Bishop Ranch is probably best known as those rolling, tree-dotted grasslands visible on the mountainside of Highway 101 between the Los Carneros and Storke Road ramps in the middle of Goleta. But if a development company’s current vision proves to be anything like the property’s future, the grasses will be replaced by nearly 1,200 homes, a commercial center, paved roads, bike trails, and parkland. Those are the basic specs of a conceptual plan submitted last Thursday to the City of Goleta by the Bishop Ranch LLC, which is asking for the city to consider a rezone of the 240-acre property from agriculture to urban. A hearing on the matter should occur in about three month’s time.
Bishop Ranch LLC
These conceptual plans for Bishop Ranch were submitted by a developer as part of an application that seeks to change the zoning for the property from agricultural to urban.
“All we’re asking for is the first step,” explained project consultant Urban McLellan on Friday morning, as he presented the plans in The Independent’s office. “We’re not asking for this specific project, just a study. We want an urban designation and here’s one alternative that can be studied. We want them to get the facts and then make a reasoned decision.” To do so, the Goleta City Council would have to direct the staff to commission an Environmental Impact Report assessing the goods and bads of such a zoning change; the submitted plans would be studied as one possible result, but the EIR would also examine a range of development possibilities as well as the “no project” alternative.
The conceptual plan for Bishop Ranch — which is owned by the University Exchange Corporation, no relation to UCSB — is much like the one presented in July 2008 when Bishop Ranch LLC’s CEO Michael Keston first applied to amend the General Plan zoning. But when what McLellan called a “one-sided staff report” came out about the re-zone, Keston pulled the application. Those plans were based on the input of a citizens advisory panel that met seven times from October 2007 through January 2008, and the current concept — which would retain 67 acres of open space, offer a location for a community center, have entry points on Cathedral Oaks and Glen Annie roads, and include a mix of single family, planned residential, and higher density housing — also reflects that process. “The larger property allows the chance to really master plan,” said McLellan, who said that all of the trees will be preserved and spoke about possible educational walking tours in the open areas.
But Goleta citizens, who were ready to fight against the zoning change back in 2008, are already gearing up to fight again. “I don’t see that developing into housing within the next 20 years or more because we don’t need it,” said government watchdog Barbara Massey. “They know quite honestly that the majority of the people in Goleta have no interest in converting agricultural land into residential or commercial.” According to an informal Independent.com reader’s poll taken in the fall of 2007, 61 percent of 101 voters disapproved of development at Bishop Ranch, 22 percent said some development could work if it was balanced, and 14 percent approved of development.
Massey personally took part in the citizen advisory panel, showed up to every one of the seven meetings early, and made sure to leave late. “They never really took the input of the people who had attended all of the meetings,” argued Massey, explaining that the final plan review meeting turned out to be a dinner at the Timbers Restaurant instead. “What they came up with was what they wanted to come up with in the beginning.” As such, Massey explained, “It was a waste of their time, and many of us felt is was a waste of our time too.”
Massey and others believe that Bishop Ranch can and should be farmed, but McLellan explained that such is not economically feasible. The submitted plans include three agricultural studies that show the soil to be marginal at best for profitable crops, and explain that the high cost of water would preclude any farming profits. Over the years, said McLellan, “There has been a minimal amount of agricultural activity, and they have all not worked out.” Today, said McLellan, “Nobody would do it.”
The application also details the history of the property, which was zoned for housing up until 1980, when the County of Santa Barbara updated its comprehensive plan and drew the property outside of the urban boundary. During the 1993 Goleta Community Plan process, the county put Bishop Ranch into the urban boundary, but kept it zoned agriculture, with the intent to re-assess that zoning 10 years later. But before that could happen, the City of Goleta incorporated in 2002, and that county-led reassessment never occurred. When the Goleta General Plan was approved a couple years later, the property remained agriculturally zoned.
However, McLellan explained, the application also shows that LAFCO — the Local Area Formation Commission, which oversees the creation of new jurisdictions in Santa Barbara County — intended for Bishop Ranch to one day be urbanized, which is why it was included within the city limits of Goleta. To McLellan, that’s evidence that the property should be developed one day. “It’s right in the middle of the city,” he said, adding that it would bring in more than $8 million in tax benefits once developed and employ 3,500 people during construction and 600 afterward.
Even in the unlikely event that these plans were to sail through the City of Goleta’s planning process — with zoning change quickly followed by development approval — McLellan still believes it would take a minimum of five years for any dirt to be turned at Bishop Ranch and a full 10 years or more before the project is completed. “This was our best shot at what was reasonable,” said McLellan, but quickly admitting in the same breath, “That doesn’t mean it’s not going to be cut back.”



Print friendly
E-mail story
Tip Us Off
Comments
Share Article
Myspace







Previous Month



Comments
Let me guess the complaints that will follow
1) Too much traffic! I have the right to drive my car and contribute to traffic instead of taking public transportation, walking and biking, but I don't think anyone else should be contributing!
