B Is for Boring

I was born in Boulder, Colorado and eventually went back to that lovely city to finish up a masters. For those who don't know this, Boulder instituted a total ban on growth greenbelt policy back in the early 70's. The immediate result was declining business opportunities and a massive inflation of real estate prices. To such a degree that middle class and lower income families were priced entirely out of the city – in a lot of ways Santa Barbara is already there. But the "character" of Boulder was saved.

It is now a city of wealthy liberal elites, limited development, an extremely expensive university, and a tax base that places an incredible financial burden on its residents and existing businesses. A resident based employee structure does not exist. The politics of the city went from left of center to just this side of Stalin. Some reading this might like that...the political change that is. They would be wrong.

If Santa Barbara institutes a restrictive building proposal you will see much the same result. Your support infrastructure will be further burdened with long commutes; businesses will migrate away from the city, backfilled with extremely expensive specialty stores or replaced with vacant store fronts. Have you been down State lately? You will lose any flexibility to offer financial incentives to your tax base. Real estate prices will sky rocket, far higher than you currently experience, and the city will become more of a boutique rather than a vibrant, diverse community. The character of Santa Barbara will mutate, further, into something none of us want.

My suggestion is that you limit height requirements to no taller than any current building in the city, making sure that strict building, historical, and architectural standards are adhered too.

Developers will scream that they can’t make a profit in such an environment, but the reality is far from that assertion. Done right you will find an appropriate balance that enhances Santa Barbara and supports a vibrant business community that allows your service sector to live within the city and yet creates a tax base that supports the infrastructure necessary to providing the life style we all appreciate. Daniel Petry

It's curious that I do not hear architects complaining about the 35’ height limit in the County and Goleta or the 30’ height limit in Carpinteria. Goleta's Old Town has a limit of 25', 15' lower than Measure B provides for SB's El Pueblo Viejo. They seem to be able to design buildings that fit within these limits.

They will be able to design to lower heights in Santa Barbara. Towers, which do not count in measuring height, will still grace our buildings. There are many existing beautiful buildings that are less than 40’. Creative architects will design more.

I once heard Mr. Berkus acknowledge that architects do make mistakes and that some of his own buildings should be bull-dozed, including The Galleria. He then attempted to blame the design review board for its being a bad building. Now he wants us to rely on those same boards? I don't think so!

In the case of a disaster taller buildings CAN be rebuilt. City ordinances provide for it.

What is threatening the Arlington right now are projects in the 45' range being planned to surround it. That's bad enough; If Measure B doesn't pass, just watch those projects pop up to 60'. You won't be able to see the Arlington at all except for the tower.

Since the city limits the number of stories in a building to no more than 4, density remains the same whether a building is 40' or 60'. What 60' allows is luxury units, and we don't need anymore of those. They may subsidize some workforce housing. At the same time they generate lots of service jobs, creating an even greater demand for affordable housing and making the jobs/housing balance worse. We must find new ways to create the kind of housing we need.

It would be great if everyone who worked in SB could live here. However, everyone needs to get real on this issue. All the commuters I know have family members who work near where they live. (For example, they live in Oxnard, the wife works in SB, the husband works in Ventura.) In addition, there are currently 259 single family homes for sale in Lompoc, Santa Maria and Ventura for $250,000 or less. These are homes with yards, trees and place for children to play, unlike the confined condos of downtown SB. The challenge is to get commuters out of single-occupancy vehicles

As for SB's economy it's not that the city WILL live off of tourism. Like it or not 50% of SB's outside income comes from tourism NOW; the next largest segment is retirement income and there's some high tech industry. All of those sectors can go anywhere. They are here because as National Geographic said some years ago, "What better anywhere than SB?" To destroy SB's small town character will harm our economy, our environment and what we love about this town.

To save the past and protect the future vote YES on Measure B!

It’s hard to understand someone finding it “curious” that Santa Barbara should have urban design standards different than a city like Carpinteria (pop. 14,000) or the other referenced regions. Santa Barbara has a heritage of building beautiful, site-appropriate buildings often within the range of 40-60’, dating back to the early part of the 20th century. This design heritage is unfortunately not a part of Goleta’s, Carpinteria’s, or other county cities’ histories, in part due to the fact that Santa Barbara is significantly older and larger. And with all due respect to Goleta’s challenges regarding its Old Town renewal, I haven’t seen any new quality buildings being built there under or over 25’....kind of a bad example.

