An obviously agonized Helene Schneider-Santa Barbara City councilmember and mayoral candidate-cast the key vote giving traditional slow-growthers active with Save El Pueblo Viejo a significant tactical victory in their battle to put an initiative limiting the maximum size of new buildings on the November election ballot.
The initiative would reduce the maximum downtown building height from 60 feet to 40 and cap building heights throughout the rest of the city to no more than 45 feet. Initiative supporters-fearful that the city’s historic skyline could be gobbled up by 60-foot structures like the ones springing up on Chapala Street-packed the council chambers to demand a straight up-or-down vote on a ballot uncluttered with confusing alternatives. Critics of the initiative-which includes a rough coalition of affordable housing advocates, developers, architects, “smart growth” supporters, and sustainability wonks-have lobbied almost as intensely for competing ballot language that would embrace the same height restrictions as the Save El Pueblo initiative but allow limited exemptions for projects with at least 30 percent of the housing affordable to middle-income buyers.
Dressed in electric lime-green T-shirts, Save El Pueblo supporters denounced the alternative-drafted by councilmembers Das Williams and Grant House-as an effort to leave voters, in the words of signature gatherer Bill Marks, “hornswoggled, boondoggled, or conned.” Marks, who helped collect the 11,000 signatures to qualify the initiative for November’s ballot, noted that nothing in the alternative would have prevented the sprawling Chapala One development located at Chapala and Gutierrez streets from being approved. More than 30 percent of the Chapala One units, Marks noted, are affordable.
Schneider cast the tie-breaking vote to keep the alternative off the ballot, despite having initially criticized the initiative as “too simplistic” and having voted twice to authorize City Hall to pursue alternative language. After listening to the community and members of the city’s many boards and commissions, Schneider said she concluded that the alternative language was just not right. By voting against the alternative, however, Schneider found herself breaking with many close political friends and allies in the affordable housing and sustainability camp. Privately, she said the alternative process was fatally uncertain; the public would not vote on the precise enabling ordinance language until some indeterminate time after having voted in favor of the alternative itself. And that’s assuming that there would be five city councilmembers-the minimum legally required-willing to place it on the ballot.
None of this washed, however, with Mickey Flacks, an iconic affordable housing activist who until Tuesday was also a Schneider supporter. Flacks dismissed the vote as “politically calculated” and said she would no longer support Schneider in her mayoral run. (Flacks also said she would not support Councilmember Iya Falcone, whom Schnieder is now running against.) Despite past criticisms of the initiative, Schneider declined for the time being to state whether she would support it or oppose it come November.
While Schneider’s vote came after much deliberation, Falcone experienced no such difficulties. She’s opposed the initiative almost from its inception, she said, and she opposed any efforts to place an alternative before the voters. To the extent there’s a problem that needs fixing, Falcone said City Hall could and should craft new ordinances to limit the size, bulk, and scale of prospective Chapala Ones.
Joining Falcone and Schneider to exclude the alternative was Mayor Marty Blum and Councilmember Dale Francisco. Joining Williams and House in supporting the alternative was Councilmember Roger Horton. Horton pointed out that the City Council never approved any of the projects on Chapala Street and that no civic groups now supporting the initiative appealed those projects to the council. He took offense that these developments had been approved by the city’s Planning Commission, and some of the most ardent supporters of the initiative were the very planning commissioners who approved them.



Print friendly
E-mail story
Tip Us Off
Comments
Share Article
Myspace





Previous Month



Comments
Schneider may have lost always-angry-faced Flacks' vote in November but she has gained mine. She showed great political courage in allowing the voters of Santa Barbara a straight up or down vote on lowering maximum building heights to 45 feet, against the wishes of the construction/building/architect trades.
The issue is not affordable housing - just about all Santa Barbarans are in favor of that! - but the character of Santa Barbara: More Casa de las Fuentes projects; no more Chapala One behemoths.
