Stream-side buffers and setbacks were the main theme of the Goleta City Council’s discussion Tuesday evening on General Plan amendments. The council ultimately voted to approve the amendments, deemed by some to be less protective than the original policies.

The decision came after council members and the public grappled for a while over proposed changes to the city’s planning policies on Goleta’s riparian areas.

Several watersheds originate at the foothills north of Goleta, with many creeks and tributaries flowing south across the city to the Goleta Slough and the ocean. Original rules for future development along these areas drew the line at 100 feet from the top of the bank and took it down to a 50-foot minimum if there was existing development, while the amendment held to a 100-foot guideline in all areas that could be taken down to as little as 25 feet, depending on the individual site’s circumstances and the results.

By far, the majority of the public that weighed in on the topic Tuesday evening advocated a 100-foot minimum buffer, urging the council to hold fast to that guideline.

“As a scientist, I support consistent 100-foot creek and wetland setbacks, because they are supported by firm scientific evidence,” UCSB ecology professor Scott Cooper said.

“Channelkeeper is, of course, concerned that the city’s proposed reductions to existing creek setbacks will make it harder for the community to achieve its water-quality goals,” said Ben Pitterle of Santa Barbara Channelkeeper.

Among those who were vocal about their opposition to a large buffer zone were people with property in Old Town Goleta, where projects have been developed up to the banks of the creeks that flow through that urbanized area.

“One size definitely does not fit all; flexibility is required based on circumstances,” said Peter Brown, representing a client who owns property abutting Old San Jose Creek in Old Town. The 100-foot setback rules without flexibility would give his client little more than a bowling lane’s width to work with, he said.

To put a little perspective on the situation, Planning and Environmental Services Director Steve Chase reminded the council that the actual new developments the streamside protection rules would affect would amount to less than 2 percent of undeveloped land left in the city. “Not much left,” he said.

Furthermore, Chase said, there are threshold tests and others that are part of the city’s determination as to how close a development can come to a creek’s bank. Existing development that encroaches upon the setback would be listed as nonconforming, but not be required to move. However, extensions of existing development or rebuilt projects may come under Planning and Development scrutiny.

The rest of the General Plan amendment recommendations made by the city Planning Commission and planning staff were approved relatively quickly by the City Council, including the drafting of a new element dealing with greenhouse gas emissions. The council voted 4-0 (Councilman Ed Easton abstaining) to certify the amendments and the accompanying environmental documents for what has become known as the Track 3 Amendments.

However, the city hasn’t seen the end of the General Plan amendment process for this year.

Councilman Eric Onnen, speaking for small-business owners such as himself who have property in Old Town, suggested a change in the General Plan’s policy to deal with the double jeopardy that occurs when a property owner mitigates creekside property as part of a development, only to create another environmentally sensitive habitat area that would require another buffer zone.

That sole amendment is expected to return to the council for initiation before the end of 2009.

— Noozhawk staff writer Sonia Fernandez can be reached at sfernandez@noozhawk.com.