Building-Height Initiative In the Clear for November 2009 Ballot

» Observing City Watching wrote on 09.18.08 @ 09:34 AM

Gee, that sure sounds like a threat.

» Political suicide wrote on 09.18.08 @ 11:10 AM

Any council-person who votes to place a competing measure on the ballot will be committing political suicide and will surely not get re-elected because they would going directly against the wishes of the 11,500 voters who signed this petition............

Das is just plain wrong when he says this initiative will prevent affordable units for the middle class workforce.  This is because Santa Barbara has a 4 story height limit.  This initiative does not change that.  It is a fact that 4 stories can be built in 40 feet if the floor to flat height is 10 feet which will allow standard 8 feet ceilings.  Now the developers are only building high end units with 12 feet ceilings.  The taller ceilings cause the buildings to be bigger in mass and are therefore less green and less sustainable due to using more materials and resources and need more energy to manufacture, deliver, and construct the bigger buildings and also more energy to heat or cool them and so they give off more greenhouse gasses and add to global warming.  Smaller, less massive buildings are much more sustainable and also are more compatible with our cherished small town character.  lower buildings also maintain our cherished views of the mountains and ocean, and also allow more sunlight to get on our plazas and paseos......................

So if you want a nicer town and more affordable units downtown join your 11,500 friends and neighbors who signed this initiative in voting for this initiative to lower building heights to 40 feet downtown.

» Jim Marino wrote on 09.18.08 @ 02:33 PM

The failure of the City to accomodate the housing imbalance created by the low income jobs the city encourages and creates is at the heart of the problem.  The canyonization of the cities historic areas and even outer State Street will inevitably further destroy the character of the City already threatened by overdevelopment.  In addition, the pressure to accomodate more housing for low income workers has caused the County, City and State to try to impose high density housing on surrounding areas which will destroy the single family residential character of those neighborhoods.  Equally important is the fact that nearby areas like the Eastern Goleta Valley cannot accomodate such high density housing because the Goleta Water District does not have adequate future supplies of water and infrastructure to accomodate such overdevelopment.  The current Board of the Goleta Water District has not made that fact clear to the County in their Urban Water Management Plan and has indicated an indifference to this pressure for overdevelopment created in significant part by the City of Santa Barbara’s failure to address the jobs to housing imbalance they have created.  The Goleta Valley has no such imbalance and should not to be destined to be the dumping ground for the City’s problems or the Counties attempts to push off the state housing mandates on the Goleta Valley by approving massive increases in zoning and overly dense development of existing vacant parcels and farming lands.

» city watching wrote on 09.18.08 @ 02:51 PM

No “threat”, Observing CW, just an observation. If you had been out there getting signatures you would have heard the vehemence with which people want to have no more 60’ monster buildings such as on lower Chapala, heard, too, the vehemence against the “politicians” who’ve favored them. (True, there was also vehemence on the other side of the question!)

Voter disgust is real. The amount of money that is being talked of to be raised to defeat this ballot measure is also real, the figure of $200,000 or more is being bandied about by at least one of the downtown architects. Real, too, disturbingly real, was the fear by some of being seen to sign the petition. All of us who gathered signatures heard, “I’d like to sign, I support what you’re doing, but I am afraid to do sign!”

But as for the substance, I don’t think the City should be in practice of “rewarding developers”. I also don’t think it is either/or: 40-feet-tall and no working (class) people downtown or tall buildings and more workers housed. There’s an undeniable jobs-housing imbalance; the solution is not to destroy the city character to save it.

For one thing, there are areas of the city, east side/west side for two such areas, where working people (such as I) can and do live --- and from which it is easy to access the downtown. Many people prefer not to live next to their workplaces, unless they work at home!

For another, if we as a city want working units downtown for Santa Barbara workers then we should subsidize such developments which indeed can be built in 40 feet tall buildings. Or we should require it of the businesses that they provide housing. (Since government, city and county, is among the largest employers downtown, perhaps it, too, should be required to provide housing! Is it for government employees that Mr. Williams is urging the housing?)

I am not sure what the “middle class” is in Santa Barbara for which housing is to be provided downtown, but at the last (2000) census, the median household income was $47,498 with a city per capita income of $26,466 (Wikipedia.) That probably would be the middle class for which worker housing needs to be provided. The question really is where, downtown in tall massive buildings or in lower land cost sections of town?

As for the massiveness and lack of open space, isn’t that a matter for the ordinance committee and Council, to come up with measures that specify required open space?, that require setbacks? that deal with the FARs? Of course, if there are the larger more density buildings Mr. Williams wants there will have to be even more open space provided and where is that parkland to come for all these downtown units?

Lots of questions ahead, but I don’t think providing a competing ballot measure by a vote of the City Council, the easy way instead of gathering signatures, will be/would be viewed positively by most of the people.

» Opinone wrote on 09.19.08 @ 12:45 PM

I agree with both Political Suicide and Jim Marino, who both make very valid points about the size of the buildings (ie: 12 ft ceilings affecting total height as well as being wasteful). 

It always amazes me how greed has become the norm in our country.  We build homes that could house armies, literally.  There is NO reason for anyone to have a 5000 + sq ft showplace home (actually, anything over 2000 sq ft is ridiculous)!  I think if we can afford something that big, there MUST be better ways to use our money than on ourselves.  We are a wasteful society that just wants what we want no matter who, or what, it affects adversely.  I say, keep the green areas.  Better yet, create more of them.  Keep the low building heights and the charm of a city that I love to call home, along with our mountain and ocean views.  That’s WHY we live here.  Keep the natural lands that allow us the enjoyment of nature and what IT has to offer.  STOP endangering the wildlife that was here long before we came along and conquered everything in sight.  Keep the farmlands so that we don’t have to pay even higher prices for produce to be shipped to us.  And last but, certainly not least, PAY us a fair wage that will offset one of the highest cost of living rates in the WORLD.

I’m not afraid to sign any petition that will stop the overgrowth, and you better believe that I have, and will continue to vote against higher buildings in Santa Barbara!

» David Pritchett wrote on 09.19.08 @ 04:36 PM

“Suicide” is quite presumptive to think everyone who signed that Initiative really would not prefer a competing one instead, which would codify the conditions under which buildings taller than 45 feet could be approved.

The choice as the current Initiative came together was to support a building height limit versus nothing, NOT to choose from Option A versus Option B on the November 2009 ballot.  Option B may not be so bad if it regulates the open-space residuals, shape of buildings, their height, and the public benefits permitted for slightly taller buildings.

However, for any of this to work where the next City Council will need to grow some courage and stop approving projects that expand the jobs-housing imbalance, as most market-rate projects do.

» No Limits wrote on 09.21.08 @ 03:48 PM

Both measures are ineffective posturing since the city has shown (e.g. Paseo N.) that it will ignore whatever measures are in place when it wants too.

» Keep our City Beautiful wrote on 09.28.08 @ 02:06 PM

Keep our city beautiful by voting to lower building heights downtown.

LA go home!

» I agree wrote on 09.29.08 @ 11:04 AM

I don’t want any more monstrosities like those two that recently went up on Chapala so I will eagerly vote to lower building heights.