From: Lisa Stratton
To: City Clerk Group
Subject: Re: Ellwood Onshore Facility Conversion to Commercial/Visitor Date: Monday, August 24, 2026 10:48:33 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear City Clerk,
Regarding the proposed conversion of the land where the Ellwood Onshore Facility is from Open Space to Visitor Serving Commercial.
I am opposed to this proposed change because the creek that runs through this unique coastal area supports Tidewater Goby, Red-legged frog and other ecologically unique species. The site should be restored to native habitat and include a public access trail to the coast that would expand public access and connection to the unique coastal resources and riparian resources of the site. There is plenty of grant money out there to restore such a special and unique site.
This would be a really valuable amenity for the community and support our imperiled rare species.
- Sincerely,
Lisa Stratton
--
Lisa Stratton
Director of Ecosystem Management
Cheadle Center for Biodiversity and Ecological Restoration Harder South, Rm 1005
UCSB 93106-9615
W) 805-893-4158
From: Lee Ann Palmer
To: City Clerk Group
Subject: Fwd: public comment re 7979 Hollister Ave.
Date: Wednesday, August 26, 2026 10:11:04 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Begin forwarded message:
From: Lee Ann Palmer <[email protected]>
Subject: public comment re 7979 Hollister Ave.
Date: August 26, 2026 at 10:07:28 AM PDT
To: [email protected]
Re: requested General Plan Amendment (GPA) to
change the Land Use Designation at 7979 Hollister Avenue from Open Space Active
Recreation (OS/AR) to Visitor-Serving Commercial (C-VS or VS), Case No. 25- 0001-GPA-I.
Dear Sir or Madam,
I am writing to stop the change of the above property from Open Space to Visitor Serving Commercial as proposed. My reasons are the following:
We currently have rising ocean levels with extreme flood risk several times a year. It makes no sense to put anything on this property, ie buildings.
This land is undoubtedly highly polluted from oil production use for many years.
Remediation will be costly and time consuming.
It is in a high fire zone with limited access via 101 in the case of a required evacuation. The fire station at Hollister and Winchester Canyon has no future build date. Thus very limited local protection.
The Sandpiper Golf Course improvement project will increase local traffic.
I support
Mitigation of the oil company pollution and restoration of the land to open space.
Once the land has been restored, possibly purchase by the Land Trust to preserve this from future building.
Thank you,
Lee Ann Palmer
1 Goleta City Council August 27, 2026
130 Cremora Drive
Goleta, CA 93117
Re: Case No. 25-0001-GPA-1: Applicant-requested General Plan Amendment to change the Land Use Designation at 7979 Hollister Avenue from Open Space – Active Recreation (OS/AR) to Visitor-Serving Commercial (C-VS).
Dear Goleta City Council:
Thank you for the opportunity to provide written comment on the above listed applicant- requested change to the Land Use Designation for the property at 7979 Hollister Avenue in Goleta. Although the property (known as the Ellwood Onshore Facility) has a land use history associated with the petroleum industry, its current Open Space – Active Recreation (OS/AR) Land Use Designation is appropriate for many reasons including proximity to Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas (ESHAs) at Bell Canyon. The important hearing to be held on September 1, 2026, will focus on an applicant request to initiate the process to change the designation to Visitor-Serving Commercial (C-VS), which if initiated would likely result in a formal application for a General Plan Amendment (GPA), a Rezone of the site, and a development application. Importantly, however, detailed study and analysis by City staff and others should be required to address applicable policies, standards, regulations, and significant environmental factors if a change in Land use Designation is considered. The importance of the site as potential restored buffer habitat adjacent to ESHAs, including wetlands and habitat for sensitive species, rather than development, is one such factor.
I am quite familiar with the beach, estuarine, and riparian habitats located at the mouth of Bell Canyon, adjacent to and immediately west of the subject property. While employed at UC Santa Barbara (1978-2004), including the positions of Executive Director of the Museum of Systematics and Ecology (now the Cheadle Center for Biodiversity and Ecological Restoration) and the Director of Carpinteria Salt Marsh Reserve, I conducted many investigations of the coastal wetlands and watersheds of central and southern California, with a focus on the San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara, and Ventura tri-counties area. In this extensive and varied coastline there are many types of estuaries differing in landscape position and watershed, tidal influence, salinity regimes, and biodiversity. Some are large bays continually open to the ocean (e.g., Morro Bay); some are in geological structural basins open to the ocean most of the time with extensive salt marshes and intermittent freshwater runoff (e.g., Goleta Slough and Carpinteria Salt Marsh); some are at the mouths of large rivers with nearly perennial freshwater flows (e.g., Santa Ynez River and Ventura River estuaries); and some are located in smaller canyon mouths seasonally cut off from the ocean by sand bars, with either intermittent or nearly perennial freshwater flows (e.g., San Antonio Creek, Gaviota Creek, and Arroyo Burro lagoons).
