Print friendly
E-mail story
Tip Us Off
Comments
Share Article
Facebook
Twitter
Google+1
del.icio.us.
Digg!
Yahoo! Buzz
Diigo
google
newsvine
reddit
technorati
Yahoo!
MyspacePlans are in full swing to split the Las Varas Ranch on the Gaviota Coast into six subplots, and community members expressed their concern in no uncertain terms at a March 3 meeting of the Santa Barbara Planning Commission. County planner Alex Tuttle held the Draft Environmental Impact Report hearing to further assess the effects of the reconfiguration known as the Las Varas Ranch Project.
Representatives of Surfrider Foundation and Gaviota Coast Conservancy (GCC) also addressed the ecological issues that would arise from development. The agricultural land of the region was a primary concern. “There’s going to be a loss of prime agricultural soil,” said Sandy Lejeune, chair of the Santa Barbara Chapter of the Surfrider Foundation and an experienced farmer. “Any loss of agricultural land is not acceptable … given our needs to produce food locally.”
The development project would displace a portion of the Coastal Trail, tentatively relocating it north of Highway 101. There is a qualitative difference between a trail lining the coast, which has a sense of the sea, and one lining the freeway, noted Mike Lunsford, president of the Gaviota Coastal Conservancy.
“Coastal access is required,” said Lunsford. He outlined the situation during high tide when the water brushes up to the base of the cliffs, and said there needed to be a route for hikers to follow at those times. Relocating the trail, he added, compromises recreation on the Gaviota Coast. Depending on the trail’s new location, there would be limited to no access to the surf-break at Edward’s Point.
Subdividing the land, said Lunsford, would presumably lead to large housing developments. Such developments are uncharacteristic for the resource-sensitive area, said Janet Koed, of Surfrider and the Conservancy. The Las Varas Ranch project would set a precedent for future subdivisions, according to Bob Keats of Surfrider.
“We’re not getting the kind of environmental review we need,” said Lunsford, because the owner of each subplot will eventually have ministerial authority to develop without any environmental review. The only protection for sensitive habitats like the local vernal pools lies in the covenants, restrictions, and conditions of the deeds, which, Ana Citrin of the Gaviota Coastal Conservancy noted, are subject to change by future owners.
“I just ask you to do everything you can to protect the integrity of the landscape that we all love,” said Koed.
Previous Month
Comments
Been hiking recently at Naples, Baron Ranch, Arroyo Hondo, and the Gaviota Caves. For anyone who hasn't been to see these places, I encourage yo to check out the unique beauty of the Gaviota coast. Its really worth preserving since there isn't anything else like it in SoCal.
Hope some kind of win-win preservation can be arrived at since the family ranches should be compensated. Legally speaking, I suppose the development companies may have similar standing, but its much harder to have any sympathy for them.
EastBeach (anonymous profile)
March 15, 2011 at 3:49 p.m. (Suggest removal)
The destruction of this natural habitat would indeed be a crime. And just for a buncha houses no one will be able to afford.
EZK (anonymous profile)
March 15, 2011 at 4:48 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Reversing the financial realities pushing historical agricultural operations to the side would greatly help preserve the Gaviota Coast. Hopefully Santa Barbara County and the Coastal Comission will see how they can help, rather than hinder these agricultural operations to avoid a developmental domino effect.
Georgy (anonymous profile)
March 15, 2011 at 6:21 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Georgy, unfortunately there isn't much Santa Barbara County can do to reverse the diminishing agricultural operations except for encourage the expansion of local farmer's markets and establishments that sell local agricultural goods. Even then, I'm not sure what kind of dent we as a community would be able to put in it.
The real problem is the massive federal agricultural subsidies that make their way to big corporate factory farms. Instead of resulting in high quality food at low prices, or even low quality food at low prices, we end up with low quality food at regular prices and high quality food at artificially high prices all due to government inflation of the money supply to run our overseas empire and massive, bureaucratic nightmare of federal departments and welfare state.
loonpt (anonymous profile)
March 16, 2011 at 11:19 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Around 37 years ago, I was an 8th grader and dated a girl whose parents had an interest in the Las Varas Ranch. I recall being invited to spend a day, there, one summer, with her and her parents. The beach was pristine; I hope it still is and that it stays that way! I believe the girl is still in this area, but, to my knowledge, her parents are gone and the family no longer has any financial interest in that property. It is just atrip through the "Way Back" machine, for me.
macatack5 (anonymous profile)
March 16, 2011 at 1:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)