Pixel Tracker

Friday, January 18 , 2019, 1:00 pm | A Few Clouds 63º


Appeals Court Reverses Gaviota Coast Water Decision

Goleta Water District's annexation of 130 acres of undeveloped property is ruled valid in blow to local environmentalists

An appeals court filed a decision Thursday involving the Gaviota coast and reversing a prior victory for local environmentalists.

The decision centers on whether to annex 130 acres on the Gaviota coast, making it part of the Goleta Water District. Opponents of the annexation said it would open up the previously undeveloped area to new projects with the water availability.

Thursday’s decision reversed a decision made last year that said the annexation had expired and awarded the respondents of the lawsuit — the Gaviota Coast Conservancy and the Surfrider Foundation — $185,800 in attorney’s fees.

Santa Barbara Superior Court Judge Thomas Anderle ruled last spring that the annexation was voided, and the denied appeal comes at the end of a long and complicated history.

Instead, “we reverse the judgment and vacate the award for attorney fees. The annexation is valid,” court opinion stated from the Second District Court of Appeals in Ventura.

The property was formerly an ARCO oil and gas production facility. Makar Properties LLC, a Newport Beach-based development company, purchased the property and sought to build a golf course.

Santa Barbara County approved a conditional-use permit for the plans in 1993, which was appealed to the state Coastal Commission. The agency denied the appeal and granted the permit, but on the condition that 20 smaller lots be merged into larger ones to prevent residential development.

The environmental documents for the project stated that the Goleta Water District would be able to use potable and reclaimed water for the project. Eighty acres of the project already lie within district’s purview.

The GWD submitted an application for annexation to the Local Agency Formation Coalition.

With a misunderstanding about whether the project could move forward with or without the lot merger, the discovery of threatened red-legged frogs on the site and environmental groups claiming potential California Environmental Quality Act violations, the project slowed to a halt as it worked through its legal challenges.

LAFCO approved annexation of the property in 1998, but it never made the lot merger a condition for annexation because “the recommendation was unworkable,” according to the court document.

The property owner “needed water to commence construction. Until the certificate of completion was recorded, it could not proceed with the golf links project. Delaying recordation of the certificate of completion created a chicken-egg conundrum. Had LAFCO imposed a lot merger condition as recommended by staff, it would have trumped Coastal Commission approval of the project, which deferred merger of the 20-plus lots until after the golf course was built,” the documents said.

In 2008, LAFCO determined that all annexation conditions were satisfied, and because it’s a quasi-legislative agency interpreting its own resolution, LAFCO’s decision is entitled to judicial deference, the report said.

In the meantime, the golf course plan was put on hold, and an alternative plan for two single-family homes on two of the parcels was proposed. GWD said Makar could do that without an amendment to the water-use agreement.

Respondents went on to say that Makar’s proposal to build the two homes was a new project that required county review. But the ruling said that LAFCO has no authority to reopen an annexation that had already been approved.

LAFCO’s Bob Braitman said Thursday that the agency will be looking at the matter at its June 3 meeting, which will be held in closed session.

“We’ll know by then whether anyone has decided to appeal,” he said.

Braitman seemed positive about the court’s decision. “They basically said that LAFCO made the right decision in approving the annexation,” he said.

Attorney Marc Chytilo, representing the Gaviota Coast Conservancy, said the group was disappointed to see the court’s analysis Thursday.

Chytilo also disapproved of the water use, once for golf courses, now going toward residences, and said it signified approval of water for “McMansions on agricultural land.”

He said the group was still analyzing the briefing and had not yet decided whether to appeal to the state Supreme Court. That decision will be made in the near future, he said.

In the meantime, the residential project still “has a number of hurdles before it,” he said.

The county is reviewing comment for the draft environmental impact report, and then it will have to be approved by the Planning Commission, the Board of Supervisors and the Coastal Commission.

“It’s hard to take their commitment to ag land seriously,” Chytilo said of LAFCO. “They’ve indicated they’re willing to give away the Gaviota coast because there’s some money involved.”

Noozhawk staff writer Lara Cooper can be reached at .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address).

Support Noozhawk Today

You are an important ally in our mission to deliver clear, objective, high-quality professional news reporting for Santa Barbara, Goleta and the rest of Santa Barbara County. Join the Hawks Club today to help keep Noozhawk soaring.

We offer four membership levels: $5 a month, $10 a month, $25 a month or $1 a week. Payments can be made using a credit card, Apple Pay or Google Pay, or click here for information on recurring credit-card payments and a mailing address for checks.

Thank you for your vital support.

Become a Noozhawk Supporter

First name
Last name
Select your monthly membership
Or choose an annual membership

Payment Information

Membership Subscription

You are enrolling in . Thank you for joining the Hawks Club.

Payment Method

Pay by Credit Card:

Mastercard, Visa, American Express, Discover
One click only, please!

Pay with Apple Pay or Google Pay:

Noozhawk partners with Stripe to provide secure invoicing and payments processing.
You may cancel your membership at any time by sending an email to .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address).

  • Ask
  • Vote
  • Investigate
  • Answer

Noozhawk Asks: What’s Your Question?

Welcome to Noozhawk Asks, a new feature in which you ask the questions, you help decide what Noozhawk investigates, and you work with us to find the answers.

Here’s how it works: You share your questions with us in the nearby box. In some cases, we may work with you to find the answers. In others, we may ask you to vote on your top choices to help us narrow the scope. And we’ll be regularly asking you for your feedback on a specific issue or topic.

We also expect to work together with the reader who asked the winning questions to find the answer together. Noozhawk’s objective is to come at questions from a place of curiosity and openness, and we believe a transparent collaboration is the key to achieve it.

The results of our investigation will be published here in this Noozhawk Asks section. Once or twice a month, we plan to do a review of what was asked and answered.

Thanks for asking!

Click Here to Get Started >

Reader Comments

Noozhawk is no longer accepting reader comments on our articles. Click here for the announcement. Readers are instead invited to submit letters to the editor by emailing them to [email protected]. Please provide your full name and community, as well as contact information for verification purposes only.

Daily Noozhawk

Subscribe to Noozhawk's A.M. Report, our free e-Bulletin sent out every day at 4:15 a.m. with Noozhawk's top stories, hand-picked by the editors.

Sign Up Now >