Community Post: CC, PC, ABR and HLC Joint Meeting
This in from a citizen stringer:
===================
There's going to be an important meeting next week at the Cabrillo Pavilion of the City Council with the Planning Commission, the Architectural Board of Review and the Historic Landmarks Commission. It's a workshop to discuss big buildings, the proposed height limitation in the city or perhaps just in the El Pueblo Viejo district. Or maybe more? There's nothing on the city web site that I can find about it.
This seems to be under the radar: I think it is scheduled for 8:30 am on Wednesday, July 18th, but it's not on the television schedule, not yet on the city commission agendas; not on the city calendar which is totally useless anyway. They don't seem to be publicizing this at all! Why not?
It certainly should be televised on Channel 18. They may say that they can't do tv at the Pavilion but that's not so. They may also say they're planning small group discussions which wouldn't be conducive to television. But they did televise the General Plan discussion - and then the roundup of the small groups.
The issues of big house, big buildings as on Chapala Street, is this the future of Santa Barbara?, are of great public concern. The public, representatives of some of the civic groups, will be speaking at this at public comment, and listening with interest to our representatives - and certainly there should be television.
===================
There's going to be an important meeting next week at the Cabrillo Pavilion of the City Council with the Planning Commission, the Architectural Board of Review and the Historic Landmarks Commission. It's a workshop to discuss big buildings, the proposed height limitation in the city or perhaps just in the El Pueblo Viejo district. Or maybe more? There's nothing on the city web site that I can find about it.
This seems to be under the radar: I think it is scheduled for 8:30 am on Wednesday, July 18th, but it's not on the television schedule, not yet on the city commission agendas; not on the city calendar which is totally useless anyway. They don't seem to be publicizing this at all! Why not?
It certainly should be televised on Channel 18. They may say that they can't do tv at the Pavilion but that's not so. They may also say they're planning small group discussions which wouldn't be conducive to television. But they did televise the General Plan discussion - and then the roundup of the small groups.
The issues of big house, big buildings as on Chapala Street, is this the future of Santa Barbara?, are of great public concern. The public, representatives of some of the civic groups, will be speaking at this at public comment, and listening with interest to our representatives - and certainly there should be television.
Labels: City of Santa Barbara
posted by Sara De la Guerra | 7/12/2007 05:55:00 AM
Our Community Guidelines ask that you use the Blogger/Open ID login or the
more private Name/URL option when making comments. Comments using "Anonymous" will not be published. For more info, see choosing an identity.
42 Comments:
Sara, why are you surprised the City is keeping this meeting "under the radar"? This, the same City that is shutting public members out of the General Plan Update process? Oh, that's right, except for the meaningless"Plan Santa Barbara" lovefests. I mean really. "What do you like about Santa Barbara?"??
This is so the City planners can just go back and write their own plan, based on their "smart growth" vision, and get buy-in from the carefully selected commissioners.
Thanks for the heads-up. A lot of people need to show up and get the city to listen to them. You have to let the city staff there is a far louder voice out there than theirs - who have been seduced by developer favors and attention.
Tell the city staff what you want and get them to stop this insatiable rush to give away this city to developer interests.
Staff (unelected) runs this city - not the council people who only respond to crowds of loud, noisy people but provide no strategic leadership, direction or honoring of their own campaign promises to the voters.
Let them know voters run this city, not over-paid and ineffectual city staff.
Wonder if the agenda includes a serious dicussion about the number of times citizens have had to call these low-level bureaucrats on their low level of ethical behavior and considerable conflict of interest issues. Not that the citizens'revelations ever result in a correction, just more frustration at a group working in lockstep, unwilling to exercise critical thinking skills when given their marching orders.
The agendae for those 3 (4?) groups tend to come out on Friday, for a meeting the following Wednesday.
At a minimum, the agenda for each will note the joint meeting subject and location. Additional outreach to announce the joint meeting may or may not happen, but if anything does get announced I suspect that would happen on Monday.
The City often deliberately sends "work session" meetings to facilities deliberately without TV coverage, which only is available at City Council Chambers and Gebhard Room. That happened a few times during my tenure on City Creeks Committee and seemed like a ploy to discourage public participation, by holding the meeting in the obscure Parks and Rec. Dept. conference room or elsewhere.
