Medicinal Marijuana

[ Excerpt from SBN-P Editorial, 3/31/2006 ]

... Past versions of the City Council have been filled with members who trumpeted their supposedly "socially progressive" views. But most of them refused to lift a finger to help the sick by setting up a city program to issue medical marijuana identification cards to patients who have a doctor's recommendation.

The city ID cards would have provided a way for the sick and dying to fend off getting ensnared in the criminal justice system.

The county government, finally, in 2004 stepped up to issue the cards...

A state law allows jurisdictions to establish a voluntary identification system for patients who meet certain standards.

The law mandates that county governments set up identification cards. It also specifically states that "counties and cities may retain or enact medical marijuana guidelines allowing qualified patients or primary caregivers to exceed the state limits" of plants in their possession.

In 2004, the city continued to ignore its responsibility to help implement Proposition 215, the state's medical marijuana law approved by voters in 1996.

A majority of the City Council rebuffed Councilman Das Williams' legal research on what the city government could do to help patients in need of this medicine.

... The National Clinical Conference on Cannabis Therapeutics will [be held in Santa Barbara and] run from April 6 to 8. (Go to www.medicalcannabis.com for more information on the event.)

The fight to help patients have legal access to this treatment is a continuing battle in light of the federal government's interference with the medical marijuana laws on the books in 11 states...

Santa Barbara News-Press

State Mandates

[ Excerpt from SBN-P article by BARNEY McMANIGAL, 3/27/2006 ]

Despite election-year rhetoric urging county officials to reject a state mandate for new growth, Santa Barbara County supervisors say they have no choice but to accept 1,240 high-density homes.

As the Board of Supervisors prepares for an April 4 vote on the new growth, members of the panel say a request by at least one candidate vying for one of the open seats would have damaging legal and economic consequences.

Among the four seeking to replace Supervisor Susan Rose next year, Joe Guzzardi touts himself as the only one "100 percent opposed" to a policy many residents say forces unwanted growth on communities. While Dan Secord, Das Williams and Janet Wolf also take strong stands on the law, only Mr. Guzzardi calls on officials to fight it.

Growth foes have taken aim at the law since the state assigned the figures for the 2003-08 cycle several years ago. But supervisors, after extensive meetings with their legal team over many months, say rejecting the law is not an option.

... Failure to comply blocks local governments from receiving more than $2 million in grants, and leaves them open to lawsuits -- like the kind mounted successfully against Sacramento, Sonoma and Mendocino counties by affordable housing advocates.

... While supervisors said they would prefer to leave planning decisions to local communities, they agree that they must comply with state law.

... Asked about Mr. Guzzardi's call to challenge the mandate, Mr. Firestone said: "It doesn't amount to anything."

In a recent News-Press commentary, he encouraged concerned residents to "tone down the rhetoric."

... County planners, who often put in long hours ironing out the complex details of county housing policies, noted that the time to bargain with the state over growth has passed.

"We've spent the last two years negotiating," county Planning and Development Department spokesman John McInnes said of the lengthy negotiations with the state's housing agency...

Santa Barbara News-Press

----------------------------------------------------

NOTE:

I do not feel Das' position on the state mandates are accurately portrayed in this article, lumping him in with candidates Secord and Wolfe. While he is not as unrealistic as candidate Guzzardi, his position is very much set in a fighting stance. Please review what Das wrote in his candidate statement at:

05 - Housing

Veronica Meadows Reprieve

[ Excerpt from SB Independent article by Nick Welsh, 3/23/2006 ]

Council and Developer Come to Terms Over Las Positas Housing Project

... Lee managed to avoid all but certain defeat by agreeing to reduce the number of homes proposed from 23 to about 15. In a major reversal, Lee also agreed to build his access road through Alan Road rather than construct the entrance bridge he originally proposed, which would have spanned Las Positas Creek directly across from Elings Park. Had he not made these adjustments, Lee could not have cobbled together the five-vote supermajority required for annexation requests (two weeks ago, there were five council votes solidly lined up against Lee; he was given a two-week extension to amend his plan).

Had a tentative deal not been reached, Lee had vowed to submit plans to the County of Santa Barbara, which currently holds jurisdiction, for approval instead. While City Hall expressed confidence it would have prevailed in such a showdown, many councilmembers expressed deep concern about losing many of the traffic enhancements and creek improvements Lee was promising...

