Ballantyne Residence
Update on Ballantyne Project
Massive House and Wall of Dirt Denied by Judge
A lawsuit filed by the Gaviota Coast Conservancy resulted on April 7, 2009 in an order rescinding County approvals and barring any further development on the project until an environmental impact report (EIR) is prepared and the County reconsiders the project.
"This is a significant ruling for the protection of the Gaviota Coast" explained Gaviota Coast Conservancy President Mike Lunsford. "This decision upholds the policies and environmental standards that apply to all of the Gaviota Coast. Ms. Ballantyne believed she was exempt from visual policies and could build a massive and grandiose house overlooking the spectacular Gaviota Coast without regard for the effect on public views and the environment. Now she must propose a house that meets County policy and respects the visual qualities of the Gaviota Coast."
Marc Chytilo, attorney for the Conservancy, stated "This decision reflects a return to the rule of law, after four years of land use planning decisions made principally on political grounds. First, the County must vacate all approvals of the project. The Court issued an injunction prohibiting further development on the site. Second, the Court ruled that the County must prepare an environmental impact report (EIR) evaluating the project's visual and aesthetic impacts. Previously, the County prepared an abbreviated Negative Declaration that failed to analyze the project's impacts. Finally, the Court concluded that the Project violated one or more policies in the General Plan, and ordered further policy analysis after the EIR is completed." As another court said, the General Plan is the "linchpin for California's land use and development laws; it is the principle which infuses the concept of planned growth with the force of law." Santa Barbara County's General Plan serves as the "constitution for all development" and guides all development proposals.
Over two years ago, Ms. Ballantyne and her husband Randy Welty were told by county staff that their project violated the General Plan, and were advised to modify the project to fit with General Plan standards. They refused, appealed the staff's determination, and eventually gained approval on a narrow 3-2 vote at the Board of Supervisors. The Gaviota Coast Conservancy sued in fall 2008 to overturn the County's approval, and today, Judge Thomas Anderle ruled in favor of the Conservancy.
The Ballantyne house and related structures total over 15,000 square feet of development, sited on a prominent ridge on the east end of the Gaviota Coast. The house itself is longer than a football field, leading Supervisor Centeno to predict that residents would need to use cell phones to find each other in such a "monstrous" house. Since it was proposed to be sited on top of a ridge, the house will be visible for miles around. Policies require the house to be located in a place on the 17 acre parcel to reduce visual impacts, but the applicant instead proposed a 660 foot long berm up to 10'7" tall to screen the residence from Highway 101.
The principal issue in the case was whether the views of the project from Farren Road were protected by a General Plan policy that prohibits projects that intrude into the skyline from public viewing places. The record showed that the Ballantyne house and assorted structures break the skyline when viewed from Farren Road north of the project.
LAWSUIT FILED CHALLENGING APPROVAL OF MASSIVE HOUSE ON GAVIOTA COAST
The Gaviota Coast Conservancy has filed a lawsuit in Santa Barbara County Superior Court challenging the Ballantyne “Mega-house and wall of dirt” on Farren Road at the eastern end of the Gaviota Coast. The lawsuit accuses the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors of violating their own General Plan policies protecting the visual character of rural areas, and of violating the California Environmental Quality Act, which requires consideration of all potential significant impacts.