Clearly, some public meetings are more public than others. The 2 rooms with built-in TV coverage also might have been reserved for another meeting of a different group.
However, a joint meeting like this could have 30+ active participants, which indeed does limit how tables could be set up and the options for a meeting room. Cabrillo Pavilion actually would allow a big circle of chairs to facilitate the much-needed discussion.
CityTV-18 often records meetings held outside the 2 facilities that have the built-in TV cameras. It is just a question of priorities and staff time available to send the highly capable crew there.
This can be delicate as this joint meeting of PlanComm, ABR, HLC, and maybe even the new residential ABR actually might be far more productive with far franker talk if the meeting is not recorded on video and shown on CityTV. Citizen stringers may want to evaluate it that way, and/or record it themselves. I am not able to do that, this time at least....
NO need to go. They know what they want and this is just going through the motions.
Let me start out by saying that I love the fact that we have stringent, draconian planning regulations and an Architectural Review Board. We are so far beyond what most communities in this country have, and I'm grateful for it. I do not want to live in a duplicate of Orange County or the Conejo Valley.
However, I seriously think people need to get a grip about the Chapala project across from Paseo Nuevo. If that is your idea of a "monstrosity"... well, I don't know what to say to you.
My guess is that all the people wringing their hands about the project live very FAR from that neighborhood and are probably rarely in the downtown corridor where it sits. Just a hypothesis.
The longer I live here (and we're nearing two decades), the more I understand that some people will complain about ANYTHING (in fact, for some, it seems to be their reason for being). I guess that's good, as the push-pull of extreme opinions from both sides ("turn everything from here to Gaviota into a subdivision" v. "please don't build one more building ever!") probably keeps things somewhat "centered."
The meeting is noticed on the city site. It will be taped and available for later viewing according to the posted agenda. IT appears to be a serious effort by city commissions and council to deal with the DIVIDED community feeligns about height and related issues. The notion that this city government is not responsive to community voices is I believe way off the mark.
But ypur voice won[t be heard if you don't speak...and anonymous blogs are not a particularly terrific form of speaking on public discussion.
Funny about the Chapala project; I drove past there today with my 10-year-old, who said, "Oh, look, a new hotel." I explained to him that was going to be a place for a lot of people to live, and the first thing he said is, "Where are the kids supposed to play catch, in the hallways?" Good question.
I watched and I listened at the Plan 2030 Love Fest and saw city staff not record comments they did not like or agree with, mistate others beyond recognition of the presenter and write down clearly the agenda they already had come with.
Over and over the public members said liked shorter buildings and specifically mentioned the number of stories they liked -- and all that got was the mention that some liked to retain Santa Barbara's "small town ambiance".
Nope, the public was very specific multiple times about the exact height of buildings they liked. But staff refused to recognize this.
Only one person demanded rent control but that got as much city staff recognition, as the many who asked for height restrictions.
How did city council let this process get so out of control and who the heck is letting staff make so many decisions contrary to public will. Why do good city council candidates go so bad once they get elected and let themselves get dragged around by the nose by city staff.
Could it be they simply do not even pay attention to this huge disconnect between their campaign promises that got them elected and how the city staff actually conducts the business of the city -- right under their elected noses?
I'll put my money on the latter. We are paying them full time salaries now.
I want them working full time and becoming and equal partner at least with city staff - the residents are here only to serve the city staff - who now only work 4 days a week and tell us this is good for us, not just for them.
What hooey. The city staff just crafted themselves a free vacation day. They already don't do enough work to fill a full day, how the heck are they going to be idle for 9 hours a day now?
While I was skeptical about the approved developments on Chapala I am becoming increasingly fond of the products produced by the city's processes and their "smart growth" developments. There are no perfect development models but I beleive the city staff and its boards and commissions produce a fairly good product despite all the acidic grumphy bombasts on all sides of the issues.
I do think that beyond the visuals the real problems are not addressed. The real reason those chronic complainers complain is their perception that the world should revolve around their personal mobility or more specifically their automobile use.
