A measure to help straighten the path to potentially expanding Buellton’s city limits will be on residents’ ballots in November.
During its June 13 meeting, the Buellton City Council agreed to pose a question to city voters: Should the city’s general plan be amended to expand the area within Buellton’s urban growth boundary (UGB) by approximately 123 acres?
According to the staff report, this measure—if passed during the 2024 election—would allow for the future potential expansion of city limits within the 123 selected acres.
City Manager Scott Wolfe described the UGB as “a boundary within which the city may provide municipal services,” at the June 13 meeting.
“Currently that boundary is co-terminus with the city limits … as it was established by a voter initiative in 2008,” Wolfe said.
Staff began contemplating an update of the UGB in 2023, according to Wolfe. Buellton hosted two public workshops on the proposed expansion in March and April.
“Public input has been taken throughout this process,” said Wolfe, who added that written comments and submitted letters were compiled for the public to view on a tab of the city’s website.
Three proposed sites make up the 123 acres in question. During public comment, 3rd District Santa Barbara County Supervisor Joan Hartmann expressed support for the UGB measure and the chosen sites—two located east of Buellton, with one north of the city.
“The choice not to go west into productive farmland is a great idea, but instead to go north on the east side into pasture and grazing land,” Hartmann said. “That makes a lot of sense environmentally and in terms of economic delivery of city services.”
Before Hartmann spoke, Buellton resident and Women’s Environmental Watch (WE Watch) board member Theresa Reilly asked the City Council to remove one site, known as Site C, east of McMurray Road, from the proposal.
“There seems to be agreement that Site A is the most promising direction for any needed housing and/or industrial, commercial expansion,” Reilly said on behalf of the WE Watch board of directors. “Site B is so small—2.5 acres, already urban, in size—and hidden that any future development there will have very limited impact on Buellton.
“But Site C is a highly visible location with a residential neighborhood abutting it just below,” Reilly said. “Those residents and all the rest of the city need to have a specific project proposed before voting on whether or not to add it to the urban growth boundary.”
Reilly’s concern about Site C echoes complaints in some letters, including one from Buellton resident Len Fleckenstein.
“Any decision to include Site C in the UGB should await a clear development plan and approval or rejection by voters at that time—not in 2024,” Fleckenstein wrote. “We don’t know if any development will ever actually be proposed; we don’t know if a proposed development would survive a zoning change out of agricultural usage; and we don’t know if a proposed development would offer more benefits than costs.”
Hartmann addressed the Site C complaints during public comment and described the controversy as a product of misunderstanding.
“Some people have expressed concern about one of the parcels. … They contend that residents should have the right to subject that parcel to a campaign to determine if it meets the desires of residents,” Hartmann said. “To my mind, this is a misunderstanding of the purpose of an urban growth boundary.”
She added that the urban growth boundary change is not the same as rezoning.
“It is simply a statement that certain parcels are likely to be annexed into the city for development in a certain period,” Hartmann added. “Should these lands actually be proposed for annexation, there will be opportunities to bring concerns about the annexation to LAFCO [Local Agency Formation Commission]. Any project would be subject to normal city planning processes.”
After public comment, Councilmember John Sanchez described the ballot inclusion as “a good move,” and Councilmember David Silva said the proposed UGB expansion “gives us opportunity for growth, both from a housing standpoint and from an economic standpoint.”
“We need the ability to allow that growth to happen if we find a project that makes sense,” Silva said.
Councilmember Elysia Lewis motioned to approve the ballot inclusion, which passed 4-0. Councilmember Hudson Hornick was absent.
