The fate of Goleta’s popular Haskell’s Beach will soon be in the hands of the Goleta Planning Commission, following a punt by the Goleta Design and Review Board on the proposed Bacara Completion Phase earlier this week.
Following an extended dialogue between resort management, city officials, and concerned residents-including some ardent opponents-the board was unable to make a clear recommendation to the Planning Commission on whether to support or deny Bacara Resort and Spa’s plans to expand on a 13-acre piece of land west of the main complex. However, the project will continue its path toward final approval through the auspices of the various other city review bodies. Alan Hansen, the City of Goleta’s senior planner, said it may take up to a few months before the expansion project comes before the city’s Planning Commission for its next round of reviews. “The next step [for the Bacara Completion Phase] is an Environmental Impact Report,” he said. “After the EIR, the project will go to the Planning Commission before it is brought back to the Design Review Board. I’d say we’re looking at a few months before this takes place.”
The proposed expansion - which now calls for the development of 55 new condominiums and hotel units - would be managed by Bacara Resort but sold to private owners, who would be subject to deed restrictions regarding length of stay. The resort would be able to rent out the units to hotel patrons during the times that the owners are not present. The number of condominiums has been reduced to 55-from 62 condos a month ago-and the public beach-access path was expanded to eight feet, adjacent to the 20-foot emergency access road. Developers hope these improvements, along with the creation of additional ocean-view corridors for pedestrians heading for Haskell’s Beach, will make the project more attractive for concerned city officials and residents.
There were several opponents to the expansion, who attacked in particular the 10 Goleta General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan amendments that would be necessary to approve the condos.
Since the approval of Bacara’s preliminary development plan in 1985 - which allowed 500 hotel rooms and 24 villas - the resort has counted on the development of the 13-acre lot next to the main resort, which already houses 367 hotel rooms. The proposed “completion phase” of the project would establish eight new buildings for the 55 condominium units. Each unit would have an owner who would be able to stay in the unit no more than 90 days per year. For the remainder of the year, Bacara would open the units for public rental. Dubbed “hotel condominiums,” they differ from time shares by the distribution of time alloted to guests other than the units’ owners.



Print friendly
E-mail story
Tip Us Off
Comments
Share Article
Myspace





Previous Month



Comments
Aha! Perhaps Bacara's desire to build those timeshares somehow motivated Kristin Butler to write her glowing letter of last week praising the Bacara:
http://www.independent.com/news/2009/...
I smell a marketing campaign.
Lance
EastBeach (anonymous profile)
May 1, 2009 at 7:10 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Alvin Dworman believes this project is meant to be and he would probably spend his last dime to get it done, despite the public's opinion. He's got most of the city staff convinced it's a nifty deal, despite all the changes to the General Plan that will apply to every other project in town.
As for the Kristin Butlers, the Bacara usually manages to get one or two of them to speak up when things aren't going their way. Even if she was legit, way more people feel the opposite way thanks to the Bacara's actions over the years.
The fate of this project will be up to the people, and it will be a battle of endurance. When the opposition get's tired of fighting, the condos will be built. So try not to get sick of hearing about!
Haskullsloke (anonymous profile)
May 2, 2009 at 8:46 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Orvile Wormman really does care about public beach access -- he even plans a 'separate but smaller' public trail that will be sufficiently screened and canyon-like to protect his nonexistent 'renters' from the angry fools who end up buying those catastrophically ugly condos. Orman Wiggleman promises that at least one puny scrubby corner of the beach will be left filthy so the unwashed masses can be seen safely off in the distance sipping their low end beer and doing the trailer traditional beach bbq thing. Sufficiently far off though so Alfin can't hear 'em whining.
4Oceans (anonymous profile)
May 2, 2009 at 9:21 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Haven't taken a ride through S.B. and Goleta for a month of Sundays, Condo's! Condo's! Everywhere! Freaked me out...And here goes the coast maybe the Bacara should donate a couple of those condo's to the homeless...Not to the activists most of them are already rich on grants...
Byrd (anonymous profile)
May 2, 2009 at 6:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Hotel Condos" Start Out on Road for Planners' Approval
NOT!!!!
The Goleta DRB is a group of architects who screen proposals to make sure that they are not butt ugly. Whether a proposal fits within the General Plan, has environmental impacts, yada yada, is up to the Planning Commission and ultimately the City Council. Should this ugly thing get approved by the City (doubtful) it must then go to the California Coastal Commission. Dworman like Osgood is throwing money away and that is just fine. Both these out of town developers can't go bankrupt fast enough for me.
gaviotamilitia (anonymous profile)
May 4, 2009 at 7:50 a.m. (Suggest removal)
A Planetary Blessing
May the sea level rise to greet you, condos.
May the wind reach hurricane strength to blow you away
May the rains pound forcefully on the sands below you, condos, to erode away your foundations
And may global climate change be the nail in the coffin to you, condos, from becoming a realitly.
Amen.
GiGi (anonymous profile)
May 4, 2009 at 4:57 p.m. (Suggest removal)
The Bacara is vehemently anti-local. Unless, of cure you define local as living in Montecito. Hopefully someone in the City of Goleta will do something that even remotely resembles representing the people who actually here.
loganwc (anonymous profile)
May 4, 2009 at 6:30 p.m. (Suggest removal)