Foothills Housing Again Draws Foes

Environmentalists are rallying against a plan for 20 homes in the Santa Barbara foothills, even though 86 percent of the land would be left undeveloped.

The 377 acres just east of Highway 154 and north of Foothill Road has been the focus of several controversial development proposals over the past two decades. The latest application was submitted to the county nearly three years ago by local developer Jeff Bermant and Santa Barbara Foothills LLC. The Preserve at San Marcos project has been under environmental review most of the time since.

A hearing Tuesday before the County Planning staff of a draft environmental study is likely to draw opponents with wide-ranging concerns, from traffic and sewage disposal to increased risks of wildfire and potential habitat damage for rare species such as the burrowing owl and grasshopper swallow.

Decision makers will have to weigh those concerns against benefits, such as permanent preservation of more than 200 acres for public use and the inclusion of five low-priced condominiums at a time when Santa Barbara County is under increasing pressure from the state to create more affordable housing.

"I think the fundamental opposition to the project is the scale of the environmental impacts it would bring," said Tom Stone, a Santa Barbara lawyer and spokesman for the San Marcos Foothills Coalition.

The citizens group, which Mr. Stone said now has about 700 members from throughout the South Coast and representatives from several environmental organizations, was formed by a group of nearby homeowners to oppose an earlier plan to build 75 homes and equestrian facilities on the property. The Bridle Ridge project for the property owned by David Tallichet and Specialty Restaurants of Anaheim was denied by the county in 1999.

The current proposal, which the Planning Commission may review by the end of this summer, includes five homes on lots ranging from 15 to 35 acres clustered on the western portion. On the eastern half of the site, 10 single-family homes would be on lots ranging from 3.5 to 10 acres.

Finally, two duplexes and one detached unit, all priced to be affordable for buyers in the low-to-moderate income range, would occupy 1.5 acres near the southern edge of the property, just above where the Cieneguitas Road now ends.

Under current guidelines, the affordable units would be priced between $148,000 and $165,000 and would range from 1,400 to 1,700 square feet, according to project agent Laurel Perez. In comparison, the other 15 homes would probably sell for millions of dollars apiece because of their large lots and views of both the mountains and ocean.

The developed areas would total about 52 acres, while 175 acres within the privately owned lots would remain undeveloped as "private conservation easements." In addition, 200 acres would be donated to the Trust for Public Lands, which would permanently preserve that land for public use. Another 10 acres, along the southern edge of the area known as the "west mesa," would be donated for use as a county park and an easement would be required along the west side for the property for a public hiking-riding trail that would connect to the Arroyo Burro Trail.

Discussions between the coalition Mr. Bermant over buying the westerly portion of the site to keep it undeveloped broke off about two years ago when no agreement could be reached. A purchase price was never determined, Mr. Bermant and Mr. Stone both said.

The coalition objects to the current plan to put "five mansions" on that west mesa, which Mr. Stone said is home to burrowing owls and grasshopper sparrows and has a unique rock field that geologists believe likely was deposited there by mudslides at least 11,000 years ago. Numerous birds of prey, ground squirrels, roadrunners and snakes use that outcropping of boulders for hunting and mating.

"There is ultimately going to be destruction of this boulder field if that (western) area is developed," Mr. Stone contended. "From ourstandpoint, we think the (homes) are being put in the wrong place" and should be built instead only on the eastern half of the property.

However, unstable geology on a portion of the east side, where an access road for three homes would be built, is cited as a major concern in the environmental document It suggests redesigning the project to put those three homes on the west mesa, an idea acceptable to Mr. Bermant but which is sure to raise the ire of coalition members.

The environmental report which Envicom Corporation charged the developers $260,000 to prepare also predicts the project would have several significant effects that can't be reduced to acceptable levels. Among the listed "Class 1" impacts are the unstable soils on three home sites, destruction of wildlife habitat and other biological degradation, excessive brush and vegetation clearance needed to protect the homes from wildfire, and loss of 177 acres used for cattle grazing.

Mr. Bermant said he will present a detailed analysis challenging some of the document's findings.

"I think the benefits outweigh the negatives for this project," he said Friday. "I'm looking for an evenhanded document that's objective. Do I think we'll end up with no Class impacts? Highly unlikely."