- Home
- News Grid
- Local News
- Green Hawk
- Politics
- School Zone
- Youth Camps
- Nonprofits
- Missing Pets
- Multimedia
- Arts
- Movies
- Outdoors
- Sports
- News Releases
- Columnists
- Blogs
- Opinions
- Classifieds
- Advertise
- Donate
- Partners
Santa Barbara Raises, Then Lowers Height Limitation Visibility
The Santa Barbara City Council and Planning Commission tackled the city’s building-height ordinance during a work session Thursday, and discussed putting an amendment on November’s ballot that would compete with a citizen-led initiative that began last year.
More than 11,000 signatures were gathered in support of the Save El Pueblo Viejo initiative, which would restrict height limits to 40 feet in downtown areas and 45 feet elsewhere in the city. Currently, buildings are allowed to reach 60 feet in commercial zones. City officials Thursday weighed whether to put an alternative charter amendment on the ballot, which would allow projects to be considered case-by-case, allowing building heights to range from 45 to 60 feet, for community priority, affordable housing and rental projects.
The SEPV initiative, and the proposed charter amendment, both have mixed reviews at the city. The Architectural Review Board did not support the SEPV initiative, saying that having a uniform roof height would lead to a more “homogenized city.” The Historic Landmarks Commission, however, did approve. On Thursday, the council and planning commission were divided on the issue.
The issue becomes even murkier because Santa Barbara is in the middle of updating and consolidating its General Plan, which has been ongoing since 2005. In spite of budget uncertainties, John Ledbetter, the city’s principal planner, said he felt optimistic that the adoption goal of spring of 2010 could be met. But a November ballot will force the issue of height limits earlier.
“The process has taken too damn long,” said Commissioner John Jostes, a sentiment that drew the agreement of other officials.
“The era of two-story Santa Barbara is over,” said housing advocate Mickey Flacks, who said the initiative proposed by SEPV opposed sustainability.
Others agreed.
“We have an obligation for stewardship,” said Detlev Peikert, principal of Peikert Group Architects. Peikert said the SEPV initiative would encourage sprawl.
The issue was more divided between council members and commissioners, several of whom signed off on the SEPV initiative.
“The big buildings are changing the character of the city,” Commissioner Harwood White said.
A founding member of Save El Pueblo Viejo, White said he stands by the voters’ initiative. He said multifamily zoning has been “trashed” and that it should remain modest in size, emphasizing rentals, “not mansionized condos.”
Commissioner Bruce Bartlett emphasized a need to see the bigger picture.
“We’re raising our salaries and lowering building heights,” he said. “I think our focus should be on different things.”
Councilman Das Williams said he was “dismayed with how political this process has become. I work in other communities, and the bad rap for Santa Barbara is that we allow aesthetics to trump other ethical considerations.”
Mayor Marty Blum said that she didn’t want to put an alternative to the SEPV initiative on the ballot. “I think growth in Santa Barbara should be small,” she said. “It always has been.”
The alternative charter amendment item will go before the ordinance committee on March 3 andthe City Council will take it up later next month.
Write to lcooper@noozhawk.com
Comments
Noozhawk's comments are moderated, but by posting here you accept your responsibility to follow our rules.
- No abusive, defamatory or libelous attacks. In plain English: No personal attacks.
- No vulgar or discriminatory language.
- If you do not follow these rules, don't be surprised if your comment is removed.
- Please use the Report Abuse button on offensive comments.
- Share what you know, ask about what you don't. Give us your eyewitness accounts, observations, background and history. Tell us what else you want to know about the story.
- Stay on the topic, PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK, and forgive people their spelling errors.
Noozhawk's intent is not to limit the discussion of our stories but to elevate it. Thank you for your respectful participation. Click here for our complete Terms of Use.
Comments are moderated, and will not appear until they've been approved.
» on 02.13.09 @ 04:20 AM
I’m sorry it’s so hard to read this stuff anymore. So was’t there a time not so long ago that the hight limit was 35 feet? Now we are ringing our hands over four and four and a half story buildings? I can’t help having the sense that each extra foot represents bags of new tax dollars like drugs to a junky. Lately it feels like someone has come up behind me with a gun saying “Hands up! Give me your car, your view and your paycheck.”
» on 02.13.09 @ 06:17 AM
It is particularly disgusting that this council, which was elected to serve the people, now is working so hard to subvert the will of the people, and spending the people’s money to do it. They are now simply serving the interests of the developers and architects who have richly contributed to their political campaigns, and continue to destroy the character and ambience of this once-special city. Shame on them for working against the citizens. I hope the voters remember all of this come November.
» on 02.13.09 @ 07:26 AM
The special interests are squawking pretty hard. It will be interesting to see who sells out to them and who doesn’t. It’s ashame Das Williams has become a big money politician, backing the special interests initiative by groups who want to defeat the will of the citizens.
» on 02.13.09 @ 07:45 AM
Our local officials run the local government like they own a monopoly—raising parking fees, increasing hourly rates, looking to get more money through taller buildings. For what? To pay for their own salary increases and to be able to retire at 55 with full salaries and health care.
