Goleta General Plan heats up

BY COLBY FRAZIER
DAILY SOUND STAFF WRITER

"Inconsistent," "contradictory" and "irresponsible" were all words used by Goleta residents last night to describe city staff’s interpretation of public input about modifying the city’s General Plan.
For much of the past year, the city, its staff and the public have grappled with the behemoth process of making changes to the planning document that, among many other things, essentially dictates how, what and where growth and development occurs.

On the table last night were about 80 modifications to the General Plan that were identified by residents, businesses and other interested parties during several community workshops. While the proposals are undoubtedly being whittled down, decisions made by the council last night are not final in that the proposed changes to the General Plan won’t immediately go into effect until further review.
At press time last night, the council hadn’t finished all of their deliberations, but the public hearing that preceded their discussions showcased a situation where a vast majority of residents were intensely opposed to many of the possible changes.
“We don’t think that staff has made good use of the public comments and implemented them into their choices,” said Linda Phillips, president of the League of Women Voters. “We’re very disappointed.”
Phillips’ comments were gentle compared to most but echoed the theme that ran through the more than 40 public speakers: that they weren’t listened to and staff’s recommendations did not reflect their wishes.
George Relles, a Goleta resident who said he attended some of the public workshops, presented data he compiled that suggested hundreds more comments were received by city staff that opposed proposed amendments than there were in favor of them.
His data, which was based on all of the transcripts of written and spoken comments by the public to staff, shows that 717 comments opposed the proposed amendments while 56 approved.
“Is it perfect?” Relles said of his data. “No. It’s damn close.”
One example of an amendment many opposed that was cited repeatedly by various speakers during public comment, is the recommended changing of the word “shall” in the General Plan, to “should,” and “preservation” to “protection.”
According to a synopsis of the public comments for these proposals on the City of Goleta website, “most opposed changing the language from ‘shall’ to ‘should,’ on grounds that General Plan standards would be made negotiable and would likely result in weakened environmental standards.”
But in at least one instance, city staff recommended the change be approved.
While the vast majority of those who commented last night were highly critical of the council’s handling of the process thus far, a handful of others heaped praise upon that same process.
Bill Macfadyen, chair of the Goleta Valley Chamber of Commerce and CEO and publisher of the online news website Noozhawk, was one of the latter.
Calling the vast majority of those who commented publicly last night a “narrow and obviously passionate minority,” Macfadyen said he thought the council and city staff has done a fine job.
“You all are doing the right thing, you all are taking the city in the right direction,” he said.
Many residents expressed their fears that the council would make “sweeping” changes to the General Plan that would be soft on future development efforts.
The statistic that dozens of public speakers used to back this claim up was that about 33 of staff’s proposed changes were made by Bacara Resort & Spa.
One of the changes proposed by Bacara deal with access and use of Haskell’s Beach.
Staff’s proposed amendments to language in the General Plan dealing with beach access include permits, all-hours access and vehicle accessibility.
As it is, beach access is guaranteed with language that says “24 hours per day and 7 days per week.” But in the proposed change, it says “from sunrise to sunset.”
Councilman Eric Onnen explained that it is in no way the council’s intention to limit public beach access, but he later did not support a motion made to Councilman Roger Aceves to pull all of Bacara’s proposals from the table.
Aceves said he thought the amendments made by Bacara would be better made later when an actual project is proposed.
“They’re asking for things here that should be subject to additional public testimony,” Aceves said of Bacara. “We’re making changes here that take them through the end zone.”
Onnen countered that throwing out all of Bacara’s proposals in one swipe would be no more fair than approving them all.
“I’m not going to succumb to that,” Onnen said.
Councilwoman Jonny Wallis agreed with Aceves.
“The public does not support these changes,” she said. “In short, what they’re doing is privatizing public property.”
Aceves’ proposal to dismiss all things Bacara in the proposed amendments failed with a 3-2 vote.