Superior Court Denies City’s Motion on Shelby Lawsuit
The City of Goleta is disappointed with today’s ruling by the Santa Barbara County Superior Court, which allows a “Builder’s Remedy” application for a 56-unit, low-density residential development to proceed on a roughly 14-acre, agriculturally zoned property owned by Shelby Family Partnership, L.P. (“Shelby”). The property is located along a congested stretch of Cathedral Oaks adjacent to the Glenn Annie Golf Course property near Dos Pueblos High School.
In the pending matter, Shelby Family Partnership, L.P. v. City of Goleta, the court denied the City’s Motion For Judgment on the Pleadings, which would have dismissed Shelby’s causes of actions. The court also granted judgment in favor of Shelby on two causes of action and will issue a writ of mandate requiring the City to process both the Shelby’s 2023 preliminary application submitted pursuant to SB 330 and a previous 2011 application submitted for the same site. At issue in the Shelby case was whether two different sets of laws, from two different time periods, could apply to the Shelby housing project located at 7400 Cathedral Oaks Road. The City’s position was that only one set of rules, at the developer’s selection, can apply to the housing project. The court’s ruling essentially rejects the City’s position and allows for the rules from both time periods to apply to the project and its processing.
The City’s land use policies focus on existing, zoned housing capacity; prioritizing walkable, transit-oriented, in-fill development; critically evaluating environmental impacts; avoiding urban sprawl; and protecting agricultural land and open space. The Shelby housing project is contrary to the City’s formally adopted, local priorities. As designated agricultural land, the subject site was not included in the City’s Housing Element and is not needed to meet the City’s state-mandated housing obligations.
The City reaffirms its strong, demonstrated commitment to affordable housing and to meeting the housing needs of the community. In its land use planning, the City has sought to meet and exceed its share of the regional housing need and to do so in a manner that embraces adopted General Plan policies and good planning principles. Underlying the Shelby lawsuit is an implicit argument that the City is anti-housing. The City forcefully rebuts those assertions.
Some facts about the City’s commitment to housing:
- The City has a solid track record of successful housing development, including over 1,300 units in the last housing cycle (2015-2023), significantly more than any other jurisdiction in southern Santa Barbara County. As two recent examples:
- The Heritage Ridge project, with 332 units, including 100 deed-restricted, below market rate units, is currently under construction near Los Carneros Rd.
-
- The 60-unit Buena Tierra Homekey motel conversion and transitional housing project was recently completed at Fairview and Hollister Ave.
- The City has consistently gone above and beyond to address the region’s housing needs. As the State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) has officially recognized, the City of Goleta’s certified Housing Element plans for housing capacity that exceeds the City’s share of the regional housing need by over 1,300 units. The City conservatively demonstrated over 2,600 units of residential capacity, far exceeding the City’s state-mandated allocation of 1,837 units.
As demonstrated by these housing efforts, the City understands the community’s need for different housing stock, especially affordable housing, and has generated significant housing units while staying true to its local guiding principles.
The City will be scheduling an opportunity for the City Council to meet in Closed Session to consider next steps.
Also Read
- 2nd Public Design Workshop Announced for the New Orcutt Library Project
- Counties With The Most Pre-War Homes In California
- San Luis Obispo City Council, March 3rd Meeting Recap
- Overnight parking limits on Santa Susana Pass Road adopted by Ventura County Board of Supervisors
- SLOCOG Launches $36,000 Pop-Up Mini-Grant Program to Improve Walking and Biking Safety Awarded by the California Office of Traffic Safety
Another giant win for all those screaming “affordable housing for all” without thinking through what their actions and votes really will mean, and a big loss for those of us who think Goleta is worth protecting. Thanks Gavin. You’re a real pal.
Keep Goleta Country. As much as we can…
Did you read the article? Nah. This LP has been trying to develop that area since 2011. This is about money, not Gavin. Try reading for once.
The city seems to protest too much. As an outsider looking in, the location and size of the project does not seem to match the city’s claims. The high school is close with a lot of congestion and traffic both during week days and for sporting events on weekends. Cathedral Oaks is a wide highway capable of carrying a lot of traffic though it has been constricted by the city (or county?) with the apparent purpose of then supporting the limits on housing in the area. Just looking at a map it would seem that a loop of bus/tram scheduling coud effectively go out Hollister, onto Cathedral oaks and back to Glen Annie or even Fairview to Hollister. Certainly the relatively flat terrain is also highly suitable for bicycle traffic. The just needs to work on making this happen in the best way possible.
Yes the High School is close by with lots of congestion. Mostly caused from out of area students being dropped off and picked up. As you noted Cathedral Oaks is a wide Highway that has been narrowed to a two lane road. The terrain is flat but its close to 5 miles to the nearest grocery store.
“The terrain is flat but its close to 5 miles to the nearest grocery store”
What are you talking about? Both Albertsons and Target Groceries are less than 2 miles away – a 5-minute drive. The same stores that everyone else living in the El Encanto Heights already use. Also, DP school traffic is limited to some pretty small timeframes. And parents drop off their kids regardless of whether they are “out of area students” or not.
So sorry I left out an important part ” close to 5 miles round trip”
So the same distance for me to go to Ralphs from the Eastside “round trip”, your point being?
?
RHS – so you support jamming more and unnecessary housing into that area? Why?
“Unnecessary housing” is an odd thing to say in an area with homeless and working people who cannot find shelter within 45 miles of their job. Also no one is “jamming” anything. There is a lot of open space there. Something is jammed into tight quarters, not a multi-acre site like this. Why? Because Goleta has a duty to share the burden with the rest of the South Coast. For too long Goleta has been a real NIMBY. They even complain if the city of SB hints at putting shelter in the airport industrial lands. They complain about the motel converted to shelter purposes on the edge of Goleta. So this is a question of equity and good citizenship.