I have no idea why one living in the ideal Riviera, Mesa, Bel Air Knolls, Campnill Hills, Samarkand and San Roque neighborhoods would consider developing this downtown cooridor around their own seclusive lifestyles.
Do you care about your own impact on downtown's orignal neighborhood streets such as de la Vina, Chapala , Bath, Castillo, Micheltorena, San Andres, Carrillo, Anacapa, Laguna or Olive. Indeed no, you beleive that anything that you roll by downhill from your abode and perhaps illegal dwelling is subservient to your needs.
I don't begrudge those suburbanites their self importance and self imposed seclusions but what is it about the suburbanites and their hood associations, planning associations, womens groups and forememost the chamber groups that give so much greif to the city's process that seems to have attracted them here in the first place?
It's time for the suburbanites to get out of their own heads, get out of their their loud-ass stinkin tailpiped cars, mopeds, motorcycles and monster trucks. Try taking the long road... and walk it, bicycle it or even take the shuttle. Really babies its not that far. Just pretend you're on holiday in Italy.
What difference does it make if I live near the Chapala "monstrosity"? Since when is THAT a criteria for good planning?
Wake up Allegro....we DON'T have draconian planning regulations. Travis just wrote about how development modifications are happening at a frantic rate, and yes he is correct. And if you'd open your eyes and look around, you'd see that we ARE becoming Orange County.
Thanks to people like you who don't see it, and label the rest of us "complainers", the developers are winning the "push-pull" as you put it.
Tell us, if you don't think the Chapala project is huge....then what IS?
The agendae are now posted for the joint meeting of City Planning Commission, Arch. Board, and Historic Landmarks Commission, for the joint meeting next week on Wednesday. The joint agenda indeed shows a big joint session that also implies that it is a City Council meeting as well.
The agenda also notes that it will be recorded on video:
"This special joint meeting will be taped and will be available for purchase from City TV Channel 18."
The City also could post the video at the City website, along with a variety of other special productions and meetings. Whether to do that is a policy decision, in my view. People still an buy it on DVD.
Per some Anonymous commenting above, whether the staff run the City or not will be an eternal debate. However, this all seems to me that a video recording of this large multi-Board meeting, available for endless public scrutiny, is a step in the correct direction if the elected and appointed officials are going to be the dog wagging its own staff tail.
7:18 AM -- This was a community post which means that I did not write it but have posted copy that someone else has submitted for discussion.
I'm glad the agendas are now posted, however, and that video will be available. Let's hope they choose to put it on their website too.
Not need for eternal debate about whether or not the agenda-driven Staff runs the City. Just watch when the staff incompetence and downright favoritism is exposed by the public how the Council and even Planning commission squirm and almost choke out the words supporting the staff--and never, ever, ever sanction them.
I guess the City's never heard of YouTube. Other Cities post there, but SB?
I'm glad to see the City finally listening and starting to consider an increase in both building height and mixed-use development activity downtown. Now we have to also make sure that both Goleta and the "Noleta" do their part to build workforce housing. Excellent work!
I'm looking forward to more of those progressive voices to enter the council race and displace the ineffective and self-aggrandizing Das, Helene and Brian.
Definitely a step in the right direction that there will be a video available. NEXT step is to have it on the city web site, available for all and not just those who can easily afford to pay for the DVD.
NEXT step, also, is to have an effective and accurate city calendar of city meetings. The calendar linked in the original post is not updated in any way for July. This meeting has been scheduled for more than a month, apparently. It's acceptable to only release the specific agendas 5 days ahead of time, but why not have formal announcement of the unusual time and location on the city web site?
All of these committee members (soon, all of these groups, PC/ABR/HLC, will be paid) are paid out of public funds, from the $50/meeting to the City Council salaries. It's a policy decision to have the groups dealing with housing/building related issues to be no longer purely volunteer. That's okay, but with the receipt of those payments come even more responsibilities to the public.
Maybe more can be said at untelevised workshops as David Pritchett said (and former City Council member Dan Secord used to say.) When it's public business, public business being talked about, it should be said in public — and available to the public.
Especially with a Council election coming up and three of the Council members running again - and maybe, who knows? - one of the commission members, it is essential that the public know where - exactly - they stand on some of the major issues facing Santa Barbara.
