- Home
- News Grid
- Local News
- Green Hawk
- Politics
- School Zone
- Youth Camps
- Nonprofits
- Missing Pets
- Multimedia
- Arts
- Movies
- Outdoors
- Sports
- News Releases
- Columnists
- Blogs
- Opinions
- Classifieds
- Advertise
- Donate
- Partners
Bishop Ranch Pulls Application for Goleta General Plan Amendments
The developer of Bishop Ranch on Friday withdrew his application to initiate Goleta General Plan amendments, potentially canceling a public hearing that was to take place Tuesday evening.
“It is very clear that while there is substantial support in the community to fully study and review the future of Bishop Ranch, that same support does not exist at the city (of Goleta), neither with the staff nor with the council,” said applicant Michael Keston, CEO of the Los Angeles-based Larwin Company, who thanked residents who supported the development plans for Bishop Ranch.
According to Ryan Minniear, a representative for The Bishop Ranch LLC, the company came to the conclusion, after reading the staff report that recommends denial of the company’s request to initiate the amendments, that going ahead with the request would have been a drain on the developer’s and the city’s time and resources.
“It seemed pointless to go forward,” he said.
Bishop Ranch, a 240-acre swath of undeveloped land just off the northbound Highway 101 exit at Storke/Glen Annie in Goleta is one of the South Coast’s last remaining large open spaces within urban boundaries. It was traditionally used for agriculture, but by the mid-20th century was zoned for commercial and residential uses, though it has reverted back to its agricultural designation.
The amendments that would have been proposed for initiation on Tuesday largely would have dealt with a rezone of the property from agricultural to mixed-use. The council at that time still may choose to take public testimony and consider initiation of the amendments, despite the applicant’s formal withdrawal of his application.
“The decision by a City Council of whether to initiate a General Plan amendment is within the discretion of the City Council as part of a legislative process,” Assistant City Attorney Brian Pierik said. “The council has the legal authority to decide whether to initiate a General Plan amendment based upon an application or upon council determination without an application.”
The land historically has been the subject of controversy in Goleta, from the old pioneer days to just recently, when the developer held a series of workshops in the community that resulted in a design that proposed upwards of 900 homes with a mix of prices and amenities. Minnear said the development plans have “tremendous support” from the community.
Opponents, however, criticized the proposal for the increased traffic it would generate along its northern border at Cathedral Oaks Road, and the habitats it would damage as a result of development.
The company’s withdrawal of its request to initiate General Plan amendments may have put development plans on hold but have not canceled them.
Minnear said there could come a time in the near future when the traffic along Goleta’s main thoroughfare, Hollister Avenue, becomes so bad because of decisions to locate higher-density housing there that Bishop Ranch and its plan for relatively lower densities becomes a more attractive option when the state-mandated housing quota is handed down again in 2013.
“We’re going to wait until the public comes to us and says, ‘It’s time for you guys to do something here so we don’t have to ruin the character of our community,’ ” Minnear said. “If we need to sit another decade, we’ll sit another decade.”
Noozhawk staff writer Sonia Fernandez can be reached at sfernandez@noozhawk.com.
Comments
Noozhawk's comments are moderated, but by posting here you accept your responsibility to follow our rules.
- No abusive, defamatory or libelous attacks. In plain English: No personal attacks.
- No vulgar or discriminatory language.
- If you do not follow these rules, don't be surprised if your comment is removed.
- Please use the Report Abuse button on offensive comments.
- Share what you know, ask about what you don't. Give us your eyewitness accounts, observations, background and history. Tell us what else you want to know about the story.
- Stay on the topic, PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK, and forgive people their spelling errors.
Noozhawk's intent is not to limit the discussion of our stories but to elevate it. Thank you for your respectful participation. Click here for our complete Terms of Use.
Comments are moderated, and will not appear until they've been approved.
» on 07.11.08 @ 06:40 PM
It’s worth remembering that Goleta’s General Plan can be amended 4 times a year. Watch for Bishop Ranch to come back after the November 4 election if Jean Blois is re-elected.
