Eric Onnen: Logic Requires a Goleta Council Vote for Bishop Ranch Initiation

» Goleta Resident on 09.17.11 @ 09:53 PM

During the Goleta General Plan workshops and meetings, the citizens of Goleta overwhelmingly were in favor of keeping Bishop Ranch zoned for agriculture. Bishop Ranch made a decision many years back to sell or trade their water rights to the Camino Real Marketplace. Now, they claim they can’t keep the land in agriculture because of no water. The truth is that University Exchange Corporation, (owner of the Bishop Ranch), has been actively sabotaging the ability to farm or ranch this land. The farm worker housing has been removed, a reservoir for water has been filled in, as well as the selling or trading water rights as mentioned earlier. Bishop Ranch is the LAST large agriculture zoned parcel within the city limits. Goleta has been nicknamed “The Goodland”, due to the climate and soils that allow crops to be produced here year round. The Glen Annie/101 interchange is already at gridlock weekday mornings between 7:30 and 8:00 with northbound 101 traffic backing up to Los Carneros. Cathedral Oaks at Glen Annie is the same due to Dos Pueblos High School. If this development were to happen we would have total gridlock in this area. This development will produce a measly $375,000.00 per year from property taxes. A new fire station will cost many times more than that to build and almost $2,000,000.00 per year to operate. There will also be added Police, road maintenance and other city services. If the developer wants to build houses, the property currently can be subdivided into 6 forty acre parcels with a house on each parcel, without any opposition.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

» wignoutinca on 09.18.11 @ 11:54 AM

It is sad to see yet another respected local public official, less than 1 year out of office, becoming a lobbyist for an out-of-town developer.

If large residential housing tracts, like the one an Encino-based corporation is proposing for the Bishop Ranch, were of such great economic value, why has the City of Santa Barbara not annexed “Noleta,” the unincorporated residential area in the eastern part of the Goleta Valley?  The simple answer is because residential developments do not pay their own way.  The City of Santa Barbara knows it would cost far more to build and maintain public facilities and infrastructure for Noleta than that area would ever return to the City in tax revenue.

Similarly for a residential development on the Bishop Ranch, the City of Goleta and our School and Special Districts and utilities would forever bear the added costs of operating and maintaining school facilities (K-12), sanitary sewer system, storm water disposal system, public transportation system, water service facilities, fire protection facilities, police facilities, library facilities, general government facilities, electrical power and natural gas distribution systems, and solid waste disposal facilities.  Translation: the cost of providing all these facilities and services would result in increased public agency and utility costs & budgets and require higher taxes and cost of service rates to be paid by ALL City residents.

A large residential development on the Bishop Ranch would not only bring the economic cost impacts noted above, but also environmental and social cost impacts.  To name a few:  decreased air quality, decreased groundwater recharge, increased rates of resource consumption (water, energy, etc.), increased noise, lost resource land (farmland and open space), lost visual values, lost mobility due to traffic congestion (delays and increased commute time), increased crime, and a lost sense of community identity (Goleta the Good Land).

Goleta’s General Plan, developed over many months with a great amount of community input, identified the Bishop Ranch as part of the City’s Central Resource Area:  “the central resource area includes open lands…that are essential to the quality of life in Goleta.  Lands currently used for agriculture or suitable for this use are protected and preserved…Encroachment of uses that would compromise the existing integrity of this area is prohibited.”  City Council, please vote to keep it this way for the foreseeable future!

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

» GoletaMan on 09.18.11 @ 02:43 PM

I agree that property owners should be allowed to propose changes to their property. He has the right to use the land as it was when he purchased it. He has the right to change the use IF he has the permission of those that must live with, and pay for, the impacts.

The City has the responsibility to review the proposals and act in the best interests of all of it’s citizens, not merely in the best interest of one person.

Two review documents have been prepared since this idea was proposed. The citizens and the Council have read them. The reports do not find that this is a great idea and needs to be refined. The reports find no reason to proceed. The negative impacts to the city exceed the potential benefits.

Now it is time to say NO! It is not time to waffle. It is not fair to the applicant to keep spending his money.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

» richard foster on 09.18.11 @ 07:14 PM

AN50 has one excellent suggestion, the community should buy it.  Let UEC tell us their price.  Of course they have described the land as virtually useless because the sold and transfered their water, but it would be worth pursuing.  Just look at Lake Los Carneros, a gem in the Goleta area.