The deliberations have proved agonizing for most councilmembers, but none more so than Brian Barnwell, a self-described “creek guy” who strongly backed Lee’s initial proposal. Barnwell objected the council’s last-minute tinkering violated the integrity of a planning process seven years in the making. And by reducing the number of Lee’s homes, he charged, the city would lose out on millions of dollars worth of free restoration for a seriously degraded creek.

“I’m more than heartbroken,” he declared. “I’m upset. I’m disappointed. And I don’t know what to do.”

Councilmember Das Williams, who had spearheaded the charge against Lee’s project, responded, “When I see open space, I say, ‘Why should we let it be developed at all?’ And I think many residents of the South Coast feel the same way.”

The matter now goes back to the Planning Commission and to the Creeks Committee for more review.

More About Lofts

[ Excerpt from SB Independent article by Nick Welsh, March 2, 2006 ]

... The Santa Barbara City Council sent a tough message... to developers with plans on the drawing board for upper State Street: The rules of the game are changing dramatically, and City Hall intends to craft a new vision of what sort of development will be allowed there.

After six hours of intense deliberations, the council voted 6-1 to reject architect Barry Berkus’s controversial State Street Lofts proposal, a three-story mix of commercial space and 55 one-bedroom condominiums slated for a spot now occupied by the deteriorating Plaza Inn and adjoining office building at the congested intersection of State and La Cumbre streets. In so doing, six of the councilmembers — only Roger Horton dissented — rejected the recommendation of their own planning staff, and snubbed a 6-1 vote in favor of the project by the city Planning Commission last December.

Councilmembers praised Berkus for his creativity and integrity, and hailed his attempt to provide affordable housing; in the end their concerns were too great that Berkus’s plans were simply too big and too much for the traffic-plagued location to bear. Given that there are several other major proposals currently in the works for upper State Street — or “uptown,” as it was frequently referred to during deliberations — councilmembers expressed an urgent need for a comprehensive public planning process to address upper State’s long festering problems and to achieve a new consensus of what’s desirable there.

The council scrambled to not reject Berkus’s lofts outright, and tried to devise a measure that would free him from starting from scratch or paying the city’s substantial development fees should he submit revised plans for the site in keeping with the yet-to-be-determined new vision for the neighborhood. But Berkus was having none of it. Visibly anguished by the council’s decision, the developer said, “It seems to me there’s a de facto moratorium and that many projects on State Street will be stopped here tonight.” Berkus also indicated that if he were to try again, he’d propose precisely what the zoning now allows for and seek none of the special modifications and variances he’s spent the past 18 months trying to secure...

[Berkus's] package was attractive enough that Berkus’s threat of withdrawal gave councilmember Roger Horton serious pause. Councilmember Helene Schneider worried the rejection would send a negative message to developers trying to give City Hall what it claims to want.

The opposition countered that upper State Street was desperately crying out for a comprehensive plan...

Perhaps most striking about the opposition were the disparate and often feuding factions that Berkus managed to unify. Not only did it include the usual slow-growth and no-growth suspects such as the Citizens Planning Association, the League of Women Voters, Allied Neighborhood Association, and Citizens for Sensible Planning, but also prominent affordable-housing advocates, like Mickey Flacks, who have actively pressed City Hall and the Board of Supervisors for increased housing densities that neighborhood preservationists insist will destroy their quality of life. Three candidates for the 2nd Supervisorial District — Joe Guzzardi, Janet Wolf, and Das Williams — weighed in against the Lofts; only Dan Secord, a close personal friend of Berkus, avoided the fray. In addition, former Santa Barbara mayor Sheila Lodge voiced her opposition, as did former councilmember David Landecker.

It was Councilmember Das Williams who made the motion to deny the project, but it was really Councilmember Brian Barnwell who eviscerated the Lofts during a detailed dissertation on its shortcomings...

The $64 million question remains: What now? It will be hard enough for city planners to craft a public planning process capable of finding consensus for upper State Street’s future, harder still to do so quickly. In the meantime, what happens to Berkus? What happens to Whole Foods and the Sandman Inn? And is there a de facto moratorium in effect, as Berkus charged? “I don’t buy that for one minute,” said Barnwell, “but I sure as hell hope the other developers out there are paying attention and get the message.”

The Santa Barbara Independent :: news :: Upper State Lofts in Limbo

Living Wage / SB Values

[ Excerpt of SB Independent article, 3/9/2006 by Martha Sadler ]

... Five years of effort culminated Tuesday night as the Santa Barbara City Council voted to approve a Living Wage Ordinance for city contract workers. The 5-2 vote in favor was greeted by a full house of rhythmic clapping, hugs, and thank-yous among councilmembers, the public, and city staff. Das Williams, who along with Helene Schneider championed and shepherded the ordinance through the process, said the ordinance “reflected Santa Barbara’s values.”

