Print friendly
E-mail story
Contact an Editor
iPod friendly
Comments
Bookmark This
del.icio.us.
Digg!
furl
google
newsvine
reddit
technorati
Facebook
Yahoo!At last, the debate has begun. Last Thursday, the Goleta City Council commenced discussion of proposed amendments to its General Plan—a process that's already cost $350,000 and taken up large amounts of staff time—focusing on which to continue processing and which to drop. By meeting's end, 22 had been struck down, but it was disappointing to see so many move forward, especially because the council votes followed two hours of public testimony where comments opposed to limiting access to Haskell's Beach below Bacara Resort and Spa, changing "shall" to "should", and "preserve" to "protect" predominated.
Goleta resident Richard Foster reminded councilmembers that, during the last election, they had criticized the previous council for not listening. He urged them not to fall into the same trap. On the other hand, a few speakers, such as Kristin Amyx, CEO of the Goleta Valley Chamber of Commerce, praised the council for proceeding methodically and thoughtfully.
Council’s first action was an easy one, to delete 11 amendments that staff recommended not be considered further. This was approved unanimously.
Following that, things became more contentious. Roger Aceves moved that all Bacara proposed amendments be dropped and sent back to them to go through the regular application process. JJonny Wallis seconded the motion with “You bet!” Eric Onnen argued that he could not support wiping out items simply because of the author’s name. Aceves countered that he wanted Bacara to pay for processing its project. This could create a precedent for other developers, he said, and he refused to create public policy for fear of being sued. Jean Blois asked about Bacara’s lawsuit against the General Plan and was told that, for the moment, it is stayed while the Council considers these changes. Wallis argued that it was clear that Bacara wants to privatize the beach, limit public access, and reduce environmental constraints in order to build time shares/hotel condominiums. In the end, the vote to pull all Bacara items lost 3 to 2, with only Aceves and Wallis voting “yes.”
Mayor Michael Bennett then placed all 19 items requiring environmental review on the table. Many of these included recommendations for studies of buffers and setbacks for various environmentally sensitive habitats. Wallis argued that any changes should wait the outcome of these studies. However, on a 3-2 vote council forwarded the whole package for further processing.
There followed a couple of victories, first for Mayor Bennett. He said that access to Haskell’s Beach 24/7 was a huge issue for his constituents and asked his colleagues for a motion in support of removing any limit to the hours from future consideration. Wallis obliged and a unanimous vote followed.
Laced throughout the amendments were changes of “preserve” to “protect”, many initiated by the Bacara. While staff described this as a distinction without much difference, Wallis suggested that the issue could be resolved by redefining “preserve” in the glossary to something reflective of the concept of “protect.” This passed with only Blois voting “No.” That took another 11 items off the list. Planning director Steve Chase will bring back a definition of “preserve” which, perhaps ambiguously, will include “allowing flexibility”.
When it came to the changes that won’t require further environmental review, the council went item-by-item. First up was a change to allow, rather than discourage, additional regional shopping centers. Staff expressed a desire to be able to work with projects as they come through the door, rather than making them go to council first. Meanwhile, the council majority did not want to close the door on any revenue generating business wanting to come into the city, and wanted to respond to their friends and neighbors who have told them they want a Target!
There was no mention of the impact of big boxes on small businesses, traffic, or housing for low income retail workers. Despite overwhelming public opposition to this change, it was approved 4-1, with Wallis dissenting. Allowing time shares and hotel condominiums also passed, but on a 3-2 vote, with Aceves joining Wallis voting “No.”
At 11 p.m., the council decided to continue the remaining items to Tuesday January 29, at 6 p.m.
Double-clicking on any word or phrase in this story will open a reference window with definitions and links to other reference material.