Many fear that this is only a temporary delay to take the heat off of Blois. To be really safe from Bishop Ranch, voters need to look at her pattern of voting for development and elect someone else!
» on 07.11.08 @ 07:07 PM
... and just by coincidence the market for new housing and construction financing is really lousy right now. Perhaps he meant that maybe in a few years the market would look better.
» on 07.11.08 @ 08:38 PM
Has the electronic funds transfer procedure yet been set up directly from Larwin to the election account of wannabe City Council member Don Gilman ?
» on 07.12.08 @ 04:45 AM
“It is very clear that while there is substantial support in the community to fully study and review the future of Bishop Ranch, that same support does not exist at the city (of Goleta), neither with the staff nor with the council,” said applicant Michael Keston, CEO
Clearly Keston is out of touch. Goletans don’t want this. I sat through their working group meetings last year and this is not what people want.
» on 07.12.08 @ 04:48 AM
Dear Follow the Money ...
Have you asked Don Gilman about this thoughts on Bishop Ranch? He’s not a Bishop puppet otherwise I wouldn’t support him. He’d be the best thing for the future of Goleta. Let’s move forward.
» on 07.12.08 @ 07:11 AM
I attended every meeting and I would much rather have Bishop Ranch than the trash planned on Hollister - 20 apartments per acre - 20 condos per acre - it is awful.
We as a community were invited to plan Bishop and we did. There were dozens of us who were going Tuesday night to tell the council how we feel about Bishop.
I am ready to start a recall of the new council along with the old - the are chickens.
» on 07.12.08 @ 07:27 AM
Did any one see what Connell said about the horrible deal she cut with the county for our city - the deal where the county gets more than one-half the money from the city every year, she said,
“Goleta’s revenue deal with the county was not the worse deal in the state. Citrus Heights was the worse deal in the state.”
Citrus Heights went bankrupt! And Goleta may be heading that way quickly thanks to Connell - she has a lot to explain.
Ask her why Goleta spends $1 million each year of lawyers to clean up her messes and only $20,000 on recreation programs.
» on 07.12.08 @ 08:05 AM
Mr. “ANONYMOUS”
Not really sure if Bishop Ranch was the right idea but we surely should consider the option other than high density ghettos Connell supports.
Clearly Mr. Anonymous, you did not sit in on the Bishop Ranch Working Group or you are trying to mislead - because I was at every meeting an more than 9 our of 10 at the meeting was in support - maybe you were the 1 - but the rest of us get it. We need to plan for the future without 20 apartments per acre like Connell wants. In 10 years Goleta will look like the San Fernando Valley. I am ashamed of Mayor Bennett and Councilmen Aceves - they have made things worse and worse in Goleta - especially Aceves.
» on 07.12.08 @ 08:17 AM
Don Gillman gets it, this city is in big trouble. We have no money and Connell, Wallis created a big hole for us to dig out of. I love it that Connell wants to run again. It is very clear that her tired old ideas have brought us high density homes, traffic, law suits, a horrible deal with the county - like Marg wrote she is proud that it is not “The Worse” deal, not sure I agree. Connell and friends gave away 50 cents of every dollar to the county. Gillman will get us our fair share. I love it that he has a young family and knows what it is like to support them and has the business background and training. What we have now is weak - retired and tired former county and city of Santa Barbara employes. Gillman may be the only one who can solve our problems.
And about the Bishop Ranch thing - seems we can always so no and take it to a public vote - and if everyone hates it as some state then its dead.
» on 07.12.08 @ 08:49 AM
The largest city in the nation can only afford an 100 acre open land (Central Park) in their midst; how, does the small city of Goleta believe they need 230 acres. If it is to be agriculture, I’m glad I do not reside next to it as it may become a feed-lot for pigs or cattle!!!
» on 07.12.08 @ 08:57 AM
Sick and tired of candidates saying one thing and doing another. The prize for the single worse member of our city council today is Roger Aceves. He is horrible. Watch the meetings, he is either not the brightest light or is a puppet waiting for his orders. He campaigned to my front door and made promises, he said the former council had screwed things up like we all know, but then he joined then and is no different. How can we get rid of him. This Bishop Ranch mess is 100% his fault. Maybe we need a rule the former city and county employees should not be able to run for office until they have been retired for a decade.