Several longtime Living Wage advocates addressing the council prior to the vote intoned the sentiment that a city’s budget should be “a moral document.”

The ordinance itself is hardly revolutionary: Private companies that perform at least $15,000 of contracted work for the city in one year must pay their employees $14 per hour for that work; $12 if they provide health insurance; or $11 if they provide family health insurance.

The final figures represented a compromise on the part of advocates who calculated in 2003 that $15.40 per hour was the minimum sustainable or living wage not counting “buying a car, savings, or take-out meals,” according to activist Sharon Hoshida of Santa Barbara for a Living Wage. The coalition also accepted the exclusion of nonprofits from the livable wage ordinance, but only on the understanding that city staff would develop a point-incentive plan for nonprofits that offer benefits and higher salaries.

A few people raised their voices against the ordinance last night, chief among them Steve Cushman, representing the Santa Barbara Chamber of Commerce, but even his criticism was hedged. Cushman expressed concern regarding the symbolism of the ordinance, worrying it would create a perception that Santa Barbara is unfriendly to commerce. “And it’s the next step that we’re concerned with,” added Cushman, referring to the concern that other city employees may expect to have their wages raised to stay proportionally ahead of the contract workers.

Mario Borgatello of MarBorg Industries and Allen Williams of ServiceMaster janitorial services voiced more substantial concerns — though both expressed emotional support for the ordinance. Borgatello complained the ordinance created an uneven playing field. MarBorg already provides family health insurance; however, he said, it discourages family health coverage, as it costs more than the one-dollar-per-hour discount in wages the ordinance provides for. Borgatello speculated that out-of-town companies would attempt to cheat the ordinance by claiming the $11 wage option without actually providing the health coverage, putting businesses like MarBorg at a competitive disadvantage in the bidding process. Borgatello called for the city to ensure more vigilant enforcement than the ordinance currently provides.

[Allen] Williams, meanwhile, said he feared ServiceMaster would suffer when bidding for small jobs against companies small enough to not be subject to the ordinance.

The two dissenting councilmembers, Roger Horton and Brian Barnwell, both worried that the city, which is just recovering from an economic downturn that caused city staff to dip into reserves, could not afford to pay the wages the ordinance demands. Finance Director Rob Peirson was not similarly concerned, saying the cost to city government —  based on other cities with similar ordinances — would be “a fraction of one percent” of the overall budget. The ordinance will return two more times to the council, as a matter of procedure, before its adoption is finalized.

The Santa Barbara Independent :: news :: Good Night, and Good Luck

March 19th Funder

Dear friend,

Please join Das at a wine tasting and reception at the beautiful home of Jack and Judith Stapelmann in Hope Ranch on Sunday, March 19th.

Follow this link to RSVP http://www.daswilliamsforsupervisor.com/stapelmann.php

Follow this link to view the full invite http://www.daswilliamsforsupervisor.com/stapelmann_invite.html

The wine tasting is being hosted by local wineries; Cellar 205,Whitcraft Wineries and Lions Peak. Jack and Judith live at 4161 Cresta Ave in Hope Ranch. You can also RSVP to (805) 886-3181.

The event is $60 until the 17th, and $75 after.

See you there
Stephanie Langsdorf

07 - County Split

Continuing Das' candidate profile...

--------------------------------------------

County Split

The County Split proposal was placed on the ballot and financed by ultra-conservative special interests from Santa Maria and Orcutt. Even these oil companies and mega-developers who want unrestrained growth from the Gaviota Tunnel to San Luis Obispo County, no longer vocally support the Split movement they instigated.

Without the North County, the South Coast will be unable to maintain a decent quality of life. Mission County will be immediately saddled with extreme debt and reduced services without Santa Barbara. The only means to rapidly build the Mission County economy and increase their tax base would be to allow massive oil, commercial and residential developments. The South Coast will be severely impacted by traffic congestion, air pollution and the threat of unsafe oil exploration.

The benefits and challenges of each area of the county enrich us as a whole. I believe we have more in common with the average citizen north of the Gaviota tunnel than we are led to believe by these development interests pushing the county split. We sink or swim together. I would fight for our fair share of resources to meet the needs of the 2nd District with a mind toward meeting the needs of the County as a whole.

