Surfliner Inn Project Back on Track in Downtown Carpinteria

The Surfliner Inn keeps chugging along. 

The proposal for a 36-room hotel in a city-owned lot near the Amtrak train station in downtown Carpinteria has battled through constant community backlash, a petition with thousands of signatures, and a failed ballot measure that would have derailed the project completely. 

Now, plans for the Surfliner Inn are back on track, and last week the project passed through preliminary review with Carpinteria’s Architectural Review Board (ARB), despite another round of fervent community comments and concerns over the hotel’s size and impacts on parking.

The latest iteration of the Surfliner includes 36 guest rooms, a rooftop bar, restaurant, pool, visitor center, and a new parking lot with 93 spaces. The development team, headed by Whitt Hollis and Jeff Thiemer, had already gained approval from the City Council back in December 2021 before Measure T was placed on the ballot. But since then, the project was downsized and redesigned to remove some of the bulkiness of the original plans.

More than 30 members of the public showed up to speak about the hotel, with the majority of commenters speaking against the proposal, many sharing similar concerns to those raised during previous reviews of the Surfliner. Several downtown residents worried that the hotel was still too big for the location, and others questioned the convoluted parking plan — which allowed the hotel to combine 46 on-site parking spaces with 93 more to be built in a new lot on the other side of the train tracks.

“It doesn’t seem like a good plan to me,” said downtown resident Amy Orozco. “I don’t see it going smoothly.”

Supporters of the Surfliner wore pins saying “All Aboard,” and some were small business owners who said that the hotel was an example of responsible growth in the downtown area. One resident, Rudy Gomez, said, “Carpinteria is an ice cream sundae, and the Surfliner Inn is the cherry on top.”

The ARB could not comment on parking or stormwater drainage — items that will likely be brought up during Planning Commission reviews — but boardmembers did provide comments regarding the size, landscaping, and architectural design.

Boardmember Richard Little asked the developers to “take into consideration the comments by a lot of members of the public about the size and scale,” although he agreed that the project already meets city regulations.

Boardmember Patrick O’Connor said he was also willing to approve the project, though he encouraged the developers to look into providing a wider setback near the train platform — an area he called a “coffin corner” — in order to make sure there was enough clearance to prevent any safety issues.

“I just don’t want to find myself having to approve this thing and 10 years later we’ve got tragedies on our hands,” O’Connor said.

Despite the concerns, the board unanimously approved the project — with the conditions that the developers address the safety concerns near the corner, improve lighting and landscaping plans, and possibly look into building a soundwall. Following a review of environmental impacts, the project would continue to a review with the city’s Planning Commission.