Print friendly
E-mail story
Tip Us Off
Comments
Share Article
Facebook
Twitter
Google+1
del.icio.us.
Digg!
Yahoo! Buzz
Diigo
google
newsvine
reddit
technorati
Yahoo!
MyspaceAn unlikely coalition of developers, architects, environmentalists, affordable housing supporters, and social justice advocates thronged the front steps of Santa Barbara City Hall to denounce Measure B, the proposed ballot initiative that would reduce the maximum allowable building height to 40 feet downtown and 45 feet elsewhere throughout the city. Current law allows a maximum building height of 60 feet downtown.
“Thirty-five percent of our most treasured buildings are over 40 feet,” objected Mickey Flacks of progressive group SBCAN. Flacks and others have contended that Measure B would discourage affordable housing, promote urban sprawl, and discourage ecologically sustainable development. Measure B supporters, who qualified the initiative for the November ballot by collecting 11,500 signatures, contend that City Hall failed to take any action in response to their concerns over the three new large buildings that sprouted up on Chapala Street. Architect Brian Cearnal acknowledged, “There are lessons to be learned” from the Chapala Street buildings, most notably the need for greater setbacks from the sidewalk. But Measure B, he argued, lacks any such language.
Das Williams, the sole Santa Barbara councilmember attending the press conference, noted that City Hall adopted clearer design guidelines that would empower members of Planning Commission, Architectural Board of Review, and Historic Landmarks Commission to reject proposed developments they deemed inappropriate. Council efforts to craft a more nuanced alternative measure for voter approval-with new limits at 45 feet-were blasted by supporters of Measure B as an attempt to subvert the democratic process, and it was subsequently withdrawn.
Previous Month
Comments
Maybe City Council should have adopted these clearer design guidelines before the 11,000 people helped qualify Measure B for the ballot? Don't take the voters for granted. Even Democratic voters like me who still like Das at the end of the day.
LC (anonymous profile)
August 20, 2009 at 12:43 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Measure B really makes no sense, and its supporters would make a greater contribution to Santa Barbara if they focused on lobbying the city to adopt stricter green building standards. A view is not as important as sustainable development. It's not the size of the Chapala monstrosities that upsets me it's their facade oriented aesthetic. Shelton's building is the most interesting because of its exaggerated design, but the others are forgettable!
IndependentG (anonymous profile)
August 20, 2009 at 1:38 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Why can't the opponents of Measure B skip all the silly rhetoric?
If Measure B passes there will be a city-wide height limit of 45 feet, and a maximum of 4 stories. If it fails, we will be left with the (existing) limit of 60 feet and 4 stories.
The only difference will be a mere 15 feet, within the same 4 stories.
Now, who but a pro-development ideologue - or someone who hasn't been paying attention to the details - can seriously argue that the change can make one speck of difference as far as housing availability or affordability? It can't.
So why can't we drop all the "sky will fall" diversionary rhetoric, and decide the matter on the basis of esthetics and preferences for appearance of the city's skyline - which is all the Measure B proponents intended?
Baloney on "no ballot box planning". We can credit the very attributes of this city that we love to numerous "draconian" ballot-box measures!
Baloney on "the limit will cause sprawl, increased carbon footprint, preclude affordable housing". The difference in heights that Measure B would impose is a mere 15 feet - that make a huge difference in esthetics but minimal difference in what goes into the building's interior (it would, in fact, encourage the smaller housing units, that everybody seems to be clamoring for.)
How is that 15 foot difference going to cause the environmental sky to fall? There are plenty of "low profile" very sustainable cities!
And baloney on the claim that the Measure would preclude replication of architectural gems. That's beyond baloney: those red lines the opponents draw mostly affect architectural features - towers, decorative elements - that Measure A would not restrict. A good architect can create as many new "gems" within the new limit as before.
It is really all about esthetics; the rest is all Red Herring distraction. And esthetics is what the Santa Barbara we know and love is - and historically has been - all about.
How is that 15 foot difference going to cause the environmental sky to fall? There are plenty of "low profile" very sustainable cities!
joer43 (anonymous profile)
August 20, 2009 at 2:13 p.m. (Suggest removal)
And here I thought I lived in a democracy. Don't we the people get to have any say in what we want our city to look like? I like Measure B and I am voting for it. So are my friends.
I can't believe that a prominent architect would say there are lessons to be learned from the buildings on Chapala, most notably the need for greater setbacks from the street. Does he really think that is all that is wrong with them? What about, they are way too tall, big, and massive and don't fit at all with Santa Barbara.
Do the opponents of Measure B think we are stupid? Are we really supposed to believe that if Measure B failed urban sprawl will go away and suddenly these condos they want to build will be truly affordable? Think again.
By the way, where is all of that affordable housing that the developers had the opportunity to build with the 60 foot height limit? I must have missed it.
Join me and Vote YES on Measure B, the true will of the people.
LongTimeResident (anonymous profile)
August 21, 2009 at 2:21 a.m. (Suggest removal)
LongTimeResident asks a good question: where are all the 60' affordable housing buildings? There are none, because the City changed the economics by approving luxury housing projects in the R3/R4 zones. Take a minute to watch
http://homepage.mac.com/saj777/pop_th...
Approving R3 luxury housing inflated land costs, killing any chance for non-subsidized affordable housing.
joer43, Measure B restricts building heights to 40' in the El Pueblo Viejo district (downtown). The extra 5' makes a critical difference when trying to design a 4-story mixed use project. But otherwise I agree with your point that dropping the limit from 60' to 45' (while allowing architectural features to exceed 45') won't make a lot of difference. But in that case, why is the new ordinance needed?
Steve_Johnson (anonymous profile)
August 21, 2009 at 8:05 a.m. (Suggest removal)
An unlikely coalition of agency representatives. So what? Doesn't look like much compared to the 11,500 residents who signed the petition to vote YES ON MEASURE B.
By the way, its a bit one-sided to not include YES ON MEASURE B argument in the "news" article, don't you think?
boysandgirls (anonymous profile)
August 21, 2009 at 8:50 a.m. (Suggest removal)
In regards to boys and girls comments above it wasnt 11,500 RESIDENTS the website for B points out it was about 8,400 as 30% of the signatures were not valid. It would also seem to be overreaching that all of the signatures were supporters as there were probably many who just signed for whatever reason.
Not that it wasnt a impressive collection effort but to constantly give out false numbers, and always claiming overwhelming support without any polls is getting old. I think this will end up being a much closer election and everyone who feels strongly one way or the other needs to make sure they vote on this.
pointssouth (anonymous profile)
August 22, 2009 at 1:30 p.m. (Suggest removal)