| ARCO ALERT!!! |
|
Coastal Commission
The Santa Barbara Chapter of the Surfrider Foundation needs your help! On June 7, 1999 the California Coastal Commission decided not to extend the development permit for the ARCO golf course project. The reason was the discovery of endangered "red legged frogs" in Eagle Canyon Creek. The discovery and subsequent vote by the Coastal Commission means that the ARCO golf course project developers must go back and begin anew at the Coastal Commission with what is known as a "De Novo" hearing. While the Coastal Commission vote was a victory for those supporting preservation of the Gaviota Coast, the battle to save the threatened Gaviota Coast is far from over. Developers of the golf course project have initiated what appears to be a corporate-sponsored letter writing campaign. The campaign appears designed to sway public opinion against the Surfrider Foundation and those seeking to discourage urbanization of the Gaviota Coast. Several short (three to four paragraph) letters have appeared in the Santa Barbara News-Press and other local newspapers. These letters make the same 'canned' points. Much of the history of the project and pertinent factual matter is missing. As we suspected, ARCO had no intention of building a golf course on the site. Rather, it sought only to elevate the value of the property by obtaining the permits necessary for a golf course in order to facilitate the sale of the property at an inflated price. Because of the delay in selling the property, ARCO failed to move forward with its plans, and as is true of most development proposals, the passage of time resulted in changed circumstances. NOTE: The ARCO property is now owned
by Capital Pacific Holdings Inc., a housing company currently developing
45 subdivisions in three Western states and Patriot American Hospitality
Inc., which controls 460 hotels and resorts from the Caribbean to
Russia.Owners call themselves "Dos Pueblos Partners". CLICK BELOW FOR MORE ON ARCO:
The ARCO property is located on land zoned for agriculture outside the urban limit line along Santa Barbara County's beautiful Gaviota Coast. On August 17th, 1993 the ARCO project was approved by the County of Santa Barbara. The approval attempted to circumvent the Santa Barbara County Certified Local Coastal Plan through issuance of a "Conditional Use Permit". ARCO's project did not qualify for this permit since it failed to meet the requirements of the Underlying Zone District, Section 35-69.4. Section 35-69.4 addresses permitted uses on land zoned AG II. By voting to approve the ARCO golf course development, the County created a precedent that could lead to the urbanization of the entire Gaviota Coast. Despite strong opposition from the Santa Barbara County
Planning Commission staff and the staff of the California Coastal
Commission in the early 90's, the proposed ARCO golf course development
was (we believe illegally) approved by the Coastal Commission following a
request for reconsideration submitted by ARCO in May of 1994. The ARCO
request did not meet the criteria set by the Coastal Commission for
reconsideration. Due to heavy behind the scenes maneuvering,
reconsideration was granted and Surfrider's initial victory turned to
defeat.
|
What You Can Do!
Points to make in your letter
The Dos Pueblos Links Project. If you happened to read an article about the proposed Dos Pueblos golf course in the NewsPress sports or business page in weeks past or received one of Dos Pueblos Golf Links brochures, then you may be aware that the ARCO golf course "propaganda machine" in gearing up for yet another try at gaining final approvals for the proposed ARCO golf course project. According to a News-Press article by Dave Loveton, the project is being developed with assistance from Tynan Group. Tynan Group was the outfit hired by Alvin Dworman to push the soon to go broke Bacara project through the approval process. As a result of their efforts, one of the most beautiful natural settings in the state of California was destroyed in a single stroke. With production of a web site, brochures and interviews with the press, the Dos Pueblos Golf Links developers apparently see a need to gain public support for their development. To understand the issues revolving around the ARCO property it is necessary to take a look at its history. The so-called "ARCO" property was originally part of the famed Dos Pueblos Ranch. This ranch has a long and illustrious history in Santa Barbara County, going back to the days of the Spanish and Mexican land grants. In 1977 the ranch was purchased by John Morehart and family. Shortly after purchasing the Dos Pueblos Ranch, Morehart divided it into three pieces. He sold, what is now known as, the "ARCO property" to Aminoil U.S.A. Inc. What remains of the Dos Pueblos Ranch was sold to Rudy Shulte. Morehart retained the paper, antiquated town site of Naples for himself. His hope was to make a killing utilizing lot lines drawn on an advertising brochure map filed with the County. Oil extraction has been a part of Dos Pueblos Ranch operations for many years, indeed it preceded Morehart by several decades. Retirement of the existing oil and gas facility by ARCO was done, not because of ARCO's love for golf, or humanity but because the equipment in place at the time was incapable of reaching the remaining oil reserves on the property. As it was unlikely that they would get permission to install the rigs needed to continue oil extraction, it was determined that the former Dos Pueblos ranch property could be permitted for a potential golf course and then sold for far more money than could ever be gained by selling it under it's current agricultural designation. Surfrider and other groups long suspected that ARCO's intention was not to operate a golf course but to artificially raise the value of the land and then sell it for a profit. Subsequently, the Santa Barbara Chapter