Print friendly
E-mail story
Contact an Editor
iPod friendly
Comments
Bookmark This
del.icio.us.
Digg!
furl
google
newsvine
reddit
technorati
Facebook
Yahoo!UP IS DOWN: Contradiction is not so much an affliction as it is the human condition. In fact, if you aren’t contradicting yourself, it’s probably because you ceased respirating some time ago and have become a comfortable pile of mulchified human compost. Using this as my yardstick, I’d have to conclude Santa Barbara’s environmental movement is still alive and kicking despite reports to the contrary.
Angry Poodle Barbecue
If nothing else, the enviros are inflicting severe whiplash on those who feel betrayed if the present doesn’t precisely mimic the past. Just look at two of the biggest showdowns to occur in Santa Barbara this past week. On Tuesday night, the Santa Barbara City Council grappled with a building height controversy that shows no sign of going away. After three hours of jarringly civil discourse, nothing really was resolved other than the venue in which further debate will occur. What’s striking in this is how upside-down the players have become. Spearheading the initiative effort to set the new height limit at 40 feet — down from the existing limit of 60 feet — is architect and former planning commissioner Bill Mahan. What makes Mahan so incongruous in this battle is that while on the Planning Commission, he was consistently one of the more reliably pro-business, pro-growth commissioners. In fact, while on the commission — where he reigned as the congenial and well-respected sage silverback — Mahan voted in favor of the two new buildings looming over Chapala Street that have since become the chief exhibits in the argument to lower Santa Barbara’s ceiling. But about the time he left the commission, Mahan experienced a religious epiphany about how all the proposed new big buildings are threatening to destroy Santa Barbara’s soul. And if not for Mahan, there would be no building height initiative campaign.
On the flip side, there’s City Councilmember Das Williams, who has been consistently outspoken in his opposition to the initiative. Williams argued it would undermine developers’ ability to provide affordable housing. But of all the councilmembers, Williams is the most flamboyantly no-growth. He can legitimately boast — and frequently does — that no councilmember has voted against as many development projects as he. More than any other politico I can think of, Williams has consistently sought to embrace and embody the most violently contradictory aspects of the local enviro community. Williams attempts to keep one foot in the Smart Growth camp — which holds that higher urban densities can prevent sprawl, promote mass transit, and accommodate affordable housing — and the other in the Not in My Back Yard posse, who are alarmed at any increase in traffic, congestion, and density. Some have accused the unapologetically political Williams of pandering, posturing, and trying to be all things to all people. There are times I think the same thing. But I give Williams high marks for trying. It’s a risky thing riding two horses charging in opposite directions, and the prospect of failure — and embarrassment — is high. Certainly that was the case with the deal Williams tried to broker, with decidedly mixed results, between Mahan and the preservationists on one hand and their Smart Growth detractors on the other regarding height limits. (For more on that, see Martha Sadler’s news article on here.)
But that was nothing compared to the positively surreal exchanges that took place this Monday at the county’s Planning Commission about plans by Plains Exploration & Production, a Houston-based oil company desperate to cut a quick deal by being the eco-groovy good guy, to expand its current offshore drilling operations —located in federal waters off the coast of Point Concepcion — into the rich, subsea oil reserves that are located in state-controlled waters known as Tranquillon Ridge. In that showdown, you had eco-warriors who had vigorously fought every single offshore oil proposal in the past 25 years testifying passionately on behalf of Plains. Conversely, leading the charge against the oil company was COLAB’s Andy Caldwell, who never before met an oil project he didn’t love. Joining Caldwell in opposition to Plains — and the enviros — were an impressive battery of lobbyists and lawyers with ExxonMobil and Vaquero Energy. While four of the commissioners eventually voted for the Plains project — with one abstention — the actual vote was a real nail-biter with the outcome decided only at the last minute. In this case, Caldwell and the Exxon lobbyists were arguing for more studies and delay — typically the environmentalist tactic of choice — and the enviros calling for quick and speedy resolution. Explaining all this flagrant political cross-dressing was a deal Plains cut with the enviros a couple weeks ago. To win friends and make enemies disappear, Plains pledged to dedicate nearly 4,000 acres of environmentally sensitive land to a public trust, make its expanded project carbon neutral, and donate $1.5 million to local transit companies. But most crucially, Plains agreed to definite drop-dead dates by which all production would cease once and for all at four offshore platforms. That is a historic first. Right now, these platforms can continue indefinitely as long as the price of oil justifies the expense, and the price of oil isn’t coming down. The key drop-dead date is 2022, which cuts production to 14 years (county energy planners estimated Plains could keep pumping in Tranquillon Ridge for as long as 35 years). Plains executives struck this unprecedented deal because oil is now fetching $120 a barrel on the world market. They can afford to buy off the enviros, and they can’t afford not to pump. They also made the deal because California’s Lieutenant Governor John Garamendi told them if they didn’t come up with something the local enviros liked, their proposed project would rot in a very cold hell.
