AnonymousBy F.A.N.S. of Goleta (Friends And NeighborS of Goleta)
Not to sound alarmist but now it’s really time to sound the alarm. There are only [15] days left to comment on Santa Barbara County’s Draft Housing Element by March 1, 2023. Why does this matter to you? To meet California State mandates for housing, SB County is required to identify county land on the South Coast to accommodate 5,664 housing units.
HOWEVER in the County’s Housing Element plan to meet the state mandates, 75% of the land parcels proposed to be rezoned to housing directly abut the City of Goleta boundaries: 1,436 units on the Glen Annie Golf Course at 7380 Cathedral Oaks Road and 2,834 units on the South Patterson Ag block just off Hollister between S. Patterson and Ward Drive. The impacts on Goleta and its residents from this magnitude of development right on our borders will be massive.
You can see all the parcels the County is considering in the Draft Housing Element by clicking here https://tinyurl.com/2p9hh6d7 and scrolling down to page E-21.
Here is why Goleta residents should care about and comment on the County’s Draft Plan by the County’s March 1, 2023 deadline:
MAJOR IMPACTS ON THE CITY OF GOLETA AND ITS RESIDENTS
Adding this much housing to these two parcels right on Goleta’s borders would result in major impacts on the city of Goleta and its residents, including:
– Traffic impacts: increased volumes of traffic on adjacent roadways will significantly impact already congested Hollister, Glen Annie/Storke intersections and 101 entrances and exits.
– Risks of foothills’ destabilization such as mudslides: The golf course land has been stable and runoff is currently being absorbed by the ground. Adding 1,436 units there will require massive bulldozing, followed by adding hardscape such as streets, driveways, and sidewalks, and irrigation for lawns and gardens. The resulting runoff changes threaten to destabilize these foothills and risk the kind of disastrous mudslides we recently witnessed in the Montecito foothills.
– Sprawl: Any project on the foothills pushes the urban line further up into the foothills, exacerbating sprawl and opens the door to increased development on the county’s rural lands. Rezoning Glen Annie at 30 to 40 units per acre is bad planning and inappropriate on ag property that is outside the urban limit line.
– Fire Hazards: The foothills above Goleta are a high fire hazard area and the ag lands protect the City’s northern flank in this area. The County’s proposed rezone for 1,436 units on the foothills will put all these housing units in harm’s way. There are no public safety services equipped or planned to deal with a project of the size proposed.
– Lack of infrastructure: There are virtually no municipal or public services to support a village on the foothills.
– Lack of Transit: There is virtually no public transit in this area and shopping areas/amenities aren’t within walking distance. Vehicle miles travelled will be greatest for any development on the foothills compared with the infill projects proposed on the S. Patterson Ag block. Other parcels near transit and amenities exist and should be considered.
MAJOR POINTS TO COMMUNICATE TO THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY STAFF
– The Glen Annie Golf Course should be removed from consideration for rezoning from its current ag zoning to housing, especially given the gridlock that already exists when Dos Pueblos High students arrive there in the morning and leave in the afternoon.
– The County should revise its draft to more fairly allocate to other parts of the South Coast parcels to be rezoned for housing. Allocating 4,270 of the 5,664 required South Coast Units to two parcels immediately adjoining Goleta is grossly unfair on its face. For comparison, the Carpinteria area has been allocated only 416 units in the current draft, leaving virtually all surrounding agricultural parcels untouched. Similarly, no Montecito or Hope Ranch area parcels are currently identified for potential rezones.
If you share concerns about how all this development will affect you, NOW is the time to communicate those concerns to:
– SB County Supervisors & Staff: Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors: lcapps@countyofsb.org, jHartmann@countyofsb.org, steve.lavagnino@countyofsb.org, Nelson@bos.countyofsb.org, dwilliams@countyofsb.org
– Santa Barbara County Planning Department: housingelement@countyofsb.org
– Goleta City Council: pperotte@cityofgoleta.org, krichards@cityofgoleta.org, skasdin@cityofgoleta.org, jkyriaco@cityofgoleta.org, lreyes-martin@cityofgoleta.org
Even though Goleta is not responsible for the County’s actions regarding these rezones, Goleta’s Mayor and Council Members should be asked to stand up for us and communicate Goleta residents’ concerns.
– Family, friends and the community. If you agree with the importance and urgency of this matter, please share this information by forwarding this email to your local family and friends, posting this email on Nextdoor, or commenting if someone else does.
Most importantly, do it today because the March 1 deadline to comment is just days away.
Op-Ed’s are written by community members and organizations, not representatives of edhat. The views and opinions expressed in Op-Ed articles are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of edhat.
