• CREATE AN ACCOUNT
  • LOG.IN
  • CONTENTS
  • CLASSIFIEDS
  • ARCHIVE
  • INFO | ADVERTISING | CONTACT US

  • Home
  • News
    • Business
    • NewsFlash
  • Arts & Entertainment
    • Movie Times
    • TV Listings
    • A&E Blog
    • Art Galleries
    • Best Bets
  • Opinion
    • Columns
    • Voices
    • Letters
    • In Memoriam
    • Obituaries
  • Events
    • Today
    • Search
    • Submit
    • Best Bets
  • Living
    • Outdoors
    • Travel
    • Sports
    • Peeps
  • Food & Drink
    • All Restaurants
    • Delivery
    • All Bars & Clubs
    • Drink Specials
    • Open Now
  • Classifieds
    • Real Estate
    • Jobs
    • Autos
  • Personals

Montecitans Are Analyzing Cityhood


Thursday, April 24, 2008
By Barney Brantingham (Contact)
Article Tools
Print friendly
E-mail story
Tip Us Off
iPod friendly
Comments
Bookmark This
del.icio.us. del.icio.us.
Digg! Digg!
furl furl
google google
newsvine newsvine
reddit reddit
technorati technorati
Facebook Facebook
Yahoo! My Web 2.0 Yahoo!

MONTECITO CITYHOOD: Montecitans are choosing up sides to debate whether this rich, 10,000-resident enclave should become a city.

Opponents charge that a small faction is operating in secrecy, below the radar, to push incorporation. But Michael Jaffe, who heads the 18-month-old Voices of Montecito group, says he just wants “to look objectively to see if [cityhood] would be a good choice.” He said, “Our minds are not made up.”

On the Beat

Voices is not leading the effort, Jaffe told me, although some of its members are active in “trying to explore if cityhood is viable.”

So far, Jaffe said, his group has hired a consultant, Tony Manzanetti, former city attorney of Elk Grove, and completed a preliminary fiscal analysis “that came back pretty positive, that cityhood was a viable option.”

The next step, he said, would be for the Montecito Association, the long-time community group, to hold a series of “non-biased, educational forums. If the result is against [cityhood], we will drop the issue.”

Should Montecito be its own city?

See the results without voting.

Opponents are already lining up against incorporation and charging that Jaffe’s group is by no means objective about cityhood and is operating in secrecy. “I think they are aggressively searching for ways to get cityhood,” charged 34-year resident Harry Hovey. “Absolutely they are pushing for cityhood.”

In view of the accusations that it was a veiled effort and that residents are complaining about a lack of information about what was happening, I asked Jaffe why his group hadn’t made a public announcement of its aims and its progress.

“The claim that we’ve been secret is fatuous,” replied Jaffe. “Everyone in town knows who is doing this,” he said, referring to his statements in the weekly Montecito Journal. Others active in the effort are Mary Belle Snow, Lee Luria, and Parker Montgomery, he said.

“We are not a secret group doing under-handed things,” Luria told me. “We are just looking at it. We are a handful of people, about 12 people, who are active.”

Meanwhile, all eyes are on Coast Village Road, a stretch of shops, restaurants, and two hotels less than a mile long. Its sales taxes, bed taxes, and property taxes could be a boon to a new City of Montecito if service costs exceed revenue. The problem: It’s part of the City of Santa Barbara.

Jaffe and County Local Agency Formation Commission executive officer Bob Braitman planned to meet this week with Santa Barbara Mayor Marty Blum to talk about Coast Village Road.

Jaffe said he has no illusions about Santa Barbara giving up Coast Village Road to a new city, but by Montecito incorporating it, it would have greater “standing” to deal with Santa Barbara regarding Coast Village Road development.

Hovey and other critics of cityhood question whether there is any urgent need for it and point out such pitfalls as whether it would bring state requirements for inclusionary affordable housing and whether a small municipality could handle major liability lawsuits. Former Montecito Association president Bob Collector is also opposing the incorporation move. Montecito already has a Planning Commission and Architectural Board of Review, Hovey pointed out. Incorporation must also be revenue-neutral, meaning that the county can’t lose money on the deal. Jaffe said it won’t cost the county a penny.

Considering Montecito land prices, inclusionary housing requirements would mean high-rises, Hovey said. The cost of running a city would also bring pressure to rezone land for commercial uses, meaning an end to Montecito’s semi-rural ambiance, he said.

To Jaffe, however, the key issue is local control. At present, Montecito is under county jurisdiction, with decisions made by a five-member Board of Supervisors, none of whom live in Montecito, he said. “Would we rather be governed by county government or by our own neighbors?”

So far, no application has been filed for cityhood, Braitman said. The application, including boundaries of a proposed city and other vital information, would have to include results of a petition drive where 25 percent or more of registered voters in the boundaries favored incorporation.

Petitions are not currently being circulated, Jaffe said. The Montecito Fire Protection District, with nearly 80 percent as much assessed valuation as the entire city of Santa Barbara, would be a likely area for the proposed city, Braitman said.

The Local Agency Formation Commission staff would then study the application. A fiscal analysis to see if cityhood would be economically feasible would have to be financed by Montecitans, costing around $250,000 by Jaffe’s estimate, up to $400,000 by others. Braitman would then write a staff report and make a recommendation.

Public hearings would follow. If the Local Agency Formation Commission then rejects cityhood, that’s the end of the line. If it says okay, an election would be held. If a majority of registered voters there say yes, Montecito would become a city.

