Building-Height Initiative a Step Closer to Spot on Ballot
Slow-growth advocates collect nearly twice the number of required signatures. It could take up to a month for the city clerk to verify the signatures.
To the chagrin of at least one Santa Barbara City Council member, a coalition of slow-growth advocates submitted signatures Friday to put an initiative on the November ballot that would significantly lower building-height limits in Santa Barbara.
Standing amid a throng of about 30 coalition members on the steps of City Hall, Bill Mahan, chairman of the organization Save El Pueblo Viejo, said they had gathered 11,200 signatures. To qualify for the ballot, the group needs 6,480 credible signatures. Mahan said it could take up to a month for the city clerk to verify all of the names.
“We feel very, very strongly that the charm and the character of Santa Barbara … are in danger,” said Mahan, a former planning commissioner. “We’re in danger of losing those qualities because of big buildings.”
The topic of building heights has emerged as a divisive debate as a spate of tall and bulky condominium complexes — most notably on Chapala Street — has sprung up in the past couple of years. Some believe that these buildings mark the beginning of the end of the city’s low-slung cosmopolitan distinctiveness.
However, affordable housing advocates fear that the proposed initiative would stifle development and produce the unintended consequence of further squeezing out the middle class, who are reportedly moving out of the city because of the out-of-reach cost of housing.
Friday’s event seemed to clash with a similar news conference at the same location in April, when an improbable coalition of slow-growth advocates and affordable-housing activists announced they had struck an accord on height limits and affordable housing.
That coalition, led by Santa Barbara Councilman Das Williams, included many of the same slow-growth advocates, such as Mahan and former Mayor Sheila Lodge. The group had unveiled a proposed interim ordinance that would, for example, keep the proposed 40- and 45-foot height limits, but grant exceptions to developers who went well above and beyond standards for including affordable units. Such developers would be awarded with 12 extra feet.
However, he added, “The issue of size, bulk, scale and affordable housing cannot all be addressed by height.”
Williams’ compromise coalition formed shortly after Mahan started collecting signatures. It began to fall apart when Mahan refused to stop collecting signatures. At the time, the group had gathered about 3,000.
“It came into my heart that each one of those signatures is like a sacred trust, and we couldn’t just throw them away,” Mahan said Friday. “I think it’s fine for the City Council to put out an alternative initiative if it wants to. The people, then, could make the choice. This is all about the people making the choice.”
Meanwhile, the interim City Council ordinance isn’t dead. On Tuesday, it will be discussed by the city Ordinance Committee. Hypothetically, however, if both passed, the ballot initiative would trump the city ordinance, because the ballot initiative is an attempt to amend the city’s charter, which is akin to a local constitution, Mahan said.
Mahan added that he believes that the culprit in the affordable-housing debate isn’t building height but ceiling height. The ceilings in some of the new luxury condos reach heights of 13 feet, he said. If builders stuck to 8 feet, they could get more units inside smaller developments.
In addition to Mahan’s Save El Pueblo Viejo, four other groups — the League of Women Voters, the Citizens Planning Association, the Allied Neighborhoods Association and the Pearl Chase Society — are sponsoring the proposed ballot measure. During the course of the campaign, the group raised and spent about $35,000.
Representatives from some of the groups also chimed in on the affordable-housing question.
“This is a place where everyone wants to come and live,” said Joe Rution of Allied Neighborhoods Association. “And you build these buildings, it brings more people here, people compete for the buildings. They can’t be affordable, unless you’re price-restricting them. …You just get more people paying more money, and more units and more population.”
Also among the groups on the steps of City Hall on Friday were Mayor Marty Blum and newly elected Councilman Dale Francisco, who unseated incumbent Brian Barnwell in the last year’s election.
“This is one of the few ways the general public can actually have a voice in the planning process,” Francisco said. “The planning process has become so professionalized that sometimes it gets alienated from the people.”
Noozhawk staff writer Rob Kuznia can be reached at .
» wrote on 08/16/08 @ 09:05 AM
It’s good for the people who live here to have a choice. Already the architects/builders (or some of them) are vowing to raising hundreds of thousands of dollars (really!) to defeat this measure if/when it gets on the ballot. If that happens, it will mobilize supporters of the height limits even more --- beware!, anyone running for election in 11/2009 who opposes this will of the people for how _their_ city looks.
» wrote on 08/16/08 @ 01:01 PM
This is a short sighted measure. The people behind this are the retured baby boomers that are going to be out of power in this town in the next 10-20 years. When they pass away thier children will inherit their property and sell. It is already happening all over Santa Barbara. There are several houses on my street where the kids (that don’t live in SB becuase they can’t afford it) have sold their family home. And the homes are not replaced by other families. More retired baby boomers.
I am not sure if anyone has been to lower Chapala Street near 101 lately. It is thriving. There are people on the streets, in restuarants, and it is beautiful. I do not see anything wrong with that much density. It is still very livable.
