To Halve or Halve Not Creek Setbacks?

I'm rather shocked at Steve Chase's comments. I'd always thought of him as one of the more reasonable and pro-environmental representatives of his ilk. However the notion that General Plans should fluctuate on the whims of ( Darth Vader music plays now) developers is insane. Linda Krop nailed it. If it changes to accommodate every project then it is not much of a General Plan. I urge every citizen of Goleta to protest and protest loudly. Call or write your city council members. This distortion of the General Planning process is most definitely not in the best interests of the majority of Goleta and Noleta citizens.

Riparian corridors have not fared well under human "stewardship," suffering reduction after reduction to suit new needs of development and developers. Pretty much in the same fashion that the lands of this country's original inhabitants, American Indians, have suffered the "displace, promise, displace/reduce again, promise again, displace/reduce again" cycle of broken American promises. Although state environmental agencies long ago compromised with municipalities to require 50' wide stream corridors to be spared from development, many cities and counties find even that "inconvenient" and lobby for even narrower corridors when even 50' is minimal to maintain habitat health. Good for Goleta in trying to maintain 100' -- may the city leaders slap down the very bad idea to reduce it below this. Cities can develop AND protect the waterways that flow through them -- both will be better for it in the long run.

It would be informative if someone could also confirm or deny another of Mr. Chase's claims for the "norm" in California: that the state standard for affordable housing is no more than 20% of a proposed project. Listening to the Goleta planning director's comments at public hearings often makes me wonder whose side is he promoting?

Protecting watersheds is THE MOST IMPORTANT part of protecting the environment. It is important to maintain healthy, unencumbered watersheds from the top of the mountains down to the ocean. If you want to develop somewhere, stay away from the watersheds!

I wish these developers knew the first thing about watersheds, unfortunately they really don't. Or they are really horrible human beings. I'd like to think that they are just ignorant.

If the Governator declares a water supply emergency for the state, why are water purveyors allowed to tweak the stats to accomodate this kind of unneeded building ?

Just another item to add to my list of things Mr. Chase has said.

Speaking about General Plan amendments....it looks like from where I'm sitting the City of Goleta has never followed the process for SB-18. They may have started the process during the phase 3 amendments but I highly doubt they started this during the Phase 1 and 2 stages. A state law that requires ANY general plan amendment to formally consult with the tribal groups on the Native American Heritage commission list. I guess someone needs to ask if policies and laws are being followed.

As for the most important item to protect in the process is the environment and it is solely based on the CEQA process and its definitions which is 21060.5- environment means the physical conditions which exist within the area which will be affected by a proposed project. several items are listed.

So what is the effect the proposed project will have on the environment? And has the city done there job in providing the information required to make that answer. My review is ..not enough.. more questions are raised and more information is needed before we go forward. Long term and commutatively.

enjoy!

Protecting watersheds is definitely important. Have you seen the
“watershed” at Haskell’s Landing? It hasn’t seen running water in
DECADES. There is so much dead vegetation in that dried up ditch that
there is nothing left to protect! Haskell’s Landing will clear up the
dead leaves, and RESTORE the ditch into a creek so that there will be
something there to protect. Furthermore, from a physics standpoint,
it is physically impossible for water to flow from north of the
railroad, under the tracks, into the ditch at the Haskell’s Landing
property because of elevation differences. I suggest you do your
homework before making such presumptuous comments.

The General Plan is meant to be a set of guidelines for developments. The EIR for the General Plan amendments will look generally (hence the name "general" plan) at creek setbacks, but this is NOT to say that General Plans should fluctuate on the whims of developers. Rather, they are flexible enough so that as a city, we can make decisions based on SITE-SPECIFIC science, because no two projects are the same. I encourage you all to look at Haskell's Landing specifically, and note that the creek setbacks average around 200 feet! Only in TWO particular locations will the setbacks be 50 feet, and the EIR for the project does indicate that this is more than adequate.

I think that Jfitz raises some very valid points. The Haskell's Landing site, like virtually all other developments, is unique and should not be dissected based on such general terms. Both the developers and city have shown that they have the interests of preserving Goleta's environment and creating an outstanding development.

Additionally, when viewing the issue of the 50 foot setbacks one must examine how this general guideline set out by our city relates to others throughout the state. Many cities that are considered at the forefront of environmental preservation (specifically San Louis Obispo and Berkeley come to mind) have setback distances of much more 50 feet.

Ultimately, the issue is a very difficult one but I think that, with all aspects considered, the project seems to be more than adequate in preserving the local environment.

Just some clarification...I meant to illustrate how the 50 foot setbacks for Haskell's Landing is virtually identical with the guidelines for progressive communities throughout the state (such as Berkeley and SLO).

In response to Geeber's comment above:
Let’s be realistic about the state’s issues – homes have nothing to do with the water shortage. Population growth coupled with droughts and lack of conservation cause the water shortage. New housing is based on the demands of the growing population. The reality is that water shortage or not, we need new homes to house our children and their families. At least Haskell’s Landing is an environmentally friendly community that exceeds green building standards.

I have to agree with the positive comments above. The proposed project will have a positive impact on the environment. It will restore the ditch into a real creek with actual water. It will preserve the wetlands on the site, and it will provide buffers and setbacks that are beyond adequate based on the science of this particular site. This development will create the EXACT THING that all you "environmentalists" are trying to protect. The site, as it exists today and for many years now, does not have anything to protect. Haskell’s Landing will put the life back into this ditch, and create something worthy of the highest environmental protections – which, I assure you, will be provided. And for those of you who think there are still questions to be asked, go to the EIR and find all the answers. This project has been in the planning process for nearly a decade, and it has been studied nearly to death. If we keep fighting a project as good as this one, the only thing that we will accomplish is scaring away any and all new housing in the city, and Goleta’s future will be pretty bleak.

Haskell's Landing is a great project. There has been so much back and forth over the proposed General Plan amendments, including the creek setback. This is strange, because I believe it was the City of Goleta that told this developer to include these General Plan amendments in the proposal. In fact, the language is EXACTLY the same as the amendments that the city is proposing in its own General Plan Update process. These amendments have been studied with respect to the science on this specific project site, and there is no reason to delay this project any more.

To all you folks claiming that this is the housing we need, please be reminded that these units will be selling for an average of $1 million or more, needing a household income of over $250,000 to buy one.

So really, this will NOT be housing for most Goletans, but instead for rich people coming in here. The firefighters in the new firehouse, even if they have a spouse making over $100,000, probably won't be able to live in one of these units.