Bell Canyon Lagoon and associated habitats is an example of the latter type: a small canyon mouth frequently closed off from the ocean by a sand bar, especially during summer months, but with sufficient freshwater flows to produce fresh to brackish water marshes rather than salt marshes. These fresh to brackish marshes include cattails, locally infrequent 2 combinations of many bulrush species, and a rich association of other marsh plants. Such a phenomenon is uncommon because of the relatively scarce rainfall in our Mediterranean-type climate producing only intermittent runoff directly from precipitation. However, likely because of the many east-west trending geologic faults and folds that cross the southerly draining Bell Canyon, groundwater can emerge from these features that produce abundant breaks in the bedrock intersecting local groundwater sources. This groundwater runoff contributes to the ponded estuary at the mouth of the canyon and provides important habitats for a number of species restricted to the narrow-ecological conditions of the lagoon.
The northern tidewater goby (Eucyclogobius newberryi), an endangered fish listed by the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), is among the rare species that are supported by the brackish water conditions at Bell Canyon. Submerged aquatic vegetation dominated by spiral ditch-grass (Ruppia cirrhosa) is present too, which is often associated with the presence of tidewater gobies, and provides important food for waterfowl that visit the site. Bell Canyon Lagoon also is identified as critical habitat for southern California steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss), another endangered fish listed by both the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). Furthermore, the combined riparian habitats of Bell Canyon Creek, including riverine and palustrine wetlands and the contiguous estuarine wetlands, provide habitat for two additional rare and sensitive species: southwestern pond turtle (Actinemys pallida), proposed as threatened by the USFWS and listed as a species of special concern by CDFW; and California red-legged frog (Rana draytonii), listed as threatened by USFWS and a species of special concern by CDFW.
A complexity of physical factors at Bell Canyon combine to form significant natural habitats supporting the rich, native biological diversity, including sensitive species. Such habitats warrant protection as Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas. Protective features should include adequate buffers in restored adjacent upland areas at the subject property; eradication of invasive species; post-industrial hazard remediation; adequate treatment of stormwater runoff; limited access to sensitive areas; and monitoring of sensitive species.
Changing the existing Land Use Designation of the subject property from OS/AR to C-VS would be inconsistent with a goals to preserve and protect the high functioning ESHAs at Bell Canyon. Eventual development of the subject property with possible intense use once it has a C-VS designation would would be harmful to the adjacent sensitive environment. I ask that you take this into consideration when potentially voting to open the process to evaluate changing the Land Use Designation at 7979 Hollister Avenue. The existing OS/AR Land Use Designation is appropriate for the site and does not need to change. It is of paramount importance to protect the sensitive natural resources, to allow for eventual habitat remediation and restoration, and to create adequate buffers to the adjacent and highly important ESHAs, while also promoting appropriate public access and appreciation for the many natural features present at Bell Canyon that contribute to making the coast of Goleta special.
Thank you for your attention and support for the protection of Bell Canyon.
Wayne R. Ferren Jr.
320 Magnolia Avnue
Oxnard, CA 93030
[email protected]
From: Judy Salviolo <[email protected]>
Date: August 28, 2026 at 3:38:41 PM PDT
To: Paula Perotte <[email protected]>, Luz Reyes-Martin <lreyes- [email protected]>, James Kyriaco <[email protected]>, Jennifer Smith <[email protected]>, Stuart Kasdin <[email protected]>
Subject: For Mtg 9/1/2026- Do not Adopt please
28 August 2026
Dear City Council Members:
I would like to urge you to NOT adopt :
A. “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Goleta, California, Initiating the
Processing of an Applicant-Requested General Plan Amendment to change the Land Use Designation as shown on Figure 2-1 of the General Plan/Coastal Land Use Plan from Open Space-Active Recreation to Visitor-Serving Commercial at 7979 Hollister Avenue known as APN 079-210-042.,Case No. 25-0001-GPA and finding that the resolution is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act.”
I have the following concerns: It will cause increased congestion in this limited access
area. Emergency evacuation is always a concern. It opens the way for further potential
uses on other parcels that are designated OS-AR. This is again, setting an unacceptable precedent by not allowing out community to keep Goleta’s country
character. The General Plan was adopted with consideration of limiting commercial
growth on certain parcels and I would like it to continue to do that mission.
The owner of
7979 Hollister Avenue was aware of the land use designation prior to owning it, thus
accepting the limitations on the property.
Also please do NOT adopt “B.” either.
B. “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Goleta, California, Initiating the
Processing of a text amendment to Table 2-4 of the General Plan/Coastal Land Use
Plan to add Recreational Vehicle Park use to the Open Space – Active Recreation land
use category citywide; Case No. 25-0001-GPA and finding that the resolution is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act”
The change from OS-AR to allowing Recreational Vehicle parking would change the
nature of my neighborhood by Lake Los Carneros. It is a neighborhood and I DO NOT
want to have a parking lot with recreational vehicles at the end of my street. I feel it
would become potentially less safe, more congested, increased noise - especially if the
vehicles use generators. Thus destroying the quiet neighborhood in which I live.
