Building-Height Initiative In the Clear for November 2009 Ballot

Meanwhile, Santa Barbara council member Das Williams says he plans to float an alternative proposal.

By Rob Kuznia, Noozhawk Staff Writer | Published on 09.17.2008

(19)

It’s official: An initiative that would significantly lower building-height limits in Santa Barbara received enough valid signatures to be placed on the November 2009 ballot, meaning that, unless the spearheading group has a change of heart in the next year, it will be decided by the city’s voters.

Meanwhile, City Council member Das Williams, a critic of the initiative who believes that it would do violence to the city’s ability to provide housing affordable to the middle class, on Wednesday said he plans to float a proposal of his own that could compete on the same ballot.

On Tuesday, in a formality vote, the Santa Barbara City Council officially accepted the signatures submitted by a coalition of slow-growth advocates who gathered them for the ballot measure. The signatures were vetted for validity over a period of several weeks by the city clerk, who concluded that the group — Save El Pueblo Viejo — was in the clear.

As it stands now, buildings in the commercial zones of Santa Barbara can be 60 feet high. The initiative calls for lowering the limit to 40 feet in the historic downtown area and 45 feet in the rest of the city.

Sheila Lodge, a member of Save El Pueblo Viejo, said the height initiative is vital to maintaining the city’s unique small-town charm.

“It’s what makes it different,” said Lodge, a former mayor of Santa Barbara. “To be able to see the views downtown, and to be able to have a sense of openness. These are the things people love most about Santa Barbara.”

She said the measure also would serve to protect the city’s economic base, noting that the city’s character draws many tourists.

Lodge said Save El Pueblo Viejo probably will begin campaigning around the first of the year.

Williams countered that he thinks it’s possible to maintain the charm while rewarding developers who go above and beyond the call of duty on affordable housing. He says the height initiative as proposed would exacerbate the city’s middle-class exodus because developers thus far have tended to build a higher percentage of affordable units than is required by city law only when they can maximize the amount of units in the given space provided.

“The real danger is (the group’s initiative) prevents us from having a future of another generation of working people in Santa Barbara,” he said. “If Santa Barbarans want to see affordable units downtown that working people can afford, then they should vote against this initiative.”

He added that by lowering the height limit so unequivocally, the initiative would have another unintended consequence: promoting buildings that are fatter, and lacking in open space.

Williams is working on a draft of an ordinance that, if approved by the City Council, could be placed on the ballot. Williams said such a measure could call for a similar height initiative, but with exceptions granting extra height to affordable-housing-friendly developers. It also could address other related architectural matters, such as setbacks.

He said on Wednesday that he plans to make the attempt, but it could be a challenge: At least two of the seven council members — Mayor Marty Blum and Dale Francisco — support Save El Pueblo Viejo’s height initiative.

Save El Pueblo Viejo members have argued that lowering the height limits would not reduce affordable housing options if developers showed more willingness to lower the ceilings of the individual units. The group needed 6,480 valid signatures to place the item on the ballot.

Noozhawk staff writer Rob Kuznia can be reached at rkuznia@noozhawk.com.

Comments

Noozhawk's comments are moderated, but by posting here you accept your responsibility to follow our rules as part of Noozhawk's shared online community. Please keep your comments civil and helpful. Don't attack other readers personally, and do not use vulgar, abusive or discriminatory language. Use the "Report Abuse" link if a comment violates these standards or our Terms of Use.

» city watching on 09.18.08 @ 07:59 AM

Welcome to Mr. Williams to do another and different ballot initiative! If he does so, it should go the same route as the SEPV, gathering signatures for a ballot initiative. No fair shortcutting via the Council and getting a special break that the Council would not give to the people!!! ...But, foolish me, what’s fairness in this context!

However, if the Council DOES decide to place on the ballot a competing measure that attempts to kill the people’s will as expressed by 11,500 plus signatures then “the real danger”, to use Mr. Williams’ words, is increasing voter disgust with politicians and those running in the same election. That would be too bad!

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

» Observing City Watching on 09.18.08 @ 08:34 AM

Gee, that sure sounds like a threat.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

» mark bradley on 09.18.08 @ 09:55 AM

Tbe height limits initiative as it stands is too simplistic. I welcome Mr. William’s alternative plan, which will achieve the objectives of the first one without some of the bad side-effects. And how is it “killing the people’s will”? People still get to vote on which one they prefer….

