-
Is the Gaviota Coast threatened
by development today?
-
Why can't the urban-rural limit
line stop urban sprawl?
-
What are the options for preserving
the coast and their advantages and disadvantages?
-
What roles can citizens and Local,
State, and Federal Government play in protecting the coast?
-
How can willing landowners participate
in the preservation of their land?
-
Do preservation activities pose
any threat to private property rights?
-
What will the public gain from
the preservation of the Gaviota Coast?
-
What role can the Gaviota Coast
Conservancy play in protecting the coast?
National Seashore Questions
-
What are the possibilities that
land in a National Seashore would be condemned or experience
a financial burden?
-
Where does the money to purchase
the land come from?
-
If a National Seashore were to
be created what types of services or improvements would be
envisioned?
-
What would be the expected number
of visitors to the Gaviota Coast after a national designation
of some sort?
-
If the coast were a National Seashore
would the local government loose control of land use planning?
-
Will the rights of property owners
within the park be subservient to the perceived needs of the
public?
-
Would there be more regulation
if the Federal Government were in control of the land?
1. Is the Gaviota Coast threatened by development
today?
Yes, on numerous fronts. County land use policies are constantly
under assault by landowners with development intentions. From
the Coal Oil Point Reserve to El Capitan, conditions for classic
urban sprawl are ripe. The population growth on the Southcoast,
the steady increase in land values on our beautiful coastline,
and the arrival of State water in Santa Barbara County all contribute
to the threatening spread of urban sprawl.
The County's present agricultural zoning and related land use
policies are the main impediment to urban sprawl. However, these
policies are vulnerable to political change and open to interpretation.
For example, certain types of agricultural zoning (AG-II) allows
rather intensive development such as golf courses, country clubs,
retreats, guest ranches, etc provided a Major Conditional Use
Permit is granted by the County. Without a firm, and long-standing
commitment by elected county officials, there is little question
that the rural character of this coastline will be lost.
One indication of the long-term intentions of landowners on the
coast is their participation in the State agricultural preserve
program known as the Williamson Act. This legislation allows working
agriculturists to significantly reduce their property taxes by
entering into a contract that requires the maintenance of the
agricultural use of the land for a period of 10 or 20 years. The
great majority of the 17,300 acres of land running from the urban-rural
limit line through El Capitan is not in agricultural preserve
status, This is a clear indication of landowner's lack of a long-term
commitment to agriculture and may be an indication of their near-term
development intentions.
Recently, four major land owners on the Gaviota Coast, collectively
owning more than 11,000 coastal acres, sued the County of Santa
Barbara challenging the County's Lot Size Compliance and Lot Line
Adjustment Program, a county ordinance that generally prohibits
landowners from reconfiguring their lot lines to increase their
development potential. This lawsuit indicates that the owners
of these large coastal properties, Eagle Canyon, Las Varas Ranch,
Tajiguas Ranch, and Dos Vistas Ranch have clearly indicated their
intention to increase the development potential of these properties.
Or as the Director of Planning and Development John Patton observes,
these lawsuits "can generally be seen as precursors to development."
The following is a partial list of potential development activities
on the Gaviota Coast beginning near the urban-rural limit line
and moving westward.
a) Ellwood Mesa: There is a long-standing
proposal for the subdivision of the coastal open space on Ellwood
Mesa, adjacent to the Monarch Butterfly Preserve. This proposal
for luxury homes is known as the "Monarch Point" development,
and continues to wind its way through the permit process. If
approved, it would forever displace scenic coastal open space
and sensitive habitats within the urban area.
b) Winchester Canyon: This wonderfully
scenic canyon has been in row crop production for many years.
Although zoned for agriculture, much of the canyon is not enrolled
in the Williamson Act and is vulnerable to development if the
zoning restrictions were to change. This canyon borders the
urban limit line and stands in stark contrast to the residential
development around it.
c) Eagle Canyon: Eagle Canyon, with lush
bottomland and stunning mountain vistas, lies two canyons to
the west of Winchester Canyon. It is in agricultural use, but
is not in agricultural preserve status. The owners recently
initiated a lawsuit against the County because of a new policy
that prevents increased development on agriculturally zoned
land. The owners assert that the policy impairs their "potential
development rights." This is a clear indication of development
awaiting a change in zoning policy.
d) Naples: Naples is located between Eagle
Canyon and Dos Pueblos Canyon. There are two development proposals
by landowners in this area.