2) This sacred property should be open space! As for my own plot of land on the south that was paved over for my house... um... well *changes subject* Stop turning Santa Barbara into the OC!
rc251 (anonymous profile)
April 12, 2010 at 10:30 p.m. (Suggest removal)
So now the progressives want to cover Goleta with housing. Years ago, Bill Wallace, who was embraced by the progressives fought to stop such development. What happened?
rc251 is like the Soviet Commissars in the film Doctor Zhivago who tell people how many square meters of living space they are entitled to and dictates they crowd into dirty, noisy trolleys and cattle cars to travel.
revisionist (anonymous profile)
April 13, 2010 at 6:28 a.m. (Suggest removal)
rc251 has asked in the past what is the solution. The solution is to reduce overall population growth (400,000 plus per year in California) which will reduce development pressure. In Bill Wallace's first interview after retiring as County Supervisor in either the Independent or Reader (?), which I can't find online, he actually questioned the mass immigration ideology among progressives and high birthrates among Mexican immigrants. We can't have a rational conversation about family planning and population growth because PUEBLO et. al., and their progressive allies will scream racism.
Rather ironic because the Mexican government has a very successful family planning education program, and fertility rates in Mexico are far below those of US-born Hispanics. The biggest adverse enviornmental impact a family can impose is to have another child they cannot fully support.
revisionist (anonymous profile)
April 13, 2010 at 6:39 a.m. (Suggest removal)
After all, we all know that land developers like to propose mere studies without ever having an intention to build anything.
Just how is the traffic congestion there at the intersection of Storke Rd. and Hollister Ave.?
Zoning is as zoning does.
David_Pritchett (David Pritchett)
April 13, 2010 at 7:31 a.m. (Suggest removal)
LOL rc251 - hilarious. The only reason I say don't develop it is because when I win the lottery I want to buy it and raise sheep and goats there.
Num1UofAn (anonymous profile)
April 13, 2010 at 8:35 a.m. (Suggest removal)
A sad irony is that my home state (California) has replaced agriculture with housing in the best crop growing regions. So the net worth and revenue of a region (or nation) falls, food is imported (and money is exported) and water use increases. Soon, no land for food, too many people for the food, etc. To make up for the lost revenue and increased number of people, you have to raise taxes Just wait until the US grows to 1 billion people in the same land mass as India. The US has grown from 200M to 300M in just my short life of 50 years.
Fondly looking back at SB from some high altitude south asian mtn with my 9mm at my side and my laptop on a rock.
passagerider (anonymous profile)
April 13, 2010 at 1:44 p.m. (Suggest removal)
1200 new homes. What could be better than this?
TG (anonymous profile)
April 13, 2010 at 10:06 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Zoning changes should be voted on by the people, not the money hungry politicians who need to feed the pension machine
easternpacific (anonymous profile)
April 14, 2010 at 12:20 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Yep...keep it up Santa Babylon. Keep on trying to cram 10 pounds of poop into a 5 pounds sack.
You don't have enough long lines, road rage, crowds, gangs, traffic and bodies demanding services down there. No sir!
Be sure to pave over every square inch of land and shove yet MORE people in there...then gripe about the lost quality of life.
Yeah...good stuff...
I love watching these land gobblers and the yahoos in local government do their little happy dance, pretending that A: their project has any chance of ever NOT being built and B: that the public's wishes mean anything.
It's all so sadly predictable...
Holly (anonymous profile)
April 14, 2010 at 12:58 a.m. (Suggest removal)
All I can say is that it would be very unfortunate if that portion of land was developed.
Why can't we just curb our incessant hunger for money making and expansion...?!
Leave it how it is!
dane (anonymous profile)
April 14, 2010 at 1:07 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Oh I think it's a fine idea. I for one, am sick of trees and grass because they cause pollen which makes my nose run. No more vegetation=no more allergies.
Here is another point for you environmental wackos (or is it whackos?) to ponder: in case you didn't realize this, we live in a fire zone. That having been said, if we turn every square inch into concrete, nothing will burn. Concrete is fireproof! But since I'm for reconcilitation between normally opposing forces--not to mention a self-proclaimed visionary--I also propose the idea that we carry out the utopian vision of LOOT (Luddits Out Of Touch) and force people to bike and walk everywhere. I would have also proposed equestrian travel but I don't think P.E.T.A. would like us forcing horses to be our mode of transporation.
I am sick and tired of looking at dirt and grass that turns brown in the summer and have now seen the error of my ways and have fully embraced the truth which is that our politicians and the developers which donate $$$ to their campaigns always have our best interests at heart. So what if we live packed shoulder to shoulder and are driven insane by the rats-in-the-cage syndrome?...the truth is, no matter how miserable we are, we can always take comfort in saying "we're not L.A.".