» on 07.12.08 @ 09:15 AM
Funny that if Don Gilman was being bought by Bishop Ranch that he would be on the record as stating that he would “need to be convinced” of the project’s merits. That sounds pretty reasonable and balanced to me. It’s the City Council members, like Wallis, and candidates like Connell and Easton, who make up their minds before the project is even presented before the Council and public testimony is given! To me, that spells personal agenda, and I’m tired of it. Let’s give Gilman a chance in November!
» on 07.12.08 @ 10:56 AM
It is a total shame that all the work we all did to create a fitting plan for Bishop Ranch over 4 months, will not be studied. What are some people afraid of? The facts. If the environmental review process works and if the city planners are half way good at their job - the environmental review process would give us facts to debate. I wonder if that is what some are afraid of - the truth. Bishop Ranch is in the middle of our city, along the freeway with homes on two sides. It has not been farmed since before my parents were born, it was zoned for homes the year my dad was born and should be given its day in court. And this plan calls for homes to be built in the 2020’s not now. What a waste.
» on 07.12.08 @ 11:06 AM
Be good to have a new face and a fresh brain in our city. Bishop Ranch is now history, so can we talk about the real issues we face. Our streets are dirty, our roads are a mess., we have no programs for our youth and the city is going to go bankrupt very soon. I echo what Marg says about this city spending millions on lawyers and nothing for our youth. Connell is so out of touch - she is an old school selfish NIMBY. She and her former council members gave Goleta’s future away - she gave all the money away to the county so we are force to do nothing and look like a run down old city - we have nothing Old Town Goleta is the icon for what Connell wants. I would like to meet Gillman and see if he is as good as he sounds.
» on 07.12.08 @ 11:30 AM
Bring on the a full independent study of Bishop Ranch, bring on low density homes. I live on Hollister Ave. right by the proposed high density apartments and I could not be more open minded to lower Goleta type density rather than the LA urban density. Bishop Ranch is located in a perfect spot and my neighbors with young children were looking forward to the sports fields. I was looking forward to getting rid of all the high density planned for the neighborhood nearest us. Seems we have choices in Goleta and I think we just made a bad one - we will get the same number of homes but by chasing the Bishop Ranch away we will not get single family homes but we will get all the homes the state demands as very high density, no parks, no open space, but instead miles and miles of traffic. Not very smart. Gee - - - thanks Goleta city council?
» on 07.12.08 @ 06:52 PM
Dear Grandma Goleta - Were you part of the silent majority at the meetings then? I was at all but one of the meetings and I wasn’t sitting with the Barbara Massey crowd. I went with an open mind, but felt more discouraged after having attended. People brought up valid concerns. For example, I don’t think Keston/Nolte really tried to address putting Calle Real through. I felt like they just steamrolled the discussion and said it wasn’t possible. Surely with as much money as Keston would make, he could find an appropriate solution.
» on 07.12.08 @ 06:55 PM
Aren’t the high density homes the one ones people can afford? The people who can afford single family homes can find a plethora of options in a variety of neighborhoods right now for a good price
» on 07.13.08 @ 03:27 AM
Sick and Tired’s characterization of Aceves is off the mark. Aceves never promised anything around Bishop Ranch during his campaign—and clearly spent a great deal of time studying the project before making a decision. Ask the employees at City Hall—he’s the one who is in the office more than any other council member, meeting with staff, learning the issues and preparing for council meetings.
Puppet? I guess you aren’t seeing the same council meetings I am where Onnen looks over to Bennett before every vote. Perhaps you didn’t catch the huge donations they both received from developers in the last election?
The subterfuge begins—cover up the council majority record and pretend like development will solve all our woes. Goletans know better.