Living Wage Passes

[ Excerpt from SBN-P article, 3/8/2006, by Joshua Molina ]

Council approves living wage law


... Council members voted 5-2 to approve a living wage ordinance... a move that will require employers to pay their workers more money if they expect to do business with the city.

More than 100 people, most of them in support of the ordinance, packed the council chambers. After more than five years since the idea was suggested, the feeling and expectation in the room was that a majority of the council would enthusiastically back the living wage.

The vote was 5-2. Councilmen Brian Barnwell and Roger Horton voted no.

"To me, this is what democracy looks like," said Councilwoman Helene Schneider. "This is about coming together to decide what fits for Santa Barbara."

... Councilwoman Iya Falcone, said the living wage ordinance was an "incredibly good compromise."

She was so excited about the living wage that she even made a point to address the many liberal activists in the audience who opposed her re-election campaign in November.

"My view of this job is to represent everyone, whether they supported me or not," said Ms. Falcone, who made the motion to support the ordinance...

"If we waited for things to be perfect, the only thing we would have in this world is Brad Pitt," said living wage supporter Kristin Anderson, her comment drawing roaring laughter from the crowd.

The living wage ordinance had sparked bitter feelings between business interests and social activists pushing the issue...

"Maybe this will give some health benefits to families who don't have them," said Mayor Marty Blum. "I think there's a great cost to not passing a living wage ordinance."

Mr. Barnwell said he opposed the ordinance because it didn't focus on the real problem that is plaguing the country -- the lack of health care coverage...

"For me, it's not there," Mr. Barnwell said. "It's not there by a mile. I think our responsibility is health care."

Mr. Horton voted no, saying there were too many unknown costs of implementing the law, as it relates to enforcement, administration and auditing of the program.

Councilman Das Williams said he was disappointed with all the misinformation spread about the ordinance. He said it might reduce the number of people who are on welfare or rely on other government subsidies.

"This is not a liberal or radical measure," Mr. Williams said. "I think it's conservative."

Most of the people who spoke in favor of the ordinance on Tuesday night were liberal activists -- not workers -- a fact that was even addressed by some of them.

"Is it just me or are there a lot of bald white guys at the mic tonight?" quipped Geoff Green, an activist and executive director of the Fund for Santa Barbara.

Terry Tyler, a small-business owner and unsuccessful candidate for City Council, said the living wage is anti-business and will drive more companies out of the area.

"This is the first step toward the People's Republic of Santa Barbara," Mr. Tyler said.

e-mail: jmolina@newspress.com

Santa Barbara News-Press

Living Wage to a Vote

[ Excerpt from SBN-P article 3/6/2006 by Joshua Molina ]

Living wage debate heats up, heads for vote


... After one of the most contentious debates ever to hit City Hall, the council Tuesday night will vote on a "living wage" ordinance. It's called living wage because it is intended to be enough money to enable a worker and his or her family to meet their basic needs.

If it passes, companies that do more than $15,000 in business with the city would have to pay their employees $14, $12 or $11 an hour, depending on what medical benefits the employers offer.

The issue has pitted business interests against socially liberal activists. A broad coalition of activists is pushing the proposal in Santa Barbara, while conservative interests are trying to block it...

The proposed living wage would only apply to companies that have city contracts; other private employers would not have to comply.

And employers that would have to pay the living wage must pay it to employees only when they work on city jobs; the companies could pay the regular wage for the hours the employees don't work on city projects.

The responsibility to enforce the wage would fall on the employer, but a city committee would review the issue quarterly...

If the ordinance passes, about 180 companies would be affected...

Among the companies that are expected to be most affected are custodial and cleaning companies such as Service Master and Mission Linen. Service Master in 2005 had more than $300,000 in contracts with the city. Mission Linen had more than $111,000.

Neither company would allow its workers to be interviewed for this report. At Mission Linen, a member of the company's personnel department interrupted a News-Press interview with a worker.

Mission Linen declined to comment on the proposed ordinance...

The businesses that would be affected range from clerical and landscape companies to maintenance and security companies.

The Santa Barbara Region Chamber of Commerce strongly opposes the ordinance. Steve Cushman, the group's executive director, expects the activists supporting the proposal to put on "an interesting show on Tuesday."

He says he doesn't think that the ordinance will harm businesses that much.

The real problem, he said, is that the activists who are driving the issue will use the living wage ordinance as a stepping stone to something bigger -- and more costly.

"This is just the first step," Mr. Cushman said.