Thank you, Sara, for posting the "community post" that I sent you.
CS
PS. As for the PlanSB meetings, I think the quality of the reporting out from the groups, the writing on the whiteboards by the staff was dependent on the quality of the staff members; some were excellent, some not so. Having attended several, I didn't see any signs of staff attempting to edit comments. I did see attempts by some groups to pack the rooms --- and did see also a very unrepresentative sampling of SB population --- and think the staff should have made considerably more outreach to the city so that it wasn't just the same old same olds there. There's a year or more to go on this so........
Here is a City website with a great deal of information about this meeting:
http://www.santabarbaraca.gov/Resident/Major_Planning_Efforts/Special_Joint_Meeting_of_City_Council/
http://www.santabarbaraca.gov/Government/Boards_and_Commissions_N-Z/Planning_Commission/Agendas.htm
http://www.santabarbaraca.gov/Resident/Major_Planning_Efforts/Special_Joint_Meeting_of_City_Council/
2 City web postings about this meeting
However, I seriously think people need to get a grip about the Chapala project across from Paseo Nuevo. If that is your idea of a "monstrosity"... well, I don't know what to say to you.
Well, I guess you don't know what to say to me because I think it's a monstrosity.
My guess is that all the people wringing their hands about the project live very FAR from that neighborhood and are probably rarely in the downtown corridor where it sits. Just a hypothesis.
That's a pretty stupid hypothesis. I think I've got a better hypothesis. Your opinion on things is what is making things worse in Santa Barbara. You can't see the forest for the trees, yet you are quick to label people's opinions as irrelevant because of where they live in town. Like that matters or something.
The longer I live here (and we're nearing two decades), the more I understand that some people will complain about ANYTHING (in fact, for some, it seems to be their reason for being).
You mean like you?
bill carson:
What difference does it make if I live near the Chapala "monstrosity"? Since when is THAT a criteria for good planning?
That's not a criterion, but I might understand and sympathize with the level of crankiness and breathless indignation a little more if I knew that this project was casting a long shadow on your rocking chair or otherwise had more of a direct negative impact on your daily life. But if it just offends your aesthetic sensibilities in a more general sense, that's ok too.
Tell us, if you don't think the Chapala project is huge....then what IS?
1. The Bacara resort is huge.
2. The Cottage Hospital renovation is huge (which really doesn't bother me, as this is a major regional hospital).
3. The proposed cluster of five new high-rises in Oxnard is HUGE.
if you'd open your eyes and look around, you'd see that we ARE becoming Orange County
On that, we'll just have to disagree (not surprising, since you've mentioned many times how strongly you feel that the News-Press is on the right track). However, trust me, my eyes are open, and I tend to look around when I'm downtown (which is almost daily). I was admiring the Chapala project while looking through the window of the Pizza Kitchen during dinner one evening just last week.
On Monday July 16, 2007 from 11:00 am to 1:15 PM, City staff will be giving its "orientation" to ABR and the Single Family Design Board regarding conflict of interest (Scott Vincent--Office of City Attorney, presenting), application requirements, design standards and a 15 minute question and answer session. It too is under the radar. After the ABR's Chair joined the Cottage team and thereafter his departure from the team, what can be expected from the Office of the City Attorney which, by avoiding learning the facts, decided that everything was OK. Maybe on Monday he will have a complete report for the ABR, the new ABR and the HLC members.
Public scrutiny is especially important with an election coming up to learn who is saying what. Hope it is posted on the the city website - it should be.
Take notes and see who the real players are, and who is still just playing.
And who among this pack do you want to be our future mayor. Take very good notes on that one.
The whole point is that public scrutiny does no good. We've seen, time and again, the staff and the City Council and Planning COmmission absolutely disregarding the input of the public on important issues and matters ranging from individual projects to the ill-fated Cottage project to demolish St. Francis, the ridiculous roundabout debate to the recent Century 21 debacle--shredded documents, conflicts of interest, bowing to special itnerests, hiding risks to public health--it's all there, it's all been pointed out by the public and all overlooked by those who are supposed to serve us. There's no traction, and there are no heroes in this City's administration. NONE.
