Potential changes to creek maintenance standards, coastal bluff setbacks and big box development policies are on the city planners’ priority list for the General Plan. Labeled “fast-track,” the 12 proposed amendments handed in by staff allow for more flexibility in the plan, a notion decried by slow-growth residents and encouraged by the business community and development interests.

The proposed changes include changes to restrictions to the development of large regional commercial centers, provide flexibility in terms of the maintenance of creeks, and change the policy on certain structures located within 130 feet of local coastal bluffs.

“We’ve got a lot of different force fields that are coming at us,” said city Planning and Environmental Services Director Steve Chase, citing politics, potential court settlement discussions, and input from local interests, both slow-growth and pro-development.

The “fast-track” designation refers to policies that would likely not need Environmental Impact Reports and would cost in the area of $50,000 to process. It also refers to a timeline of about six months to a year.

Probably the biggest problem for those opposed to fast-tracking any changes is the issue of large regional commercial centers, mentioned in Land Use policies.

“Why would we want to fast-track big box?” asked council member Jonny Wallis during the April 16 council meeting to initiate the plan amendments. Big-box developments similar to Camino Real Marketplace could come at the expense of local small business owners, she said, as well as unduly affect traffic in the city.

Under the current plan, new large regional commercial centers are either “discouraged” or confined only to certain areas.

“That’s too broad of a position to take,” said council member Eric Onnen, who is in favor of both fast-tracking and the possibility of allowing more big-box centers in the city. Outright prohibitions, he said, could lead to legal actions by would-be developers, which would in turn result in less public participation on the project.

Another point of contention between the supporters of the original general plan and those who want to see amendments is the “shall” vs. “should” language found in the Conservation Element policy that refers to maintenance of creeks as natural drainage systems.

Intended to provide for strict environmental controls around Goleta’s many creeks, the policy, according to city planners, was too prohibitive. The city’s rationale for this proposed change was that it “allows for flexibility in project design while retaining environmental protections.”

Nevertheless, some residents are alarmed by the proposed change.

“The widespread substitution of ‘should’ in place of ‘shall’ is highly objectionable,” said resident Vic Cox in a letter to the city. “Such substitutions will not, as advertised, lead to ‘flexibility’ but confusion over the General Plan’s standards and may threaten public health and safety.”

As far as the standards for coastal bluff setbacks — or how far a structure must be from the bluffs, the current policy restricts new developments from having certain structures within 30 feet from the top of the bluffs to avoid the need to armor the bluffs or build retaining walls to protect structures that could be threatened by erosion and bluff retreat.

For Bill Medel of Ty Warner Hotels and Sandpiper Golf Course, the existing policy takes away any incentive for its owner to improve his property. Currently, the structures as defined by the policy include golf course active play areas – fairways, greens and tees.

“Why would we want to do anything now? (The policy) would take away a third of what we have,” he said. Sandpiper’s active play area is currently within a 30-foot setback. Changes to configuration would decrease the area by about six acres, he said.

Sandpiper’s project aside, the wording on the coastal bluff setback policy, which includes trails under the definition of structures, also prevents Goleta from doing maintenance on its own trails at Ellwood Mesa for example, where trails are located almost at the edge of the bluffs.

“The driving factor behind that (proposed amendment) was the unintended consequence,” said Advance Planning Manager Anne Wells.

Other items marked for possible amendment include policies that deal with adequate infrastructure and services, nonresidential growth based on new housing production, stormwater management and maintenance of an airport safety corridor. Besides flexibility, the amendments, according to city planners, are meant to provide more clarity, consistency with other elements of the plan and established programs, as well as future regional, state and federal regulations.

What is most important for the community to take into account, said Chase, is that “fast-track” does not mean there will be no California Environmental Quality Act determination. Every amendment on the fast-track list will be subject to analysis, which will in turn determine whether there should be a full Environmental Impact Report or a lower level environmental document, he said.

And, added Chase, none of the amendments will be initiated without full public input first, a process he anticipates to start in June.

“We need to start engaging the community,” he said. “We’ll let the facts guide our recommendations, and that will only happen in the workshops and other (public participation).”