» on 07.13.08 @ 07:50 AM
is there really substantial community support for ‘changing our general plan? in a way that would be better for developers??? i mean, sure, make individual decisions based on proposals, but to change the general plan seems like too much. i for one joy living with open space and agricultural lands around me, and it keeps thevalue of our property higher. start putting in a bunch of houses or whatever and watch the prices go down, down, down. oh, but those developers will make $$$, so really you should believe what they tell you! NOT.
» on 07.13.08 @ 08:32 AM
open space adds value to our community.
anyone who says otherwise is blind or losing their senses.
it would never be a pig feed lot or cattle containment - don’t be fooled!
» on 07.13.08 @ 10:14 AM
I was with the huge majority - those who wanted to study what is best - I was there for a vote and the vote was 85% in favor of moving the plan forward. What was best about the plan was 25% public open space and another 30% private open space. And Mr. Anonymous - Bishop Ranch Plan did include the Callie Real as we requested. Clearly Mr. Anonymous you were not at the meetings and have not even looked at that plan and that is typical.
» on 07.13.08 @ 10:27 AM
Call me clueless - so we have a difference you, Aceves and Connell want 3000 new homes all high density along Hollister. Multi family, three and four story apartment or condo buildings. Think about it. Twenty homes average per acre! That means many acres will have 30 or 40 homes per acre. Our average Goleta homes is 5 homes per acre. Bishop Ranch must have a percentage affordable, thats the law but we do not need 20-30 apartments per acre in Goleta. With Bishop Ranch taking some of the density off Hollister, we get the same number of homes, we get parks and open space. It seems that is why Aceves and Connell are against Bishop Ranch then I get it and we just have a different vision for Goleta. You want high high density multi story buildings and traffic all jammed on Hollister. I want affordable but also a livable community.
» on 07.13.08 @ 10:34 AM
The anti-family, lets risk Goleta’s future on high density housing group is here in full force. And it is truly sad that they refused to attend the workshops - learn the facts. Bishop Ranch is in the middle of our community and as these gamblers roll the dice on our future by blocking Bishop Ranch this Osgood guy is about to bust open the Gaviota coast. Single family, affordable and market rate homes, lower density with nearly 90 acres of open space including a sports park the bankrupt city will never create seems better than developing the Gaviota Coast. I say good work Connell and Aceves - you sure messed up again. I am looking forward to voting against short thinker Connell once again and I would love to begin a recall of Aceves for his turn coat.
» on 07.13.08 @ 10:46 AM
Aceves is clueless, dumber than “a bag of hammers.” He may be hanging around City Hall more than anyone else but how is that a measure of his intellectual capacity? Just watch him in Council meetings or talk to him one-on-one. His command of the issues is laughably shallow. And one of the posts claimed Onnen was taking his cue from Bennett. Tell me Aceves isn’t taking his from Wallis!
And he’s our next mayor! Oh, boy ...
» on 07.13.08 @ 10:50 AM
I really don’t support high-density housing along the Hollister cooridor, I just want information and not to be attacked. Having some homes (low and medium density, but not 1200) makes sense, but if we build these homes, are we going to have people who can afford to live in them? Many of my co-workers commute in from Santa Maria because they cannot afford homes here. With Bishop Ranch building a bunch of homes, it still doesn’t make them affordable for my co-workers. How does this work? (I’d love to know the answer if someone is willing to tell me without biting off my head.)
» on 07.13.08 @ 10:58 AM
As someone who took time away from my kids every other Thursday evenin for a number of months to attend these meetings, I just wanted to jump in. Like many of you, I went to find out more about the plans for this parcel of property. In many respects, it seems the ideal place to put homes. I have to admit that I’m afraid of 1200 homes and the residual traffic, but I like the plans for ball fields and recreation.
I’m also concerned about the commercial development and the traffic it will cause. Will the shopping center really have the types of businesses that will be sustainable and visited by those of us in North Goleta? Will Calle Real/Glen Annie and Glen Annie/Cathedral Oaks be clogged with inexperienced teen age drivers? What will the cumulative impacts be with UCSB’s LRDP?
These are the types of questions I’d like to see further investigated. Some of these questions were raised during the meetings, but I didn’t feel they were adequately addressed. I’m not against Bishop Ranch. I’d just like to see some additional information before we jump in.