The issue was also whether the city council, our elected representatives, should be in the business of putting competing initiatives on the ballot, wasting expensive staff time. Thanks to the four council members who voted no, especially to Schneider for having the courage to say "NO". (Falcone did also but hers was in the line of a "plague on both your houses", a less thoughtful response.)
citti (anonymous profile)
March 26, 2009 at 7:15 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Given the economy, crime, gangs, and homelessness, this issue gets far too much attention.
JohnLocke (anonymous profile)
March 26, 2009 at 9:12 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I have to go w/ Locke. How about a vote on banning gangs from SB? Now THAT would get some attention! :) henry
hank (anonymous profile)
March 26, 2009 at 10:46 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Who elected Mickey Flacks to public office? Who does she represent? Why does she have so much influence on local housing policy?
revisionist (anonymous profile)
March 26, 2009 at 4:49 p.m. (Suggest removal)
It's nice when politicians listen to the voters more than city staff.
It doesn't happen as much as voters would like though.
Georgy (anonymous profile)
March 26, 2009 at 5:56 p.m. (Suggest removal)
The Citizens initiative will be alone on ballot --that is how it should be. We didn't elect the City Council to compete against the will of the citizens. I'm glad the Council voted against the alternative. If they had moved forward with the EIR it would have taken too much Council time, staff time & money. Now they can get back to the important work of the budget. That means negotiating concessions from the SEIU, Police and Fire Unions.
local (anonymous profile)
March 26, 2009 at 10:41 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Hey, hank, what a great idea voting on allowing gangs in SB. Right after gangs are outlawed, they'll all immediately leave town, right? After all, they're all law-abiding citizens, right?
Sheeesh, what a dumb idea.
Schneider just won my vote.
SezMe (anonymous profile)
March 27, 2009 at 12:47 a.m. (Suggest removal)
So I'm confused----does Helene support the height limits ordinance---or not? She spoke so ill against it at two consecutive Council hearings just a few months ago when she voted to have the ordinance committee draft an alternative.
sbsleuth99 (anonymous profile)
March 27, 2009 at 7:09 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Helene apparently gets it. This is simply not an affordable housing issue - and all the housing, social justice and "smart growth" advocates are simply barking up the wrong tree.
Buildings are still going to be limited to 4 stories; nobody is changing that. And within 4 stories (or 3, or 2), there can be built as many housing units - of any degree of affordability - in an attractive 40 or 45 foot building as in a 60 footer. Some of our best architects attest to that, and can build such buildings.
Why does this have to get so totally lost in symbolic and ideological arguments when it this simple?
joer43 (anonymous profile)
March 27, 2009 at 7:55 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Hey Sez, if you can't spot the irony/humor on that post of mine, sheesh, what a dumb observationist.
Of course they ain't going to obey the law, any foolio such as yourself knows that. DUH!
The serious jist of that comment was to indicate that:
a) There's BIGGER problems in this town.
b) The city council has made it nearly impossible for law enforcement to do their job by cowtoeing to the rehabilitaionalsist..
c) The "law abiding" community is sick of these thugs.
d) Maybe if the community held the leaders more accountable than they currently do we may see some much needed changes.
I know this is probably too much for you to process, but hey, I'm a nice guy & will hold your hand all the way to the top on this matter :) henry
hank (anonymous profile)
March 27, 2009 at 9:38 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Joer43:"Why does this have to get so totally lost in symbolic and ideological arguments when it this simple?"
BEST question on here thus far! I can't say I have a quantifiable answer to that, but maybe an inkling will do.
If you want the "left vote" which is the majority of Santa Barbara, you have to bow to the "housing, social justice and "smart growth" advocates" you mention as "barking up the wrong tree" because they can get you the $$$ for re-election or a new campaign.
Affordable housing in SB? NEVER! Why? There's this little enclave just to the east called Montecito & while the majority of the population there is hard working, tax paying citizenry, there's celebrities that also make their homes there.
I can remember during the Tea Fire last year the only concern by the media was "what celebities were affected by this?" & that's all they cared about.