Please
preserve all the areas designated as AR-OS as they are.
It is disturbing that both of “A.” and “B.” State that the resolutions are exempt from
CEQA. Why would the City Council wish to even consider this acceptable?
Thank you for your consideration of my opinion.
Sincerely,
Judy Salviolo
485 Camino Laguna Vista
From: Susie Tomlinson <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, August 28, 2026 11:39 AM
To: Planning Counter - City of Goleta <[email protected]> Subject: Land use designation of the former Venoco natural gas plant- Stop here's my msg plz read Goleta City Council,
I want to voice my opinion on the considered change to the original plan for a development on this property.
Any development and in this case the one to be considered on Sept 1st council meeting:
The RV or any campground or future developments need to first clean up this place before any development.
Any change in the designation to recreation including the current developers, needs to honor the original purchasing agreement, and every other entity considering doing the same, must CLEAN UP AND RETURN IT TO ITS NATURAL STATE.
TO CHANGE OR ALTER CONDITIONS OF THE ESHA IS NOT ACCEPTABLE. TIME AND A
AGAIN, THOSE THAT DEVELOP AND THEN SCAR/DESTROY OR DAMAGE OUR NATURAL
COAST/MOUNTAINS/FOREST ETC, CANNOT AND SHOULD NOT WALK AWAY, CHANGE OR SHIFT THE RESPONSIBILITY TO OTHERS.
Bell Canyon, Sandpiper golf course, the creek estuary and Eucalyptus groves and Haskell’s Beach are treasured places. Private development has to protect our prized, public use areas, too many times the citizens of this county and state have been left with damage, abuse, clean up and restoration of others damage. THE CITIZENS HAVING TO SHOULDER THE MONETARY COST NOT TO MENTION THE DESTRUCTION OF OUR ENVIRONMENT.
All future projects need to abide by the ESHA AND/ OR ANY OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL regulation
PROTECTION LAWS to protect these dwindling natural areas/resources.
PLEASE DON’T LET THIS ALTERATION/CHANGE OCCUR. PROTECT OUR ENVIRONMENT !!
Respectfully,
Susie Tomlinson
[email protected]
Michael Iza
Goleta, CA 93117
[email protected]
September 1, 2026
Mayor Paula Perotte and Members of the Goleta City Council c/o Deborah S. Lopez, City Clerk
City of Goleta, 130 Cremona Drive, Goleta, CA 93117
[email protected]
Re: Agenda Item C.1, September 1, 2026. Request to initiate an applicant requested General Plan Amendment at 7979 Hollister Avenue (APN 079-210-042), Case No. 25-0001-GPA-I. Please decline to initiate.
Dear Mayor Perotte and Councilmembers,
We live within a couple of miles of Haskell’s Beach and our families use it regularly. We are writing to ask you to decline to initiate processing of the applicant requested General Plan Amendment for 7979 Hollister Avenue, and to reject both alternatives before you: the parcel specific change from Open Space Active Recreation to Visitor Serving Commercial, and the citywide text amendment that would add Recreational Vehicle Park as an allowed use in the Open Space Active Recreation category.
Initiation is discretionary. It is the one clean, low cost moment for the Council to say that a proposal is fundamentally inconsistent with the General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan before the City, the applicant, and the public spend years and considerable money on studies and hearings. This proposal is that kind of proposal.
Both options before you would produce significant change to the City. Neither is a modest adjustment.
Option A is an upzone. It would substantially intensify the use of a coastal parcel and abandon the active recreation vision this community has held for this land for more than thirty years. Option B is broader still, because it reaches every Open Space Active Recreation property in Goleta rather than this one parcel. No change is the better outcome for the City, and declining to initiate is how the Council reaches it.
1. The open space designation on this parcel is not an accident. It is the outcome of a thirty five year public policy commitment.
The parcel is the former Ellwood Onshore Facility, built by Atlantic Richfield to process oil and gas piped ashore from Platform Holly. In 1991 the site was rezoned to Recreation, and the processing plant operated from then on as a legal nonconforming use. That was a deliberate choice by this community.
The designation existed precisely so that when oil processing finally ended, the land would return to recreation and open space rather than convert to a new form of private commercial development.
The plant went idle after the Refugio oil spill in May 2015, when the rupture of Plains All American Line 901 cut off the only route to market for Platform Holly crude. Venoco filed for bankruptcy and quitclaimed the South Ellwood leases to the State Lands Commission in April 2017. The State is now spending public money, including a $72.5 million settlement paid by Plains All American, to plug the wells and decommission the platform. The bankruptcy trustee then sold this parcel to Bell Canyon Recreation, LLC. Granting the amendment would take a windfall created by the collapse of an oil company and by a public cleanup, and convert it into private commercial entitlement on land the public has protected as open space since before the City of Goleta existed.
