Print friendly
E-mail story
Contact an Editor
iPod friendly
Comments
Bookmark This
del.icio.us.
Digg!
furl
google
newsvine
reddit
technorati
Facebook
Yahoo!Last Tuesday marked the end of the first phase of amending the City of Goleta’s General Plan. Watch for future installments before the Planning Commission and then back to the council later in the year.
Steve Chase, planning and environmental services director, began by stating, as he has in the past, that the General Plan is a good one, a very decisive instrument. While it has some “quirks,” he stressed that the amendments propose no new growth. Rather, they relate more to how things are done.
Margaret Connell
The audience last Tuesday was very different from that at the January 17 meeting, when most speakers opposed changes in the plan. A new group, Keepers of the Goodland, had circulated a letter slamming the prior council, of which I was a member, for “years of bickering, bullying, and infighting.” They gathered ahead of time at the Elephant Bar, next to the Santa Barbara Airport, and came to the Council Chambers wearing lemon badges reading, “Fix It.”
At the start, Mayor Michael Bennett ruled that he would only call on speakers who had not commented at the January 17 meeting. Nine speakers were unable to make further comments by this ruling. That left the field open to 20 new speakers, the majority of whom supported the council’s actions. While short on specifics, the general theme was for compromise, flexibility, and moderation. One speaker raised a new issue, the need to comply with AB32, which requires reductions in global warming emissions.
When it came to council action, all the remaining amendments were forwarded for further review. Councilmembers Roger Aceves and Jonny Wallis made a valiant effort to send Bacara-initiated amendments back for the proponent — the Bacara Resort — to carry forward at its own expense. But they were outvoted each time by Eric Onnen, Jean Blois, and Bennett. While a number of the amendments improved and clarified language in the original policy, others would weaken environmental protections.
Major proposed changes going forward from these two meetings include: opening the door to more regional shopping centers, timeshares and condos at the Bacara, moving the beach access at Haskell’s, potential widening of intersections such as at Storke Road and Hollister Avenue, and studies that could lead to reduced buffers and setbacks from environmentally sensitive habitats.
These meetings are the first where councilmembers have addressed the content of individual amendments. By council consent, this has been a staff-driven process up until now, and in this last round, the direction from council has been for the most part to proceed with staff’s recommendations.
At the end of the meeting, Onnen shared his thoughts on the process. At the beginning, he said, people feared that council was going to do a wholesale rewrite. What followed was an open public process and workshops that got wonderful reviews. He thought that out of that would come a collaborative process. Instead, it became an “election,” counting numbers on each side. He saw public comment as part of the decision-making, but not as an “election.” There was never an intention to quantify it, he said. His hope is that we are now on a path to where we can cooperate for results.
Unfortunately, this is not reflected in the actions of the council, where, despite strong public input to the contrary, all except 16 out of 77 proposed amendments have been sent forward. The solid majority votes of Onnen, Blois, and Bennett for all the amendments do not encourage hope for cooperation or compromise.
There will be further opportunities for public comment, however. The Planning Commission will be conducting a detailed item-by-item review. In March, they will look at the 35 amendments judged to require a simple amendment to the General Plan EIR, and will send recommendations back to council in April. They will see the 21 requiring further environmental analysis and a supplemental EIR in June, with the goal of returning recommendations to council in August.
Goletans should remember former U.S. House Speaker Tip O’Neill’s advice that “all politics is local” and stay engaged as these amendments move forward.
Goleta Grapevine appears every Monday morning online at independent.com/goleta. To contact the author, who helped craft the original General Plan during her time as a councilmember and as mayor, email margaretconnell@earthlink.net.
