed, then I will put in a 24 hour Fuel Depot. Now that doesn’t sound like someone who is genuinely and sincerely interested in doing the best thing for that gateway, does it?
March 14th, 2008 at 2:33 pm
Actually, I think that the developer proposed several options:
1.build a new project (not clear that he has said my way or the highway)
2.keep the business as is, but pursue it to the maximum he is already allowed (24 hour service) by law.
3.sell to a citizens group or ? who could then turn it into a park or whatever.
The “my way or…” might be a reaction to those who want him to do nothing.
Robert C. Meltzer
June 28th, 2008 at 2:16 pm
Could not find site for Submit to
SB City Council.
I am very much in favor of the plan to build the improvements that Mr. John Price is planning. Put me on the list of APPROVAL !!!!!