|
Last November the County Planning Commission, after months of input from County Planning Staff, special interest groups, developers, and vigorous input from residents of the EGV, came up with land use recommendations for the Board of Supervisors to consider and vote on.
The EGV Community Plan includes many sections, however we have focused on land use and development, which is what most residents are concerned with.
The EGV has long been a target for development. While we enjoy and value the semi-rural and suburban environment, open space, and local produce grown on our agricultural land, others see our community as a prime area for cramming in more people, apartments, and traffic congestion.
We believe that we, the community, have made a generous land use compromise that allows for substantial growth, yet doesn't drastically overwhelm any one area of the EGV.
We will be asking the five Supervisors to support the Plan as it is presented to them,
with no additional land to be recommended for development, or even to be studied for long range possible development. Our Plan, as it stands, far exceeds the State requirements, in every way, for compliance with the housing mandate.
SUMMARY
1. Land Use - Housing and Development:
The Planning Commission and County Staff have designated 34 acres
to be studied for rezoning and development. Of those 34 acres,
28 acres will be considered specifically for high density housing, which could be built at 20+ units per acre. Overall, this would add nearly 700 new dwellings on 34 acres. Two sites will be rezoned from agricultural to residential, and the other sites are not agriculture parcels.
(See table at end of letter for details.)
An important fact to keep in mind is that the majority of this development is being considered in a 0.8 square mile area! Think about it - 700 new units in less than
1 square mile of already dense development - that's a lot!
To characterize our efforts over the past 5 months,
probably the best description would be ...
"DAMAGE CONTROL"
We weren't particularly encouraged or happy with how the Plan turned out (no new public amenities, no new parks, no median landscaping, but lots of housing). Yet, without the strong and consistent input from the EGV residents, through letters and public comments at the meetings, we would have ended up "contributing" much more acreage for dense development. At one time there were a few very large sites being discussed. We were up against special interest groups who want more housing, and a County Staff who want a more urban, city-like feel for the EGV. We fought to retain the semi-rural and suburban environment (horse trails, bike paths, walking areas, some open space) that most of the EGV residents enjoy and value.
The Bad News:
Currently the State is requiring that 20-30 acres be considered for rezoning for high density housing within the entire County. Unfortunately, the Eastern Goleta Valley ended up taking all of this requirement. That means other areas of the County (e.g. Carpinteria, Summerland, Montecito, Hope Ranch, North County, etc.) did not absorb any part of this State mandate.
We fought hard to get other areas to take some of the acreage, but for reasons too complex to explain here, our community ended up being told we had to take it all.
If it seems like we are giving up a lot it's because we are! We have had to backpedal on almost everything. This has been a difficult struggle where the deck has been stacked against us.
The Good News about the Bad News:
The only good news is that the selected sites (34 acres) are somewhat dispersed so the density and traffic are not all in one place, therefore less overwhelming to any one area of the community, which would significantly alter the feel of the EGV.
(See Initiation Draft, pages 23-25.)http://longrange.sbcountyplanning.org/planareas/goleta/documents/GCP/Initiation/11-16-11%20PC%20Action%20Letter.pdf
2. Agricultural Land Protections:
There was some language eliminated from the prior plan that we believe offered a layer of protection for the preservation of agricultural land. Previously, when a property owner sought to rezone from Ag (agriculture) to commercial or residential, there were some criteria that had to be met before Ag land could be rezoned out of Ag. The County Staff removed this language, called "Findings". We would like this language to be put back into the Plan. There has been quite a bit
of discussion about this, and there is no legal or convincing reason not to re-insert it. While the Plan does include some conversion criteria for Ag owners who want to rezone their property, we feel that the removal of the "Findings" language overly relaxes these important protective criteria, which allows for easier conversion of Ag land.
3. SAVE San Marcos Growers - Preserve Agricultural Land:
One over-arching principle of our community vision has been, and still is, to preserve agricultural land. We are aware that Montecito developer, Michael Towbes, and other special interest groups, are pushing hard for the San Marcos Growers site (next to Vons) to be considered for high density development. This active agricultural parcel has been considered by the original EGV visioning committee in 2003, the recent GVPAC committee, residents of the community through letters and public comment, and the Planning Commissioners. All have agreed that developing San Marcos Growers is not in the best interest of the community, and goes against every community planning consideration to preserve neighborhood compatibility, preserve agricultural land, disperse density, and retain the semi-rural character of the EGV.
San Marcos Growers is in the heart of the Valley. Developing it would significantly change, and negatively impact the community. Besides being home to a first rate, five star wholesale nursery business, there is an active Ag operation on that land that supplies produce to the farm stand on the property, as well as to Lane Farms on Walnut Ave. At peak season there are 200 people per day who purchase locally grown food from these two farm stands. We see no reason whatsoever to rezone this property. Our community has consistently and strongly opposed development at this central location.
4. Hold the Density Ceiling on the MTD & Tatum Properites:
These two larger sites are being studied in accordance with the density requirements of the State. There is also an allowance for 40% "open space" so the development does not take on a "cement city" feel, and keeps the environment somewhat pleasant for both the residents and the community. The owners of the properties, developers and housing advocates would like to see these properties studied at a much greater density thus eliminating the "open space" allowance. The Planning Commission has NOT recommended this and we would like the County Staff and Supervisors to hold the line at the densities already recommended, and keep the 40% "open space" allowance. | 
The Supervisors do not examine the Community Plan in detail like the District Planning Commissioners do, but rely on their individual Planning Commissioner to have reviewed it satisfactorily. There is a chance the Supervisors will actually vote on our Community Plan on the 21st. This will be our 