» on 07.13.08 @ 11:01 AM
Watching the Goleta city council is so painful. And while Blois and Wallis are the best to watch- even though they often disagree, Aceves is the hardest to watch. He is so out to lunch. I am so embarrassed for poor old Roger. He tries to keep up but sadly he cannot. And Bennett is totally on the game, is so self promoting it is hard to watch. The only bright spot there is Eric. When Aceves votes or makes a statement it is as if Connell wrote it word for word. We cringe as he speaks. Sorry Roger we voted for you, we voted against your puppet master, Connell, so to get our vote again you need to cut the strings and speak for yourself and get back to what Goleta needs.
» on 07.13.08 @ 11:22 AM
Call Me Clueless, thank you for your openness. Cool, I don’t want to be attacked either. This conversation is what the community had at the working group, and the greater community needed to have if the city staff and council were willing to start the process and look at the facts. We agree having some low density homes there makes sense. I also agree that 1200 maybe too much. Seems developers are forced into this silly game of asking for more than they want to get what they really want to counter the crazy crowd (both on the city council and in the community). Think about this, the former council, lead by Connell, wanted about 3000 homes on 150 acres along Hollister Ave. Bishop Ranch asked for 1200 (to start) on 240 acres! Big difference. And like any development, Bishop Ranch will need 20% or so to be affordable. With 1,000 or so homes at Bishop (4 per acre) and only 2000 (reduced to 14 per acre) on Hollister - it is not perfect but a lot better than 20 per acre on Hollister. We need to work together to keep the community we want and our city council has failed us.
» on 07.13.08 @ 07:34 PM
The tone here was a bit negative, I am sorry that I have been that way also. It is just that I am so frustrated that our community is on the verge of losing what good that is left. And Call Me Clueless you do not support high density and want housing families can afford - so do I. If we work together we can have both - after the exhaustive nights that we heard from experts about planning and Goleta at the workshops we learned a lot about planning. Goleta has to have new homes under the state rules and it is not looked upon lightly to snub our noses at the state. And we have land in the city to plan those homes. Some want all of the homes on the 130 to 160 acres of smaller lots on Hollister, I think it is too much and will change the community. Instead I think we should put some at Bishop Ranch to lower density and traffic impacts. Yet every development has to have some affordable. So no matter what there will be the same number of homes, one option is all on a few acres and the better option is all on that land plus Bishop and at Bishop we get sports parks and open space. Makes sense, not only can your friends move here and afford to live here. We can all continue to move around here without all the density on one narrow strip of land.
» on 07.14.08 @ 07:16 AM
Wow…..what a long list of hot tempered emails! Where’s the professionalism folks?
Looks like this article let some of you off on tangents. Why are you picking on the city council BOTH pre and current? They have nothing to do with the developer deciding to pull his plan.
Read it again, the words carefully…..
“The developer of Bishop Ranch on Friday withdrew his application to initiate Goleta General Plan amendments, potentially canceling a public hearing that was to take place Tuesday evening.”
“initiate…..amendments”
This doesn’t mean the project is dead. I am sure the developer has no intentions of letting this project die. They have too much invested in this property. He’ll bring it back at a more opportune time.
What’s more important for our city right now is to get this general plan finalized and approved so the staff can move on to other important issues such as establishing planning and zoning policies.
Relax everyone….. the project is not dead. It’s just taken leave for awhile. It will be back, I’m sure.
» on 07.14.08 @ 09:40 AM
I have to “fess up.” I bought a million dollar house in Goleta because I liked the quiet and open spaces. I live at the very north end near Cathedral Oaks. I like the ag land and open spaces off from Cathedral Oaks and I often choose to drive down Cathedral Oaks instead of the Freeway.
Now that I live here, I don’t want the character to change. It is why I bought here. Otherwise I would have bought in Santa Barbara and been closer to things.
