|
|
 |
|
2
0
0
4
|
| In
this Issue |
|
| |
 |
|
The Patterson Area Neighborhoods Association was formed as a grassroots
organization to give voice to the needs and concerns of our neighborhoods.
We actively participate in public and private meetings with locally
elected officials, county and city staff and other neighborhood
and activist organizations in an effort to make sure our voice is
heard.
Last summer, when the County of Santa Barbara unveiled prospective
sites for large scale housing developments in the unincorporated
area of Goleta it was glaringly obvious that something very important
was missing – public participation. Therefore, we feel that
one of the most important activities PANA has been involved with
recently are the ongoing discussions with the county regarding the
impact of growth as a result of complying with the State’s
housing element.
Second District Supervisor Susan Rose has hosted a series of meetings
known as the “2nd district neighborhood council.” PANA
has participated and is heartened by the large number of representatives
of other neighborhood groups who have consistently attended.
This council is providing the county with much needed feedback
as to what types of growth may or may not be acceptable to our community.
It makes no claim to represent every corner of the second district,
nor has it been granted any type of authority over these decisions.
It does, however, provide an opportunity for the residents of this
community to sit down and make their opinions heard. From this standpoint,
it is a useful effort. However, community involvement will continue
to be needed as the rezoning process moves forward.
So far the council has focused on seeking ways to comply with the
State’s housing allocation for the unincorporated area. According
to the County, zoning must be found for 165 very low and low income
housing units.
Several themes have emerged from these meetings.
1. No group in attendance advocated building on agricultural land.
2. In order to find land for truly affordable housing, the council
overwhelmingly supported the use of several parcels of publicly-owned
lands.
3. Other kinds of properties being recommended by the council were
small infill parcels and acreage already developed but which may
present the opportunity for additional housing such as commercial
shopping centers.
There are some in our community who feel that we should ignore
the housing element requirement and ignore the State mandate. At
times that might appear to be a reasonable solution. After all,
shouldn’t local land-use decisions be made at the local level,
free of State pressure and regulation?
PANA has not endorsed this approach and here is why. In the event
that we convinced our political leaders to refuse to comply with
the housing element, we would be subject to lawsuits. Not from the
State but from affordable housing advocates. There are several communities
that have taken this approach and subsequently been sued. Without
fail, their position has failed in court. The result has been court-ordered
construction of affordable housing, often of massive size and scope,
far larger than any that would have been necessary to comply with
the housing element in the first place.
There are other groups in the unincorporated area who feel that
any cooperation with the county, like attending meetings of the
neighborhood council, is equivalent to lending support for large
developments of high-density housing. That is not the case for PANA.
We will listen to what other groups have to say and we will freely
share what we feel is important to respect and preserve the quality
of life in our neighborhoods. We expect our elected officials to
make thoughtful, balanced decisions based on an appreciation of
their constituent’s wishes and we will continue to participate
in all efforts that further those goals.
| Neighborhood
Preservation
Some day, when talk about the housing element
subsides, the issue that will most likely come
to the fore as the most pressing for our neighborhoods
is that of neighborhood preservation. This will
likely see growing support for the establishment
of more specific guidelines to ensure that renovations
and additions to homes in existing neighborhoods
be done in such a way as to be compatible with
their surroundings.
An example is a proposed project on Berkeley
Road. In this instance, the owner of a 2,300 square
foot home hopes to remodel and create a 3,900
square foot home – complete with 7.5 bathrooms.