"I am convinced and the Chamber is convinced that the Coalition for a Living Wage will bring forward, once this ordinance is passed or not passed, a new ordinance to impose a living wage on every business within the city limits and every business that does business in the city limits.

"That will have significant impact on the cost of living and doing business in the city of Santa Barbara. We will vigorously fight that."

... The City Council vote is expected to be close.

The most vocal council critic of the wage is Councilman Brian Barnwell. "The fundamental question for me is, does our city government have any right to dictate these matters to private companies?" Mr. Barnwell asked. "I am troubled by that."

... Councilwoman Helene Schneider said the city should make helping the poor a priority.

"It's the right thing to do," Ms. Schneider said.

"The city, as a responsible employer, should not have taxpayer dollars go to perpetuate poverty in our city."

...

e-mail: jmolina@newspress.com

Santa Barbara News-Press

Upper State Development

[ Excerpt of SBN-P article, 3/2/2006 by Joshua Molina ]

... The rejection of Barry Berkus' Santa Barbara condo project has escalated into a broader, high-stakes community debate over the future of development on upper State Street.

In a dramatic policy shift, the City Council put developers on notice that their projects near that entrance to the city would face unprecedented scrutiny and may even have to wait until the council creates a traffic and housing plan for the area...

The city is struggling with an identity crisis for upper State Street. Beyond not knowing what type of development is needed, officials are torn on what to call the neighborhood. Some people who see the area as a potential focal point for the region have begun calling it "uptown" or "State Street North."

When the council takes up the issue in six weeks, members hope to get a better handle on what type of development they want for the area. Paul Casey, the city's community development director, was unsure about what is next but said on Wednesday that his staff would come back with "a range of options."

... Upper State Street is already thick with traffic, and critics contend that a comprehensive plan for development is needed to address that issue and the city's need for affordable housing and office space...

Councilman Das Williams said that from this point on, developers in the upper State Street area must propose projects with little or no retail space and seek environmentally aggressive solutions to the the congestion in the area.

"I don't think it is quite a moratorium, but anyone who is putting forward a project needs to see the writing on the wall," Mr. Williams said. "Projects must be bus-friendly, affordable and take great pains to reduce traffic."


Santa Barbara News-Press

Bill of Rights

[ Excerpt from SB Independent, 3/3/2006 ]

A candlelit vigil for the Bill of Rights drew roughly 100 people to the steps outside the Anacapa Street post office last Wednesday, as Santa Barbarans recognized the Nationwide Constitution Vigil called for by the national advocacy group MoveOn. The somber affair, cosponsored by the Santa Barbara Progressive Coalition and hosted by Lee Heller, was part of a nationwide effort to send a message to Congress and the White House that President Bush’s domestic wiretapping efforts are unconstitutional and cause for deeper investigation by an independent review committee. Last month, former vice president and presidential candidate Al Gore asserted before the American Constitution Society that Bush’s repeated abuse of the law was possibly an impeachable offense. Joining the vigil to read aloud from the Bill of Rights were former Assemblymember Hannah-Beth Jackson, Santa Barbara City Councilmembers Das Williams, and Congressional hopeful Brett Wagner.

The Santa Barbara Independent :: news :: Patriot Games

SBPC Candidate Forum

The Santa Barbara Progressive Coalition held a Progressive Candidate's Forum for the June 6th Primary on March 1st.

Brian Olson of the Coalition put together a condensed paraphrasing of what the candidates had to say:

Jill Martinez - CD 24 Candidate
Presbyterian Minister, People's Self Help Housing
Progressive is: Creativity in effecting Change

Das Williams - SBCS D2 Candidate
Got into Progressive Politics through Environmental and Development issues

Mary Pallant - CD 24 Candidate

Brett Wagner - CD 24 Candidate, SBCS D3
Progressive is: not Iraq War, Environment, fighting for what be believe in

Joe Guzzardi - SBCS D2 Candidate
Progressive is: not a box for me, but I share many of these values

----------------------------------------------------

Q: How will you involve We the people?

Guzzardi: respect citizens and county employees by not "ping pong"ing them between policies.

Wagner: switch policies to address feeling of non-representation and disagreement with what's happening. current policy ignores many views. try to represent all the people. listen to all sides. more public forums.

Pallant: "informed, active, engaged citizenry". "Democrats" vote for the party. "Liberals" have an ideal. "Progressives" work on changing towards the ideal.

Williams: "put the servitude back in public service". work hard. be unfiltered. meet with people. be accessible. take criticism.

