The land use tug-of-war that has come to characterize politics in the Goleta Valley took an unexpected turn last week as the Larwin Company, hopeful Bishop Ranch developers, put the brakes on plans to build out the historic parcel. By withdrawing its bid for an amendment to the City of Goleta’s General Plan on Friday, July 11 — one that aimed to change the designation of the Bishop property from agricultural to mixed-use residential and commercial — the Larwin Company effectively stopped the clock on the plan to develop the 240-acre ranch with 1,195 housing units, a 90,000-square-foot commercial space, and 80 acres of parks and open space.
Earlier in the day, no doubt factoring into Larwin’s decision, Goleta staff submitted a report recommending that the City Council deny initiation of the proposed amendment. “A project of this scale doesn’t come along every day and requires a great deal of attention and caution,” observed Steve Chase, director of Goleta’s Planning and Environmental Services. Explaining that Bishop accounts for 5 percent of the city’s 5,000 acres as well as 25 percent of the agricultural land on the entire Goleta Valley floor and 70 percent within city limits, Chase and staff recommended denial based partly upon the numbers involved but also because they found the project to be less than impressive as proposed, he said. “With that order of magnitude, if the Bishop Ranch project was to go forward, it would change the complexion of Goleta,” he said, adding, “It’s an ordinary suburban development that isn’t needed at this time.” Also of concern to city staff was the plan’s need to remove an additional 50 acres of orchard land, which exist adjacent to the property but within the bounds of the bordering roadways, Glen Annie and Los Carneros roads.
“Right now, we’re not sure what we’re going to do. … We’re going to sit tight and hear from the community.” — Michael Keston
For his part, Michael Keston, Larwin CEO and part-time South Coast resident, countered that not only were there many errors in the staff’s report, but “we just received the report the Friday before the [City Council] hearing and really didn’t have enough time to correct those issues.” Furthermore, with controversy existing over numerous other facets of the proposed development such as the property’s water availability and resulting agricultural feasibility, there was no shortage of motivations to at least temporarily reevaluate the plan. Speaking earlier this week, Keston summed up the project’s current limbo status by saying, “Right now, we’re not sure what we’re going to do. … We’re going to sit tight and hear from the community.” To that end, he started meeting with members of the public even before last week’s council meeting to discuss what he sees as the project’s benefits, and, perhaps ultimately more importantly, to gauge how the makeup of the next year’s City Council, with possibly two new members, could affect the plan’s future.
Even with Larwin’s call to withdraw its bid, Goleta City Council decided to hear the staff’s report on Tuesday evening and take public testimony. Councilmember Jean Blois made a motion that the proposed amendment initiation not only be removed from the agenda and but also blocked from inclusion in the future, but Goleta’s General Counsel Julie Biggs cautioned that the motion as stated would control the actions of later councils, and thus could not be allowed. Resubmitted, this time simply removing the item from the agenda for the time being, the motion eventually passed unanimously. “I think the staff report hit the main issue of impact, and that is that right now, we don’t need to add the housing inventory,” explained Councilmember Eric Onnen, who later added, “Our General Plan has outlined some 3,000 potential housing units in Goleta. Almost all of them are for higher-density, 20-units-per-acre, multi-family dwellings. For me, one of the aspects of adding housing is the job-housing imbalance. We need to create housing that workers can and want to buy.”
Double-clicking on any word or phrase in this story will open a reference window with definitions and links to other reference material.

Print friendly
E-mail story
Contact an Editor
iPod friendly
Comments
Bookmark This
Previous Month


Comments
Discussion Guidelines
I can pretty much guarantee that if Jean Blois is re-elected in November the Bishop Ranch will be rezoned and something huge will be built. You would be hard pressed to find a development that she has ever opposed.
She represent the builders and the chamber of commerce not the average citizen of Goleta. To her credit she rarely even tries to deny it, although I suspect she'll turn suddenly environmentally friendly in the weeks leading up to the campaign. I'd urge the good citizens of Goleta not to be fooled. If you think the "Good Land" needs lots more buildings and that the Bacara ( alias the BigCaca) should be allowed to expand and reduce public access then she's your gal!
Noletaman (anonymous profile)
July 27, 2008 at 6:41 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Why shut the door before we learn all the facts?
Shouldn’t we at least gather all the facts prior to making any decisions? Staff’s recommendation to not move forward with reviewing even the possibility of developing the Bishop Ranch shows that our staff and Council would rather just avoid controversy, even if it means not taking on the big issues that face this city.
The funny thing is this new City Council got elected to do just that - and now they are doing what the old council did: make decisions based on political convenience. What a shame.
justinF (anonymous profile)
July 29, 2008 at 5:32 p.m. (Suggest removal)
So let me get this straight. Goleta refuses to study the feasibility of a plan to add homes that would keep our community the way it is- with single family neighborhood for families and seniors.
They refuse because the City has already planned for 3,000 apartments and condo on Hollister that will change our city into an urban nightmare?
Where is the leadership of the Council? Bishop Ranch is the best opportunity to ensure we stay as the Good Land for 20, 30, even 50 years from now.
Packing 3,000 apartments into Hollister closes the casket on Goleta and makes us another high density LA suburb.
redphoenix19840 (anonymous profile)
July 29, 2008 at 6:44 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Talk about a lack of vision. Someone needs to hand city staff a dictionary so that they can look up the definition of “PLANNING”. Of course we don’t need housing right now. But what about 10 years from now or 20 years down the road, what about then? Will we need housing, shopping and city parks then? Duh!
It would seem to me that the right thing to do is to study all the options, including the Bishop Ranch. I am not an expert, I do not know if there is enough water or what traffic patterns will be and these are all important aspects when deciding on new development.
However, without even taking the opportunity to study them, we will never know. It seems almost stubborn and childish by the city to dig in their heels and say NO before the process has even began. Their job is to plan. Someone needs to remind them that planning involves the future. Not just this moment.
goletaglenn (anonymous profile)
July 29, 2008 at 9:13 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Post a comment