Previous Month
Comments
Discussion Guidelines
Good to see some common sense from the council regarding the big box retailers. I do hope that 24/7 access to beaches remains around Bacara however. Beaches should be open to the public. It's disgusting that rich snobs in places like Hope Ranch can make beaches private. As for the complains raised against big boxes in this article, I'm not sure I understand them:
1) Local businesses: Why don't you want to give more options to the city's poor? I don't think The Blue Bee and the like are going to be too hurt by a target. In fact, even the Independent runs a feature called "Style Phile" which highlights these local businesses you speak of. Like this article for example:
http://independent.com/news/2007/apr/19/...
So there's hundreds of high end local boutiques for clothing and makeup and shoes, but very little options for the poor. I guess you wouldn't want anyone to know we actually have poor people living in the South Coast, eh? Stores like Target, Wal-Mart, TJ Maxx, and Marshalls would give much more options to the poor, who's options are limited in South Coast and must drive to Ventura for shopping not targeted for the rich snobs of the South Coast.
2) Traffic: According to City-Data.com, 10% of Goleta households have 4 or more vehicles. Maybe if Goletians actually used public transportation instead of driving their cars constantly, traffic wouldn't even be an issue. I know Goletians don't care much about the poor, but really, they're not that scary to ride along with on the bus.
3) Housing for low income retail workers: Well, you guys have made it pretty clear you don't want any new housing here. But why is this even a problem? The current plan is to force lower income workers to commute from Ventura for an hour to do the dirty work for South Coasters. So what's the big deal with having a few more workers doing the commute? Heck, maybe we might even widen the freeway for them in 50 years. We're so nice!
rc251 (anonymous profile)
January 19, 2008 at 9:40 p.m. (Suggest removal)
rec251 might want to reconsider some rather baseless and loose allegations.
Goletans opposed another large, regional big box (not specifically a Target) for many good reasons. Traffic is one. Goleta is already home to 3 rather large and contiguous shopping centers - K-Mart, Costco and Albertsons. There is no evidence that poor people lack shopping choices or that Goletans want to deny them any. However with these shopping centers and the nearby, burgeoning University, there is plenty of traffic on the only 3 (count them) routes through Goleta, Cathedral Oaks, 101 and Hollister. Do we really need another Big Box more than we need relief from traffic?
And yes, we already have a jobs housing imbalance. Do we need more low paying jobs so even more people will need to commute from afar, again, adding to the traffic nightmare?
And yes, Goletans would like to use more public transit, if the buses ran more frequently and on time. MTD did not follow through on the shuttles from Costco to UCSB and Old town Goleta that were promised. Is it fair to blame Goletans for not wanting to ride an expensive, inconvenient bus system.
Let's get real, Goletans almost unanimously opposed General Plan amendments that will allow another regions Big Box, and the pennies shoppers save will be be small compared with the millions that will be needed widen our roads and make up for time wasted in traffic.
infomaniac (anonymous profile)
January 21, 2008 at 11:57 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Thanks for the reply. In regards to traffic, I have won wild idea, and I'm not sure about it's effects, so could anyone critique this idea?
Develop the Camino Corto Open Area in Isla Vista into a retail center to serve the area. Especially with the construction of the San Clemente Graduate complex (which will increase Isla Vista's population by about 1000) and the proposed Sierra Madre family apartments (which will probably add around 500), traffic is going to continue to stream out of Isla Vista, which provides very little services to it's 20,000 residents. Slap in a Walgreens, Safeway, a gas station, a Trader Joes, an In-N-Out, and a handful of other fast food chains, and this will reduce traffic quite significantly, because save for the crummy IV Mart and Food Co-Op, Isla Vista provides very little grocery, pharmacy, and chain fast food. Camino Corto would be within 5 minute biking distance of all of Isla Vista. Right now, IV students are pretty much forced to drive out of IV to Camino Real or Fairview to shop for basic needs. This would keep students in IV (and out of their cars). Here's a quick mockup I did:
http://img141.imageshack.us/img141/6702/...
rc251 (anonymous profile)
January 21, 2008 at 2:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Post a comment