RHS – affordable housing is necessary, this is not. Simple.
And just stop with Goleta “not doing their part” or whatever you’re getting at. We took their toxic mud and now we’re taking most of the housing mandate.
As JD Vance would say, “show a little gratitude.”
What has Goleta done to provide affordable housing much less shelter for the unhoused? They complained when the County of SB went ahead on housing planning on Calle Rea. They want the sales tax revenue from locals who shop in the malls but none of the attendant social costs. (And are you really now going to use Vance as an admirable commentator or is this misunderstood irony?)
RHS – Motel 6. Also, take a look at the planned housing developments in Goleta compared to SB/Cito under the mandate. Goleta is doing plenty.
Vance was a poke at some humor.
Either way, to say Goleta hasn’t done our part is just misguided and misinformed.
Oops, my bad. Super 8, not Motel 6.
Correction. The Buena Tierra housing is in the city of Goleta. I had thought it was just off the boundary in the City of SB. My apologies and my appreciation for that effort. Also, the developers of the Shelby project say there are including 13 lower income units in the development. Be that as it may, I don’t see Goleta demanding more for this cause. Their objection is to the development itself.
This specific project -only 56 new homes- won’t have a huge traffic impact, but the whole Glen Annie golf course conversion to housing, and I don’t know the exact status of that at the moment, is just around the corner (no pun intended). So is the inevitable California drought. The city is tasked with looking into the fuzzy future, a decade at least down the road, and providing for the whole community, while developers have the luxury of limiting their concerns to their own investments and short term profit margins.
Goleta certainly needs more affordable housing. Although not many units will be built in this new project, every housing unit counts. When the Glen Annie golf course is converted to housing, there will be no shortage of people ready, willing, and financially able to live there. Santa Barbara is pretty much full up with housing, so Goleta is a much better option to build in terms of space and affordability. Goleta has an advantage due to the sheer amount of agricultural land that can easily be converted to affordable low-income housing. There definitely is a great need for a moderately sized shopping center (at least a grocery store), such as at the corner of Glen Annie/Cathedral Oaks or Winchester Canyon/Calle Real. Grocery shopping on the “mountain side” of the 101 would be quite welcome to existing and future residents, and would cut down on the congestion over the bridge and the Home Depot/Costco shopping areas. I hear there are plans for a sizeable housing project for the Twin Lakes golf course, which will be quite close to the Yardi 450ish-unit project going in on South Fairview. All of these housing projects are a win/win for Goleta.
BEES – No. No to just about every sentence in your comment. SB and Montecito have plenty of open space to develop, stop dumping in Goleta.
Like the other proposed projects, this is NOT affordable housing.
A shopping center across from DP high? There’s one over the bridge.
Are you really serious with this? Definitely not from Goleta.
Sacjon: Housing is very much needed in Goleta. A lot of the new housing has been built to accommodate UCSB, but more is needed for sure. Affordable housing is not needed as much in Santa Barbara and/or Montecito. Santa Barbara/Montecito residents have nothing to do with the Goleta housing construction boom. The Goodland makes their own decisions for their housing future. A new grocery store on the mountain side of the 101 near CO and GA would be much welcomed by those currently living on that side of the freeway, plus those who have yet to move into the Glen Annie golf course housing units. Some feel that a no-growth policy is in order, but each day more and more people move to Cali adding to the 40 million plus who are already here. We need the housing, so let’s build for our future.
BEES – again, all wrong.
Housing is not needed in Goleta. There is plenty and plenty being developed as it is. This one was not needed for the mandate or for our community.
“Affordable housing is not needed as much in Santa Barbara and/or Montecito.” – Are you serious? That’s where it’s needed the MOST! Are you saying all those living in cars in SB don’t need affordable housing?
“Santa Barbara/Montecito residents have nothing to do with the Goleta housing construction boom.” – It’s not a “Goleta boom,” it’s a statewide, poorly conceived mandated boom. Goleta has already taken on our fair share of projects. SB and Cito need to step up now.
“The Goodland makes their own decisions for their housing future.” – If you read the article, you’d see that’s clearly not the case.
“A new grocery store on the mountain side of the 101 near CO and GA would be much welcomed by those currently living on that side of the freeway,” – No, it would not. You’re clearly either trolling or have never spoken to anyone in Goleta about this.
You’re kidding, right? I mean this is beyond out of touch.
No reason for anyone to be upset about a non-existent “fantasy” market shopping center at CO and GA. I don’t know how Goleta can sustain their population growth without building more housing units….affordable or not. Some people are happy and some people are not happy when they read or hear about:
“The City of Goleta is disappointed with today’s ruling by the Santa Barbara County Superior Court, which allows a “Builder’s Remedy” application for a 56-unit, low-density residential development to proceed…..”
More people translates into more traffic, more congestion, more pollution, more water use, more energy use, more trash, less open space, less agriculture, tiny/tightly packed ultra-modern looking living shelters, and so on.
Cognitive dissonance much? You just said this earlier:
“Goleta has an advantage due to the sheer amount of agricultural land that can easily be converted to affordable low-income housing. ”
and
“All of these housing projects are a win/win for Goleta.”
NIMBY
Hey ANON – Goleta, especially west Goleta, is already taking on plenty of housing developments. We don’t need even more out here. Is your neighborhood?
You can thank State members for this and the passing of the housing accountability act HAA, but state members have had decades to repeal builders remedy, they just don’t want to.