I grew up in Los Angeles. Don’t be fooled by developers saying they will reserve “open spaces.” You may get some urbanized walking trails through a development and a few green belts between houses. While it is better than high density, it is NOT natural/nature. The San Fernando Valley of Los Angeles (originally all agriculture and orange orchards) ended up looking like a cookie cutter stamp of tract houses. True, some of the newer ones are large and nice and have modern amenities. However, again, do not confuse this with nature. A cookie cutter town is a cookie cutter town. You can drive through 75% of California and see them. They all look alike and have the same restaurants and stores and the houses are all similar. Is this what Goletans really want. I think we need to really talk vision. I think housing tracts need to be on a smaller scale with real land in between. Otherise we are going to be just another cookie cutter. Please give it some thought.
» on 07.14.08 @ 10:47 AM
Wow is right. Why so angry about an application to study, an opportunity to uncover the facts. Is this ag? Why has it not been farmed for 6 decades? Are low density homes at Bishop better than high density else where? What are impacts - can they be fixed? What are the benefits? Are they really good for us. So Wow, the reason it is frustrating is that those opposed do not want the facts to come out because they fear the truth.
» on 07.14.08 @ 03:00 PM
The property should be returned to agriculture. Rising oil prices and commodity prices are a wake up call. Political leadership needs to take us in the direction of food self-sufficiency. I do not know how people can read the financial news and seriously consider any housing development to be a good thing for this community. All of the comments seem written by people who grew up in an age of cheap oil and an America that was an economic powerhouse, and who don’t realize that age has come to an end.
» on 07.15.08 @ 04:45 AM
What support from the community, I live near by in El Encanto Heights and would hate the increased traffic especially at Storke/Glen Annie. The “workshops” were not well advertised in the community at all. Why destroy one of the few open spaces we have left? Why not turn it into parkland for hikers?re
» on 07.15.08 @ 11:01 AM
Rising oil prices means the police, fire, teachers, nurses and even doctors who commute here each day, not to mention those who work in stores and keep the economy going in Goleta have to commute every day with high gas prices. NotLivingInThePast: think over the next 25 years all those baby boomers ready to retire and live here. Who is going to take their place in our economy? Where do they live? They will have to commute. So for the sake of our environment and economy we need local housing. It will get the thousands off the roads commuting today and the thousands more in the future. Shocked that you think no homes and people commuting 100 miles plus every day is better for fuel then local homes.
» on 07.15.08 @ 01:36 PM
Wow it looks like the campaign silly season is in full force already! Its funny how the high density developer crowd supports Bishop Ranch and yet to read this you would think they are against Bishop Ranch! Funny how Connell, who most people know is a sensible and thoughtful person, is being turned into a radical. I have never heard of Gilman, probably because he has never accomplished anything of public benefit, but Connell has a long record of sensible leadership.
Sounds like the developers have told their interns to fill up the comments sections to try and hide their agenda of paving over all of our last remaining open space!!!!
» on 07.16.08 @ 08:47 AM
People who do not follow agricultural news—and it’s not on the top of people’s lists because we have gotten used to cheap, plentiful food—don’t understand that there could be famine here in the U.S., either through crop failure or monopolistic control of food production. There are other alternatives than building on Bishop Ranch to solve a commuting problem. High FOOD prices that will completely overshadow gas prices. The reason I mentioned oil is because the price of oil impacts food production and transportation costs.
More Local News »
Road to Recovery Continues for Channel Islands National Park
Park superintendent says commitment to resource restoration remains focus for archipelago
Free-Flying Brown Pelicans a Recovery Success Story
After 40 years on the Endangered Species List, the seabirds were recently delisted as their numbers reached historic levels
Ride, Wine and Dine with Vino Vaqueros
Experience the richness of the Santa Ynez Valley on horseback, followed by wine tasting and a meal
Nite Moves Still On the Go After 21 Years of Waterfront Fun
Santa Barbara's original run- and ocean-swim event lures a 'mini-community' of loyal participants
Santa Barbara Surf Club Rides a Storied History
Hollister Ranch roots run true and deep, even as club's territory and reputation expand
Weather: Fair 57.0º
Search Noozhawk »
