This is the second of two parts examining the future of the Gaviota Coast, as outlined in the newly published report and recommendations of the Gaviota Coast Study Group.

The question is: what shall be done with the largely untouched Gaviota Coast, more than 100,000 acres of oceanside ranch and forest land between Goleta and Vandenberg Air Force Base?

A concerted effort to find an answer resulted this month in the issuing of a report and recommendations by the Gaviota Coast Study Group. Titled “Respecting Our Heritage - Determining Our Future,” the report was the result of efforts by a committee of 14 landowners, environmentalists and scientists.

It was three years in the making, and the authors state up front that not every member agreed on every proposal, but that as a group the participants “have reached consensus.”

Eight goals are set forth in the report, the first of which is: “To provide a local vision for lasting protection of rural agricultural, recreational, residential, cultural, spiritual, ecosystem, viewshed and open space values while respecting the rights and needs of property owners and the community as a whole.”

Other aims include enabling local determination of land use and environmental protection, keeping agriculture as a prime land use, providing alternatives to land speculation, encouraging voluntary protection of ag and open space land values, promoting protection of habitat, minimizing adverse human impact and developing recommendations for management structures which accomplish these goals.

Among potential impediments to these aims, two stand out.

One is the possibility of a county split, and the slim chance that the Gaviota Coast would come under the jurisdiction of the North - as opposed to the South - County.

The other is the presence of commercial development interests, which are known to jump on any opportunity to build on California’s desirable - and shrinking - coastal areas.

In last week’s Voice, these contingencies were examined.

Several of the Work Group members, and some local officials, agreed that the Gaviota Coast basically belongs to the South County. There is a possibility its future Architectural Review Board would be coupled with one for the rural Santa Ynez Valley in the North County, but it is expected to remain under the jurisdiction of the South.

The report notes that large parcels of undeveloped land have already been placed in land trusts and will not be developed. An effort is also underway to discourage building of large residences, even if they are erected out of view of public lands.

Dr. Michael V. McGinnis, a professor at UCSB and member of the Study Group, voiced opposition to building large mansions because the runoff and engineering would harm nearby land, as well as the Santa Barbara Channel’s delicate marine structure.

Third District Supervisor Brooks Firestone, who had read a copy of the report, said he did not see why there should be a problem with larger homes, as opposed to smaller ones.

The report’s Executive Summary noted, “Under the current plans and zoning, there is significant potential for new residential development on the Gaviota Coast. An array of tools needs to be used to reduce development potential or to direct it away from viable agriculture and environmentally sensitive areas. Such tools could include voluntary conservation easements that compensate landowners for giving up some building rights, policies to allow transfer of existing development rights within or between Gaviota properties and areas subject to special zoning overlays.”

The 42-page report contains a recommendation to put before County voters the establishment of a “rural planning area to create certainty that Gaviota is not subject to inappropriate development pressures.”

In addition to maintaining working farms and establishment of a planning area, the report emphasizes the importance of water conservation and administration: “Pilot watershed management projects in a few Gaviota watersheds can provide models and streamline the process for others to follow.”

Other parts of the report address the need to allow for protection of the area's abundant wildlife. Prof. McGinnis is quoted in the report: “The presence of animals, plants and soils are the gifts of this coastal bioregion. It is up to us who are alive now to translate this information into something more than memory.”

One recommendation of the plan is, “The County Board of Supervisors should initiate an update to the General Plan (GP) and Local Coastal Plan (LCP) for the Gaviota Coast, with a focus on the protection of the ecological relationships and linkages that exist between the coastal and marine ecosystems of the area.” Such an update, according to the plan, would focus on the area’s entire ecosystem and how to protect and conserve it.

In its conclusion, the Gaviota Coast Working Group pledges to keep working and to enlist the aid of other interested people in planning for the area’s future. It also urges the County of Santa Barbara to act on its recommendations.

Copies of the report are available on the following Websites:

www.sblandtrust.org/links.html and
www.msi.ucsb.edu/msilinks/OCPC/OCPCtexts/ocpc.html