2. There is no community benefit here.
This is not housing. It is not childcare, a park, a trail, a school site, or coastal access. It is transient lodging on the last large undeveloped coastal parcel in western Goleta, immediately next door to the Ritz Carlton Bacara. What the community would receive in exchange for permanently giving up an open space designation is transient occupancy tax revenue. What the community would bear includes:
● Additional traffic and recreational vehicle turning movements on the western end of Hollister Avenue.
● Pressure on the small public parking area and trail that serve as the only formal public access to Haskell’s Beach.
● New overnight population in an area with limited evacuation capacity, adjacent to Ellwood Mesa and its eucalyptus groves, in a part of the county with a serious wildfire history. ● Demand on water, wastewater, and emergency services at the far western edge of the City. ● Permanent loss of the option to restore this land, which cannot be recovered once the designation changes and the site is built out.
Revenue is not the same thing as public benefit. If the Council wants revenue from this parcel, the open space and restoration path can also attract state and federal grant money, and it delivers something the community actually asked for.
3. The site sits in the Coastal Zone between two creek mouths with documented sensitive habitat.
The parcel lies in the Coastal Zone between Tecolote Creek and Bell Canyon Creek. The California Department of Fish and Wildlife Area Contingency Plan describes the Bell Canyon Creek lagoon, immediately downcoast of the site, as a well developed lagoon with salt and brackish water marsh that provides habitat for threatened and endangered fish and for the federally threatened California red legged frog, with abundant seabirds, shorebirds, waterfowl, and raptors. The State Lands Commission has publicly acknowledged the Chumash presence on this land and the potential to restore areas near Tecolote Creek.
Because this parcel is in the Coastal Zone, the following Coastal Act policies are directly relevant and should be evaluated before the Council commits staff time to processing:
● Section 30240, protection of environmentally sensitive habitat areas, including the requirement that development adjacent to such areas be sited and designed to prevent impacts that would significantly degrade them.
● Section 30231, maintenance of the biological productivity and quality of coastal waters, streams, wetlands, and estuaries.
● Section 30233, the strict limits on filling or dredging of coastal wetlands. ● Section 30251, protection of scenic and visual qualities of coastal areas. ● Section 30253, minimizing risks to life and property in areas of high geologic, flood, and fire hazard, and avoiding development that requires shoreline protective works.
We anticipate the applicant will point to Section 30222, which gives visitor serving commercial recreational facilities priority over private residential and general industrial development on suitable private land. That section does not override Section 30240, and it does not apply to land that is more suited to habitat protection and public open space. This parcel is more suited to habitat protection and public open space, which is exactly why it carries the designation it carries today.
4. The timing is wrong. The City is in the middle of its Local Coastal Program process right now.
Goleta has never had a certified Local Coastal Program. The General Plan was written to serve as the Coastal Land Use Plan, which is why it carries the formal title General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan, but the City did not submit it for certification after adoption in 2006. As a result the California Coastal Commission retains permit authority over most development in the City’s Coastal Zone, and under Goleta Municipal Code section 17.61 any City approval of a coastal development permit in this area is in concept only until the City receives a certified Local Coastal Program.
That certification is finally underway. The City released the Public Review Draft Local Coastal Program in July 2026, public comment closed on August 6, 2026, and the hearing draft is scheduled to go to the Planning Commission and then to this Council before submittal to the Coastal Commission. Initiating a parcel specific land use change on a coastal parcel in the middle of that process is the wrong sequence.
It would inject a site specific upzone into a document that Coastal Commission staff are actively reviewing, it invites the piecemeal amendment of a plan the City has spent years assembling, and it offers the applicant an expectation the City has no independent authority to deliver. If the designation on this parcel genuinely deserves reexamination, the place for that is the Local Coastal Program, in public, with the Coastal Commission at the table, and not a single applicant request heard ahead of the plan.
We anticipate the response that because the Local Coastal Program is being updated anyway, the Council may as well initiate now and fold this parcel into that work. That gets the sequence backwards.
Adding a private upzone request to a document already under Coastal Commission staff review is the thing most likely to complicate and delay certification. The Council retains full authority to examine any land use designation it chooses through the Local Coastal Program process, on the City’s own initiative and on the City’s own schedule, without first initiating an applicant request and without granting this applicant a place in line.
5. Any future application must receive full environmental review, not a categorical exemption.
The initiation decision may be exempt. The project cannot be. This is a former oil and gas processing site with decades of hydrocarbon handling, hydrogen sulfide treatment, and an onsite injection well. If the parcel appears on any list compiled under Government Code section 65962.5, a categorical exemption is unavailable under CEQA Guidelines section 15300.2(e). Whether or not the Council initiates, we ask that you state on the record that any subsequent application will require a full Environmental Impact Report addressing at minimum:
● Phase I and Phase II environmental site assessments, residual contamination, and the suitability of the site for overnight human occupancy.
● Formal wetland delineation and environmentally sensitive habitat area mapping for the parcel and adjacent creek corridors.
● Protocol level surveys for tidewater goby, steelhead, California red legged frog, nesting birds, and roosting monarch butterflies.