I am just so happy to see how Santa Barbara/Goleta has progressed and after all, more people living here means more jobs and revenue. Like I say, I don't care about my quality of life, all I care about is the bottom line financially.
I think my medication is starting to kick in.
billclausen (anonymous profile)
April 14, 2010 at 4:54 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Revisionist (aptly named)
Don't know where you got the idea that progressives want housing on Bishop Ranch but let me assure you that progressives, liberals, non-conservatives all oppose the Bishop Ranch Plan.
Someday, there may be a need for housing there. Someday, it might be worth studying. If and when that happens, liberals and progressives promise to fight to make sure that there is adequate infrastructure and that the housing is for people who live here and can afford it, not for rich outsiders. We hope at that time conservatives will join the similar fight, not revert to laissez-faire, absolute property rights, anti-regulation diatribes.
So you may want to cool the rhetoric and not waste your invective on Goletans who actually agree with you to oppose any rezoning of Bishop Ranch.
infomaniac (anonymous profile)
April 14, 2010 at 8:10 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I may be the only "progressive" to think so, I but I would really like to see the Bishop Ranch developed with about 1200 dwellings like the first conceptual plan suggested.
I see nothing good in curbing development in Goleta only to have it happen in Buellton, forcing the people who live in it to commute on the freeway instead of being able to bike to work.
Ideally we would build an oversupply of 1- and 2-bedroom apartments - enough to get the price to come down a bit.
ljp93105 (anonymous profile)
April 14, 2010 at 10:49 a.m. (Suggest removal)
OMG - What else is new? The L.A. types are so eco-conscious that they refused to let Audobon Soc. on "their" property for a bird count, even though AS has its own liability insurance. The L.A. group doesn't "own" the property - it has an option on it if only they could get the citizenry up here to lie down, play dead and real stoopid.
When Keston and his buddies couldn't manipulate locals and the city council (even though they elected 2 pro-dev. types) a couple of years ago, they pulled their application for a nearly identical plan.
Keston has a home in Montecito...how dense is the development out there?
'Nuff said. Forget it all and let's keep buying lottery tickets so we can have alpacas, capybaras, sheep and horses roaming the land.
mangomamma (anonymous profile)
April 14, 2010 at 12:31 p.m. (Suggest removal)
There's one thing I agree with you on... I'm not a fan of places of low density like Montecito and Hope Ranch. In fact, I'd gladly support converting 1,200 homes from these two areas into natural protected area in exchange for developing 1,200 high density homes in Bishop Ranch. I wonder how many of the "environmentalists" in those two places would be down for that?
rc251 (anonymous profile)
April 14, 2010 at 5:35 p.m. (Suggest removal)
And where oh where do we get the water for a development this size? I'm sure we'd all like to eat more than support increased population growth in a small coastal city crammed in up against mountains in a dry climate. Heads in sand?
surfrmom (anonymous profile)
April 14, 2010 at 5:37 p.m. (Suggest removal)
So why is it that some people believe in birth control?
billclausen (anonymous profile)
April 14, 2010 at 5:57 p.m. (Suggest removal)
You owe it to Santa Maria and Lompoc to build down south and reduce the sprawl and over growth pressure up north.
(not to mention the long distance commuting and the problems that entails)
CharlesB (anonymous profile)
April 14, 2010 at 7:02 p.m. (Suggest removal)
It would be terrible if that land was defaced with suburban sprawl.
I grew up in goleta and sadly can't afford to live there, but i would never, ever trade being able to move back, for such a miserable deal with the devil as that!
That stretch is the last bit of what I loved the most, and I have always feared it would disappear someday.
I certainly hope it doesn't come to pass in ten or even twenty years.
rb (anonymous profile)
April 15, 2010 at 4:22 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Hasn't all of existing Goleta land been "defaced" with suburban sprawl? Why would you even want to move back to such a place?
rc251 (anonymous profile)
April 16, 2010 at 9:36 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I think the main issue is the extension of calle real.
if you cannot extend calle real and have all the traffic on that side, then it shouldn't be developed.
I don't want any driveways on the cathedral oaks side....everything should be off the side against the freeway.
better yet, let some rich movie star type buy it and develop it as a park.
rstein9 (anonymous profile)
April 19, 2010 at 6:21 a.m. (Suggest removal)
http://www.good.is/post/agriculture-i...
ewoldson (anonymous profile)
April 19, 2010 at 9:53 a.m. (Suggest removal)
The land is currently zoned for agriculture. It was bought by land speculators. There are currently several million excess houses in this country that are dragging real estate prices down. I urge all Goletans to strongly lobby their elected officials on the Goleta City Council to let Bishop Ranch remain zoned for agriculture for at least the next ten years. After that if there really and truly is a need for more houses then it should be considered.
Noletaman (anonymous profile)
April 21, 2010 at 2:15 p.m. (Suggest removal)