By Cheri Rae
The chickens have finally come home to roost—as some members of the city’s once-esteemed Architectural Board of Review have egg all over their faces for their cock-of-the-walk behavior.
Anyone who has been paying attention at all to the goings-on in the David Gebhard Community Meeting Room is well aware that some members of the ABR have long allowed their personal feelings and political beliefs to inform and influence their decisions on projects that come before them.
And City Staff has approved of their behavior.
Time and time again, I have witnessed unconscionable decision-making that has favored certain developers, architects and property managers who have brazenly marched into the room, certain of favorable findings—even when their proposals and behaviors brazenly flout established policies, procedures and city ordinances.
And City Staff has sat by and said nothing to back up the comments of citizens who have nowhere to turn unless they want to go through the expensive and arduous procedure of mounting an appeal to City Council. (Note: My neighbors and I were forced to do just that a couple years ago in an egregious case of unpermitted destruction of resources—where the ABR and City Staff were unresponsive to citizen concerns. We ended up winning 7-0 after pointing out numerous, er, let’s be nice and call them “irregularities” and “misrepresentations.” It was so bad that City Administrator Jim Armstrong ordered our appeal fee refunded.)
On September 11 the City Council will have the opportunity to hear another citizen appeal of an ABR-approved project for 901 Olive Street. It’s another outsized, metal-sheathed design too incompatible with the neighborhood and too close to El Pueblo Viejo to be allowed. But the ABR—behaving as though they’re at the top of the local pecking order—couldn’t have cared less.
As one esteemed local historian termed the ruling on the project, “The ABR’s attitude toward their responsibilities, guidelines and policies was appalling. Some of us pointed this out, and members ignored us or sneered. The architectural “style” in no way fits in with Santa Barbara or the neighborhood, which is mostly attractive residential.”
Another quipped that ABR now stands for “Already Been Ruined.”
Cluck all you want about this Chick-fil-A kerfuffle, but it’s only the latest dust-up of bad behavior in the ABR that far too many citizens have witnessed for far too long. Now that these members have ruffled feathers all the way to the Mayor’s office—and even forced the hand of their City Staff handlers—it’s finally time to cut the cocksure attitude of these members down to size, and stop playing chicken with what makes our city special.
But please, don’t think this is the first—or even the worst—example of ABR members acting like dumb clucks.
} – 
Perfectly stated. Thank you. ABR does not mean A Bad Rap if this current group of metal building artists cry foul (heh, heh fowl). Think of seminal architecture in this town that has withstood the test of time and replication. Basically it is the early Spanish in the 1920/30′s high quality iteration – El Paseo forward. (Note this does not celebrate the cheap white walls, red tile eyebrows and fake ironwork gewgaws version “Spanish”.)
No one finds those box car stucco “modern” intrusions from the 1970′s worthy for replication. No one will find the edgy metal modern shabby chic to be seminal for the future of SB architecture either in a few more boring years either.
Protecting SB is their charge. Making a maverick name for themselves as modern artists and politically correct values carriers at the city’s expense should never drive their official decisions which are an abuse of their office.
Is there any way you can post a picture your home? Or your address so I can drive by. I would love to see if you live in what you speak.
Uh, oh. The arrival of the thought police. Zip your lips and say nothing until further advised. They want to know where you live. Green Ford Falcons can not be too far behind.
Right on Cheri Rae! Many of us have witnessed what can only be characterized as corruption at the ABR (and Single Family Design Board). The members of these so-called advisory boards routinely pursue a predetermined agenda, and it seems with absolutely NO accountability. Maybe, just maybe, the City Council will recognize that these folks have lost all credibility. Time to clean house!
But why didn’t other council members put the issue of the ABR on next week’s council meeting, as councilmember Hotchkiss asked?
I listened to the brief ABR meeting rerun this morning on 18 and the acting Chair, Gary Mosel, said clearly that he was abstaining for “political reasons” and all the rest there fell in line with him and also abstained, postponing the issue for two weeks. Subsequently, staff overruled the ABR. Yet Councilmember Francisco said he does not have enough information to put the issue on next week’s agenda and Rowse agreed. (Murillo and House do not want the resignations; White and Mayor Schneider had no comments.) Lack of credibility all around, it would seem.
Bendy White had nothing to say? Shocking, and so out of character. Someone remind me why he got elected?
Frightened little rabbits. Too afraid to ruffle any fur. It’s a sad state of affairs when only one out of seven council members has any integrity. The entire CC should have acted immediately and decisively to remove the ABR members for their inappropriate behavior.
Mob lynchings are no better than current ABR obstructionism of government process. All things in due course. Raising awareness of the governed? Priceless.
