The Santa Barbara City Council’s alleged down-and-dirty, drop-dead date over future housing densities was put off this Tuesday to allow Councilmembers Das Williams, Dale Francisco, and Frank Hotchkiss to meet one more time this Friday to see if a possible compromise over changes to the city’s General Plan can be hashed out. The council met until 9:20 p.m., when the mayor declared the council had met its “cranky point.”
Williams has argued the new General Plan must actively encourage increased housing densities in certain sections of the city if new affordable housing is to be built over the next 20 years. Francisco and Hotchkiss, by contrast, doubt any affordable housing can or will be built absent direct government or employer subsidies no matter what densities are allowed. But they fear the increased densities Williams seeks will undermine Santa Barbara’s historic character. Williams speaks for himself and three others on the council. Francisco leads a minority of three. Because changes to the city’s General Plan — the basic blueprint for growth and development — need five votes, Francisco holds the trump card. Or, as Mayor Helene Schneider said, addressing Francisco directly on the dais, “Really, you’re it.”
Tuesday’s council meeting had been billed by City Hall officials as the deadline for a vote on changes proposed to the General Plan. Divisions between councilmembers have mirrored those among longtime environmental and civic activists concerned about growth and development. Prior to Tuesday’s meeting there was little optimism anywhere that a deal could be had. But in the face of apparent intransigence between the dueling parties, a spirit of compromise seems to be breaking out.
Mr. Francisco, you’ve taken a lot of blood out of me, but I’ve got more to give.— Santa Barbara City Councilmember Das Williams, agreeing to meet one more time with Councilmembers Dale Francisco and Frank Hotchkiss to see if a compromise over housing densities can be worked out.
Two weeks ago, Francisco, Hotchkiss, and Williams met as an ad hoc subcommittee and came close to reaching accord, however tentatively and conceptually. (All agreed the existing rules encourage the proliferation of luxury condos, and that the rules should be changed to encourage smaller, more affordable, and less bulky developments. To the extent higher densities should be allowed, Francisco and Hotchkiss agreed they should be concentrated along Haley and Cota streets. In exchange, Williams agreed there should be no density increase throughout Santa Barbara’s historic downtown, and that certain neighborhoods might be eligible for a de facto down-zoning to keep future development densities in check.)
After that, a group of eight community organizations that have long been deeply divided over the issues of density, affordability, and neighborhood preservation got together and negotiated a compromise plan of their own. Over the years, the League of Women Voters and Citizens Planning Association have pushed hard for neighborhood preservation in the face of increased density; arguing just as hard for housing affordability — and increased densities — were groups like the Community Environmental Council, SBCAN, PUEBLO, and the Coastal Housing Coalition. Making this deal happen was Lee Anne French, the new executive director of Citizens Planning Association, who made the phone calls, convened the meetings, and invited the right representatives of the rival factions to the table.
Councilmembers and city planners were mixed in their response to details of the plan — some worried it would allow substantially bigger and bulkier developments — but all were impressed by the compromise. Williams called it “incredibly significant.” Whether that’s enough for the councilmembers to do the same remains to be seen. When Councilmember Francisco sought another meeting with the ad hoc subcommittee, Mayor Schneider expressed skepticism as to whether the extra time would be fruitfully spent. Williams all but accused Francisco of obstructionism. Francisco insisted, “This is not a delay tactic on my part,” but argued that after spending five years on the process, the end result would not be compromised if the council spent a bit more time to “get it right.” Councilmember Michael Self — who argued vehemently against much of the changes proposed for the general plan — responded to the “obstructionist” charge, stating, “If I stopped a bulldozer from mowing down your house, I’d be proud to be called an ‘obstructionist.’”
When a man knows he’s going to be hanged, it concentrates his mind wonderfully. — Councilmember Dale Francisco, paraphrasing Samuel Johnson, likening the end of the General Plan Update process with meeting the business end of a rope.
Self delivered a sprawling 49-point critique of the proposed changes to the General Plan, taking exception to language stating that plans should be guided in part by a desire to improve public health — code for a walking, clean-air, cycling, pedestrian-friendly city.