Caldwell complained of back-room deals. Exxon charged it could pump the same oil more environmentally and make more money for the county from wells on Vandenberg Air Force Base. But to date, Exxon has no agreement from Vandenberg to do this. By agreeing to shut down in 14 years, the deal’s critics complained Plains is leaving oil in the ground and money — some of which could go to the county and to the state in the form of oil royalty payments —on the table. Who knows? One industry insider I know — with no love for either the enviros or Plains — explained that given the geology of the reserves, Plains could pump most of what’s there in about five or six years. Who knows what’ll happen next. Maybe Exxon will take a page from the enviro playbook and sue, claiming that the Environmental Impact Report for the Plains project is inadequate. I can’t wait.
In the meantime, I’m okay with all of this. Consistency, as they say, is the hobgoblin of little minds. And I find it reassuring that today looks different than yesterday — and that tomorrow will look different, too. It suggests that we’re not all dead yet. Or at least I’m not.
Double-clicking on any word or phrase in this story will open a reference window with definitions and links to other reference material.
Previous Month
Comments
Discussion Guidelines
Ain't American pragmatism grand?...everybody believes everybody can get what they want.
I'm getting very suspicious of Das Williams though, he just wants to get elected and everybody is not going to agree to that.
DonJosedelaGuerra (anonymous profile)
April 24, 2008 at 2:49 p.m. (Suggest removal)
My compliments to Martha Sadler and the Independent for their intelligent articles on this subject. We need this important journalistic addition to the political conversation.
This is an important set of issues. I am thinking about it as much as I can. Hope you are too. Even after reading Prichett's commentary and Francisco's remarks in Martha Sadler's article, I sense a consensus on holding the urban boundary line.
How do we assure ourselves that we can hold the line?
The architectural nuances of sun and light on the streets (see Vitruvius) and where the wind blows (Ibid) are criteria we shouldn't forget--and also views...and lastly don't forget the place where this "Roman-like Compromise" took place--Plaza de la Guerra. Get that right!
We gotta get a place for everybody to live--rich and poor. Seems basic to me.
DonJosedelaGuerra (anonymous profile)
April 24, 2008 at 3:59 p.m. (Suggest removal)
If Don Jose is going to twist my other comment, as least spell my name correctly, Senyor.
The Urban Limit Line is a largely separate issue from what volume of building will go inside that Line. Also, the local Line right now is wholly dependent upon who gets elected to Third District County Supervisor.
The Plan Santa Barbara process seems to be on track to be deciding the number of new dwelling units within the City, and then where those dwellings would go. The Urban Limit Line way out at the western frontier of Goleta is irrelevent to choices now on building heights in downtown Santa Barbara, unless the entire South Coast becomes one City and/or County.
David_Pritchett (David Pritchett)
April 24, 2008 at 4:56 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Mr Pritchett my excuses for bad spelling...must be the sangria.
That old saw: "Think globally. Act Locally." may have some relevance here. And at least let's be broadminded enough to link up our own downtown Santa Barbara with the urban limit line--"way out" there (as you put it) at the western frontier of Goleta!! (wow, not wanting to link those two means you must really be into the micro view of things). Take off your macro lens and grab your wide angle...
DonJosedelaGuerra (anonymous profile)
April 24, 2008 at 5:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Nice metaphor Don Jose, but my wide angle lens still must create an image that has to be cropped at the Santa Barbara city limits because the City government only has urban growth authority for land within the City limits.
If anyone can explain in specific detail how excessively tall buildings in downtown Santa Barbara will have any, any effect on urban development outside the City, please, please explain.
The only way those supply & demand market forces will work is if the demand for housing stays flat because the California population stays flat.
David_Pritchett (David Pritchett)
April 27, 2008 at 11:42 a.m. (Suggest removal)
It would be nice, if the developers, along with the environmentalist and League of Womens voters would propose a ballot initiative to adopt an urban limit line for the south county. I consider the current height limit ballot measures to be popular but often unfair while ineffective at addressing the stated problems, in this case "cayonization."
And why is this feeling of "canyonization" supposed to take president over all the other issues including the housing imbalance and transportation issues. I also think that the examples on Chapala are not out of scale and do not induce the feeling of being in a canyon.