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
Unbelievable. So just as many of the comments said in previous articles, this was basically a done deal? Lemon badges? Come on. Ridiculous. Bickering, Bullying and Infighting? Seems to me the only bullying is the self serving Chamber of Commerce and Bacarra shoving a bunch of crap down Goleta's throat. Now THAT is calling a spade a spade. It is truly sad that none of the Goleta city council's FAB 3 has the nerve to vote outside election campaign donation lines. This is a sham. I remember when the Gail Marshall recall came down. That was pretty lame. This is one time it really needs to happen. It is obvious to everyone that this is not what the majority of Goleta wants. Oh and Onnen, nice snow job at the end. Do you take every one of your constiuents as a fool? It is an election issue because none of you have the courage/ will or desire to stand up for what your constituents really want regarding the Bacarra and the beach. When is the next election. I cannot wait.
bimboteskie (anonymous profile)
February 8, 2008 at 2:47 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Margaret Connell still fails to realize that our General Plan is one of the worst General Plans in California. We would not be in the position we are today, if the previous Council had not bungled the General Plan in the first place.
Right now Goleta is the laughingstock of Santa Barbara County. Our General Plan is a farce and needs to be fixed. Our new leaders need to finalize this plan that balances our need for growth while protecting our natural resources.
justinF (anonymous profile)
February 13, 2008 at 8:55 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I am not sure if Margaret Connell was at the same meeting I was at, but it was great to see Goleta residents take back our city at the General Plan hearing. The citizens showed that they were finally fed up with people from outside of Goleta determining our city’s future.
The updated General Plan will help us realistically plan for growth and help manage any growth that does occur. That is what good planning does for a community. The citizens of Goleta have demanded this type of planning and our City Council is finally delivering on promises made in the last election.
aruiz (anonymous profile)
February 13, 2008 at 9:59 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Ok sounds good and positive. But will the revised general plan reign in Bacarra and protect beach access, or will we all get to pay for their BS? Balance would be great, but I don't see it. The other development issues are probably inevitable, and while you all say Goleta's general plan is a farce, maybe you are falling for the old pendulum swinging the other way theory? Do you really think Goleta or SB is going to become a thriving industrial complex full of high paying jobs via these General Plan Amendments? Or are the jobs at the Big Box places or time shares going to create a decent living for someone here? Hmmm. Seems the growth you guys are proposing is short term developer construction type which may add something short term and make a few people some big bucks but all you are really going to do is add to service sector type jobs where you can't really afford to live here anyway, plus this will add to the commuting problem. Crazy idea: Mandate a percentage of city parks paid for by developers (including maintenance of course) in the general plan. Also mandate a penalty for error in traffic trip counts supplied by them ahead of project and after and audit upon occupancy. If they are conservative, maybe give them a reward of some sort. Finally, add some things about meeting traffic reduction goals.
On developers, there are some developers around SB/Goleta town who have been here along time. They are decent philanthropists to the community. Perhaps you could ask some of their input on fair guidelines/changes over the years or create an advisory board instead of this being such an adversarial nightmare. I know, probably a pipe dream. But I am throwing it out there into anonymous blog world.
Were the authors of the two previous comments wearing the Lemon badges? The Lemon Police, they live inside of your head!
bimboteskie (anonymous profile)
February 14, 2008 at 12:23 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Bimboteskie has some interesting ideas there about making developers and builders accountable, but they aren't appropriate for the General Plan. (by the way, Goleta already is a thriving center of high tech industry) Specific requirements should be left to individual development agreements, as they are now. That's the whole reason the Council is going through this mess now - because the GP was too specific and got itself caught up in conflicting and inconsistent policies.
The Council made some good decisions in January. The pendulum is swinging back to a reasonable middle ground. Let's not lose sight of that amid all this rhetoric (and misinformation) about Haskell's, out-of-towners, and lemon badges, from both sides of the debate.
sb0320 (anonymous profile)
February 14, 2008 at 4:05 p.m. (Suggest removal)
At least this new effort to change our General Plan was created in an open public process, where everyone can have their say.
When Ms. Connell drafted the last version, the City Council served also as the Planning Commission and the General Plan board, totally shutting the community out of the process and creating a General Plan behind closed doors without a citizen’s advisory group like every other city.
JonRaimer (anonymous profile)
February 16, 2008 at 10:45 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Post a comment