1) West of the Bacara Resort, on the ocean side
of the Highway 101, the Dos Pueblos Associates proposes to develop
Dos Pueblos Links consisting of a golf course, driving range,
restaurant, and miscellaneous support facilities on their 147
acres. While permit approval has not been secured, the project
is well into the permit process and the intention to develop
is not in doubt. Additionally, this property includes a portion
of the old Naples antiquated subdivision with some uncertain
number of potentially buildable lots. It is instructive to note
that the County Board of Supervisors during the tenure of Supervisors
Staffel and Stoker granted a conditional use permit for this
development, circumventing a more rigorous process for change
in zoning designations, an example of the limits of "local
control" in containing urban sprawl. This proposed development
is an example of intensive development occurring on land zoned
for agriculture.
2) The site of the old Naples township was recently
sold by the Morehart family, et al to Vintage Communities, an
Orange County development company. This property is subject
to an antiquated subdivision originating from the 1880s. The
County currently recognizes up to 233 buildable lots on this
485 acre beachfront parcel. The County had proposed an MOU (Memorandum
of Understanding) between it, the Moreharts, and Vintage Communities
that would have allowed the submittal and processing of a development
application for the 263 acres north of the Highway 101. The
MOU was conditional upon the 222 acres south of the highway
being sold to a public agency or non-profit entity for public
access. However, the provisions of the MOU were not met by Vintage
Communities, so the deal collapsed. It is possible for the MOU
to resurface if the County's conditions are met by the developer.
This property has the largest and most threatening development
potential on the coast at the present moment.
e) Las Varas Ranch: This ranch contains
some of the most scenic coastal landscapes in the project area.
Here, wide coastal and island views, with sweeping pastoral
landscapes, illustrate the uniqueness of the Gaviota Coast within
Southern California. This1,520 acre property has been on the
market for $45,000,000 ($30,000 per acre), a price precluding
any agriculturally profitable use of the majority of the land.
A prior proposal by the owners to develop a resort on this agriculturally
zoned land revealed their intention to hold the land for development
purposes. The owners are a party to the suit by major Gaviota
coast landowners against the County's Lot Line Adjustment Program,
fearing that the program will limit the development potential
of their property.
f) Tajiguas Ranch: The owners have recently
proposed to subdivide the Tajiguas Ranch into twenty-five,100
acre lots using the "lot line adjustment" process.
This would create a development similar to the subdivision of
Hollister Ranch, where approximately 130 parcels of 100+ acres
makes it the largest subdivision, and one of the most densely
populated rural portion of the coast. When the County recently
enacted a policy addressing the lot line adjustment process,
the Tajiguas owners joined other large coastal landowners in
suing the County to enhance their maximum development potential.
g) Dos Vistas Ranch: The previous owner of this 1,400 acre ranch,
proposed, but subsequently withdrew, an application to increase
buildable lots on the property from 4 to 14. The former owner
is a participant in the suit against the County to enhance his
development rights elsewhere on the Gaviota Coast.
2. Why can't the urban-rural limit line stop urban
sprawl?
The urban limit line is a County planing boundary along the northern
edge of Goleta extending from the City of Santa Barbara at San
Marcos Pass to Winchester Canyon, crossing the freeway and extending
westward to encompass the new Bacara Resort. Zoning to the west
and north of the limit line is generally agricultural, large lot
parcels. The sanctity of this planning tool is only as secure
as is the will of the sitting Board of Supervisors to maintain
it. A Board with a philosophy more oriented toward allowing urban
growth to expand along the coast could change the urban boundary
by a simple majority vote. Allowing development to the west of
the urban-rural limit line could create the classic conditions
of urban sprawl; infrastructure development, followed by pocket
development and the subsequent urban infill.
3. What are the options for preserving the coast
and their advantages and disadvantages?
It is quite likely that a combination of the options below will
provide the optimal preservation benefits.
a) National Seashore or other Federal designation: Advantages
include greater access to federal funds for the purchase from
willing sellers of development rights or fee title to land.
Additionally, the Park Service has extensive experience in land
management, regional planning to protect biodiversity, and creating
public benefit from park amenities. Federal participation is
also likely to result in greater access to state, local and
private fund sources as granters increasingly recognize the
importance of conservation in this area. One disadvantage could
be the possible reduction of local control in land management
decisions on land owned by NPS. Private land use decisions would
remain under the local control of the County. The attraction
of more tourism could have both positive and negative impacts.
b) Purchase of development rights/conservation easements
or fee title by local conservation groups: the purchase
of rights and easements is a relatively low cost method of reducing
or eliminating the risk of development. Outright fee purchase
and management retains local control of land management decisions,
but it also carries large, long-term costs for resource management.