Santa Barbara is the urban center of a region whose population is close to 200,000. For a more meaningful comparison, I’d suggest a 90 mile drive south to the community of Van Nuys (pop. 100,000). This portion of the City of Los Angeles is the civic center for the San Fernando Valley and, with a population similar to Santa Barbara’s, is entirely lacking in any recognizable urban design plan. What it does have is sprawling low-rise buildings and wide boulevards with no sense of human scale or proportion. You will likely return to Santa Barbara with a renewed appreciation for its heritage of architectural successes, including those structures appropriately created within that 40’-60’ range.

I am a lifelong SB city resident and often make business trips out of town. I very much agree with sbperspective ... most other cities in California are a victim of low-rise sprawl and are plain ugly. I enjoy coming back home from a trip and seeing our variety of building heights and styles. Goleta is to me the antithesis of SB, a perfect example of low-rise sprawl.

The key is not to stack too many taller buildings next to each other and to mix them up with other buildings of varying heights. Use appropriate setbacks and soften contiguous large facades with gaps and staggered/terraced heights (as Barry Berkus suggests).

I believe all of the above can be done with planning. That means the Planning Commission and related governmental bodies have to do their job and use the authority they have!!! What concerns me about Measure B is that proponents are basically punting on the planning process. They are basically saying they have a process which is broken and doesn't work. Well, if that's the case, then fix the process, or put better people in there.

Proponents of Measure B are like people who want to build only cars that are 5,000 pounds or heavier because they are safer. But we know that would make it impossible to attain good fuel economy, even though there are creative ways to make cars both lighter and safer. So, limiting a single design parameter (height in the case of measure B) doesn't make sense because its the overall effect that we're after. Just because a portion of a building is over 65' doesn't necessarily mean its bad if the project is designed properly and in the context of its surroundings.

"He then attempted to blame the design review board for its being a bad building. Now he wants us to rely on those same boards? ..."
--sheilalodge

I don't know about the Galleria, but didn't Bill Mahan and Bendy White approve Chapala One? So who are they blaming? Where does the buck stop?

EastBeach...good posts. Daniel Petry

Diversity, yes. The exploration parties that brought the Catholic Church were made up of religious people and their staff from Spain AND France AND Italy AND Germany- not the one culture some mexicans are trying to make the fiesta into. They talk about war against the Spanish at the time the Spanish were escorting the padres into Santa Barbara UNTIL fiesta time when it is MEXICAN designs of the dresses and mexican food that is supposed to be from the Spanish-they say. No more from the cultures from the other places that the original padres were born and raised in. The same boring result can happen if limits are placed on building if a few tell everybody to build only the one way- their way. The mexicans have made fiesta so much theirs that I do not want to see the same thing every time. I hope that diversity can bring great surprises to all in Santa Barbara.

What is really getting boring is reading the same misleading information the opponents of Measure B keep saying.

They want to mislead people by saying we will lose the Courthouse if it is harmed in a disaster. The Courthouse is under county jurisdiction and not the city, so it will be up to the county to rebuild it. They conveniently ignore that towers are not included in the proposed height limits, so they keep dragging in the Arlington.

Only 15% of the units in a mixed-use building are required to be workforce affordable (for those making 2 times the median income). So for every 20 units we get 3 affordable ones. Does anybody really believe that this will make our community diverse and that these units will house "our artists, our craftspersons, our nurses, our fire fighters, our janitors, our librarians, our schoolteachers?"

Please remember that our design review bodies gave us the buildings on Chapala Street that everyone hates.

Don't be mislead by architects including Mr. Berkus who are the only real beneficiaries of taller buildings. Does he really think that architects cannot creatively design 40 - 45 feet buildings?

Vote Yes on Measure B

"The story of Measure B—which aims to lower building heights—is one of a grassroots effort by a cross-section of citizens to take back their city from the hands of the developers like Barry Berkus who have had their way on the streets of Santa Barbara for far too long. The majority of people who live and work in this special place have never been interested in transforming this historic jewel in a majestic natural setting into a tall, dense urban-opolis.

They still aren’t."

"Human beings natural state is in nature, and when you try to change that you create the mental and physical problems that come with the urban environment. Many Santa Barbarans are still connected to the natural environment and want to protect the balance that keeps them healthy. If you grew up in a big city or an apartment building you may think what I'm saying makes no sense. Anyway, Measure B is more about saving our soul, and the City Planning and Development Department along with out City Council needs to really do some soul-searching because most of the people who live and work here, are seriously wondering if they still have one."

Barry's house on Equestrian reminds me of a tall ship run aground at the sidewalk. A huge spanish ship. Definitely not "smaller in form at the street level".

Santa Barbara could benifit from a few nice skyscrapers, have some balls, build Up Up Up...