Do you have an opinion on something local? Share it with us at info@edhat.com.
Private entities in Goleta and Carp have offered up land, not so in M and HR.
Why are you all leaving out Santa Barbara City which has been slammed with 8,001 units-demanded, nearly 100% higher than the last, the 5th cycle of these state – controlled demands? Why is no one in this area fighting the State which is demanding these? Is it because then it would be Dem vs Dem?
None of this makes any sense, unless you’re a dictator Governor, or a developer/real estate investor. Tell me I’m wrong.
We want to address the housing crisis and bring down the cost of housing. We want to maintain a high rate of immigration that grows the population. We want to fight all development in and around our community. Sorry, you can’t have all three.
CHIP – who wants to “maintain a high rate of immigration?” No one, that’s who. Not treating illegal immigration like a terrorist attack (as many on the right want) isn’t the same as wanting to allow more people to come here.
Sac – who wants to treat “illegal immigration like a terrorist attack?” No one, that’s who. Not following our existing immigration laws and allowing anyone and everyone to cross the border after getting their name, IF they’re even caught (as many on the left want) IS the same as maintaining a high rate of immigration.
1) “maintaining a high rate of immigration” is not the same as “want to maintain a high rate of immigration” – pretty key difference and surprising (lol) you left out a critical part of the sentence and cherry picked what you wanted to hear.
2) “who wants to treat “illegal immigration like a terrorist attack?” No one, that’s who.” – eh, I doubt it’s “no one.” You’ve really got to stop sabotaging your arguments with absolutes. Sure, I may have exaggerated for effect so I’ll walk it back a tiny bit, but you can’t seriously deny that many on your side see it as an invasion by a foreign threat (pretty close to terrorist attack) and claim it is increasing the risk of terrorism. Here, let me show you:
https://irli.org/yes-illegal-immigration-is-an-invasion/
https://thetexan.news/dozens-of-texas-counties-declare-illegal-immigration-invasion-as-debate-over-texas-role-simmers/
https://www.texastribune.org/2022/11/18/texas-greg-abbott-immigration-invasion-el-paso/
Spin spin from”treating illegal immigration like a terrorist attack “ (sensationalism) to illegal immigration “increasing the risk of terrorism” (true). And “my side” ? You’ve shown again and again you don’t know “my side”, I think it should be easy for people to come and work in this country. More people certainly won’t help the housing situation. We can’t make any more land, so long as people keep making more people the cost of housing will continue to rise.
Cherry pick, deflect and lie. Have a fun night.
Imagine you’re a border city with a population of 500,000 people. If 2,000 people illegally cross the boarder into your city each day, 60,000 each month, what would you call that?
Are they armed? Planning on taking my land for their country? Bringing in tanks and attacking our armed forces? If not, I’d call it a problem, not an invasion.
What imaginary city are you talking about?
I think if those tens of thousands were camping out all over Santa Barbara’s streets, overwhelming our services, certainly not most but there is definitely a criminal element breaking into local homes and business, yes some are armed, – you’d feel differently. But because it’s in someone else’s backyard, it’s easy for you to shrug off as just a little problem.
OMG, an “invasion”, those rabbits came armed with tanks trying to take over Australia, an invasion!!! ahhh https://www.cnn.com/2022/08/24/world/australia-feral-rabbit-invasion-origins-intl-hnk/index.html
“easy for you to shrug off as just a little problem.” – never once said that. Keep lying. I’m busy today, no time to play this dumb game with you again. Have a good one.
Once again, we would like to thank our local prolific practicioner of agnotology (9:57, 9:50, 9:13, 9:08, 8:38, 9:07, 5:09, ad nauseam) for giving us the weekend off.
There is zero inaccuracy or misinformation in what I’ve written here. If there is, please quote it.
“easy for you to shrug off as just a little problem.” – Inaccurate.
“same as maintaining a high rate of immigration.” – leaving out the word “want” ignores the intent that I was addressing. Inaccurate and out of context, ie, cherry-picking.
“There is zero inaccuracy or misinformation in what I’ve written here.” – Inaccurate, see above.
Immigrants take jobs that citizens don’t want. How do you propose to fill those jobs which are so so good for business don’t you love love love business? Thought you just loved business, which is propped up by cheap labor. . .
So are you saying that immigrants take jobs that citizens don’t want, or that immigrants provide cheap labor for businesses? I think people should get paid more to work, and I’m tired of hearing the “Americans won’t do this job” line. What that really means is Americans won’t do the job for such a low wage. Anyone who claims they can’t find good workers isn’t offering enough pay, simple as that. Immigration should not be used as a mechanism to provide cheap labor and suppress wages.