Now come those of what I refer to as the "TMZ set" who live in L.A. & want to move up here to be close to the celebrities. These people also have the $$$ to make the move. They're the people driving housing prices up in this area.
If it's affordable housing 1 seeks, well, they better look to the west in Goleta, Noleta or wherever else because it won't be found here & even then those places are a guarantee.
I live in Isla Vista & the reason housing there will always be unaffordable is because there's a ton of $$$ to be made by providing housing to the students.
I doubt SB will ever see affordable housing, but hey, it's what some people will use as a Trojan Horse for their political gains. Whatever works baby! :) henry
hank (anonymous profile)
March 27, 2009 at 10:21 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Affordable housing doesn't belong in Santa Barbara. It belongs in cheaper places like Oxnard and Santa Maria.
Folks with high paying jobs have a hard enough time affording homes here. Screw affordable housing . . .
Stake out Jack in the Box and catch them gang bangers!
Lars (anonymous profile)
March 27, 2009 at 4:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Kudos to Helene for making a tough choice. That is what leadership is all about. I can not wait to call you Ms. Mayor!
Herschel_Greenspan (anonymous profile)
March 27, 2009 at 5:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0P_HKQ...
The above music video sums up the issue.
billclausen (anonymous profile)
March 27, 2009 at 8:13 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Hank, don't let SezMe get to you. Click on SezMe's previous posts and you'll find a history of insulting comments.
The nice thing about these blogs is that people can hide behind fake screen names and carry out their childhood fantasy of insulting people without having to be confronted directly by those they insult. Such courage!
billclausen (anonymous profile)
March 27, 2009 at 9:08 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I keep reading and hearing comments from the right, wanting some outsider republican to throw his [and I do mean HIS] hat in the mayoral ring and offer an option----well, I'd like to see another DEM independent from the current Council throw his OR her hat in---a smart, progressive local with some courage,political acumen---so we are not all forced to watch this barrage of flip-flops and painful justifications from Helene and Iya from now until fall-any ideas?
sbsleuth99 (anonymous profile)
March 28, 2009 at 8:59 a.m. (Suggest removal)
How is traffic going to be managed with this growth? I realize there is the Luddite crowd who would have everyone walking and riding bicycles but many still need to drive cars.
Building heights are about aesthetics, but more people means more cars/SUV'S (environmentally Californians seem to prefer S.U.V's to little sedans--just an observation)
billclausen (anonymous profile)
March 28, 2009 at 2:34 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I'd like to see a candidate with no party affiliation, no allegiance to the SEIU, a truly rational centrist worldview, some experience living somewhere closer to the real world than SB, and a pledge to work the rapidly growing economic, budget, and crime problems.
RCMeltzer (anonymous profile)
March 29, 2009 at 1:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)
gee RCM---sounds like time for you to move back to the "real world" midwest!
sbsleuth99 (anonymous profile)
March 29, 2009 at 3:40 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Gee, sbsleuth, I'm having trouble understanding. Do economic, budget, and crime problems not register on your radar of important issues? Or do you just want anyone who doesn't share your political views to leave Santa Barbara? I guess we should all hail you as a true Democrat (note the capital, not small, d - small d democrats value differences of opinion and are willing to debate issues instead of hurling insults). Have a nice day.
RCMeltzer (anonymous profile)
March 29, 2009 at 4:58 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Gee, sbsleuth, I'm having trouble understanding. Do economic, budget, and crime problems not register on your radar of important issues? Or do you just want anyone who doesn't share your political views to leave Santa Barbara?..."
-RCMeltzer-
You just hit the nail on the head RC, thank you. So called "tolerant" people don't want to enter the realm of having to provide proof to back up their ideas, but simply tell people that if they don't like it, get out.
billclausen (anonymous profile)
March 29, 2009 at 5:33 p.m. (Suggest removal)
And they usually hide behind anonymity They embarrass themselves and don't even know it.
