One man’s illegal land use is another man’s perfectly legal soil-tilling. At least that is what Santa Barbara County officials are saying this week after investigating allegations of unpermitted landscaping on the coastal mesas of the Bixby-Jalama Ranch. Gaviota Coast Conservancy and other concerned neighbors had expressed fear that large swaths of soil-tilling conducted late last year on the property might be the precursor to big-time development dreams.
But according to County Planning and Development’s Steve Mason, after researching historical photographs of the sprawling ranch at the western end of the Gaviota Coast and meeting one-on-one with the representatives for the property’s new ownership, the county has concluded that the cultivating was, in fact, well within the mandates of county code. “The work that was done out there was not a violation of any county rules or policies,” explained Mason this week. “Basically, they told us they are just trying to rehabilitate the land for better grazing and that the area was being prepared for reseeding.”
Interestingly enough, even as the county closed the books on any possible enforcement actions at Bixby in regard to the tilling — which, technically, Mason said, was “disking” and not actually tilling, thus the amount of soil disturbed was only the top three inches of soil — representatives from the California Coastal Commission and the Department of Fish and Game both indicated this week that they are still investigating the situation as it appears much of the impacted acreage was critical habitat for Gaviota tarplant, a federally protected species.
Clearly frustrated by the county’s conclusion, Gaviota Coast Conservancy head Mike Lunsford, who first reported the controversial dirt moves earlier this year, drew a direct line between the county’s findings and their recent power struggle with the Coastal Commission regarding some outdated land-use development codes. “I am very disappointed, but not surprised by County Counsel’s conclusion,” said Lunsford. “This case proves that under today’s circumstances of investor/developer-owned ag land, the exemption for agricultural in the Coastal Zoning Ordinance is a gaping policy hole … Is it just alleging an activity is for agriculture that qualifies a person for the exemption?”
For her part, 3rd District Supervisor Doreen Farr, whose constituency includes the 25,000-acre Bixby Ranch, opined this week that after meeting with folks from the Bixby, she believes the new ownership — an investment firm from the northeast that forked over $136 million four years ago for the property — is, at least for the time being, committed to keeping the property in ranching and farming. “They indicated to me that they are simply looking to maximize the agricultural potential of the property … And I feel confident that our staff has thoroughly evaluated the situation,” said Farr, though she did add that the dirt clearing was, at least in certain spots, demonstrative of an area in county policy that needs to be “tightened up.” Specifically, some of the worked-over land was on a mesa that was federally ordered several years ago to be rehabilitated after Unocal used it for oil drilling operations. Essentially, the disking, though technically legal in the county’s eyes, erased the benefits of that restoration work.
Despite the rulings, Lunsford and company — pointing to Bixby’s slow-moving plans to buy State Water rights from Carpinteria Valley Water District, the fact that the landscaping in question took place at a time of year when nature would have been seeding the soil on its own, and rumors that Bixby did not actively go to market for any new bulls this season — remain skeptical about the ownership’s commitment to the ranching ways of old. After all, as Lunsford summed up cryptically, “It can generally be said that the day of farmers buying land on the Gaviota Coast is over.”



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





Previous Month



Comments
this is absolutely outrageous. WTF is going on with the current Board of Supervisors?? I thought they were the ones that were going to PROTECT the Gaviota Coast- i put in time and money for doreen farr under that assumption. so because the bixby owners or agents are democrats or once worked for bill wallace we r supposed to look the other way and not ask for strict enforcement? uh uh. thanks for the Coastal Commission-maybe they can bring this county into the 21st (or 20th) century.
yougottobekidding (anonymous profile)
April 27, 2011 at 8:35 p.m. (Suggest removal)
The plan seems clear, If they kill the tarplant in the area, they don't have to keep that area out of their development plans in the future. And from the photo it looks like a very prime parcel. 136 million dollars is an almost unstoppable force.
JHL (anonymous profile)
April 28, 2011 at 6:45 a.m. (Suggest removal)
You don't have to be a genius to know that Gaviota Tarplant killed the Arco/Dos Pueblos Golf Course plan at Naples a few years back. Once established, GT grows really well. Obviously the people 'advising' Bixby owners 'counseled' them to eliminate the GT immediately and make sure it doesn't show its rare and fragile little self ever again, lest their $136 million dollar 'development dreams' go belly up.
Only in SB Co., the lamest planning & coastal protection unit in California, would the government side with the landowner on this. Wait till the Coastal Commission realizes this was a Unocal 'restoration area.' You think they aren't going to require it be restored again? Think again SB....
4Oceans (anonymous profile)
April 28, 2011 at 8:16 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I find it hard to believe that that "disking" did not uncover any Chumash Indian artifacts.... and what about run-off into the local nearby stream- aren't there some pretty sensitive species in there?
surfrmom (anonymous profile)
April 28, 2011 at 1:47 p.m. (Suggest removal)
As the Independent has documented in prior articles, there is a plan afoot to buy state water from Carpinteria to use to develop the Cojo/Jalama ranches. When faced with possible restrictions on ag use under new Coastal Commission/ County regulations, they did what any developer would do and tried to create an "pre-existing use" by discing large areas of the ranch. Local cattle ranchers know you don't need to disc and seed cattle pasture, especially this year when the feed is the best in five years. Pure bull but our Supervisor buys it because otherwise she looks like an idiot.
bugs101 (anonymous profile)
April 28, 2011 at 4:10 p.m. (Suggest removal)