I also agree they have a right to fully develop it, which currently is 6 forty acre parcels.  This would certainly not impact traffic nor the City’s infrastructure.  And in that they hold 50 acre feet of water annually. they can support that level of development.

From there on AN50 errs in his conclusions.  If each of 1,200 house went to a commuter we would eliminate a trip in and a trip out of town or 2,400 car trips a day, whereas the average house generates 8-10 car trips.  So we would gain 9,000 to 12,000 surface trips a day.

As for the condition of our roads this is not the answer.  The advocates for Bishop Ranch boasted this would generate 7.2 million in tax dollars but local government only gets 10% of that.  Then because of the revenue neutrality agrrement half is passed on to the county.  A total revenue stream of $375,000 in property tax, might maintain the park but it sure won’t do anything to repair our roads.

Nor are these homes affordable using the Bishop Ranch proponents tax numbers because they come out to over $600,000 per unit.  Hardly what the average worker can afford.

This is not liberal vs conservative issue, it is an issue of affordability for the City and taxpayers in Goleta.  Their is no legal “right” to a zoning change.  That is something we all live with under the rule of law.  They have every right to ask for it and the community has every right and just cause to say no.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

» AN50 on 09.19.11 @ 02:42 PM

Richard, that’s what I’m talking about. A community that wants all open space and no more people needs to realize what it costs. I wouldn’t mind the community buying it but I’m already broke so you’ll have to pay my share. As for your assertion that the 1200 units will create a nagging revenue drain you are spot on! However, and I say this not having seen what the developer proposed, I would assume that this large a parcel with that many units would also include some commercial development to offset the revenue drain of all residential development, its also good planning to get stuff people need closer to where they live. The days of massive sprawling developments with no schools, stores or parks ended decades ago. Most developments this size are designed as “planned communities” for that very reason. Depending on the amount and type of commercial development built the project could actually provide a net surplus to the city’s big fat tax bucket. I’m not sure the revenue neutrality agreement applies in this case since it’s up for termination or reduction next year, I’ll have to look into that, but very good points.

As for the deplorable condition of roads as they are, it’s no new development unless the improvements and subsequent maintenance issues are resolved in the revenue picture, and that is final. We either start to build our way out of 40 years of neglect and dopy obstruction or we freeze it all right where it is and suffer with the mess we created. Since UCSB is a huge factor in this debacle they need to be brought in early and often. Somewhere this community needs $70 million in road building it squandered on “studies” to fix the back log and no this development will not provide it. But it can mitigate its own added contribution to the mess and offset some back log. If UCSB wants to house another 10,000 people here it better come up with the rest or it’s the freezer for them as well (and if you think there is no connection between this development and UCSB’s aspirations you still need to fall off the damned turnip truck folks).

I believe we can find a balance on this deal. One that brings in needed housing and commercial development to offset years of selfishness and does not wreck the reason we pay such a high price to live here. If done properly the development can be an aesthetic enhancement rather than be viewed as ugly and spoiling. It’s all in your perception. Mine is that this is an urban area already. The site is surrounded on three sides by the city. Done right developing it would be a terrific view enhancement. But there are others who view any thing built by men as ugly (hence these idiotic and grotesque building height limits). I know it’s irrational and stupid but it’s very prominent here. Since we shut down big development 40 years ago its time to get off that old and tired wagon and start to walk again.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

» publius with a small p on 10.03.11 @ 09:07 AM

Quite entertaining to read all of the above.

I agree with AN50 that the City of Goleta should just condemn the property and pay a fair price for it, if the community desires urban agriculture.

If housing is a money loser… guess what…. all the residents in homes that have Prop. 13 limited assessments are even bigger losers than new housing.  So, current property owners, I’m expecting a stampede of you guys selling out and remediating your home to pre-columbian environmental status in order to help the environment and the City of Goleta’s bottom line.

However, that tract has great roads on all 4 sides of it… Cat Oaks, Glen Annie, Patterson, and 101.  Great interchanges on the 101 paid for with the State of California’s dime.  Easy access to schools and services.  It defies common sense to maintain it as ag.

If the state budget crisis ever subsides, maybe UCSB will condemn and purchase it for housing for its staff, faculty, and students.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.