Print friendly
E-mail story
Tip Us Off
Comments
Share Article
Facebook
Twitter
Google+1
del.icio.us.
Digg!
Yahoo! Buzz
Diigo
google
newsvine
reddit
technorati
Yahoo!
MyspaceAfter nearly five hours of discussion, votes, retractions of votes, and deliberation, the Goleta Planning Commission decided it could not pass on Westar Associates and Westar Housing’s mixed-use development plan to the City Council with a full recommendation for approval. Instead, the Planning Commission discussed several ways to modify the project — proposed for a vacant lot on Hollister Avenue between Glen Annie Road and Santa Felicia Drive — to meet the policies of the Goleta General Plan and address public concerns.
Although most members of the council found the project well-intentioned, opinions were split as to whether it should be recommended that the City Council amend its General Plan to accommodate the development, which would feature 279 residential apartment units and just under 90,000 square feet of retail space alongside four electric-vehicle charging stations and several solar-panel-roofed parking structures.
Jack Crosbie
Members of the Goleta Planning Commission: (from left to right) Jonny Wallis, Brent Daniels, and Julia Kessler Solomon
A favorable vote from the Planning Commission vote would have affirmed that the mixed-use development’s benefits outweighed the negative impacts noted in the project’s Environmental Impact Report (EIR). Unfortunately for Westar, the commission stalled at an initial 2-2-1 vote, which was later retracted in favor of a slightly amended motion that approved the EIR alone. That motion passed unanimously.
Several members of the Planning Commission raised concerns that the new development’s plan failed to adequately mitigate certain impacts indicated in the EIR, such as the expected increase in traffic congestion and the obstruction of scenic views along the Hollister corridor. Goleta provides a certain measure of protection for scenic views, something Commissioner Bill Shelor noted before voting against amending the General Plan. “If we don’t honor this part of the General Plan, why is it even part of the General Plan?” Shelor asked.
Traffic and view obstruction were the two biggest concerns for public speakers, as well. Leslie Lund, a resident of the 60-home housing development that immediately borders Westar’s site, said she liked the project’s vision but could not get on board with its size, as the majority of the residential units will be in three-story apartment buildings that will obscure part of the view from her neighborhood. In addition, Lund mentioned the large amount of traffic the new development will attract, something Islay Investments representative Betty Jeppesen said could amount to 5,235 new trips per day.
Jack Crosbie
Members of the Westar team take in one of the PC’s votes
Westar’s plan attempts to mitigate some of these expected impacts. The project’s latest design has flipped orientation of buildings and shuffled the layout of units to try to preserve some of the aesthetics of the area. In addition, Vice President of Associated Transportation Engineers Scott Schell noted several planned improvements to the surrounding roads, including widening sections of Hollister Road and adding a lane to the Highway 101 entrance at Storke Road.
Despite its flaws, Westar’s groundbreaking design for the project was repeatedly praised by the commission. Near the end of the meeting, Planning Commission Chair Jonny Wallis said she wanted the project to succeed but that several elements need to be reconsidered. “I think we all want to see this project move forward but not as it is now,” Wallis said. “This project is too good to lose … just because we were not ready to move forward positively tonight does not mean we want this to become a dead project.”
Now, the project and its backers are scheduled to stand in front of the Goleta City Council on October 2. Although it isn’t common for a project to go before the council without a recommendation, Acting Director of Planning and Environmental Services Pat Saley said her staff is working on a detailed report that outlines the project’s benefits alongside the commission’s reservations and suggestions for improvement.
It will then be up to the City Council to decide whether the project moves forward or is sent back for further planning and conference with either the Planning Commission or Design Review Board.
Previous Month
Comments
just what goleta needs - another tacky new version of the 60's strip mall that looks just like every other strip mall along the 101 freeway...
reality_check (anonymous profile)
September 7, 2012 at 10:47 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Worried about losing your view of the mountains .... Gee, most of the world wishes that life would be so grand that all they had to worry about was losing their view of their mountains
iwasbornherethankyouverymuch (anonymous profile)
September 7, 2012 at 3:38 p.m. (Suggest removal)
We need Housing.
Low Income housing. I mean REALLY low income housing.
Not $300,000.00 "Affordable" housing.
Not a strip mall.
itsacrockof (anonymous profile)
September 8, 2012 at 9:30 p.m. (Suggest removal)
We need open space and a cap on all local development.
We don't need more housing. Not everyone can live here.
The City can use current housing for low-income people. There are plenty of vacancies.
The real estate lobby&the government housing bureaucracy scam needs to end.
Good for the planning comission for standing up for the people who live here.
Georgy (anonymous profile)
September 9, 2012 at 6:13 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Build upwards not outwards, we can get more housing and keep our food supply.
Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
September 9, 2012 at 8:17 p.m. (Suggest removal)
This is yet another reason Goletans need to vote YES on Measure G2012 this fall. See http://goletaheritagefarmland.org/
All our open space and agriculture are giving way to development, creating impacts such as traffic that we just can't mitigate. And we can't afford the additional key services such as police, fire, schools, libraries and parks.
Let's give Goleta voters the final word on which of the few remaining large agricultural tracts should get rezoned for development.
RobertRich (anonymous profile)
September 10, 2012 at 10:18 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Quite surprised at the ignorant statements here. The parcel of land in question is not open space. Just because it's currently "open" doesn't mean it's a park. It's zoned for industrial uses, and the GP amendment would rezone it for residential/commercial.
The view aspect is absolutely attrocious. Where, exactly, would one expect to have a view on Hollister Avenue? Hollister is an industrial/commercial/residential corridor, and the development fits with those uses. So where does the expectation of a view come in? Because we have one now? Where are the property rights?
Finally, we still do need housing, and $300,000 for a condo IS affordable. Georgy, your statement that 'not everyone can live here' is really quite elitist and ignorant. Just because you walked through the door doesn't mean you can slam it shut behind you.
For this development to go through, it needs to be smart. And there need to be mitigations. But the answer isn't "don't develop". Ridiculous.
sbdude (anonymous profile)
September 10, 2012 at 2:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)
This development should be kept for low height industrial/commercial purposes next to the freeway and railroad. Any mass of new housing should be placed in areas like Buellton or Los Alamos. Then boost increased public transportation to and from those areas to handle customers and workers for Goleta/sb. More public buses for customers and employees, with shops willing to organize/deliver large purchases (Costco/Home Depot, etc.) should be encouraged in our road limited area.
sbindyreader (anonymous profile)
September 10, 2012 at 3:12 p.m. (Suggest removal)
" Ridiculous."
-- sbdude
Yes if applied to the post that quote comes from. I'll limit myself to one critique out of many possibilities: population. Noting, correctly, that "...not everyone can live here..." is far from elitist. It is real, true statement of fact. With your attitude that the door must always be open for newcomers, in the not too distant future CalTrans will change the sign to "Santa Barbara. Population: 3 million"
One of the absolute keys to good urban planning is to establish an optimum population then plan to that reality. The name for endless growth is "cancer".
As an afterthought: When did "elite" become a dirty word? It means "The best or most skilled members of a group". I would hope that those are the kind of people commenting on such a plan. And since I've excluded my own use of the word, I'll just use "arrogant" to describe your first sentence.
SezMe (anonymous profile)
September 10, 2012 at 3:23 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Anyone who wants to increase traffic is off their rocker. The future is mixed use residential and retail/office. Let's not let Goleta miss the boat once again.
Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
September 10, 2012 at 3:30 p.m. (Suggest removal)
"One of the absolute keys to good urban planning is to establish an optimum population then plan to that reality." -SezMe-
September 10, 2012 at 3:23 p.m
True.
"Anyone who wants to increase traffic is off their rocker. The future is mixed use residential and retail/office. Let's not let Goleta miss the boat once again."
Ken_Volok
September 10, 2012 at 3:30 p.m.
Also true.
These two comments sum up how I feel. Remember: You can't shove ten pounds of sand into a five-pound bag without breaking the bag.
billclausen (anonymous profile)
September 10, 2012 at 4:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Sorry SezMe, but your argument that Santa Barbara/Goleta will just become another LA unless we restrict any and all development is rank with FUD, and the poorest excuse for limiting development that I have ever heard. The very idea that there is enough land on the central coast to support "3 million" people is silly to say the least. Exaggerations don't make for cogent arguments.
After you get over the idea that people still like to build on property they own (I'll bet you're really angry that Towbes is already approved for Willow Springs II, and they'll be for-sale condominiums, not for-rent apartments), you'll realize the development in question is mixed-use infill on previously zoned land, already slated for development, in the General Plan. And if that makes you angry, you best get yourself a job at the City and rewrite the General Plan.
I don't mind the word arrogant. Ignorant people usually view the informed as such. What I do mind is "exclusionary". And what or who gives you the right to exclude others from your little slice of heaven is beyond me.
sbdude (anonymous profile)
September 10, 2012 at 5:48 p.m. (Suggest removal)
If this development passes it will bring more cars, air pollution, and noise pollution to Goleta. We will take another step toward a denser, more dangerous, less people-friendly City with a lower quality of life.
The assumption that a City must grow, even if the people who live here don't want it to grow anymore, is unhealthy.
Knowing when to stop growth is healthy.
Many cities want growth. The majority of the people in those cities want growth. We shouldn't stop them from growing. But the oppisite is also true.
When growth begins to deteriorate an area, it needs to stop, even if the developer and local government can make money forcing more unwanted growth.
Georgy (anonymous profile)
September 10, 2012 at 9:36 p.m. (Suggest removal)
There IS a limit to the number of people an area can sustain.
billclausen (anonymous profile)
September 11, 2012 at midnight (Suggest removal)