of the Surfrider Foundation felt that the proposed ARCO golf course project, which was improperly approved through the use of a Conditional Use Permit, would set a terrible precedent for the conversion of Agricultural lands outside the urban limit line. It would also make development of other parcels on the Gaviota Coast far more likely. Despite the recommendations of it's own staff, County Counsel, and later the staff of the Coastal Commission, the Board of Supervisors gave ARCO approval for it's golf course project. Surfrider took the issue to the Coastal Commission. The staff of the Coastal Commission strongly agreed with Surfrider's position. The ARCO golf course proposal was an improper use of coastal, agricultural land and in violation of the Coastal Act and our Local Certified Coastal Plan. The Santa Barbara Chapter of the Surfrider Foundation won a great victory at the California Coastal Commission. Unfortunately, corruption would be the winner in the long run. ARCO, one of the largest political contributors in the state, went back to Sacramento and began pulling strings. There soon followed a rehearing based on the ridiculous assumption that the Commissioners did not understand the issues. What they didn't understand was that the "fix" was in. Members of the Coastal Commission were calling it a "fix". A rehearing was held on improper grounds. When the smoke cleared, thanks to the influence of former Governor Pete Wilson and former Assembly Speaker Willie Brown, the vote was reversed. The ARCO site is zoned AGII 100acres. The site contains over 86 acres of prime agricultural soils. The Santa Barbara Coastal Zone Ordinance protects prime AG. Soils. Santa Barbara County's Coastal Zoning Ordinance prohibits the development of high-intensity recreation on land zoned AG.II in the Coastal Zone. Development on land zoned AG. II in the Coastal Zone must meet the requirements of the Underlying Zone District, Section 35-69.4. Section 35-69.4 addresses permitted uses on land zoned AG II. Utilizing a Major Conditional Use Permit. Section 35-69.4 allows for low-intensity recreation such as hiking trails, and campgrounds provided that: a.) It is in character with the rural setting. b.) It does not interfere with agricultural production on or adjacent to the lot on which it is located. c.) It does not include commercial facilities open to the General Public who are not using said recreational facility. d.) It does not require an expansion of urban services, which would increase pressure for conversion of affected agricultural lands. Not only is the ARCO golf course development a high-intensity recreational development, but the golf course is not in keeping with the rural character of the surrounding area. It would preclude agriculture by dominating the entire site, and according to the Santa Barbara County Planning Commission Staff Report for the project, it would adversely impact the agricultural viability of adjacent lands. It would also cause the extension of public services in the form of water, police, fire protection, and perhaps most telling of all, it would be annexed to the Goleta Water District violating the Goleta Water Districts own policies regarding the proper use of reclaimed water supplies. According to Santa Barbara County's Certified Local Coastal Plan, "The preservation of lands with prime agricultural soils, i.e., Class I or II according to the U.S. Conservation Service, is of highest priority." Policy 8-2 of the Certified Local Coastal Plan states, "If a parcel is designated for agricultural use and is located in a rural area not contiguous with the urban/rural boundary, conversion to non-agricultural use shall not be permitted." Policy 7-29 of the Local Coastal Plan reads, "Visitor serving commercial development in rural areas should be limited to low-intensity uses, i.e. campgrounds that are designed to protect and enhance visual resources and minimize effects on topography, habitats and water resources." The proposed golf course development violates the Coastal Act, which calls for the maintenance of the maximum amount of agricultural lands, discourages the conversion of agricultural land, and protects agricultural lands from non-agricultural uses. Seventy-five percent of usable land at the site had never been used for anything other than agriculture. Developers are also telling people that the golf course will provide public access to a "historically fenced and patrolled private property". In reality, surfers have been accessing the property for over 30 years. Videotapes exist showing well-worn trails criss-crossing the property. Guards began stopping surfers and others from accessing the beaches only after ARCO decided to permit the property for a golf course. Not only is the proposed golf course access poor, but there is no protection from golf shots. The beaches will be largely inaccessible. Additionally, there is not enough parking for beach goers. As for three red-legged frogs having stopped the development, this is yet another ARCO fantasy. Biologists from UCSB verified that red-legged frogs inhabited Eagle Canyon Creek. The Coastal Commission staff realized that a serious legal issue was involved. As a result the ARCO hearing was postponed. ARCO's biologist went up to verify the fact and he was the one who found 3 red-legged frogs. The golf course developers have also attempted to blame Surfrider for the protracted delay in construction. In fact, years passed when ARCO had the permits, and did nothing. From January of 1997 on the developers sat on their hands. If the development proposal was delayed, or needed permit extensions, then that was their own fault. If the Dos Pueblos developers win final approval it would set a precedent that could result in development of the entire Gaviota coast. The Dos Pueblos golf course project would greatly increase the probability of adjacent development. |
![[IMAGE]](email002.gif)