I disagree sac. Capitalism allows the free market to find a balance between supply and demand. For much of the 20th century, immigration was tightly controlled. Cheap labor was much less available than it is today, and as a result jobs paid way more in relation to the cost of living than they do today. In the later part of the 20th century, immigration policy shifted dramatically. This has caused rapid population growth, at least 1 in 4 Californians were born in another country, along with a dramatic decrease in wages relative to the cost of living. A minimum wage law seems like an obvious easy fix, but it isn’t. The only way to improve wages is to tip the balance of supply and demand in favor of workers by restricting immigration.
In a profit driven, capitalist society, how do you propose we cut out the low wages that are only attractive to those wiling to work hard for little? You say Americans won’t work farm labor because it pays too little. So, how do you fix that? Is it only undocumented immigrants willing to work for such low wages?
Immigrants take jobs citizens want – here they are drivers, plumbers, welders, electricians, gardeners, roofers, laborers, painters, etc but they work twice as hard
for less money, so citizens lose.
1,436 units behind the golf course is absolutely absurd. The lack of infrastructure alone should render this unviable. Who are these units targeted for? Students? Families? Either way, adding that many homes seems like it will require a complete overhaul of the area to accommodate that many people, cars, service needs, etc. Letting Hope Ranch and Cito get away without any rezoning is telling. Once again, Goleta is being a dumping ground, this time for people. Why aren’t our leaders standing up to this?
Semag, the additional new homes would create a significant bump in tax revenue, they could also have voters vote on bonds like other local school districts have done. Also in developments this big there are usually requirements in the entitlements process for the developer to either provide funding for or directly build the infrastructure needed to support the development like streets, fire departments, schools, etc. The “local schools can’t handle the influx” position is false as they can and will expand, just like every other school district has when more homes and developments are built in its attendance area.
That’s a fair point, but there’s still the issue that forcing the housing won’t put a dent in the pricing, as there’s relatively inelastic supply and demand here because of the location. Combine that with the fact that you have a huge workforce (university students) that can provide services below minimum living requirements – it causes an interesting situation. What’s the plan for when there are 4,000 new units in Goleta and 80% of them immediately sell at market rate (the rest being controlled) and everyone is still complaining about how expensive it is?
SEMAG- exactly. There’s just no room for that many new people in that part of town. Not to mention, it will ruin the wonderful bucolic vibe we have up there. Jam it somewhere that has the infrastructure and isn’t another expansion into our dwindling “wilderness” areas. Call me a NIMBY, but that’s exactly what I don’t want in my backyard.
The other day, Das Williams penned a letter to Shiela Lodge telling Santa Barbara that car free, walkable communities are needed to address the housing shortage and reduce emissions. On the other hand, he is proposing 1400 homes on Glen Annie, a location that does not have supporting infrastructure or transit.
SENSIBLY – exactly, it doesn’t make sense.
So you’re preference is to have Das support only one type of additional housing, rather than pursing multiple avenues to create as many new housing units as possible? Interesting approach.
There is a lot of cheap land and housing in Victorville. The is issue is not affordable housing – the issue is a generation of people who want to live above their means. To all those people who want to buy a home in SB – I recommend you 1) focus on work and saving – which may mean living in an area that is much more affordable – does it mean you might have a commute – probably – does it mean you might have to skip expensive vacations and dinners out – for sure, 2) buy a starter home in an area you can affors and build some equity, 3) take some risks as it relates to getting a higher paying job, 4) try to get closer to SB over time – maybe buy into Ventura, and then 5) finally after 15-20 years of paying your dues you may have the ability to buy a starter home in SB.
If you are not willing to do this or have rich parents who will bankroll you, then lower your expectations.
Whelp Sac- I graduated from UCSB in 2006, bought my starter home in Goleta in 2011 and my upgrade home in Goleta in 2018 following the steps that SBLocal laid out, so he’s got a point.
SEMAG – I did almost the same, at the same exact times. 2011 was a lucky year! My point is, it’s easy for the older generations to preach to us when they bought in the 80s for much less compared to their salary at the time.
Well Sac, if that’s your position, you and others who are in your position should support revoking Prop 13. I do. And I didn’t vote for Das or Newsome either. You can’t have to both ways pal.
Revoking prop. 13 would force some homeowners from their homes, including many seniors on fixed incomes, and would be devastating for small businesses. Not to mention it would considerably INCREASE apartment rents as current long-term landlords would be faced with a huge jump in property tax payments that have to be covered.
Who is this Newsome fellow of whom the cons constantly complain?
Yes. Why do the cons keep doing it?
SBLOCAL – how much did your home in SB cost in the 80s and what was your salary? Assuming you were of age to buy then.
