Article taken from the Santa
Barbara News Press South Coast loses Gaviota
under design plan By
BARNEY McMANIGAL 09/28/05 Reviving north-south tensions, Santa Barbara County supervisors on Tuesday clashed over a plan that would reduce the South Coast's influence on building along the Gaviota coast, one of the last stretches of wild coastline in the area. On a 3-2 vote, the Board of Supervisors agreed to clump the area with the Santa Ynez Valley to form a new panel that reviews the design quality of proposed buildings. Supervisors Salud Carbajal and Susan Rose rejected the plan, contending that the sensitive coastline would be protected better under South Coast stewardship. North County trio Brooks Firestone, Joni Gray and Joe Centeno approved the plan, which will come before the county Planning Commission and supervisors for final approval later this year. The Central Board of Architectural Review, which will accompany a similar panel created for the North County, would aim to protect property values by enforcing aesthetic guidelines such as building height, color, layout and landscaping. Supervisors moved to split the existing countywide board to boost local control and eliminate residents' commutes to the South Coast for simple projects like a second addition to a home. The plan to excise Gaviota from the South Coast places a key step of development review under a body that might exclude many architects and designers from Santa Barbara. Although members of the panel could come from across the entire county, most would be professionals from the 3rd District it encompasses, officials said. Environmentalists and designers from the South Coast -- who favor a slow-growth approach and worry about increased development on the Gaviota coast -- have described the new panel's boundary as "staggering" and "unfathomable."
"Geographically, emotionally and politically, people on the South Coast feel very strongly about the Gaviota coast," said Robin Donaldson, who chairs the county panel. "We see the area as one continuous planning area."
Mr. Donaldson's sentiments were echoed by Mr. Carbajal and Ms. Rose, who said they support creating the new boards but oppose removing the Gaviota coast from the South Coast. "There's a history and a commitment, and we feel like it's being taken away from us," said Ms. Rose, who tried unsuccessfully to delay the matter to allow for more discussion. In parcel-by-parcel skirmishes over new projects, landowners and environmentalists have tussled over the future of the Gaviota coast for years, pitting preservation against property rights. Supporters of the plan -- including Mr. Firestone, the 3rd District supervisor who drew the boundaries for the new panel -- insisted the Gaviota coast was in good hands. The former assemblyman suggested criticisms of the new panel smacked of arrogance. "I'm just amazed to hear this attitude that the south county knows better," he said, evoking years of smoldering resentment between north and south that helped put a measure to split the county on the June 2006 ballot. "That's what got us into trouble in the first place."
The Los Olivos winemaker noted that Gaviota coast residents requested the inclusion in the smaller central panel. The coastal farm and ranchlands make it more suitable for review with projects in the rural valley, he said. Some valley residents reminded officials that Santa Ynez possessed its own share of strict planning rules. "We're not easy to overdevelop," said Bob Field, who heads a local committee that advises supervisors on valley issues. "I understand the concern, but I would rest easy. It's not going to happen."
Many of the dozen opponents at the Santa Maria meeting criticized the plan on other fronts, including its provision that would allow planning commissioners from the 3rd, 4th and 5th districts to sit on the Central and North County panels. Patterson Avenue Association spokeswoman Cecilia Brown said it could give the appointees a chance to review a project twice -- first on the design board and again when it comes before the commission. "This is inappropriate. They should not have dual votes on projects," Ms. Brown said. Critics also blasted amendments that could waive restrictions on projects that come before the North County panel and languish too long. Under the plan, projects involving single-family homes could come before the panel no more than three times or during a period not to exceed three months, whichever is shorter. Also, residential and commercial projects not visible from public areas would be exempt from review.
|