RCMeltzer (anonymous profile)
March 29, 2009 at 5:50 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Santa Barbara needs afordable housing but it needs to be "rental" afordable housing. When someone is no longer a low income earner .. they move to market rate housing.
loneranger (anonymous profile)
March 29, 2009 at 7:16 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Good point, loneranger. Purchased "affordable" housing seems to go to people with connections who are then not policed as to use, rental, resale, etc. - it's a giveaway to the politically connected. Even our own Das Williams is reputed to have lived (illegally) in a relative's subsidized housing unit while that relative was living elsewhere, in violation of affordable housing covenants.
JohnLocke (anonymous profile)
March 29, 2009 at 7:20 p.m. (Suggest removal)
The height issue is about aesthetics. Unfortunately, the issue has been sidelined by the growth/no-growth agenda. Most people who were approached by petitioners were told this is about growth (I know, I was one of them) that taller buildings meant more growth, that in order to stop the "monstrosities" going up around town we needed to flatten the skyline. This could not be further from the truth. It does not help that the affordable/work force/jobs- housing balance people took the growth bate and legitimized Bill Mahan's rhetoric by arguing we needed taller buildings to help their cause. The much maligned "Chapala One" project is in fact a result of building height limits. The new lower limits will positively ensure more of the same kinds of buildings are built, albeit 15 to 20 feet shorter. What is unique about the Chapala building is the massing of lots together so that a lower and more massive horizontal structure is built. Lost in all the BS over the issue is that from street level it won't make that much difference if a building is half a block long and 60 feet or a block long at 40 feet. Nick does the issue no justice by repeating the biggest lie in Santa Barbara that the skyline will be destroyed by taller, leaner structures rather than the land gobbling "suburban" style buildings limits will force upon us, like Chapala One. Also lost is the historical precedence Santa Barbara has for taller, not shorter, structures. If Santa Barbara wants to save its "skyline" it should drop the blanket limits (look what it did to Cottage hospital's rebuild!!) and adopt a more reasonable approach to building size and shape. In a town that prides itself on being so progressive and permissive, it astounds me how utterly fascist, intolerant and backwards people get when it comes to a subject most people have no clue on, architecture.
AN50 (anonymous profile)
March 30, 2009 at 2:28 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Hi everyone, keep the party going! I love the posts.
So as someone who is clawing my way to higher income, I can't quite afford the nice homes in the nice locations that I want so I rent and bide my time. One reason I'm staying put here after living in diverse areas of the country (rural America to major metropolitan to now charming Santa Barbara), is because I love the aesthetics of Santa Barbara.
I am for a community that is hospitable to working- and middle-class families, but that is a much deeper issue to building heights. There seems to be more pressing issues of equity that need to be expressly dealt with.
Santa Barbara is expensive because of supply and demand and its impact on the cost of land/cost of living. I do not judge it as good or bad - it is what it is. Now if people want to change the composition of Santa Barbara so that it builds up and transitions into being a taller, more congested town... that's up to them. But for me, I prefer the smaller, less-congested setting, so that's how I will vote. Perhaps my fellow social progressives will tar and feather me, but I'll vote according to my beliefs, interests, and analysis of the situation.
By the way, nice move, Helene!
boysandgirls (anonymous profile)
April 1, 2009 at 6:53 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Dear RC:
On hiding and being intolerant - Yes, I am enjoying my anonymity, and I'm sure you are, too. But I'd like to think that if I met you in person, we could have a nice chat as I am very curious and interested in open, sincere, dialogue, especially when there exists intelligible differences in viewpoints.
So I hope you can acknowledge that there are at least some folks like myself who may be more "liberal" than you, but are not wholly asinine. I paid a lot to be an educated, open-minded thinker so please give people like me some credit. :o) I think you can also acknowledge that intolerance, rigidity, and ignorance exist throughout the political spectrum (but I do understand your frustration). Well, take care!
boysandgirls (anonymous profile)
April 1, 2009 at 7:03 p.m. (Suggest removal)