» on 02.13.09 @ 07:56 AM
“Will of the people” – Give me a break! 15% of the population of Santa Barbara (probably most of them the 65 and over crowd) signed a petition that was collected by paid signature gathers. I am sure that you would have no trouble getting 15% of the population to sign a petition to legalize non-medical marijuana. Does that mean that it would be the will of all the people. Just because a bunch of old farts with one foot in the grave signed a petition to try to keep Santa Barbara the way it was when then were kids in the 1920’s does not give them the right to call their fool hardy ideas “the will of the people"the “will of the people”
» on 02.13.09 @ 08:15 AM
The voters of SB are getting exactly what they asked for when they elected a bunch of professional politicians with no business experience and a taste for spending other peoples money. Dale Francisco is the only one that seems to have any sense at all regarding spending. Elections are coming - time for a change!
» on 02.13.09 @ 08:33 AM
As someone familiar with City aesthetics, pedestrian character and historic buildings I became concerned with the SEPV initiative when it was first announced. I called it then “untimely and unwise, with multiple unintended consequences”. This view, unpopular two years ago, is gaining ground now.
Contrary to popular belief, commercial buildings dating before the earthquake were taller and, after 1925, envisioned to be part of an Andalusian mythical village much denser than anything that came after WWII. There were no height limits when the Arlington and Ambassador hotels (long gone) were built. Ditto for the Granada and Arlington theaters, the Courthouse, St. Anthony’s, Lyons and so many others.
Our current 60’ height limit was established in 1973 by popular demand to stop construction of a pair of NINE-story buildings (El Mirasol) next to Alameda Park at what became Alice Keck Park gardens.
I share SEPV proponents’ passion to preserve the historic character of our City, but this charter amendment is ill-conceived. Limiting downtown to two stories -or three, with a flat roof to fit under 40’- was never the vision of the 1925 reconstruction of Santa Barbara as a ‘New Spain in California’.
The City is on track to develop better ways to achieve the same goals as the SEPV group, without the unintended consequences.
» on 02.13.09 @ 08:47 AM
Santa Barbara is already a souless preplanned tourist trap. I for one would like to see a few buildings with some flavor. If that means 60 feet instead of 40 then so be it.
» on 02.13.09 @ 09:48 AM
Could be, Pro Choice—- but the initiative will be on the ballot in November. (Perhaps it could be there in June if the Governor calls a special election?) Then, the will of the people will be known—- and perhaps the personal sneers will cease.
The question is whether there should be also the city council’s own pet competing initiative on the ballot.
Williams’ comment is particularly dismaying, if not disgraceful: Santa Barbara is distinct from other communities because of its history and aesthetics. Urging the consideration of both of those is not “political”. I don’t know what other communities he “works” in besides Ventura. Perhaps he’d be happier there?
Finally, 15% of the registered voters’ signatures is quite amazing…. At the very least, it has changed the conversation to point out how unhappy many voters are in the city of Santa Barbara with its self-regarding government.
Finally, pro choice, last I knew the vote, the opinion of each person over 18 in this country, this community is equal, whatever the age. Get over it.
» on 02.13.09 @ 09:51 AM
Yes we in Santa Barbara value slow growth, aesthetics and our cherished two story small town character over building 4 story affordable housing like crazy.
I say so what!
Like it or lump it, DAS!
Thats what the vast majority of the voters want and come November that how the vast majority of the voters will vote. For the citizens 40 feet height initiative and not for the City Councils competing ballot measure which allows 60 feet for almost every building, because of the exception loophole which almost every building will qualify for.
Besides that the developers and architects are lying to o when they make their ridiculous false claim that somehow a 4 story building can result in market units which are priced at what the workforce can afford. If it could be done tell us why nobody has ever done it before.
» on 02.13.09 @ 09:57 AM
You will find out what the will of the people is next November, Buckwheat!
Its going to be to overwhelmingly pass the citizens initiative to lower building heights to 40 wheat!
If you don’t like living in a charming two story slow growth beach town then you are free to move to LA and live in and enjoy big buildings, high density, and lots of people and traffic congestion.
Don’t let the door hit you on your way out PRO CHOICE!
» on 02.13.09 @ 10:47 AM
At the meeting yesterday Mickey Flacks said that SB4All is architects and herself. Hello…, of course the architects, permit planners, etc. support the Council alternative because of the exceptions granted for community priority projects (undefined, almost anything in the past has been granted Measure E square footage for community priority. Like office buildings…) This alternative charter amendment and the ‘smart growth’, high density alternatives, in Plan SB are support by the development community - kind of a full employment act for themselves.
» on 02.13.09 @ 10:56 AM
Hey Pro-choice, then why are council members trying to add a second initiative? Don’t they trust the voters to make a choice?
» on 02.13.09 @ 04:43 PM
Less is More
» on 02.13.09 @ 04:59 PM
Alex,
Yes the citizens height initiative will have consequences. But the consequences is that we will have no more monstrosities like those on Chapala.