● Coastal hazards, including sea level rise, bluff retreat, and flooding at both creek mouths. ● Wildfire evacuation capacity for a transient overnight population at the western end of Hollister Avenue.
● Tribal consultation under Assembly Bill 52 and a cultural resources assessment. ● Cumulative impacts together with the Sandpiper Golf Course renovation, the Greenbark 30 battery storage project, and the ongoing State decommissioning work at Platform Holly and Haskell’s Beach.
6. The staff identified alternative is far too broad, and a use permit requirement would not contain it.
Resolution Alternative B would add Recreational Vehicle Park as an allowed use in the Open Space Active Recreation category citywide, in order to accommodate one applicant on one parcel. That would weaken the protection on every open space and active recreation parcel in Goleta, including land the City and its residents fought for and paid for. Please do not amend a citywide land use category to solve a single property owner’s problem.
We understand that a conditional use permit requirement may be offered as a safeguard on that alternative. It is not one. A use permit governs how a use is sited, designed, and conditioned. It does not govern whether the use belongs in the land use category at all. Once Recreational Vehicle Park is listed as an allowable use in Open Space Active Recreation, that policy question is answered citywide, and every hearing after this one becomes an argument about conditions rather than an argument about whether the land should stay open. Owners of other active recreation properties would be invited to reimagine their sites the same way, and the City would be left defending its open space one use permit at a time.
7. There is a better use for this land, and the partner is already next door.
Instead of initiating this amendment, we ask the Council to direct staff to return with a report on open space and habitat restoration alternatives for 7979 Hollister Avenue, including coastal wetland and estuarine restoration at the Bell Canyon and Tecolote Creek mouths, expanded public access, and interpretation of the site’s oil history and its Chumash history.
This is not speculative. The Cheadle Center for Biodiversity and Ecological Restoration at UC Santa Barbara has already done it two miles away, converting the former Ocean Meadows golf course into the 136 acre North Campus Open Space and restoring the Upper Devereux Slough. California has lost the great majority of its historic coastal wetlands, and every remaining opportunity to rebuild one is scarce and valuable. Potential partners and funding sources include UC Santa Barbara, the State Coastal Conservancy, the Ocean Protection Council, the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, the Southern California Wetlands Recovery Project, the California Coastal Commission, the Land Trust for Santa Barbara County, the Environmental Defense Center, and the Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Indians. State climate bond funds are currently available for exactly this category of coastal restoration work.
Restoring this site would close the loop that began in 1928. The oil came, the coast was industrialized, the State is now removing the last of it at great public expense, and the community is one land use decision away from either restoring what was lost or replacing an oil plant with a resort campground.
Request
For the reasons above, we respectfully request that the City Council:
● Decline to initiate processing of Case No. 25-0001-GPA-I under both Resolution Alternative A and Resolution Alternative B, and retain the existing Open Space Active Recreation designation without change.
● Direct staff to return with a report on open space, public access, and habitat restoration alternatives for the parcel, including potential partnerships with UC Santa Barbara and state agencies and potential acquisition or conservation easement options. ● State on the record that any future application for this site will require a full Environmental Impact Report.
These comments are submitted on behalf of the undersigned Goleta residents to preserve the issues raised here for any later proceeding, consistent with Government Code section 65009(b)(2). Thank you for your service and for your consideration.
Respectfully submitted,
Michael Iza, Goleta resident, individually and on behalf of his minor child Kris Drake, Goleta resident
Stephany Drake, Goleta resident
Heather Shea, Goleta resident
David Shea, Goleta resident
Liam Shea, Goleta resident
Tamra Abel, Goleta resident
David Abel, Goleta resident
Hannalora Abel, Goleta resident
Malcolm Iza, Goleta resident
Michael Iza
Goleta, CA 93117
[email protected]
September 1, 2026
Mayor Paula Perotte and Members of the Goleta City Council c/o Deborah S. Lopez, City Clerk
City of Goleta, 130 Cremona Drive, Goleta, CA 93117
[email protected]
Re: Supplemental comment on Agenda Item C.1, September 1, 2026, Case No. 25-0001-GPA, 7979 Hollister Avenue (APN 079-210-042). Please select Alternative 1 and decline to initiate.
Dear Mayor Perotte and Councilmembers,
1. Adopted General Plan Policy LU 9.2 already directs what happens to this site, and the staff report does not mention it.
Land Use Element Policy LU 9.2, titled Site #2 Coastal Recreation, is existing adopted General Plan policy about this exact parcel. Subsection (d) reads, in full:
Upon termination of the oil and gas processing use, the priority use for the site shall be coastal-dependent and coastal-related recreational uses that are conducted primarily outdoors or limited to small-scale structures. Adequate on-site parking shall be provided to serve all recreational uses.