This would be the third attempt in recent years. Cityhood was narrowly defeated at the polls in the early 1990s. It was again studied a decade later but dropped when it was concluded that it was not a good idea, Jaffe said.

Story Help (Click-ability)
Double-clicking on any word or phrase in this story will open a reference window with definitions and links to other reference material.

Comments

Discussion Guidelines

Thanks for the publicity, Barney. The affordable housing issue is a red herring - mention of high-rises is inflammatory nonsense. Concerns about additional costs of government are ill-founded.

The Montecito Association will hold several public forums to get the facts out to the public (facts always seem to be in short supply in these discussions), while RICFUD(Rumors & Innuendo to Cause Fear, Uncertainty, & Doubt) runs rampant.

The real cityhood question is whether Montecitans really want local control of their beautiful not-legally-a-village, or whether they want control to be exercised in secret by a few wealthy politically well-connected people.

RCMeltzer (anonymous profile)
April 25, 2008 at 8:24 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Hi Robert—Affordable housing is not a red herring. If Montecito becomes a city, it will have a real impact. By itself, it is not a deal breaker for cityhood, but it needs to be seriously researched and considered.

In 2002, in the last round of cityhood talks, I was on a team that was in charge of researching what kind of affordable housing component might be allotted to Montecito, should it be a city. We came up with a rough estimate of around 348 units, over a five-year period (based on the 2002 county allotments). In addition to SBCAG and the county, we interview similar size cities like Malibu, Westlake and Hillsborough to get our estimate.

Our team came to believe geographically locked Montecito would be forced to up-zone parcels to meet that high-density affordable housing demands. We feared that option could create a more impacted community, challenging our semi-rural ambience.

We tried to look at alternatives to up zoning, but options like counting granny flats, claiming resource encumbrances (which would force an EIR), or just saying no, were withdraw from the table as they appeared to be unachievable, unrealistic or too expensive for a fledgling city.

That said, I look forward to the community forums. I hope study teams will be assembled to do some objective fact-finding research, going beyond financial feasibility. In 2002, the Association put out a call for volunteers and about 15 citizens, from a variety of viewpoints, signed up. Aptly led by urban planner George Tamas, we took about four months to do the legwork required to study the uncertainties and provide the community with a platform for a well-informed discussion, and I for one can attest it was an eye-opener!

JAMY (J'Amy Brown)
April 27, 2008 at 1:28 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Old data. Required units should be in the single digits, if any, since "granny flats" are now countable in affordable housing (even though illegal - such is the doublethink of government).

From a somewhat different perspective, why shouldn't Montecito have affordable housing for the many people who are employed by Montecito households?

But more important than opinions are facts. Let's get the latest data in front of everyone and let the population make an informed decision.

I notice that the Independent is already taking a poll of opinions b4 the facts are in. Typical.

RCMeltzer (anonymous profile)
April 27, 2008 at 2:02 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I agree about facts, and I quote a recent 3/27 Indy story on the new 2008 housing component distributions:

"The state determines each county’s “fair share” of housing for California’s projected new residents, based primarily on counties’ geographical sizes. It handed Santa Barbara County 11,600 new dwelling units for the years 2008 through 2014, leaving SBCAG to tussle over where in the county to stick them....

"It was Santa Maria Mayor Larry Lavagnino who made the motion to place 6,824 of those new units in the South County, 4,388 of them in the City of Santa Barbara. By way of comparison, the North County’s entire share is 4,776 new homes. The mayors of all seven of the other cities in the county voted in support. Lavagnino’s motion assigned the City of Goleta, whose new administration is not unfriendly to growth, a relatively modest 1,641 units, and it gave the City of Carpinteria just 305."

JAMY (J'Amy Brown)
April 27, 2008 at 7:19 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Post a comment

Username:
Password: (Forgotten your password?)

Comment:

EVENT CALENDAR

Previous Month | Next Month

Today's Events Best Bets Submit an Event

Local Weather

Currently:
Clear Sky
Temperature:
66.9°
Wind:
14 W

Surf Report
  • Specials
  • InPrint
  • Top Emails
  • Summer Camp Guide 2008
  • Wedding Guide 2008
  • SBIFF 2008 All Access
  • 2008 Election Info
  • Best of Reader's Poll 2007
  • Local Bands
  • Kid's Mother's Day Issue
  • Blue & Green Guide 2007
  • Made in Santa Barbara
  • Zaca Fire 2007
  • Five Candidates Vie for the County’s Hottest Supervisorial Seat
  • An Interview with Willie Brown
  • Judge Joe Lodge Dies
  • U.S. Military Measures Climate Change
  • A Taste of Hotel Café Helps Bid SOhO’s Anna Zamir a Fond Farewell
  • Wheels of Hope
  1. Nuns Leaving Town
  2. Judge Joe Lodge Dies
  3. The Hidden Costs of Mountain Biking
  4. Montecito Debates Rick Caruso’s Miramar Remodel
  5. News-Press, Indy Settle Lawsuit
  • CREATE AN ACCOUNT
  • LOG.IN
  • CONTENTS
  • CLASSIFIEDS
  • ARCHIVE
  • INFO | ADVERTISING | CONTACT US
Google
 
Independent.com Web
Copyright ©2008 Santa Barbara Independent, Inc. Reproduction of material from any Independent.com pages without written permission is strictly prohibited. If you believe an Independent.com user or any material appearing on Independent.com is copyrighted material used without proper permission, please click here.
This is our Privacy Policy.