[Noozhawk’s note: The original version of this opinion piece identified Peter Hunt as the president of the American Institute of Architects-Santa Barbara Chapter. The organization has not yet taken a position on Plan Santa Barbara, and the opinions expressed in this commentary represent those of Hunt only and not the organization.]
I have attended many city of Santa Barbara Planning Commission sessions and have studied much of the proposed Plan Santa Barbara general plan update. As one of many who agrees with the concepts of the New Urbanism, I find the current Plan Santa Barbara proposal unsatisfactory at this time and in need of a lot of work.
It’s all about sustainability, isn’t it? And the proposal isn’t sustainable. A New Urbanist would walk to the grocery store. There’s only one grocery store downtown. There are six grocery stores between La Cumbre and Calle Laureles on Upper State Street. The proposal before you would provide incentives to build a lot of residential units downtown without considering the carrying capacity of the one and only grocery store. If a downtown resident has to drive to the grocery store, then the proposal is unsustainable.
A sustainable solution would be to provide incentives for residential units in close proximity to the five grocery stores on the Northside. I live on the Northside and work downtown, and I can tell you more commercial services for housing are on the urban Northside.
The proposed general plan would allow apartment buildings in the commercial and manufacturing (CM) zone. CM is between the beach and Cota Street — the central drainage basin, the funk zone. That’s the only neighborhood in Santa Barbara where roofers, builders, mechanics, food processors, surf board manufacturers and such are allowed. Is it sustainable to have them systematically replaced with housing, never to return? Where would these small businesses relocate? There is very limited land for commercial and manufacturing anywhere in Santa Barbara, Goleta and Carpinteria. If they go to Ventura and Lompoc, the increased traffic into town on a daily basis is unsustainable — in every way.
Loss of local jobs, increased traffic, reduced commercial tax revenue, and increased demand for police, fire, education and social services results in increased tax spending. That’s the general plan proposal, and it’s a powerful recipe for unsustainability.
The main thrust of the proposal is to build apartments downtown and couple them with an aggressive traffic management system. The only way traffic can be managed under the proposal is to reduce parking spaces, increase parking fees and fine scofflaws — in short, punishing people for exercising freedoms they’ve always had in Santa Barbara. Winning by punishment is not a sustainable idea.
The proposal is crafted to appeal to developers, social and political activists, planners, architects and builders, all for what results in a short-term gain because it concentrates on the downtown area. The proposal would have long-term benefits and be sustainable if it were concentrated on the Northside. La Cumbre has all the ingredients of the New Urbanism: direct access to freeways and trains, and existing infrastructure with a lot of shopping, including six grocery stores. There are also four elementary schools on the Northside. There aren’t any elementary schools downtown.
It’s easy to understand why the proposal concentrates on downtown. It’s close to the beach and has pretty buildings. It’s more valuable than the Northside. The proposal allows apartment buildings with mostly taxpayer-subsidized units to be built with a few penthouse luxury units downtown. The cost of underground parking garage is cut in half with reduced requirements. It also costs money to police parking scofflaws while they park on the street where merchants’ customers previously parked. Making the cost of business higher is unfriendly to business, and a lack of parking will drive away tourists. The result is less tax revenue, and that’s unsustainable.
Green can be when you’re able to adapt a building to a desired use instead of building a new one. Since downtown has one grocery store and no elementary schools and the Northside has six grocery stores and four elementary schools, it is green to build apartments on the Northside where there are already services. It’s good to be green. On the Northside, the streets can accommodate the large trucks that service the grocery stores. Downtown’s streets are becoming more narrow, making vehicular maneuvers by large grocery trucks difficult and dangerous.
Tourism makes revenue for Santa Barbara. It pays for public services other towns can’t afford to buy. If we load up downtown with apartments that have a lot of rent-subsidized tenants, as is proposed, will tourists go away? Tenants who don’t have to pay for most of their rent are not fully vested in the community. They might scare away tourists. The loss of revenue would mean we could not sustain our businesses nor the public services paid by tourist tax dollars.
This proposal can be rescued if it isn’t aggressive to modification. Right now, planners insist the proposal is sustainable in the face of facts showing otherwise. Passing the proposal in its current form risks the fabric of the community. It could drive away tourists, run merchants out of business and deplete service businesses in the CM funk zone. With that loss of tax revenue, the proposal is unsustainable.
The solution of building apartments in the Northside and other parts of town (just not concentrated downtown) coupled with annexing an area for a new CM zone close to the Northside is workable and sustainable. First, it provides an outlet for commercial and manufacturing space close to workforce housing. Second, the housing does not compete with the tourist industry. In fact, it could create its own tourist attractions. Third, streets, stores, schools and parks are are all over the Northside in greater quantity than downtown. Fourth, the missing ingredient is government planning to build more pedestrian friendly infrastructure. Here is where the work needs to be done by city planners.
Proposed higher-density apartment buildings, if clustered around each of the dozen or so grocery stores in Santa Barbara, is a New Urbanistic approach that could have great success. People could walk to the store from their apartments. Each store is already on a bus line. More than half of the grocery stores are near a park. The tourist industry and the CM zone are unthreatened by building apartments near existing grocery stores. This approach is sustainable and green.
Plan Santa Barbara as proposed needs work. It can’t be responsibly passed in its current form. It’s unsustainable.
— Peter Hunt is a Santa Barbara architect.