The lawsuit challenges a July 15 action by the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors approving a nearly 16,000 square foot residential compound on Farren Road, the eastern Gateway to the Gaviota Coast, by a 3-2 vote. The Supervisors ignored arguments that the house, barn, guest house and garages do not confirm to the General Plan, are inconsistent with the surrounding area, and that the approval violates CEQA. “The Gaviota Coast Conservancy determined that this egregious project could not stand unchallenged. In approving the Ballantyne mega-house, the County Supervisors ignored the plain requirements of their General Plan and responded to the Project’s visual impacts by looking the other way. Despite paying lip service to the Gaviota Coast, a majority of the Board of Supervisors approved this project without justification and in violation of applicable law” stated Gaviota Coast Conservancy President Mike Lunsford. (download petition)
THE PROJECT
The proposed Ballantyne residence is located on the exposed ridge near Farren Road on the eastern edge of the Gaviota Coast. This house is outside the urban limit line in a rural area on a 17 acre parcel zoned for agriculture. The house is the length of a football field and permitted buildings on the site will total nearly 16,000 square feet. The mansion will be over five times bigger than the average Gaviota Coast residence. The house is on a prominent ridge overlooking eastern Gaviota Coast, Highway 101 and the community of Rancho Embarcadero.
Although the project was clearly inconsistent with General Plan policies, the applicant refused to modify it to address the suggestions of the Central Board of Architectural Review in 2005. In 2006, the Planning and Development Department denied the project due to General Plan inconsistencies, but the Planning Commission approved the project after making minor adjustments to the house and approving a 600 foot long, 9,000 cubic yard berm to screen the project from Highway 101. GCC appealed to the Board of Supervisors, who in 2007 directed the preparation of an environmental review document under California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The July 15 hearing considered that document.
THE ISSUES
The Lawsuit raises the following General Plan consistency and CEQA issues.
General Plan Visual and Siting Standards: GCC’s challenged the project’s consistency with visual policies protecting the Gaviota Coast. Policies require that “the height, scale, and design of each structure shall be compatible with the character of the surrounding natural environment, as determined by the review authority, except where the review authority determines that technical requirements dictate otherwise. 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.” The project is plainly inconsistent with these requirements, involving an incompatible structure that dominates the landscape, re-grades the natural landforms and intrudes into the skyline when viewed from publicly-accessible viewing places. The use of a 660 foot long, 10 foot high berm to hide the house violates the spirit and letter of these policies and could result in the widespread use of berms to allow otherwise incompatible structures along the Gaviota Coast and elsewhere in the County.
The Central Board of Architectural Review reviewed this project in 2005 and concluded that the “scale and design of house are not compatible with natural environment. House proposed is too large. Program exceeds the site's "carrying capacity." Site could handle a large house if it does not intrude into the skyline. This house could be sited differently to avoid visual impacts.” CBAR minutes, 11/8/2005. They conclude “Project breaks skyline and is not subordinate to land forms. House design does not meet policy.”
CEQA: CEQA prohibits the use of a Negative Declaration (ND) when a “fair argument” may be made that the project involves a significant impact, and requires preparation of an environmental impact report (EIR). The MND should have shifted the house location and moderated certain features to avoid the need for a berm and avoided most of the visual impacts. “Without these modifications, the project has a significant impact to visual resources and cannot proceed without an EIR” explained GCC’s counsel, Marc Chytilo.
In addition, the Goleta Water District expressed substantial concerns about the project’s water supply, and the MND failed to consider the impacts of the elaborate pipeline, pumping, storage and treatment facilities necessary for water on the site. Fire protection is not assured, even though the house is in a high fire hazard area.
GCC’s President Mike Lunsford stated: “GCC filed this lawsuit to ensure that County policies protecting view corridors are respected, that development on the Gaviota Coast will protect the sensitive resources present there, and to establish that this type of development deserves careful review, including thorough environmental impact analysis. GCC has successfully worked with other Gaviota Coast landowners to achieve housing projects that meet landowners’ needs while respecting the sensitive Gaviota Coast resources and recognizing the significant public values present on the Gaviota Coast. That has not been possible in this instance, and we regret that a majority the County Supervisors did not understand the significance of this project, not only for Farren Road, but for projects throughout the Gaviota Coast.”