This is not a proposed policy or a draft. It is in the General Plan today, and the applicant himself reproduces it in Attachment 9 to the staff report. The same direction is carried forward as Policy C-LU 7.2 in the Public Review Draft Coastal Element released this July, alongside Policy C-LU 8.3, which requires that decommissioning of the facility include restoration of the site to a natural condition, or to a condition suitable for the uses allowed within the Open Space Active Recreation category, with recontouring where appropriate and revegetation using suitable native plant material.
The staff report analyzes Policies LU 6.2 and LU 6.3 and attaches both for reference. It does not cite LU 9.2 anywhere. The one adopted policy that speaks directly to what should happen here when oil processing ends is absent from the report asking the Council to decide that very question.
2. The applicant’s own proposed amendment leaves that policy in place.
Attachment 9 sets out the applicant’s redline of LU 9.2. In the opening paragraph, Open Space Active Recreation is struck and Commercial Visitor Serving is inserted. In subsection (a), the word Recreation is struck. Subsections (b), (c), and (d) are left exactly as adopted.
Subsection (d) therefore survives the applicant’s own amendment untouched. If the Council granted what has been requested, the General Plan would designate this parcel Visitor Serving Commercial while continuing to direct, in the same policy about the same parcel, that the priority use is outdoor coastal recreation limited to small scale structures. An RV park with a hotel or motel resort is not that use. The proposal is internally inconsistent on its face.
3. The request in Attachment 9 is broader than the resolutions before the Council.
Attachment 9 states that the amendments proposed as part of this initiation request are to Figure 2-1, to Figure 2-2 (Pacific Shoreline Sites), to Policy LU 9.2, and to Policy LU 10.1. The two resolutions before the Council address only Figure 2-1 and Table 2-4. Neither mentions Figure 2-2, LU 9.2, or LU 10.1.
The Council should establish on the record what it would actually be initiating. If initiation is limited to Figure 2-1 and Table 2-4, then the applicant’s requested changes to LU 9.2 and LU 10.1 are not before you and the conflict described above remains unresolved. If initiation is understood to sweep in the policy amendments described in Attachment 9, then the Council is being asked to authorize the amendment of adopted policies that the staff report never identifies, analyzes, or attaches.
4. Decommissioning and site restoration are existing obligations, not a benefit the City must purchase.
Attachment 9 concludes that reclassifying the site would enable the full decommissioning of the facility and removal of the equipment. The Council should not accept that framing. Adopted Policy LU 10.1 already establishes that this site is an inappropriate location for oil and gas processing and that the use is to be terminated, and the draft Coastal Element’s Policy C-LU 8.3 sets out the decommissioning and restoration obligations in detail, including an Abandonment and Restoration Plan, soil and groundwater remediation where required, financial surety for the full cost, and restoration of the site to a natural condition or to a condition suitable for Open Space Active Recreation.
Cleanup and restoration of this site are duties that attach to the property, and the current owner acquired the parcel with those duties and with the open space designation already in place. They are not consideration offered in trade for an upzone. I would ask the Council to require staff to state on the record whether an Abandonment and Restoration Plan has been submitted, reviewed, and approved for this site, and whether the required restoration has occurred or been secured.
The applicant’s own statement also records that Santa Barbara County rezoned this parcel to the Recreation District in the early 1990s, as part of a plan to consolidate onshore oil and gas processing at Las Flores Canyon. The open space status of this land is the product of a deliberate regional policy decision made more than three decades ago, honored by every jurisdiction since.
5. The draft Coastal Element use tables do not allow RV parks in either open space category.
Table 11-4 of the draft Coastal Element sets out allowable uses for the open space categories. The uses listed for Open Space Active Recreation are active recreation, open space and passive recreation, golf courses with customary ancillary uses, nature preserve, and one caretaker unit. RV parks are not among them. In the draft commercial use table, RV parks are permitted only in the Visitor Serving and General Commercial categories.
The staff recommended alternative would therefore insert into the Open Space Active Recreation category, citywide, a use that the City’s own draft coastal plan deliberately confines to commercial categories. That is not a modest text change, and it would put the General Plan and the draft Coastal Element in direct conflict at the moment the City submits the latter to the Coastal Commission for certification.
6. The staff conclusion that both amendments satisfy the five initiation factors does not survive the tables beneath it.
The staff report concludes that both the requested amendment and the staff alternative can be supported by the five factors in Goleta Municipal Code subsection 17.67.030(B). Reading the analysis, that conclusion is not supported on at least two of the five, and is answered with the wrong subject matter on a third. ● Factor 2 asks whether the amendment appears to have no material effect on the community or the General Plan. On page 10 of the report, the first entry in the Pro column for the change from Open Space Active Recreation to Visitor Serving states that although the change would happen only at this site, it would be a fundamental change to the allowed land uses in this area. A fundamental change is the opposite of no material effect, and it is offered here as a reason the factor is satisfied. It is not satisfied, on the report’s own words. ● Factor 5 asks whether the amendment is required under other rules or regulations. The report answers that it is not, and that the request is made by the property owners. This factor is not satisfied.