Anonymous 9:26 and 10:34: Thank you for posting the web addresses for the agenda.
I. NOTICES:
A. This special joint meeting will be taped and will be available for purchase from
City TV Channel 18. No indication that I see that it will be freely available online or on Ch 18 - obviously, if a DVD will be available so it should be possible to broadcast it.
Seems that the national hide-the-ball game about what's going on re policies for war and peace has trickled down to Santa Barbara and our "progressive" leaders.
Even the less than voice-for-the-public city attorney Steve Wiley said that the council and commissions could say "NO!" to projects. Amazing that they had to be reminded of that.
It would be also interesting to have televised the instructions being given to the new ABR committtee about conflict of interest and so forth ---- but that meeting, too, apparently won't be televised. Why not? The meeting will be in the DG room at 630 Garden St, same as their usual 3 pm meetings that are televised.
WRONG, WRONG, WRONG --- From what we've just seen of the ABR chair switching sides of the table, ethics and conflict of interest are of prime importance - and interest to the public.
Were it not for this blog (and edhat, too) we out here in rabbleland would be even more ignorant, especially now that the SBNewsroom is stopping publication.
Of course these issues of ethics, conflicts and downright deception are of prime importance to the public, and we are not ignorant about them. But the entire city administration finds every possible way to dismiss every concern--and they keep getting away with it. I hardly think this blog or edhat have influenced any of them to do the right thing yet. They just pull in tighter and spin harder. One day this will be made right, but they will have done a tremendous amount of damage to the essence of Santa Barbara in the meantime.
I am perplexed by Sara's post this time. I must admit that things rarely turn out the way I think they should but usually I understand the end results....if I follow the process. Those that have made charges that there is a nefarious evil underside at work here really need to understand that you don't get everything you want in life. Our local government is fairly transparent with notices, tv broadcasts, internet broadcasts etc. You can also attentd these hearings but unfortuantely who has the time. In the end I would appreciate better representation that would halt growth altogether but that ain't going to happen unless we all want to give up our well earned "home equity." So before we start blaming government officials try looking into the mirror and also consider pressuring your Chamber of Commerce...the real promoter of perpetual growth. BTW I like what is happening on Chapala and hope that the street can be made more tame for the new inhabtants that own it!
Those of us who do take the time to attend these hearings are appalled by how rigged the process is and the dismissive treatment the public receives.
donaldo -- didn't write this one as it is a community post.
City Council - Listen up:
1. You will never build your way out of this housing "crisis". Never.
2. We want no new housing: no low-income; no workforce; no million dollar condos; no in fill, no smart growth; no mixed use
3. Don't ever say you are building housing for "first response" emergency workers unless you have (1) surveyed them to see if they are even interested in what you are building and (2) they are not dedicated exclusively for "first responders.
4. Stop selling out the city planning and housing policies for HUD grants and funding money to pay for endless non-profits who have nothing other than their own grant funded salaries to protect.
5. Practice saying no, just like Steve Wiley said you could, to the packs of idlers who come to city council meetings always with their hands out demanding you do more and more for them, while they never once offer they are ever going to do anything for the community in return.
6. Stop sending out the message to the rest of the world the door is open to every underclass person who wants to show up and demand they too can live the Santa Barbara dream, without earning it or paying for it.
7. Stop calling your inability to lead and show backbone "compassion". It is not. It is a cop-out; it is not compassion.
8. Stop screaming "elitist" just because we the voters, residents, and taxpayers want elected officials to live within our very limited resources here on the South Coast.
9. The ark is closed. We are full. Not everyone can live in Santa Barbara. Just say no, and we will re-elect you with good and full conscience.
Anon: 7/14/2007 11:00 PM Are you high?
Those days are over. California needs to make room for an estimated 60,000,000. We can't do that following your suggestions. Adjust.
Listen up - we (Santa Barbara city) don't need to make room for any more. Our Housing Element passed with flying colors - we have plenty of room for our share. We don't need another single low income, workforce, inclusionary or tarted up "affordable" unit in our entire city limits.
Adjust, and stop lying about creating more housing units. There is plenty of empty land, cheaper priced homes all over the US.