Schneider said she’d have a hard time budging on that. Hotchkiss had better luck with his 12-point critique and got many of his objections codified by the council, including language eliminating any possibility that parking meters might be installed downtown. That language, according to city planner Betty Weiss, had already been changed.
Later, Hotchkiss distributed edited versions of his critique to fellow councilmembers, warning them how much “fun” they’d have reading it over the weekend. “I already read it, and I was amazed,” retorted an uncharacteristically grumpy Councilmember Grant House. House is a strong supporter of alternate transportation strategies, and Hotchkiss, Self, and Francisco made clear they wanted as little as possible in the new General Plan supporting such strategies. It was at that that point Mayor Schneider declared “the cranky point” had been breached.


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





Previous Month



Comments
I hope and doubt Francisco will cave. It is the height of arrogance to suggest that we don't have a few more months to get it right, just because Das chose to pursue State office. The rest of us will still be here! The Mayor knows this is a big political matter and she loses control of the Council when Das leaves. Again she appears desperate for approval. The Plan has already greatly improved over the last month. Throw it into the New Year and tell Mickey Flacks to move to a high density/new urbanism City far far away.
sbreader (anonymous profile)
November 18, 2010 at 6:20 a.m. (Suggest removal)
It's such a bad and destructive plan to try to squeeze more population into a over-crowded city. The problems our City has inherited from high-density have shaped us into an L.A. style City with gang violence, pollution, and traffic. Hopefully Francisco will let this mess die on the vine. The City staff are trying hard to put pressure on the City Council. Williams caved in long ago, hopefully Francisco will stand up for the people who live here.
Georgy (anonymous profile)
November 18, 2010 at 7:29 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Santa Barbara is one of those unique highly desirable, super-attractive communities. This turns orthodox housing solutions on their ear. There will always be more people crowding their way in here than there will be adequate housing for them: the demand is virtually unlimited.
Show us one - just one - such desirable place that ever substantially alleviated their housing shortage by building their way out of it (without building so much that they destroyed their desirability).
joer43 (anonymous profile)
November 18, 2010 at 9:09 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Part of the challenge is that the State has sent the County a mandate for how many housing units must be planned for as the State's process calls for every 5 years. The rest of the County decided to stick it to Santa Barbara this cycle and mandated the majority of the new housing units must be planned for the City. In spite of protests by the City to the SBCAG Board it was not changed. So the City has to find a way, at least on paper, to accommodate the increased housing numbers or face issues with the State.
art (anonymous profile)
November 18, 2010 at 9:45 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Das Williams has never hesitated to spend the taxpayers' money. He personally benefited from subsidized housing so it is no surprise that he favors high density. The Central Coast is a highly desirable location for its beauty and weather. Although Das has stated he 'doesn't believe in market forces' (kinda like not believing in oxygen), the financial power of the millions of people that would live here if they could will continue to drive real estate prices. Subsidized housing, rent controls and the like simply create a special class of people, similar to the people living in Mommy's house and being protected from paying their fair share of property taxes by the well-intentioned, but economically disastrous, inheritance provision of prop 13.
JohnLocke (anonymous profile)
November 18, 2010 at 11:58 a.m. (Suggest removal)
You can find mountains and ocean all over California. Its the zip code a lot of the newcomers like Francisco, Self and Hotchkiss want. Its policies like their's that are destroying everything that made SB unique.
EZK (anonymous profile)
November 18, 2010 at 4:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I'd be very interested to know the educational backgrounds Francisco, Hotchkiss and Self. Do they have college degrees? If so from where and what in? All three time and again show themselves intellectually and ethically bereft; and unqualified to make the simplest decisions of governance.
EZK (anonymous profile)
November 18, 2010 at 4:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Here's some folks without college degrees. Draw your own conclusions:
Michael Dell, the founder and CEO of Dell, Inc., dropped out of college at 19.
Henry Ford never graduated high school, but went on to start one of the largest automobile manufacturing companies in the world, Ford Motor Company.
Bill Gates, a college dropout, has been named the richest person in the world by Forbes magazine 27 times.