Martinez: encourage a culture of vigorous political debate. regional, local and neighborhood groups. voter reg and GOTV. get to know me, be confident that I'll represent you.

---------------------------------------------------

Q: How do we frame our ideals and values to resonate with moderate voters?

Pallant: Progressive Pride! Love the label! Stand for beliefs. Just do it. Let people know where you stand. Make demands.

Guzzardi: avoid labels to get people to look past the label to the actual positions. focus on similarities and commonalities.

Williams: paradox: to avoid a label you have to acknowledge the label. what box are you not in? beyond the rhetoric, there are real issues and policies that are going to arise from this, real hard issues like pollution and taxes and messy things. "A Progressive in Kentucky is different from a Progressive in California." (or SB, or Ventura, or Filmore...) the key is Progress. embrace the symbols because they mean something.

Wagner: Dems have moved towards "the center", to internal disagreement. Focus on real issues, not trivia. war not sex, etc. actual policies, not spin and rhetoric.

Martinez: labels aren't helpful. can stand by the progressive pledge statements.
Platform - 3 key values: community, inclusion, opportunity.
community at all scales, global, ...
inclusion - diverse democratic debate
opportunity - education, health, housing, etc...

--------------------------------------------------

Q: how do we not leave people behind? the poor, undereducated, under-housed, under-health-cared? (the poor and struggling, the middle-class and struggling)

Guzzardi: I'm a regular middle class guy. I can sympathize. no magic bullets. ($57,000/yr starting fire salary, vs. $1,000,000 houses) you could double their salary and it would barely make a dent. don't get sound-byte trapped into an unsolvable problem. don't affordable-housing overdevelop us out of an environment. but we can still do the little pieces within reach. Santa Barbara is going to have an occupancy limit.

Wagner: the poor are struggling, the middle class is shrinking, tax the rich! ;-)
firefirestone.com

Wolf: we already have some good services which are under-enrolled. raise wages. employer housing.

Pallant: end the war. it costs too much. we have better things to spend on. housing: move money. famines are economic, not about lack of food. same with this housing problem.

Williams: grew up in the lower economic strata. city council doesn't pay that much either. in 1900 a Progressive was someone against the robber-baron corporatocracy. still valid. Progressive is: believing that we can come together as a democratic government and solve things. living wage laws.

Martinez: would prefer to give 20 minute answer instead of 3. programs from federal money, from middle class taxes. a crazy person runs for congress, what congress has been doing is making me crazy. there is unawareness of the true state of our society [and most places there isn't a Katrina to expose everything]. design for an integrated society. NCLB sucks! [soooo many programs, so much more to do]


Santa Barbara Progressive || Progressive Candidate's Forum for June 6 Primary

"The Lofts" Shot Down

[ Excerpt from SBN-P article, 3/1/2006, by Joshua Molina ]

Council shoots down condo project


... The Planning Commission had approved the project last year, but four groups appealed the decision to the council. The council, in a 6-1 vote Tuesday night, said upper State Street needs a broader plan for development before the panel could approve a major project such as this one. The lone no vote was Councilman Roger Horton, who preferred that the matter be delayed, not killed.

"If we want to send the message that redevelopment of State Street needs to be one that increases affordable housing, decreases commercial space and associated traffic impacts, and has enough of a setback from the street to be walkable and be transit-friendly, we need to uphold the appeal," said Councilman Das Williams.

Now, the council will meet in six weeks to talk about the priorities for development in the upper State Street area and take a broader look at issues such as housing and traffic in that part of the city...

The project hit at the heart of many of the issues facing Santa Barbara -- housing, traffic congestion and the future of development at the northern gateway to the city...

Residents who crowded the council chambers were about evenly divided. The project was opposed by several heavy hitters, including the Citizens Planning Association, League of Women Voters, Coalition for Sensible Planning and the Allied Neighborhood Association.

The project was also caught in the political crossfire in the battle over the 2nd District seat on the county Board of Supervisors. In addition to Mr. Williams, candidates Joe Guzzardi and Janet Wolf slammed the project...

The opposition centered around three main points: a fear that it would bring more traffic, that it was too big for that part of Santa Barbara and the possible displacement of 10 residents who live in a converted motel at the site. The developer was willing to pay for the residents' relocation.

Of the 55 units, 38 would be sold at market rate -- likely about $1 million. The other 17 units would be sold at below market rate, costing between $175,000 and $219,000...

e-mail: jmolina@newspress.com

Santa Barbara News-Press