The ark is closed. The No Vacancy sign is lit. And the state told us we were doing just fine with our current housing zoning plan - no more cheap tricks to shoe in more.
Stop lying - you must be a developer. That dog don't hunt.
You're gonna get more - LIKE IT OR NOT!
NIMBY think about the future for once. We need to build up and soon.
The future says No More Building. No more building up. No more building out. No more building in. No more building down.
Every house in Santa Barbara is affordable - because every house here sells.
The future of this city does not belong to you, if your only qualification is you scream you cannnot afford to buy a house here.
We have more than enough subsidized, low income, and illegal housing to last through decades of state review.
Stop lying.
Required viewing:
http://santabarbara.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=11&clip_id=287
"Neighorhood Improvement Program" by the City of Santa Barbara
Nothing more than tax dollar funded campaign material to show your city council is working hard for you -- thanks to Jim Armstrong for lighting a fire under their collective lazy tails because they let this city turn into the mess they now take credit for trying to clean up.
And now that they have this video it means they can and have let it all go back to its former derlict condition.
Tax payer funded campaign material is illegal. Any city council person using this video in their campaign must re-emburse the city for all production costs and disclaim they ever did anything to get any of these projects done, besides just step out of the way. They sure never initiated any of them. It took fed-up neighbors and a city administrator ready to make a reputation to finally get this lazy pack off their smug big b*tts.
If for no other reason we need affordable housing so our children don't have to leave.
If you don't want your children to leave, then get a permit and build them a room in your own house. But don't dump your kids' housing demands on my overcrowded neighborhood.
Maybe you better tell your kids the facts of life right now - they don't get free housing in this town just because you want it. They can earn it or you can give it to them with your own dollars; not ours.
Anonymous 7:42: Do you think we get the drift of your POV yet? You've only repeated it a coupla dozen times already.
I'm not particularly pro-growth, but I can't wait for someone to build a 12000 square foot, three-story McMansion right up to the very edge of your property line. I'm sure you bring out the very best in everyone your life touches.
Report in on the meeting in the NewsPress: the city agrees on a totally unrealistic goal that ensures total failure and annoying consequences for everyone - save the middle class - keep our diversity and bemoaning no one can afford a $500,000 condo.
Guess what team - just like 60 is the new 40, the new middle class can afford a $500,000 condo.
Until the city defines what they mean by these hollow words - save the middle class - whose middle class, only the Anglo middle class because the Hispanic middle class is bootstrapping themselves up as we speak in this community by hard work and not sitting around waiting for a handout, there will be no success because the city refuses to define the goal.
We will know it when we see it, eh, city council? Nope, what we see if you messing around with normal growth and economic patterns trying to be all things to all people and being nothing to anyone except your smaller and smaller self-serving fan base.
Define **exactly** what you mean by "saving the middle class" - and show your direct steps you plan on taking to reach that goal.
You can't because the goal is impossible - you cannot "save" an artificial socio-economic class because then all you did was create an new welfare class.
Do you put the middle class in a zoo or museum so we can go look at them and watch them pull down their taxpayer funded jobs and benefits living in their subsidized housing at the communities expense? And what will the middle class do for us in return for this tax payer gift of "saving them"?
Please enquiring minds want to know.
The middle class is already here and don't want you to save us. Stop thinking you are playing to the voters with this talk. We are here and we are mad you are selling out the city to people who are not here and letting it deteriorate all around us. That is what the middle class is saying. Listen up.
You can't build a 12,000 square 3 story house right up to the lot line anywhere in Santa Barbara. Make your point, but don't lie.
And why use this as a taunt for revenge for viewpoints you don't like, why not change the zoning requirements if you in fact think this can happen.
Don't answer emotionally to fact based arguments. The city does too much of this.
The joint CC/PC/ABR/HLC workshop on the 18th at the Pavillion will be broadcast on Channel 18 on the next three Monday evenings at 9 pm. Next week it will also be available on YouPlanSB.org website. Hopefully, there will also be a transcription on that website of the comments from all four of the groups. Each group had representatives from each of the city committees/commissions/council.
Way to go Blogabarbara for publicizing this! I can't help but suspect that was instrumental in convincing people there is interest enough to change the minds and have it freely available.
Post a Comment
<< Home