Print friendly
E-mail story
Contact an Editor
iPod friendly
Comments
Bookmark This
del.icio.us.
Digg!
furl
google
newsvine
reddit
technorati
Facebook
Yahoo!For five years, Randy Welty and his wife, Lynn Ballantyne, have been trying to build their retirement home — a 13,333-square-foot glass and metal monster of a house complete with nearly 2,500 additional square feet of barns and guest houses — just off Farren Road at the easternmost gate of the Gaviota Coast. This week, with a narrow vote of support from Santa Barbara County supervisors, it appears their controversial plan will become a reality.
Nearly twice the size of the average home in the area and proposed for a ridgeline clearly visible from both Highway 101 and the neighboring Rancho Embarcadero neighborhood, the Ballantyne residence, as it is known, was approved 3-2 on Tuesday afternoon, July 15 (South Coast Supervisors Salud Carbajal and Janet Wolf voting against) despite a checkered track record with the county process that includes a denial of application from both the Board of Architectural Review and the County’s Planning and Development Department, as well as a thumbs-up from the Planning Commission.
In the end, hanging their hats on a potentially precedent-setting design feature that calls for a dirt wall 600 feet long and 200 yards wide to be constructed around the home in hopes of hiding its girth from the outside world, the supes, specifically the North County majority of Brooks Firestone, Joni Gray, and Joe Centeno, chose to ignore potential conflicts with county land use policy and approve the project — dirt wall and all.
Tuesday afternoon’s showdown came more than a year after county supervisors — responding to the Gaviota Coastal Conservancy’s appeal of the Planning Commission’s aforementioned approval of the Ballantyne project — decided that before they could rule on that appeal the house needed some environmental review. Stopping short of asking for an actual Environmental Impact Report, something that is seldom needed for single-family homes, the supes simply called upon Rincon Consultants to look at the various issues associated with the project.
“the building really would not be visible in any meaningful way from Highway 101.” — Joe Power
Rincon’s Joe Power presented a 65-page document to supervisors this week, painting an environmentally favorable portrait of the proposed mega-house, calling it “generally compatible with the character of the area” and, most importantly, saying that with the dirt berm in place, “the building really would not be visible in any meaningful way from Highway 101.” According to Power, the only major — and easily mitigated — impacts would be noise during construction and fire protection because the property is right in the heart of forest-fire country. Additionally, though he admitted it was a “debatable point,” Power explained that the report discounted the house’s obvious viewshed impacts on neighbors and people using Farren Road because these vantage points were considered less than thoroughfares.
Paul Wellman
Marc Chytilo
To the Gaviota Coast Conservancy, fighting for what its lawyer Marc Chytilo called “the integrity of Gaviota and the integrity of the county land use process,” not only was the Rincon Consultants document woefully inadequate, and not only was the proposal begging for a full-blown EIR investigation because of unaddressed and unresolved water supply and water quality issues, but, in approving the house with its unprecedented dirt-wall solution, the supervisors were grossly compromising County General Plan policy. Pointing to specific language in county land use code that says, “Structures shall be subordinate in appearance to natural landforms, shall be designed to follow the natural contours of the landscape, and shall be sited so as not to intrude into the skyline as seen from public viewing places,” Chytilo argued unsuccessfully that using a manmade dirt wall to conceal the obvious ridgeline-muddling of the Ballantyne residence is not a legitimate interpretation of the policy. “Simply putting a berm in front of a structure that intrudes into the skyline [doesn’t fix the problem],” said Chytilo, “It gives you two structures that intrude into the skyline.”
“It just flies in the face of good planning when we don’t follow our own policies,” Wolf argued.
Chytilo’s reasoning did not move the board’s majority, nor did Carbajal and Wolf’s attempts to sway their fellow supervisors. “It just flies in the face of good planning when we don’t follow our own policies,” Wolf argued. For the other supes, the berm, plus Ballantyne and Welty’s earlier concession to move their house site back 20 feet deeper into their 17-acre property, as well as their plan to use cutting-edge green technologies in the crafting of their dream home, were enough to finally grease the wheels of approval, leaving critics with no chance for appeal save for a legal challenge of the decision.
Double-clicking on any word or phrase in this story will open a reference window with definitions and links to other reference material.
Previous Month
Comments
Discussion Guidelines
more copy-writing slippage(TK):
County Supervisor name spelling is GRAY, not Grey
David_Pritchett (David Pritchett)
July 17, 2008 at 12:14 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Surprise surprise. The three north county supervisors don't give a rats rear end for the laws or rules and regs. Anyone with big bucks can do what they want. Just how much sympathy are we supposed to have for this fat cat from Texas. He wants to build his dream home, poor baby, but the bad old meanies in the environmental community are our to get him. Hey sucker, play by the rules like the rest of us and you got no problem. I say sue the county. This decison goes against all attempts at long range rational land use planning.
Noletaman (anonymous profile)
July 17, 2008 at 12:19 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Just like a Politician in DC, anything can happen when the right hands are greased by the wealthy.
Seems like business as usual, in a Republican State. Money given unto those who make the rules, alters or bends the rules.
Seek out and find the surge in wallet size of those who approved of the house to be built.