In this case, interference by County administrators in the planning process caused errors that tainted the final action. Last year CEO Mike Brown dictated that there would be no ‘visual simulations’ prepared and used in the CEQA Negative Declaration for this project. GCC”s attorney Marc Chytilo explained that “visual impact is the most significant issue for this project, given the high scenic value of the Gaviota Coast, and visual simulations were obviously needed. The County instead relied on simplistic drawings and ignored two important view perspectives – Farren Road and Rancho Embarcadero. The decision to omit the visual simulations rendered the Negative Declaration inadequate.” When the environmental consultant concluded an EIR would be required, County Planning Deputy Director David Ward directed the consultant address the new issues identified by GCC in the Negative Declaration instead. The result was a muddled analysis relying on unusual and unprecedented criteria to conclude the absence of significant impacts.
NEXT STEPS:
The service of the lawsuit on the County starts various timelines. The parties will prepare briefs through the Winter, and the matter will likely be heard by the Court in Spring of 2009.
Concerned persons are encouraged to donate to support this and other efforts to preserve the Gaviota Coast by a tax-deductible donation to the Gaviota Coast Conservancy, P.O. Box 1099, Goleta, CA 93116. See also http://www.gaviotacoastconservancy.org.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Ballantyne Mega-house Approved as Expected, Appeal to Follow
As expected, the Board of Supervisors approved the 15,000 square foot Ballantyne mega-house and the 660-foot-long “wall of dirt” by a 3-2 margin on July 15. Led by Supervisor Firestone, the north county supervisors sided with the developer. Some were clearly uncomfortable with the project, stating they would never want to live in a house like that – Supervisor Centeno suggested the residents would need cell phones to find each other.
What is clear is that the house is plainly inconsistent with General Plan visual policies and other standards for rural development. It is also clear that CEQA’s requirements were not met, and that heavy-handed action by political forces in the County’s planning process just made the problem worse. County Executive Officer Mike Brown made an executive decision in September 2007 to forgo visual simulations in the environmental review document – and consequently the Project’s visual impacts were not properly described.
Supervisors Carbajal and Wolf understood how inappropriate this project was, and how it did not deserve approval. Although they were outvoted, they made eloquent and compelling arguments for sending this project back for redesign and relocation on the site, as the Board of Architectural Review suggested on two occasions. Unfortunately, the applicants proved too stubborn to make the compromises necessary to gain the approvals that most other developments of this type get routinely.
The County’s approval of this project is subject to litigation over the failure to comply with CEQA and the County General Plan. There are numerous legal issues, and an appeal is expected. Persons who wish to offer their personal or financial support for an appeal should contact gavcoast@silcom.com.
Procedural history
Project is located at 500 Farren Road, and includes 15,864 sq. ft. of structures on a prominent ridge on a 17 acre parcel between Farren Road and Rancho Embarcadero. House (11,553 sq.ft.); attached garage (1798 sq.ft.); guest house (800 sq.ft.) and attached garage (568 sq.ft.); barn (1200 sq.ft.); 660-foot long berm; and accessory structures, including a driveway and two 5,000 gallon water tanks, and utilities, including extension of a municipal waterline. The house is over 300 feet long, visible from many public viewing places including Highway 101, Farren Road, and Ranch Embarcadero. The house and the berm each break the skyline (the structure’s outline is seen against the background of the sky) from many of these locations. The parcel is a legal non-conforming lot zoned for agriculture, AG-II-100.
In June 2006, the Planning and Development Department (P&D) deemed the project inconsistent with several General Plan policies and denied the project. The applicant appealed this decision to the Planning Commission. In November 2006, the Planning Commission approved the project. The Gaviota Coast Conservancy appealed this decision to the Board of Supervisors. In June 2007, the Board of Supervisors determined, by a 3-2 vote, that the project was subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and directed staff to prepare the required environmental documents and return to the Board of Supervisors for a final decision on the project.
Rincon Consultants has prepared a Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for P&D pursuant to Section 15070 of the State Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act. The MND may be found at http://applications.sbcountyplanning.org/projects/05LUP-00611/index.cfm.