● Factor 3 asks whether the amendment provides additional public benefit to the community as compared to the existing designation. Under three of the five factors, the entry recorded against the no change option is the long term economic viability of the site for the private owner, or the limited range of uses available on privately owned open space property. Under Factor 3 itself, the leading entry in favor of the change is that it would likely create an economically viable new business. Those describe a return to one landowner. They are not public benefits to the community, and they do not answer the question the factor asks. ● Factor 4 records no cons at all. Yet the report elsewhere states that the site is served by a septic system and that any future use would need to connect to the sewer in Hollister Avenue, requiring either annexation into the Goleta West Sanitary District or a service agreement. That is a public facilities issue, not a blank entry.
A recommendation to initiate should rest on factors that are actually met. Here, two are not met on the report’s own text, one is answered with private benefit in place of public benefit, and one records no constraints on a site with an unresolved wastewater question.
Request
I respectfully renew the request that the Council:
● Select Alternative 1 and decline to initiate, under both the applicant requested amendment to Figure 2-1 and the staff recommended text amendment to Table 2-4. ● Require staff to state on the record how either amendment could be reconciled with adopted Policy LU 9.2(d), and to explain why that policy does not appear in the staff report. ● Establish on the record whether initiation would extend to the amendments to Figure 2-2, LU 9.2, and LU 10.1 described in Attachment 9, none of which appear in either resolution. ● Direct staff to return with the open space, public access, and habitat restoration options for this site that the City’s own draft coastal policies contemplate, including potential partnership with UC Santa Barbara and state agencies.
These comments are submitted to preserve the issues raised here for any later proceeding, consistent with Government Code section 65009(b)(2). Thank you for your consideration.
Respectfully,
Michael Iza
Goleta resident
From: J
To: City Clerk Group
Subject: Comment for submission on agenda item 26-332 tonight"s meeting Date: Tuesday, September 1, 2026 4:27:13 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear clerk could you please help me submit this following comment on agenda item 26-332 which is the proposal for development by the Sandpiper Golf Course. The meeting is tonight at 5:30 but I can't make it due to work.
My name is Jeremy brodofsky and I am a resident of the city of Goleta , a lifelong Santa Barbara resident and frequent Beach user
Ever since bacara was built and
Reduced the access for Goleta
and other locals we've needed
another point of coastal
access in the area. Owners of
the Bacara resort further limited access y by closing the dirt lot that allowed us to park close
to the ocean, and planting a
bunch of cactus to impede
access and having their
security guards heckle us,
and not have enough parking
we've been disenfranchised
from accessing that section
of the coast especially during
the more crowded times in
the summer. If this new project has the potential to
to provide a point for us to
have access and there's going
to be some possibility for
accommodations (that most
of us probably can't afford
but whatever that's the way
it is in Santa Barbara )why
not back this.? Right now the
only access to this area is
pretty much from Haskell's or
walking up the coast, both of
which are depended on the tide
for access. Who knows, maybe
if they're going to be having
glamping there ,there might be
an area that you could Beach
launch an inflatable or kayaks
Right now it is not an easy
stretch of coast to get at and if
this would increase access I'd
be stoked and this would be a significant Improvement for members of our community who like to be able to use this area of the coast and at this time are not easily able to do so. In general I'm not someone who's in favor of a lot of development but to me this seems like it could be a win for the community in general and I urge you to support it sincerely Jeremy bordofsky resident of the city of Goleta
September 1, 2026
Santa Barbara Shores Homeowners Association (SBSHA)
PO Box 8222, Goleta, CA 93118
Dear Mayor Perotte and Councilmembers,
Re: Agenda Item C.1, September 1, 2026, Consideration of Initiation of a General Plan Amendment for change in land use designation at the property located at 7979 Hollister Avenue from Open Space – Active Recreation to Commercial – Visitor Serving:
SBSHA requests that Council: Select Alternative 1 and decline to initiate, under both the applicant-requested amendment to Figure 2-1 and the staff-recommended text amendment to Table 2-4.
A land use designation should not be changed for this site, and the OS-AR zoning should not be changed to include RV Parks, resorts, hotels, motels, etc. It is not appropriate to initiate a change to the zoning of this parcel that has been designated and anticipated by Goleta residents for over 30 years. A more appropriate use for this site is restoration of the historic estuarine wetland, riparian and coastal sage scrub habitat.
1. The proposed initiation of General Plan and Local Coastal Program amendments for APN 079-210-019 (the Dos Pueblos South / former Ellwood oil and gas facility site) relies on findings that are contradicted by the staff report's own text and by adopted municipal policy.
2. The staff report analyzes and references several land use policies while entirely omitting adopted Land Use Element Policy LU 9.2 (Coastal Recreation). Subsection (d) of this policy explicitly mandates that upon the termination of oil and gas processing, the priority use for this exact parcel shall be coastal-dependent and coastal-related recreational uses conducted primarily outdoors or limited to small-scale structures, supported by adequate on-site parking. This binding policy is absent from the evaluation presented to the Council, despite the Council being asked to initiate a process that would alter the site's future.