People - don’t look backwards. Look to the future. Keep density where it should be in the downtown core. Or the alternative is to watch SB wither and die on the vine.
» wrote on 08/16/08 @ 01:11 PM
Just what is “this will of the people”?
Likely half of the names on the petitions will be invalid, and the actual voters in the City is nearly 10 times greater than the number of valid names on the petition. Not so sure this is such a mandate just by the petition. The more comprehensive approach started by Das Williams needs to be completed so voters have a real choice for two dueling measures on the Nov. 2009 ballot, as a way to determine what public benefits really justify taller buildings.
» wrote on 08/16/08 @ 01:25 PM
Beware of what? A city squashed flat? Art is a reflection of culture. The Courthouse and the Arlington were created in a time where people weren’t afraid to strive and create. If flat buildings truly are “the will of the people” (which I dispute) how far we’ve fallen from grace. Do we really have so little confidence—in ourselves and our review boards—that we feel safest “just saying no?” Height limits exist, set at 60 feet. Pearl Chase didn’t object…
» wrote on 08/16/08 @ 02:26 PM
--------Mr. Francisco has it right: this effort was to give the people a direct choice as to whether they want this height limit in the city’s charter. For the people, all the people who choose to vote, to have a choice. It surprises me that democrats, large and small “D”, do not want the voters of Santa Barbara to have that opportunity to participate directly.
--------Mr. Williams is also right that the issues of size, bulk and scale and affordability can’t all be addressed by height. However, a height limit will indeed help affordability, if builders choose to build units with 8-foot ceilings as architect Bill Mahan, AIA, suggests.
-------It’s up to the Council Ordinance Committee and City Council to craft a measure that deals with mass and bulk and setbacks. If they don’t, it may be that another petition drive will happen for those issues, something no one who worked so long for this one, or, undoubtedly, the City Clerk’s office!, wishes to have happen. And, if affordability is a goal, as it is for most if not all the SEPV committee and participants, then the Council should go to the community and ask and require small units, rather than allowing the multi-million dollar condos, as Chapala One provides.
» wrote on 08/16/08 @ 03:23 PM
I’ve lived here a long time. I’m a “big D"--and all that comes with it. Yet in the past 5 years I’ve watched liberals and so-called progressives--including most of the current city council- drink the kool-aid of the home builders association and their mouthpieces. The notion that dense building will somehow help our environment and help “the workforce” is pure nonsense. Most of us know that and secretly discuss it but due to the “PC” nature of anything uttered in Santa Barbara we don’t say it out loud for fear of irrationally being labeled “racist” “reactionary” or worse. But thankfully we will have a chance to exercise our right to vote in privacy. amen.
» wrote on 08/16/08 @ 08:44 PM
Betsy here seems to be advocating for the “affordable by design” policy that somehow dwellings will be so small, both for floor space and ceiling height, they they automatically will be truly affordable. Granted, denial of projects that have too many large dwelling units is a start.
However, the “affordable by design” excuse to assuring affordable housing has not worked here, ever, and will not work until the rest of the world stops desiring to move to Santa Barbara.
Housing projects need guaranteed pricing, locked in for 60+ years, to justify them breaking the rules for mass, bulk, scale, and heights. Just trusting the market and pretending the upward creep of sales prices still yields “affordable” housing is a folly. The consortia of builders and architects need to stop ducking and glossing over (conspicuously omitting) hard criteria for housing affordability in their various Plan SB proposals. That is why most people do not trust and believe any of it with these just-trust-us, affordable-by-design promises for supersized mass, bulk, scale, heights.
» wrote on 08/17/08 @ 04:45 PM
I don’t know what Santa Barbara you live in, but liberals are hardly silenced in this town. Heck, just read the comments on these height initiative stories. You liberals are downright hostile to anyone who might have a different opinion than yours.
» wrote on 08/18/08 @ 01:12 PM
Don’t be mislead. The architects and developers under the 60 foot height limit have not and will not build affordable housing for working families unless they are forced to. Look at what they have produced so far - projects with 85% market (read luxury) condos and 15% workforce affordable (for those who make $120,000 a year)They don’t care about ordinary folks.
They will cry that they need 60 feet height limits for their 4 story projects and then everyone’s children will live happily ever after. Don’t believe them. They can put 4 stories in 45 feet and just not have the high ceilings that luxury condos require.
» wrote on 09/02/08 @ 06:23 PM
reply to: DON’T COUNT YOUR VOTES BEFORE THEY’RE CAST
I was among the group in the trenches gathering signatures. There were 9 people who eagerly signed the petition for every one who said they likes big and tall buildings.
I personally spoke with 4000 people of all ages. 2000 lived outside of the city limits, and of the 2000 living inside the city limits only 50% were registered to vote. But of these 1000 registered voters 900 eagerly signed the petition to lower building heights and only 100 said no that they liked tall buildings.
So I say: “let the voters decide!”