Actions by local conservation groups have the potential for
the retention of local control. Disadvantages include the problem
of funding such purchases in a relatively short time period,
as large sums would be required to purchase the most highly
threatened areas of the coast from willing sellers. It is also
unclear as to who would manage purchased properties and whether
recreational opportunities would be developed.
c) SOAR Initiative (Save Our Agricultural Resources):
An initiative could be placed on the ballot whereby the County's
agricultural zoning ordinances and policies would be locked-in-place
for a period of time unless a change were voted on by the people
of the County. This is an anti-sprawl strategy growing in popularity
around the State. Advantages include taking politics out of
the land use arena and fixing minimum zoning regulations for
a period of up to 30 years. It also tends to cause land to be
valued more for its agricultural values rather than its speculative
values based on anticipated development potential. The primary
disadvantage of a SOAR Initiative is that it would not preclude
large lot development (subdivision into minimum parcel size,
with the associated development) of agricultural land now zoned
mostly 100 acres minimum. Such development occurred on the 13,000
acre Hollister Ranch when it was subdivided into 100 acre lots.
A SOAR initiative is only a temporary respite from development
pressures, as it has a finite life.
d) Open Space/Park Initiative: Such initiatives allow
citizens in a given geographic area to vote to create an open
space, agricultural, or park district with the power to raise
money through increased property taxes and to create an elected
managing Board of Directors. The protection of properties occurs
through the purchase of land or conservation easements. An advantage
is, again, the retention of full local control. Land management
is by the district itself. The requirement of a two-thirds majority
vote for passage and the public's dislike of tax increases may
make this alternative an unlikely strategy. However, it would
provide a tool for agriculturists to protect themselves from
urban sprawl, and empower them to determine the future of agriculture
within the district.
e) Transfer of Development Rights Program: This type
of program allows a landowner within the rural coastal area
to sell their development rights to a property owner with a
location more suitable for development. This program must be
adopted by the County and if the transfer is into a city, by
the city also. There is little political support by the County
government for such a program at this time, but its application
could be useful in certain circumstances.
4. What roles can citizens and Local, State, and
Federal Government play in protecting the coast?
The public in southern Santa Barbara County has shown itself
to be willing and able to engage in public fundraising for the
preservation of open space, witness the success at the Douglas
Family Preserve and the Carpinteria Bluffs. The Land Trust for
Santa Barbara County has proven to be effective in conservation
efforts on the coast with the finalization of one conservation
easement and the current negotiations for the purchase/preservation
of several other coastal properties. Despite the support of the
local public and the expertise of the Land Trust, the financial
scope of the preservation effort on the Gaviota Coast will likely
dwarf the usual sources of funding.
County government has several available options that would help
to restrict the development of agricultural land. The Planning
Commission proposed rezoning agricultural land to a minimum parcel
size based on agricultural viability several years ago, but the
concept has remained dormant. This proposal would most likely
result in downzoning to larger minimum parcel sizes on the Gaviota
Coast. Second, the County could pursue a Transfer of Development
Rights program as discussed above. Third, the County could restrict
the building footprint on agricultural land to minimize the current
practice of building massive "trophy" homes on large
agricultural parcels such as those that have been constructed
on the Hollister Ranch, Tajiguas Canyon, Las Varas Canyon, Venedito
Canyon, and at Naples. Finally, the County could restrict non-agricultural
uses of agriculturally zoned land by eliminating the practice
of using conditional use permits.
On the state level, new laws could be enacted to make preservation
easier, such as the recently enacted legislation authored by Senator
O'Connell to grant a 55% state income tax credit for gifts of
land for conservation purposes. Additionally, the State could
supply more funding for the acquisition of vital Gaviota Coast
lands, for state parks, or for habitat conservation programs.
It could also develop a statewide transfer of development rights
program.
The national government could provide funding for land acquisition
and other preservation strategies. The National Park Service receives
its acquisition funds from the Land and Water Conservation Fund.
Additionally, the LWCF has funded state and local grants for land
acquisition. The federal government could also further restructure
the estate tax to provide additional relief to landowners forced
to sell their property to meet the financial burden of this tax.
Congress could consider compensating farmers for conservation
efforts such as improving water quality, protecting rare or endangered
species, or promoting recreation that they voluntarily undertake
on their land.