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

» Political suicide on 09.18.08 @ 10:10 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.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

» Fred in SB on 09.18.08 @ 11:01 AM

Das is right. This ballot measure is too simplistic and draconian for a special place like Santa Barbara. We need to think about the future of our community, not just the retired, we all will welcome a more comprehensive planning approach that provides flexibility!

Go for it!

Fred

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

» Jim Marino on 09.18.08 @ 01:33 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.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

» crowded on 09.18.08 @ 01:34 PM

Santa Barbara is already too crowded, so Das William’s measure to create more housing is not going to fly with me. I simply want to save Santa Barbara from becoming a Beverly Hills/Hollywood satellite town.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

» city watching on 09.18.08 @ 01:51 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.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

» Bud Stuart DVM on 09.18.08 @ 04:16 PM

Why is it that whenever anyone like Das Williams wishes to increase building density in Santa Barbara it is always done in the name of “helping the working class”?
Is it just me that thinks the group that gets the most out of such initiatives are the DEVELOPERS? Yes, we can turn Santa Barbara into another suburban disaster. Just look to the south of us for PLENTY of examples.But who would that benefit? Not the average citizen by any stretch of the imagination. Could it be the politicians and developers who seem to have close ties?

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

» Opinone on 09.19.08 @ 11:45 AM

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!

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

» Alex Pujo on 09.19.08 @ 02:50 PM

The initiative to lower existing building heights downtown and other commercial areas is untimely and misguided. Yes, the sound-bite is catchy and powerful (“save our city from the greedy developers”) but the reality is far more complex.

Santa Barbara is losing its middle class, its population DECREASING since 2003 while traffic continues to grow. There are better ways to address the scale of buildings such as Chapala One without removing the potential for development of our urban core.

It is also worth comparing recent and older development in the Chapala corridor. The new mixed use project where Essau’s now operates -a building much maligned by Save EPV- compares favorably against the portion of Paseo Nuevo across the street.

If greed, waste and “in your face” visual impacts were the measure for this “groundswell of reaction to overdevelopment”, then the recently approved 13,000 square foot Ballantine residence on a prominent knoll on 101 at Gaviota would top the blogosphere. But I digress…

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

» David Pritchett on 09.19.08 @ 03:36 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.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

» Political suicide on 09.21.08 @ 01:21 PM

Response to David Pritchett: Of course a few of those who signed the initiative might prefer a competing one instead. But you missed the point. The point is that a majority those who signed the initiative and who favor the initiative over a watered down competing one, which would allow buildings with more than the 15% minimum affordable units to be 60 feet high, will have the attitude that those council-members who vote to place the competing watered down one on the ballot did so for the purpose of defeating their preferred initiative which would lower ALL buildings downtown to 40 feet not just the half who are not smart enough to add another affordable unit or two in order to be able to build a 60 feet monstrosity. ...........

In other words these council-members by their actions will be instantly creating 10,000 enemies who hate them for this action, and certainly will not vote for them, and will support their opponents and this will result in their not getting re-elected. ...........
Remember we are talking about a significant number of voters here. 10,000 additional votes for their opponents will ensure their opponents getting elected….
don’t think the proponents of ,this initiative won’t make this the number one issue of the election, and make sure the voters remember what the council-members who voted to put this competing watered down measure on the ballot did.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

» No Limits on 09.21.08 @ 02:48 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.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

» Save our city on 09.27.08 @ 08:00 PM

Keep our city a low density city and Vote for the initiative to lower building heights to 40 feet.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

» Keep our City Beautiful on 09.28.08 @ 01:06 PM

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

LA go home!

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

» L A Go Home on 09.28.08 @ 06:49 PM

I agree——a vote to lower building heights here is a vote for less population here. let them go elsewhere.
Save our town and vote to lower building heights.

L A go home!

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

» I agree on 09.29.08 @ 10:04 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.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

» X on 02.06.09 @ 06:31 PM

Most of the SB City workers are outsourced from Ventura, Lompoc;even as far as Nipomo, and Santa Maria. Give me a break! We must all work hard for what we have. Why are we masking Massive greedy projects to be approved under the semblance of “affordable housing”
Let’s all get affordable housing. What happened to working for what you have?

You don't have permission to flag this entry.