Dou4now
dou4now (anonymous profile)
July 17, 2008 at 10:43 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I don't buy into the bribery implication it is just the perverted mindset of Firestone, on South County land use and environmental issues, good riddance and thank God he did not run for re-election. This just frames the obvious unfortunate reality we have come to live with, that politics does drive land use decisions. If Farr was on the Board this project would not have been approved. In an ideal world (which of course we do not live in) land use decisons would not be decided that way. We need to delay as many important land use decisions as possible at the County until after the first of the year.
sbreader (anonymous profile)
July 18, 2008 at 8:27 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Decisions like these remind me of why I supported the County Split. Sure wish that had succeeded! I don't want people from North County to have the right to make Goleta look like Lompoc or Santa Maria.
goletan (anonymous profile)
July 18, 2008 at 9:02 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Hail the arrival of Gucci strip mall mansion design, berms are not the answer. Berms ruined the Wood River Valley "Sun Valley" Idaho in this last 10 years of the Mansion race. Now it's "Berm Valley," sad.
lordleadbetter (anonymous profile)
July 18, 2008 at 10:30 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I hope the Gaviota Coast Conservancy considers filing a legal appeal. How much compassion are we supposed to have for someone who clearly has no compassion for the communities he lives and does business in?
And we all need to step up in the next board of supervisors elections to get these short-sited and most likely corrupt council members as far away as possible from public decision-making.
UCCU (anonymous profile)
July 18, 2008 at 11:20 a.m. (Suggest removal)
This is total horse puckey. What difference does it make what a man does to earn his living as long as it is legal? This man is no different than a person who owns fast food restaurants, coffee shops, etc. I would bet that he is more honest and more of an upholding citizen than some of those mortgage brokers who were fudging paperwork to get loans through so that commissions could be made, and putting people in bad financial positions. This battle over this home being built is ridiculous. There are other homes of this size and larger in the Santa Barbara area. What this comes down to is perhaps jealousy and envy. It is far more easier to say fight it and sue when it is not your money footing the legal bill. The opposition is funded by the tax payers.Yet these people are forced to fund their defense without any recourse. Certainly the taxpayers money could be better spent on far more important issues rather than a futile attempt to try to prevent someone from building their home, which by the way is an entitlement and a personal right in this country. It is time for some people to grow up, get over it, and move on.
REDDCELL (anonymous profile)
July 18, 2008 at 11:56 a.m. (Suggest removal)
It is ironic that this person is holding a sign reading "have compassion". One might ask, where is his compassion for the rest of the planet? 13,300 square feet for two people? Jesus H. Muffins on a bicycle, that is absolute insanity. I'm sure the supes will be over for dinner, at least...
tegrat (anonymous profile)
July 18, 2008 at 2:49 p.m. (Suggest removal)
REDDCELL, besides your frivolous argument by substitution ("there are others...") and obvious denial of the rights of the many in favor of the rights of the few, you might try growing up yourself and start supporting your government, or perhaps you have enjoyed the fruits of the current political climate with its lack of proper oversight and regulation. The view of the coast is something that belongs to everyone, no individual has a "right" to build whatever they please just because they own some land. There are countless instances where you personally have gained from the "opposition", yet you are probably too blind to notice.
tegrat (anonymous profile)
July 18, 2008 at 2:57 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I disagree with the approval of this monstrous home and I am originally from texas. But I disagree more with the comments from the goletan regarding the county supervisors allowing Goleta to look like Lompoc and Santa Maria. Has anyone from south county been north lately? Lompoc looks more like Goleta used to than Goleta does now. Lompoc has more agricultural and affordable homes for those who can't afford to live in south county. If you really want to make changes move north and contribute your vote to removing the supervisors you dislike and implementing needed change. We need less us vs them and more like minded individuals to move north.
lifeinlompoc (anonymous profile)
July 18, 2008 at 3:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)
TEGRAT, Frivolous argument by substitution? Are you serious? How can you say it is frivolous? It is a fact that there are other homes in Santa Barbara that are as big or bigger than this home. Perhaps you don't get out all that much or you don't pay attention to your surroundings but I assure you that they do exist. This has nothing to do with supporting or not supporting local government. This home is compliant with the rules and regulations that exist. If it wasn't it would not have passed the first time around nor would have it won the appeal. The reason this project was approved twice is that there is no valid legal reason it should not be built. The view of the coast does belong to everyone, including the project's owners. The house will not obstruct anyone's view. That was proven in the reports and surveys according to this article. I never said that people had the right to build anything they want. I said that people had the right to build their home on their own land. These people are complying just like everyone else has to. They have made compromises and have obviously had their home designed per local codes, rules, regulations, etc. or they would have not made it this far. If the opposition chooses to sue the county, (which by the way is the government you claim we should all support,) it won't do anything other than cost the taxpayers and the project's owner money. It is the owners of this project that are being victimized here. They have played by the rules and have won fair and square. And the opposition and the press are trying to gain public support by slander. Perhaps it is you that wishes a dinner invitation......
REDDCELL (anonymous profile)
July 18, 2008 at 4:14 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Reddcell,
The rules are quite clear and this house clearly violates them. "Structures shall be subordinate in appearance to natural landforms, shall be designed to follow the natural contours of the landscape, and shall be sited so as not to intrude into the skyline as seen from public viewing places." As far as the "reports and surveys" you allude to showing that it didn't intrude on anyones view goes, well with all due respect to Rincon Consultants, they are just hired hands doing what they were hired to do. If they found that the house was going to be hideous and unacceptable how many more rich people would ever hire them to do EIRs? I beleive the term is hiring a fox to guard the henhouse. As far as envy goes I think you are just assuming that the rest of us are as greedy and envious and indifferent to the greater good as you seem to be. There are actually lots of folks who would not build nor live in this monstrosity even if they could afford to.
Noletaman (anonymous profile)
July 23, 2008 at 5:11 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Post a comment