5. How can willing landowners participate in the
preservation of their land?
Landowners can opt to sell or gift their development rights to
a conservation organization such as a land trust or other entity.
They retain all other land rights, but are precluded from exercising
those development rights specified in the agreement. A conservation
easement creates restrictions on land use that encourages conservation
and ecological goals. The income, estate, and property tax benefits
of the gift or sale of development rights or the creation of a
conservation easement can be very significant for the landowner.
For example, under a new State law gifts of property can be used
to reduce State income taxes by 55% of the appraised value of
the gifted land
6. Do preservation activities pose any threat
to private property rights?
All of the preservation strategies being contemplated involve
voluntary participation by existing landowners. Property values
along the coast could decline as the potential for speculative
development is reduced or these values could increase as a product
of being located in close proximity to a protected and increasingly
rare ecosystem. In general, there will be no change in existing
property rights.
7. What will the public gain from the preservation
of the Gaviota Coast?
The public will gain the preservation of the largest remnant
of the Southern California coastline still in pristine condition.
Citizens will benefit from the continued, and possibly enhanced,
recreational and educational opportunities afforded by this coastline.
A magnificent scenic area, providing an essential backdrop to
the increasingly urban character of our society, will be protected
for future appreciation. The potential for the survival of rare
and endangered plant and animal species will be enhanced. Water
quality in the area watersheds will be maintained or improved,
helping to address contamination problems at area beaches and
in the marine fisheries. A major wildlife corridor, stretching
into the wilderness of our backcountry, will be preserved. The
preservation and enhancement of our coastal environment will provide
a reference point for future generations to understand and appreciate
man's place in the natural world.
8. What role can the Gaviota Coast Conservancy
play in protecting the coast?
The Gaviota Coast Conservancy (GCC) is playing a vital role in
preserving the largest intact remnant of the coastal Southern
California Mediterranean ecosystem. The Conservancy supports the
National Parks Service study to address the feasibility of creating
a National Seashore or other Federal designation along this coast.
This study will provide critical information on our coastal resources.
The GCC has been working within the community to find the best
and most appropriate strategies for preserving these resources.
Information collected on the resources of the coast and strategies
for preserving these resources has been disseminated to the community
and public officials. The Conservancy has been providing leadership
in efforts to remove industrial uses, such as obsolete oil production
facilities and the Tajiguas landfill. The GCC has built partnerships
with other organizations to solve some of the threats to our coastline
and watersheds. The GCC will continue to lead the efforts to preserve,
protect, and enhance the intrinsic values of this coastal environment,
while providing appropriate public access.
National Seashore Questions
9. What are the possibilities that land in a National
Seashore would be condemned or experience a financial burden?
The National Park Service has a policy that avoids hostile condemnation
of private land for public benefit. Legislation creating a National
Park Service presence on the coast could explicitly prohibit such
condemnation. No financial burdens are contemplated on landowners
as a result of the creation of a National Seashore.
10. Where does the money to purchase the land
come from?
The National Park Service would be authorized by Congress to
purchase land and easements with financing from federal funding,
including the Land and Water Conservation Fund (money derived
from federal offshore oil leases).
11. If a National Seashore were to be created
what types of services or improvements would be envisioned?
Development in a National Seashore or other NPS unit would be
based on guidance from a General Management Plan (GMP). Legislation
generally requires that a GMP be completed within three years
of the designation of a new National Park unit. GMP's identify
desired resource conditions and visitor experiences, and the kinds
and levels of resource management, visitor use and development
appropriate to each management zone. GMP's are prepared with substantial
public involvement. They require the development of alternatives
and the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)
in order to assess the impacts of different alternatives. A National
Seashore could be planned so that the public uses of the Seashore
would result in minimal negative impacts to the environment. It
would be desirable to emphasize the development of low impact
facilities such as trails, primitive camps, and day use areas,
and keep motor vehicle impacts to a minimum.
Statistics for Established National Seashores
In the last reporting year the 10 National Seashores had 18,425,102
visitors. This averages 1,842,510 visitors per Park. The
vast majority of these visitors were day use only. Of the 591,515
acres within the National Seashores 116,130, or 24%, acres are
not Federally owned. Facilities provided at the 10 National Seashores
are; 23 primitive walk in camps, 16 improved campgrounds, 20 visitor
centers, 3 museums, 2 lighthouses and various other low impact
services. Only one seashore has cabin rental through concessionaires.