No, that is not a misprint, seven and one-half
bathrooms! The immediate neighbors have been dismayed
by the few details of the project that they have
been able to attain. Their frustration has led
them to file an appeal of the project’s
approval. While PANA supports an individual’s
property rights we are supportive of this appeal
since it is equally important to respect the property
rights of the proposed project’s surrounding
neighbors.
|
|
|
| Patterson
Storage
Work is well under way on a mixed use development at
5500 Calle Real that will feature self-storage units,
office space and a fruit and flower stand. The project
is expected to take up to 12 months to complete.
|
|
| Christmas
Tree Farm
There have been no recent developments on this
property. In the neighborhood council meetings
described above there has been very little support
to rezone this property from agriculture to housing
but the owner and developer still would like to
host a design workshop for this property to get
more neighborhood input on potential design options.
|
|
|
| Sphere of
Influence
Considerable efforts are being made in some areas of
the unincorporated area known as Noleta to generate
support to be designated a “sphere of influence”
of the City of Santa Barbara. PANA has frequently been
asked to express an opinion on this and other attempts
to redraw boundaries in eastern Goleta. We continue
to believe that the residents of these various neighborhoods
would be best served to wait until the Local Agency
Formation Commission produces the state-mandated catalog
detailing all the urban services that localities provide
and who they serve. The municipal service review for
this area is expected to be completed next year.
It would appear that much of the drive to force a quick
decision on the sphere of influence is from a hope that
it will somehow shield neighborhoods from development
pressures. This hope is misplaced since each jurisdiction
is grappling with the same state-mandate to zone for
more housing. The best approach is to wait until the
release of LAFCO’s report in order to get a comprehensive
review of the impacts associated with becoming more
closely attached to either Goleta or Santa Barbara or
retaining the status quo. Then each of us will be able
to make a better-informed decision.
|
|
| City
of Goleta’s General Plan
The preparation of the plan that will guide the
City’s future continues to progress. This
is the time for the community to make its feelings
known about a variety of issues including housing,
commercial needs and environmental preservation.
City Planners have scheduled a series of meetings
to solicit your opinions. Let them know exactly
what you think by attending one or more at the
following times and locations.
Wednesday July 14, 2:00 – 4:30 pm, 130
Cremona Drive
Wednesday July 14, 7:00 – 9:30 pm, 5679
Hollister Avenue (Goleta Valley Community Ctr)
Saturday July 17, 9:30 – 12:00 noon, 401
N. Fairview Avenue
Thursday July 22, 7:00- 9:00 pm, 7686 Hollister
Avenue (Ellwood School)
|
|
|
| Two Approaches
to Development
On December 16, 2002 Goleta’s City Council rejected
Chuck Lande and the Oly Chadmar Partnership’s
proposal to build housing at Sandpiper. Although approved
by the County of Santa Barbara immediately prior to
incorporation of the City of Goleta, the plan was rejected
because of concerns about inadequate parking standards.
The response from the developer was to file a lawsuit
against the City of Goleta.
Just down the street, Comstock Homes has worked diligently
with the community and a variety of governmental entities
including the Goleta City Council to identify and attempt
to satisfactorily address issues of concern about their
project, Ali D’Oro, that is part of the Ellwood/Devereux
land swap. It has been a long and complicated process
that so far has resulted in a project that has gained
acceptance by many groups. Rather than devoting resources
to lawsuits aimed at intimidating differing points of
view, the developer seems to have been better served
by devoting his energies to working with the community.
The Sandpiper project has seen legal rulings swing
back and forth between the two sides with the latest
ruling bolstering the City’s position. The developers
might want to emulate the approach of Comstock Homes
and return to good faith discussions with the City of
Goleta to work out their remaining differences. A good
first step would be to withdraw their lawsuit.
|
|
| Send
us your e-mail addresses
We often hear from neighbors asking why they
haven’t seen a PANA newsletter show up in
their mail box for some time. We have found it
more cost-effective to rely on distributing the
newsletter via e-mail so if you have neighbors
or friends who would be interested in what we
have to say, please forward them a copy of this
newsletter or let us know their e-mail address
and we will add them to our distribution list.
In addition to our newsletter, PANA has a monthly
column that appears in the Goleta Valley Voice.
Recent columns can be viewed by going to the following
website –
http://www.panaspeedbump.org/issues/index.shtml
|
|
|
Dutcher Design 2003
|