3. The applicant’s proposed redline (Attachment 9) leaves subsection (d) of Policy LU 9.2 untouched while altering the primary land use designation to Commercial Visitor Serving. Granting this request would create an irreconcilable internal contradiction within the General Plan: designating the parcel for commercial visitor-serving uses (such as a hotel, motel, or RV park) while simultaneously requiring through policy that its priority use remain outdoor coastal recreation with small-scale structures.
4. The scope of the resolution before the Council fails to match the applicant's stated requests. Attachment 9 seeks amendments to Figure 2-1, Figure 2-2, Policy LU 9.2, and Policy LU 10.1, whereas the actual resolutions before the Council address only Figure 2- 1 and Table 2-4. The Council must clarify on the record whether the initiation is strictly limited or sweeps in unanalyzed policy amendments that have never been subjected to proper staff review or environmental evaluation.
5. Decommissioning and site restoration are not discretionary community benefits offered in exchange for an upzone; they are preexisting legal obligations. Adopted Policy LU 10.1 and the draft Coastal Element Policy C-LU 8.3 require the complete termination of oil processing, soil and groundwater remediation, financial surety, and site restoration to a natural condition or to Open Space Active Recreation. The current property owner acquired the land with these burdens and the open space designation already attached.
Staff should confirm on the record whether a formal Abandonment and Restoration Plan has been submitted, reviewed, and approved.
6. The staff alternative to modify Table 2-4 citywide to allow RV parks within the Open Space Active Recreation category directly conflicts with the draft Coastal Element, which restricts RV parks strictly to Visitor Serving and General Commercial categories (Table 11-4). Introducing RV parks into open space categories right as the City submits its draft Coastal Element to the Coastal Commission for certification creates an unnecessary point of conflict and undermines the integrity of the LCP.
7. The required statutory initiation factors under Goleta Municipal Code subsection
17.67.030(B) are not satisfied:
o Factor 2 (No material effect): The report's own "Pro" column acknowledges that the change represents a "fundamental change to the allowed land uses in this area," which directly contradicts the requirement of having no material effect. o Factor 3 (Public benefit): The justification relies primarily on the "economically viable new business" for the private landowner rather than net benefits to the broader community.
o Factor 4 (Constraints): The report records no constraints despite noting that the site relies on a septic system and would require annexation into the Goleta West Sanitary District or a formal service agreement to connect to Hollister Avenue sewers.
o Factor 5 (Required under other rules): Staff correctly notes that the amendment is not required by external rules, meaning this factor is also not met.
We respectfully renew the request that the Council:
• Select Alternative 1 and decline to initiate processing of Case No. 25-0001-GPA-I under both Resolution Alternative A and Resolution Alternative B, and retain the existing Open Space Active Recreation designation without change. • Direct staff to return with a report on open space, public access, and habitat restoration alternatives for the parcel, including potential partnerships with UC Santa Barbara and state agencies and potential acquisition or conservation easement options.
• State on the record that any future application for this site will require a full Environmental Impact Report.
Thank you for your consideration.
Respectfully,
Santa Barbara Shores Homeowners Association
Tim Burgess, President
Zach Gill, Vice President
Cynthia Brock, Secretary
Brad Weals, Treasurer
DeAnn Haff, Director
Rick Goeden, Director
Ryan Castorino, Director
From: Chuck Flacks
To: Stuart Kasdin; James Kyriaco; Jennifer Smith; Luz Reyes-Martin; Paula Perotte; City Clerk Group Cc: Robert Nisbet
Subject: Your Professionalism and Commitment to Democracy Moved Me to Tears Date: Wednesday, September 2, 2026 10:20:41 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear Council,
Last night was one of the finest displays of democracy I have ever witnessed. You all serve our community without thanks (most of the time). At the meeting you were faced with two contentious issues affecting my neighborhood.
For both the General Plan amendment and the gun sale controversy you faced heated criticism, media pressure, eloquent, and impassioned pleas on both sides.
You were asked to take controversial actions or sift through complicated, technical, and possibly historic responsibilities.
In these turbulent times of division among our populace and seeming lawlessness by our federal government, many of us feel helpless, powerless, and under threat.
Some of us are being taken from our homes and communities. Some of us are having trouble doing our jobs because of federal cuts in long-standing support.
Many of us are losing our healthcare. The desires to lash out, make strongly worded pronouncements, challenge standard norms, and make trouble are tempting, but often prove to be useless and hollow responses.
What will save our country is if each of us digs deep and does the thing that is called for in this moment, right now. Last night, you each did that. You struck a balance and held to your convictions. You listened with honest curiosity and fairly expressed your perspectives. You honored each person present without responding to sometimes angry feelings and words.
As your constituent and a longtime resident of our City, and can't help but feel honored and proud to have you as our leaders. Thank you for all you are doing.
Love,
Chuck Flacks
--
Chuck Flacks
Cell: 805-617-9648
https://www.linkedin.com/in/chuck-flacks-0743005/