You see, once again, someone who bought in SB when it was affordable now preaching to everyone about how to buy a home in SB when the times have changed and even some doctors and lawyers are unable to afford to live here.
SAC – so I want to buy Apple stock today but it is too expensive – I guess I should have bought 30 years ago before it appreciated so much. What about the people who over paid for homes in certain areas that then went down in value – do we force the younger generation to buy them at a higher price. Sure it sucks when a kid is unable to afford a home in the community they grew up in – but life is not fair. Would you rather grow up in SB and not afford to buy right away – or grow up in Victorville. The only way SB becomes more affordable is if the liberal gov’t leadership of the state/county/city take actions which drastically lower the quality of like (i.e. allow crime to run rampant, ruin schools, bankrupt gov’t services, etc…) – I know they are trying hard – but the weather is just too good.
Tell me you didn’t read my question without telling me you didn’t read my question. Got it.
You’d probably do what my wife and I (both Goleta 80’s babies ) have done, which was pack our things out of our crappy 1 br apt in SB 4 years ago, and purchase a starter home in Lompoc, hustle to pay it off (We’re almost there), build some sweat equity, and hope to upgrade. A friend of mine, like you, was able to buy a Goleta home in 2010/11 after the crash, for a mid 600k price w/ help from his parents. I was not in a position to do so at the time. All about timing for sure.
It’s pretty clear that the previous generation had it quiiite a bit easier when it came to buying a first home. Times have changed. However, it’s hard not to feel like that previous gen started on a pretty nice platform and pulled the ladder up behind them. My parents were able to buy their starter home a couple blocks from beach for around $28k in the late 70’s, own a couple of cars and raise three kids on a substitute teachers pay and a HR managers salary. Buy another house, and rent their first. That is a fantasy now in Goleta/SB. The reason I can’t afford a 1.5 million dollar fixer upper in my old neighborhood is not because I’m living above my means or want/expect to. The 80’s and 90’s we’re fun, but now we’re footing the bill.
It’s true, life isn’t fair. But again, it’s hard not to laugh (and cry at the same time), after hearing the condescending tone, and all the preaching from a generation who basically got a gold star just for showing up. Then turning around and telling the ‘younger generation’ to just stop going out to dinner, buying avocado toast, going on vacations, and calling us entitled. I didn’t set up a tent in the park. I didn’t ask for a ‘tiny home’ to be built for me, or a free room to stay in. I haven’t expected to live in Goleta/SB since I was in high school. I did buy a house in a more affordable place, I do save, I do commute to work, and try to take ‘risks’ to up my income. I feel like I’m doing all the things I can in order to put a roof over my families head, and food on the table in this beautiful area we call home. Still, it’s hard to envision a way back into the town I used to love, or the SY valley, a once cheaper option, where the only people buying, are out of towners from LA. Building more ‘affordable’ housing won’t solve the problem either. SBlocal’s recommendations are spot on. Again, life is not fair. Let’s just try to save the ‘get off my lawn’ ‘kids nowadays’ ‘entitled generation’ BS attitude, and stop placing blame on a whole generation that didn’t create the mess we’re in ya know? I’ll do my part and try not to “OK Boomer” my parents while we’re at it 😉
LWOODFOG – absolutely dead on!
The EDHAT Editors refuse to post any post criticizing our One Party State that controls government like a single party State/Nation would… This mandating housing in all jurisidictions around the State no matter the existing infrastructure, limited building areas, water consumption considerations, over burdened wastewater treatment plants, air and light pollution, traffic impacts, school impacts, no job/insdustry support (as high functioning manufacturing is kicked out of the State) just to name a few that common sense thinking individuals would consider before this INSANE “blanket approach” to housing in the State… Our once “Golden State” is in shambles and getting worse as taxpaying industries and workers are leaving…. I wonder why?
Coastwatch—HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!
Dude, literally fifty percent of posts or more from the usual suspects on the right yammer about the Democratic Party and their hate for Newsom.
How ridiculous.
This is the 3rd posting I’ve attempted…
COAST – they posted yours, so……….
VOICE – explain how all your comments complaining about Newsom and Biden and CA in general are still up? Stop lying.
TIP: leave the absolutes out of your claims and it’ll be much easier to take you seriously.
LOL – yeah, my question was so offensive.
Glen Annie GC will be gone if Newsom (hey I spelled it right?). has his way. He will take the Gaviota coast next if his diehard democrat voters keep it going.
There are enough houses being proposed to equal a small community. The Magnolia Shopping Center is also under consideration of being replaced. Where are we to shop? There is not transit, what about water? schools, churches, services, the streets would need to become boulevards. We would lose the rural area that we moved into and have paid dearly for all these many years. Is this area not a flood plain?