Is there a person more appropriately named than Bendy? Maybe Usain Bolt.
Thank you, Cheri for your analysis. Do any View readers have any ideas of how to reform the ABR? Should the Board be composed of non professionals? At least they would be less influenced by developers and fellow architects and maybe even pesonel religious or political opinions.
Good question. I looked at the roster and all but one, Mosel, the one who said “political reasons” were the reason for his abstention, were architects (with one landscape architect.) Prior to this display, I would have thought that seriously cutting back on the architects on the Board would be good idea, but now I am not so sure.
I think it matters less whether they are architects but having strong rules, not just “guidelines”, not just stepping to the other side of the table, for instance, is important. And transparency: all professional work including collaborative contacts should be made public.
If it walks like a chicken and talks like a chicken, it’s a chicken. ABR members are political appointees, installed by the City Council to green-light projects proposed by those in political alignment with them and impede the progress of those with contrary views. Nine times out of ten the City Planning Staff gets exactly what it wants from these wee willy wonkers.
On way to improve the city advisory council appointment process might be to require 5 votes instead of 4 – a super majority of council members to stop that blatant end run we saw in the last rounds of 11th hour appointments made by the outgoing city council who stacked the deck with their cronies.
Reality check though is these are tough volunteer jobs taking a lot of time and commitment. However, they are also incredible time wasters. Making them so they meet less frequently but use their time 100% more efficiently with rigorous training and orientation might make volunteering to serve less onerous so only those with special agendas ahead of time end up being among the few to apply and qualify.
City needs to accept few come equipped with any sort of “ethics” training these days of moral relativism, let along any knowledge of civics or parliamentary process. Perhaps a universal training program for all advisory panel volunteers interested in service should a requirement before they are finally chosen to serve.
So here are my suggestions:
1. Mandatory training in appropriate civics, process and ethics before applying to serve
2. Fewer, shorter and more effective meetings could broaden the base of applicants
3. Ongoing required training available online for continued service
4. More developed member codes of conduct with consequences for violations
But that makes too much sense.
I am okay with the abstentions. If a business run by an acknowledged KKK member was up for review, I might abstain. Likewise for Chick-fil-a. As an aside though, I don’t really agree with the ABR in principal, since design is subjective and subject to individual taste.
When as in this case there is an extra-curricular collective reaction by a governing board that obstructs the permit process rights of the applicant, how would your own board member “conscience” rectify that?
Is this not a conflict between two goods, rather than a clear cut conflict between good and bad?
1. Board member wants to impose his/her subjective values on the permit process as an act of personal conscience.
Versus
2. Applicant has due process and notice rights when the above acts results in a material impairment of his or her right.
New ABR Oath of Office:
I swear that I have the right to deny any applicant his or her due process rights, any time I want for any reason I want, when I sit on this city advisory board.
Jurors are asked if they support the 5th Amendment: right against self-incrimination. They swear they will not be prejudiced, if the defendant does not take the stand in their own self-defense.
Do they get to later change their mind once they learn the accused shares beliefs and values different from their own? Do they get to privately throw out the 5th Amendment on their own private conscientious objection grounds after they are sworn in and seated on the jury?
Or do they asked to be excused from service and be replaced by an alternate juror. Or do they continue to sit on the jury, but with their fingers crossed behind their back and hang the guy on grounds other than those presented to the court.
OK, after all this discussion on the record and off, who could legitimately state that they have a reasonable expectation of fair and unbiased consideration should they come before the ABR with a project, or even just to make a public comment? Having attached my name to this issue, I certainly don’t.
Imagine, though, how admirable and noteworthy it would have been if a commissioner spoke with thoughtful and heartfelt integrity and said something like: “Although my personal feelings and political beliefs cause me great difficulty making a positive finding about this project, considering recent issues in the news, my duty as a commissioner is to rule only on the appropriateness of the landscaping plan before me. That said, here are my comments about it…” The en masse abstentions leave big, troubling questions in the minds of the public they have volunteered to serve.
This event is just the tip of the iceberg. Our Council is partisan (no duh). The Planning Commission is stacked with cronies who rubber-stamp no class, no style “smart growth”, regardless of its negative impacts on established neighborhoods and/or surrounding infrastructure. And now the ABR shows itself as nothing more than a group of left-wing activists. This ABR debacle should come as no surprise. What is shocking is that seemingly thoughtful, level headed members of our City Council (Rowse and Francisco) turned their backs on Hotchkiss, and joined the rest of the ostriches in sticking their heads in the sand.
Considering the incredibly lackluster reaction from six of our City Council members, maybe the ABR application form should include a new policy: If you oppose same-sex marriage, your application is automatically denied!