Andrew Jackson, is most-known for being the 6th president of the United States, but was also a military governor, Army commander, an attorney, and a congressman – all without ever going to college.
John D. Rockefeller Sr., a high school dropout, became the first American billionaire and is said to be the richest man in history.
Steven Spielberg, is a movie director and producer.
Mark Zuckerberg, founder of the social networking site Facebook #785 in the World’s Billionaires ranks #321 on Forbes’ list of 400 richest Americans.
pedronava (anonymous profile)
November 18, 2010 at 5:31 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Here's some successful women without college degrees:
Eleanor Roosevelt, wife of FDR, humanitarian and civic leader of the 20th century, never attended college.
Coco Chanel. An orphan for many years, Gabrielle CocoChanel trained as a seamstress. Determined to invent herself, she threw out the ideas that the fashion world deemed feminine, boldly using fabric and styles normally reserved for men.
Doris Lessing, this year, at the age of 88, Doris Lessing was awarded the Nobel Prize for literature. Ms. Lessing independently ended her formal education at the age of 14.
pedronava (anonymous profile)
November 18, 2010 at 5:59 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Good point, pedronava, if exhaustively made.
It doesn't take a college degree to make one stupid, and the lack of a degree is proof of ... not completing college.
So we need a different explanation for the shallow, reflexive thinking and tattered deliberations of the three council-folks in question.
binky (anonymous profile)
November 18, 2010 at 7:01 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I'd say the shallow thinking is coming from the Schneider-Williams camp, who appear willing to sell-out the community for a high-density disaster. The real issue appears to be why these pro-development city council-members lack the character to protect Santa Barbara. Why are they so easily swayed by the pressure coming from the special interests and city planners, all of whom gain financially by allowing high-density housing?
Georgy (anonymous profile)
November 18, 2010 at 10:16 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Right on Gregory.
What works in New York or San Francisco, where the paid consultants come from, doesn't necessarily work here. Although the Mayor embraces the process in place, her lack of background in Santa Barbara hinders all of us. City Staffer's constantly work at spending our $ to bolster their departments and programs for their own selfish reasons.
I'm stoked to see Fransisco and Self at least acting on the items that their constituents elected them for. Das's body language, addressed to Self, is embarrassing, and if the Mayor can not get enough energy to discuss the issues presented, I suggest a power nap after milk and cookies.
For Dale Francisco, .thanks for holding the line. It matters.
easternpacific (anonymous profile)
November 19, 2010 at 9:16 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Dear EZK. Does Hotchkiss' Yale diploma ('64) count as a higher education degree?
joer43 (anonymous profile)
November 19, 2010 at 9:17 a.m. (Suggest removal)
In addition to the age-proven fact that artists are born not made, shaped but not trained; Speilberg, while never an official student of USC film school did, by his own telling, greatly benefited "educationally" from his close friendships with George Lucas, and Francis Ford Coppola; all the while learning and capturing attention on the Universal lot.
While Film/Art is tremendously beneficial to any artist, his sort of ascension is not uncommon in Art History.
A bad film or painting doesn't negatively impact a city.
I could address each personage on Mr. Nava's petty list in richer detail, but I find it still interesting he'll jump at any opportunity to defend Francisco, Self, and Hotchkiss yet does not understand why more forward thinking people have turned their backs to him.
To Joer, itsa good start, but what is it in? How is he qualified to be making these decisions? What independent study prior to having a seat bought for him on the City Council?
EZK (anonymous profile)
November 19, 2010 at 3:58 p.m. (Suggest removal)
To EZK: I would posit that the lack of a sheepskin in one's educational resume does not preclude their administrative ability, whether or not the persons you name demonstrate those qualities required to be proper government stewards.
Signed yours truly, Bill Clausen. H.S.G. (high school graduate)
billclausen (anonymous profile)
November 20, 2010 at 3:28 p.m. (Suggest removal)
By the way, didn't Bush have a college degree? I'm guessing you're not a fan of his.
billclausen (anonymous profile)
November 20, 2010 at 3:30 p.m. (Suggest removal)