Under the councils alternate ballot measure the monster projects on Chapala would be exempt, and therefore many more such monstrosities would occur all over town until our beloved charming small town 2 story character is lost forever, and our town is transformed.
What you don’t seem to get is our town is special because of the low density way it is now, and won’t be improved by building a lot of high density tall buildings and transforming our town.
What you don’t seem to get is that, whether you like it or not, the vast majority of the voters in Santa Barbara don’t want any more of those monstrosities, and don’t want our town transformed into high density, and are going to vote accordingly.
It’s as simple as that! End of story!
» on 02.13.09 @ 05:02 PM
The council’s reason for a second option is to confuse the issue, muddy the waters and ultimately have both items fail so the developers can then run around saying, “See Santa Barbarans approve of what we’re doing.” And then council doesn’t have to feel guilty about what they’ve done anymore. Kudos to Bill Mahan who wants to right some wrongs by appealing directly to the citizenry. He is a man with a conscience, and he’s standing up and saying that mistakes were made. Contrast that with Roger Horton’s squishy stand and reconsideration after the development community worked him over to get him to change his vote to push this ill-advised council measure forward.
» on 02.13.09 @ 09:46 PM
Oy oy oy! You’d think we (vaunted citizens of Santa Barbara—heirs of Pearl Chase’s vision) could bring a little more intelligence to the table than El Pueblo Viejo’s petition to SQUASH IT FLAT. Since when can’t we evaluate new buildings on a case-by-case basis? Since when can’t we agree that some blocks (say around De La Guerra Plaza and the Presidio) should be carefully preserved, while others, like Chapala St., really aren’t that gorgeous anyway? Are we really supposed to fear that SO MANY buildings get approved and built each year that a stampede of skyscrapers is immiment? Alex Pujo is right on. There’s intelligence. There’s someone Chase would allow in the parlor. Listen people, read and learn. Blum is Dumb.
» on 02.14.09 @ 06:55 AM
SB Native, don’t play us for fools. You know as well as everyone else that the only growth left is upward. State housing mandates will eat at every available inch. We’re not gonna fall for that trap.
» on 02.14.09 @ 10:27 AM
Yes, that is exactly what we are saying: That with a 60 feet height limit, or a 60 feet exception which almost every project would qualify for, will, in fact, transform pour city from a charming low density small town character into a high density city with hundreds and hundreds of monstrosities like those new ones on Chapala.
And don’t forget along with high density and big band tall buildings come a huge amount of population growth and a huge amount of traffic congestion.
So limit population growth and traffic congestion in Santa Barbara, as well as preserving her small town character, by voting for the citizens 40, feet height initiative.
Read and learn.
» on 02.15.09 @ 01:52 PM
Lots of comments - on both sides -
It might help if those backing the higher buildings were to put up ‘story poles’ along the downtown areas where large buildings are proposed.
Most of us have no idea of the mass of these buildings - you sure can’t tell from architectural drawings.
I would have had a better mind set about the buildings on Chapala if they had been stepped back so that there would be a more open feeling - now, as I drive along Chapala Canyon, I feel about the same as I do when driving through LA - sound walls cutting off the view.
» on 02.16.09 @ 09:17 AM
I sure know how I am going to vote in November.
I’m voting for the citizens 40 feet height limit.
This is truly a no brainer. As a taller building means a bigger building which would hold mote people. And more people means a lot more traffic congestion, people congestion and crime. More people also use more resources and cause more global warming. And with a lot of population growth the price of water will go sky-high and water will be rationed, so there goes our green landscaping.
So its about much more than preserving our cherished small town character and aesthetics. Its about preserving our quality of life!
Join me in voting for the citizens 40 feet height limit initiative, and preserve your quality of life.
» on 02.16.09 @ 07:31 PM
I’m glad to see that it appears as if 9 out of 10 voters are going to vote for the citizens height initiative to lower building heights to 40 feet, and not vote for the councils alternative ballot measure which allows many exceptions to go up to 60 feet.
» on 02.17.09 @ 11:21 AM
Yes, there are only two ways our city can go since our land within the city is fully built out :
1. Grow in population vertically with big and tall buildings
or
2. Santa Barbarta can’t grow in population as we don’t allow tall buildings.
Gee….... that’s a no brainer! Most of us will choose not to grow in population.
More Local News »
Santa Barbara Transient Accused of Attempted Rape
A woman is attacked in Santa Maria while walking to a restaurant from her motel room
106-Year-Old Leonard Cruess Attributes Long Life to Love of Family
The Goleta resident is still going strong, with a daily routine that includes exercise, the Catholic Rosary and his signature drink
COMB’s Second Barrel Project Faces New Stumbling Block
Work is basically on hold until a federal permit is obtained; the Cachuma board also discusses the problem of mussels and elects new officers
Fun and Fit: One Deep Breath, Lose 5 Pounds — Myth or My Ohhhhm My?
K & A take a few deep breaths of their own in search of the truth
Police Identify Woman Who Died in Fall Off Hood of Car
Boyfriend faces charges in the death of 41-year-old Isabel Tole Renosa of Santa Barbara
Weather: Fair 68.0º
Search Noozhawk »
