Update of the Goleta Valley Community Plan

In 1993, the Board of Supervisors approved the Goleta Community Plan. This plan established the ground rules as they relate to the general circulation patterns, land uses, utilities, open space, design standards and build out potential that define Goleta’s future growth. With the incorporation of the City of Goleta in 2002 a significant chunk of what was part of the Goleta Community Plan area was removed and placed under the jurisdiction of another entity.

What this effectively has done is rendered useless much of the 1993 Goleta Community Plan. Many in the community have been requesting the County to allow an update of the plan so that the “ground rules” are recalibrated for the areas of the Goleta Valley that did not get incorporated into the City of Goleta. The wisdom of this is evident as the community grapples with State-mandated rezones to accommodate high density housing. Relying on a plan that does not accurately reflect the political boundaries now in place creates a vacuum where clear guidance is lacking when development proposals are brought forward.

In response to this need Second District Supervisor Susan Rose appointed a twelve person group called the Goleta Vision Committee 2020. The purpose of this committee is to lay the ground work for the plan update by studying a wide variety of community characteristics and trends and provide a “vision” of our area’s future. The update of the Goleta Valley Community Plan will build upon this visioning process. The committee has been meeting since January and a member of the PANA Board, Tim Schmidt, is serving on the committee.

The County began the visioning process by challenging the committee to recommend locations for rezoning to accommodate housing developments of 20 units per acre or more in the planning area. The committee did not feel that it was well enough informed to do so at such an early part of the process. As several committee members have pointed out, recommendations for rezones may result as the planning process proceeds but it is unreasonable to expect them to occur at the beginning of the process.

In March the committee recommended that the Board of Supervisors and the Planning Commission allow the planning process to proceed, that the Board make an effort to provide funding for a full scale update of the Goleta Valley Community Plan and that no agricultural areas be rezoned for housing until the plan has been updated. The Board of Supervisors has in fact recently approved funding for the plan update and in a recent 5-0 vote the Planning Commission agreed not to select any locations in the Goleta Valley for high density housing as part of the current housing element update process.

We at PANA are pleased that the voice of the community is not being ignored. It is not that the Goleta Valley should be treated differently than other communities in the county. As many of you know, Montecito has its own dedicated planning commission. The Santa Ynez Valley is currently preparing their community plan. It is only reasonable to treat the unincorporated area of the Goleta Valley with the same respect and allow the community to determine what type of growth it feels is appropriate rather than haphazardly attempt to comply with one-size-fits-all growth mandates dictated by the State at the risk of making decisions we may regret.

The efforts of the Goleta Vision Committee continue and to learn more about them please go to http://countyofsb.org/plandev/comp/planareas/goleta/GVC/materials.asp

Noel Christmas Tree Farm

On June 7 the owners of this property and their developer will present their conceptual plans to the Planning Commission to build 170 residences on this 25.9 acre property.

The owners have worked extensively with the neighbors in an effort to prepare a development plan that would meet with their approval. Original plans prepared in 2001 called for 85 homes to be built. This plan received considerable support from the adjacent neighborhoods but was discouraged by County planning staff who insisted on higher density.

The proposal for 170 units is not the owners or the neighbor’s vision for this property but reflects the County’s goal of “intensifying” the use of the property. This goal ignores neighborhood compatibility issues as well as traffic impacts. For example, some traffic studies estimate that a home can generate up to 10 car trips per day. Using this number means that this proposal of 170 residences at the tree farm would result in 1,700 more car trips in the neighborhood daily.

Over and over the County assures us that this project would be required to pay traffic mitigation fees that would address increased traffic as a result of this project. We are certain that fees will be paid but we are equally certain that some traffic problems will not be resolved. Most of you are keenly aware of the growing congestion at the 101 and Patterson intersection. This intersection is the responsibility of Caltrans who has informed PANA that any improvements to that intersection are at least “10 to 20 years away”. Yes, that is not a misprint. It may be two decades before improvements are made to an intersection that is currently congested to levels many of us already find unacceptable. Imagine as many as 1,700 more vehicles using the intersection daily.

Other aspects of the development plan call for three story buildings and there is no assurance that the promised natural open space along San Jose creek will be available to the public. PANA deeply appreciates the open way in that the owners have worked with the neighbors on this plan but this proposal will not result in a development that will benefit the neighborhood. Infill housing on this site is not an unreasonable request. Allowing the County to insist on a density that creates a number of negative impacts on the surrounding area is unreasonable.

Decisions to rezone agricultural land should wait until the Goleta Valley Community Plan is updated. If in the future the community supports replacing this agricultural site with housing it should only do so with a project that is compatible with the surrounding neighborhoods.

Comments about this development proposal can be sent to the Santa Barbara County Planning Commission at cintia@co.santa-barbara.ca.us. They must be submitted before June 7th.

City of Goleta

The City of Goleta continues to make progress with the development of their draft general plan. To learn more about it please read The Monarch Press – the City of Goleta’s Newsletter. It can be found at http://goleta.govoffice.com/. Recently, the city has been praised by the local media at its success in running its operations with a budget surplus. PANA also frequently hears residents in Goleta comment on how they know when they are in the City of Goleta – the roads are in noticeably better condition than those in the County and the medians are nicely landscaped and maintained. Take a look around and see if you agree.

Growth at UCSB

The University is currently updating their long range development plan. This plan will establish growth levels at the University for the next 15-25 years. Options range anywhere between 0% to 25%. If 25% were to be the target that would mean that the campus would increase student enrollment from the current level of 20,000 to 25,000. This student growth would in turn trigger increases in faculty and staffing levels.

In parallel, the campus is studying the possibility of building up to 3,300 units of housing for students, faculty and staff on University owned property. The bulk of this building would occur on the edge of campus next to Isla Vista. The campus is expected to being making presentations to the community about the details of its long range development plan in the near future.