Print friendly
E-mail story
Tip Us Off
Share Article
Facebook
Twitter
Google+1
Digg!
google
reddit
Yahoo!Although the Santa Barbara City Council is scheduled to deal with Plan Santa Barbara — five years and $3 million in the making — just next week, it’s growing increasingly likely that final action on the intensely debated planning document could be delayed another 18 months. Two councilmembers, Frank Hotchkiss and Michael Self, have expressed concern to city planning czar Paul Casey that they haven’t had enough time to properly digest the sprawling document — approved three weeks ago by the Planning Commission by a 6-1 vote — which will determine how much growth the city should accommodate, what kind, and where.
Hotchkiss and Self are part of a three-person council minority opposed to some of the new residential densities called for in the new plan to accommodate more affordable housing. Because Plan Santa Barbara calls for major zoning changes, a five-vote supermajority is required for approval. Given the political split of the council, it’s unclear what menu of compromises, if any, might yield the five votes needed. Should Hotchkiss and Self successfully delay the vote, they could effectively minimize whatever impact Councilmember Das Williams — an ardent supporter of increased densities they oppose — might have. Williams is now running as the Democratic candidate for State Assembly, an election he’s expected to win. Should that occur, Williams would step down from the council this December, one year before his term expires, leaving the council deadlocked 3-3 on a host of issues. His last day on the council would be November 23.
In this scenario, it’s unlikely the councilmembers will agree on whom they should appoint to fill Williams’ vacancy. Without such an appointment, Williams’s successor would have to be elected next November. As to whether Hotchkiss and Self have had enough time, Casey noted that the council received all the essential — if voluminous — documents in March. The Planning Commission managed to digest them and render a vote, and eight special council sessions were scheduled to allow the council to vet the material.
Comments
I'm a lifelong Santa Barbara resident, I bought my first car at Butts Buick, I remember how quaint it was to wait at the traffic lights on the 101. One of the main arguments against Conservative/Republicans is that were in the pockets of developers and they would allow indiscriminate building and over-development. The Progressive/Democrats would preserve the charm and character of the city and act as the buffer against developers.
My God, in my worse nightmare I never could have imaged the damage that has been inflicted upon this city in the past 20 years. High density four story housing on almost every lot, the old Von's (near the Arlington) is going to get another 37 units, another 55 units scheduled on the old Sloan Technologies site. How ironic that the Conservatives Hotchkiss and Self are the ones questioning the growth plan of the city.
CManSB (anonymous profile)
October 21, 2010 at 1:16 a.m. (Suggest removal)
If you're a true old-timer you will remember Two Guys out in Goleta.
Yes, the irony you've pointed out has been noted. I was a True Believer in the political left and was convinced they were going to save Santa Barbara from becoming another L.A. Now I'm pretty much disgusted with all politicians.
As a good friend of mine likes to say: "follow the money".
billclausen (anonymous profile)
October 21, 2010 at 4:40 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Its simple. They're just packing Santa Barbara with a high-density of low-income, low-skilled voters who will be forever dependent on the Democratic party and government for health care and welfare.
Republicans are not going to want to live in 55 units to an acre housing.
revisionist (anonymous profile)
October 21, 2010 at 7:13 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Considering that the so-far preferred Plan alternative is approximately 2300 new residential units to be zoned-for for the whole city, just where should these residences go instead?
Does the Franciscan bloc of Councilmembers want the status quo where this residential growth would be spread around the suburban neighborhoods instead, with big-box condo bombs dropped amidst single- or double-home lots that have been "single family" forever?
Or should this increment of residential growth instead be directed towards downtown Santa Barbara, where traffic congestion at the freeway interchanges will be way, way less as a result, and downtown will benefit from an economic engine of nearby residents instead of dependency upon tourists and drunk UCSB students?
Just like the gridlock in our national Congress, a policy platform of Just Say No is easy politics never to offer an alternative or counter-proposal, but that don't get the job done to finish the General Plan Update.
For his next story, Nick Welsh can analyze just how a City Council of only 6 members can persist when the City Charter mandates that an appointment to fill the vacancy shall be made within 30 days. Just who could ever be appointed with 4 of those 6 remaining Council votes? And what would be the enforcement method, or legal remedy, for an appointment to be made as required by the City Charter. Is a date yet scheduled on the docket of Judge Anderle?
David_Pritchett (David Pritchett)
October 21, 2010 at 8:53 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Self wasn't elected but appointed, as the next highest vote gatherer, to fill Helene's vacated seat in November 2009. This has been city protocol honored for many years - I doubt Self would have been the choice of the majority, but they followed decorum and appointed her. Assuming Das leaves Council, the next highest vote-getter from the November 2009 election is the appropriate person to be appointed to his seat to complete his term and stand, if they choose, for the next election.
Marc_Chytilo (Marc Chytilo)
October 22, 2010 at 2:02 p.m. (Suggest removal)
The next-highest vote getter after Self was Diane Channing:
http://www.santabarbaraca.gov/SBCityV...
I bet the Riviera Association would love for her to be in.
EastBeach (anonymous profile)
October 25, 2010 at 11:51 a.m. (Suggest removal)