Supervisor Firestone has shown great support for this project, and Executive Officer Mike Brown has been personally engaged in directing the P&D review and the CEQA process, directing that no visual simulations be prepared and that a Negative Declaration be used, even though it is evident that an EIR is required.
» Download the P&D letter of 9/18/07 (PDF).
» Download the Rincon Consultants' memos dated June 5, 2008 and June 12, 2008 (PDF documents).
The applicants, Randy Welty and Lynne Ballantyne, are currently represented by Richard Adam, Santa Maria attorney and a member of the COLAB Board of Directors. COLAB has taken an active interest in this project.
The Gaviota Coast Conservancy has submitted a number of letters regarding this project, including extensive comments on the MND, as submitted by GCC’s lawyer, Marc Chytilo.
» Download comment letter from Law Office of Marc Chytilo (PDF).
» Download Appeal documents from the Law Ofiice of Marc Chytilo. (PDF)
Planning Issues
The project violates three General Plan policies, including the following:
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.
Source: Land Use Element Visual Resources Policy 2; Inland zoning ordinance, § 35.30.060.
The proposed house is sited on the most prominent point on the parcel - a ridge overlooking the Rancho Embarcadero subdivision and eastern Gaviota Coast. Initially the applicant proposed citrus trees, then substituted a 600 foot long earthen berm, ranging from two to ten feet tall, to screen the structure. The County Planning and Development Department properly concluded these mitigations failed to meet General Plan and zoning ordinance requirements, which specifically requires structures be sited to avoid these impacts. The SBAR also concluded that the project violated visual resources standards.
The project is also inconsistent with the following Hillside and Watershed Protection Policies:
Policy 1. “Plans for development shall minimize cut and fill operations. Plans requiring excessive cutting and filling may be denied if it is determined that the development could be carried out with less alteration of the natural terrain”.
Policy 2. “All developments shall be designed to fit the site topography, soils, geology, hydrology, and any other existing conditions and be oriented so that grading and other site preparation is kept to an absolute minimum. Natural features, landforms, and native vegetation, such as trees, shall be preserved to the maximum extent feasible. Areas of the site which are not suited to development because of known soil, geologic, flood, erosion or other hazards shall remain in open space.”
The berm and the house is inconsistent with these policies.
The site is large enough that the house could be moved and modified to avoid these policy and zoning ordinance inconsistencies. Once this project’s structures are relocated, some or all of the other General Plan policy inconsistencies may be avoided.
CEQA Issues
The DMND suffers from various material flaws. The document systematically understates Project impacts and reaches conclusions contrary to those made by Planning and Development Staff and the Board of Architectural Review, the public, GCC, and GCC experts. The comments include evidence supporting a fair argument that the Project may cause significant environmental impacts, and therefore an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) must be prepared and circulated prior to County action as required by CEQA. The Ballantyne property is located at the eastern gateway to the Gaviota Coast, a visually stunning and relatively undeveloped stretch of sensitive, unique, and highly valued coastline. The nature of the Project’s setting must inform the assessment of environmental impacts. Here, a massive, prominently placed structure has been proposed, on visually sensitive, biologically valuable agricultural lands in defiance of a number of General Plan policies and development standards. The County is bound by its General Plan, its zoning ordinance, development standards, and by the requirements of CEQA, and therefore must determine the DMND is not adequate nor appropriate and commence preparation of a full EIR as required by CEQA.
Through preparation of an EIR, Project alternatives can be developed which simultaneously avoid environmental impacts and policy inconsistencies and achieve the main objectives of the applicant. Planning Staff and others have stated that the home could be re-sited further back on the property, taking advantage of natural landforms to shield it from view and avoiding the need for an artificial earthen structure which itself causes visual, geological and biological impacts and creates several policy inconsistencies. Through the proper uses of an environmental impact report and the development of a reasonable range of Project alternatives, views from the residence as well as important design elements and beneficial green components could be preserved.