While I respect all of the current and former elected and appointed officials who have signed onto the ballot measure cause, I do think they spend too much time in their suburban environments of Bell Air Knolls, el Cielto Heights, Rivera and Mesa to be ruling the downtown district and surrounding neighborhoods. Since these decision makers seem to be having an "upside down" senior moment perhaps they could all realize that they have erroed in their control freakish ways. I would sign a petition that would re-establish some form of alternating district and at large elections. Really good representation is what ails our communities and the current ballot measure will not likely solve any problems.
johnathansmith (anonymous profile)
April 27, 2008 at 1:40 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Personally I like the idea of voting for the urban limit line by a ballot initiative...People who read the Newspress might do anything and the line needs to be there.
But to take up Mr. Pritchett's argument, the line will help define where "growth" does take place--lots downtown but some elsewhere. Good planning and architecture will do the rest. Bottlling up growth, my dear Mr. Pritchett, is the essential element so that construction doesn't go higgly piggly all over the place. Think Boulder Colorado...they have a line.
The Gaviota Coast is a gift of the Gods, don't mess it up.
Johnathansmith: Some of the new denser buildings on Chapala are just fine. Some are a failure. We need to constantly learn from both our successes and our failures. I believe the planning department does a regular slide show featuring failures for its planning staff. I can think of a few and they're not all on Chapala.
Why is the dialogue about building heights in this community so heated and so all or nothing?
Can we get back to Plaza de la Guerra now...I note that the refined editorial staff of the Independent now uses the term Plaza Vera Cruz instead of Vera Cruz Plaza...get with it...Plaza de la Guerra...fix it up please. Waiting 88 years for the finishing touches is long enough. Have a close look at the 1924 plan and what's making the rounds. It's better. You'll see.
Hey how about Jeff Shelton's "Ablitt House" at 13 West Haley!
It's a beautiful thing. All tower-like and perfect. More of that please.
DonJosedelaGuerra (anonymous profile)
April 27, 2008 at 2:44 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Oh. One last thing Mr. Pritchett. We need to get Gregg Hart back and spend more energy on regional government...check out the way the French do regional government. Then you could put your wide angle lens back on your camera.
DonJosedelaGuerra (anonymous profile)
April 27, 2008 at 2:47 p.m. (Suggest removal)
The South Coast has an urban limit line. It is way out at the western edge of Goleta and it mute on what size and density of urbanization goes within that boundary.
City of Santa Barbara also has an urban limit line; it is called the City Limits. The City planners and deciders only can control what is within the City limit line.
Again, no legally binding mechanism exists that would assure that tall buildings in downtown Santa Barbara would yield any guarantee that less urbanization would be built outside Santa Barbara City anywhere up to Gaviota or wherever.
The "good planning and architecture" Don Jose notes have led to the current reality of the urban building-scape and will not "do the rest" without hard rules for those good planners and good architects to follow.
That is how all the "higgly piggly all over the place" has come to exist, because the existing rules allowed it and projects were approved.
The rules need to be changed and the proposed Ordinance led by Das Williams et al. has set up the variables to be negotiated and deliberated about open space areas, building heights, actual housing affordability, and numbers of bedrooms or units that are deemed affordable.
Maybe Don Jose meant Crayonization??
David_Pritchett (David Pritchett)
April 28, 2008 at 10:40 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Well Mr. Pritchett putting Das Williams in front of me is like putting a red cape in front of a Spanish Bull. What is it with people who like "I'll do anything to get elected" Das? Can you trust him?
I'll try to stay focused on the planning issue. You point out and rightly so, certain weaknesses in guarantees about limit lines, building heights, as well as, the reality of city limits, and then inform us that Das is, at last, FINALLY figuring it out for us...can you really believe that? I've got a bridge barrier I'd like to sell you as well as a roof top solar panel company.
The next plan--just like the old plan, will have it's weaknesses in its rules; it might help, but believe me, they won't usher in the era of utopia...the next plan will always be the cliche driven solution to yesterday's problems...a battle plan for the last war, ...Reality is the hard work necessary for each project considered by the planning commission in conjunction with our activist citizens, not to mention the hard work of the other commissioners and all that considered in the overpowering light of it's own time's priorities that will at last reveal what this time will think matters...Plans drive uniformity of solutions, creativity is the mark of the great city. The tension between these two facts is what matters.
Das Williams is NOT the answer. Jeff Shelton might have some of the answers...
DonJosedelaGuerra (anonymous profile)
April 29, 2008 at 6:23 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Yet again:
If anyone can explain in specific detail how excessively tall buildings in downtown Santa Barbara will or ever could have any, any effect on urban development outside the City, please, please explain.
FirstDistrictStreetfighter (anonymous profile)
April 29, 2008 at 12:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)
That was a quote from another comment entry I found.
FirstDistrictStreetfighter (anonymous profile)
April 29, 2008 at 12:10 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Post a comment