Sunday, April 19, 2009
I’d really like to write a column about the beautiful springtime sun warming the Good Land of Goleta. But a foreboding shadow continues to block our outlook, and that is the ongoing efforts by some to push through amendments to Goleta’s General Plan that will harm our environment forever.
The latest assault comes from developers of a hundred-condo project called Haskell’s Landing, in West Goleta. They seek to change the creeks setback to 50 feet from the 100-foot setback in the original General Plan. Devereux Creek runs through the property.
These developers have shown they will use virtually any tactic to achieve General Plan changes in order to maximize their profits. First, developers contributed tens of thousands of dollars to elect a pro-development Goleta City Council majority in 2006. Claiming they wanted only minor tweaks, that majority initiated an expensive, wholesale review of the General Plan. But when the public was asked whether it favored amendments to environmental protections such as the 100-foot setback, in oral and written testimony the public rejected such changes by a 20 to 1 margin.
The council majority initiated amendments to the environmental protections anyway, saying they would have no effect until an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) on ALL of the amendments was completed and studied and commented upon. In 2008, largely in reaction to the wholesale General Plan changes that had been initiated, Goleta residents elected Margaret Connell and Ed Easton, both of whom had opposed most of the amendments.
The EIR on all the amendments just came out. Public comment and review is scheduled for late summer or fall of 2009. But the Haskell’s developer took his project to the City Council last week, seeking the change to a 50-foot setback now, jumping ahead of the process, in isolation from the General Plan as a whole. Among other things, such a piecemeal approach puts busy environmental activists who oppose the amendments at a disadvantage.
Surprisingly, Steve Chase, Goleta’s director of Planning, supported making the change, stating that it’s “the norm” for changes to a General Plan to spring forth from specific projects. Thus, Mr. Chase advocated bypassing the very General Plan process that he has been directing.
At the last council meeting, Chase advocated for approving one of the most significant amendments immediately, reducing the 100-foot buffer to 50 feet for all of Goleta, because one developer requested it for his project.
I am not alone in my dismay at Mr. Chase’s statement. Printed below, in full, is a letter just written to Goleta Mayor Roger Aceves by Linda Krop, chief counsel for Santa Barbara’s Environmental Defense Center, commenting on the inaccuracy of Mr. Chase’s pronouncement on how General Plans are amended.
It is time for Goleta’s council to reject any amendments to Goleta’s Plan until the council and the public can review the EIR and discuss all of the proposed amendments. The council should reject the notion that amendments to the plan may be done one by one. Piecemeal is the opposite of planning and must be rejected.
Letter from Linda Krop, dated April 14, 2009:
Dear Mayor Aceves and Honorable Councilmembers:
This letter is submitted to the Goleta City Council by the Environmental Defense Center (EDC), in response to recent representations made by the City Planning Director regarding the role of project-driven General Plan Amendments in the City’s planning process. The comments were disclosed in a recent article in the Santa Barbara Independent. (See Santa Barbara Independent, April 9, 2009, page 14.)
According to the report, Mr. Chase “explained that projects are supposed to bring about changes to a city’s general plan. ‘It is the norm,’ he said. ‘Projects bring forward General Plan amendments as they attempt to balance a variety of competing interests. What is not the norm is the process we’ve been engaged in of city-initiated General Plan amendments … ’”
This statement is alarming, especially coming from a Planning Director. The statement is an extreme misstatement of state law and policy. State law directs cities and counties to develop general plans to guide future development in their communities; that is “the norm.” Specifically, California Planning and Zoning law provides that:
"Each planning agency shall prepare and the legislative body of each county and city shall adopt a comprehensive, long-term general plan for the physical development of the county or city, and of any land outside its boundaries which in the planning agency’s judgment bears relation to its planning.
"In construing the provisions of this article, the Legislature intends that the general plan and elements and parts thereof comprise an integrated, internally consistent and compatible statement of policies for the adopting agency.
"The California Supreme Court has characterized the general plan as the 'constitution for all future development.'" [George Relles’ note: I’m omitting Krop’s numerous legal citations.]
General plans are developed and adopted by the legislative bodies of cities and counties. General plan amendments also must be considered and adopted by the same legislative bodies. Contrary to Mr. Chase’s representation, private proposals to amend the general plan are not the “norm.” Amendments are usually initiated by the city or county, and are limited to no more than four per year.
Allowing project-driven general plan amendments defeats the entire purpose of general planning. General plans are supposed to cover the community as a whole, representing the community’s values, and reconciling various interests in one comprehensive planning document. General plans embody the policy of the city, not private parties. Piecemeal planning is not “comprehensive, “integrated,” or “internally consistent.” Opening the door to amendments to accommodate private parties does not ensure “long-term” planning, stability or certainty. Constitutions are not meant to be changed by private interests.
We urge the Council to maintain the integrity of the City’s planning process. [signed] Linda Krop, Chief Counsel
This story has been amended slightly since its original publication.