Vote No on Measure B

Very well put.

Planning through referendum is heavy-handed and not the answer. Rather, the original reviewers of that project made mistakes, as pointed out in the editorial. Ironically, I believe one of those city reviewers is now one of the Measure B leaders!

Bravo!!!

Excellent

EastBeach makes a good point, by in effect saying we can not depend upon the city commissions that are city council appointed to make the determinations. The Planning Commission, especially, is, 'though not supposed to be, political in its details, a political body.

Appointments are quite often a 4-3 council choice, in meetings few attend. Even fewer attend or watch the PC hearings. Important projects get appealed to the City Council ...as was Veronica Meadows. ...It was a failure of the process that the huge ChapalaOne was not appealed.

That right to make choices is part of what the city council race fight is all about, who gets to make the appointments for the Planning Commission and the other important commissions: Hotchkiss or Pritchett, for example? (Both of these candidates, so different in so many ways, support Measure B.)

That reasonable fear of process failure, now that we can see on Chapala Street what happens, was the genesis of Measure B.

As for the substance of the Indy's piece, Measure B is not planning. It's, instead, the cry of the people to amend the Charter, as is allowed, to establish parameters for planning to take place. There are three other Charter proposed Charter amendments on this up-coming ballot. Not a big deal, but of course anything to do with the city structure is a big deal.

When the political process fails, when the council does not listen, or when things are getting out of control, then it is our citizens' right - and our duty! - to make improvements for the future, to keep what we have from being destroyed. That's what Measure B is about. Too bad that the Independent fails to appreciate and support the importance and value of that excercize of the power of the people to ensure city parameters, to preserve views and openness.

Well said, although I actually like the new buildings on Chapala. I know I am probably in the minority on that one though. I just think they are a nice bit of diveristy to a city that all too often has buildings that are rubber stamped from block to block.

This endorsement was the right one!

I'm glad that this editorial puts the issues in black and white, so everyone can understand the complexity of this meassure.

Those politicians and candidates who are for it probably don't even understand the possible future consequences that this measure could have on our city, if it passes. They are just parrots for organizations and particular interests who would give them money for their campaigns. Those who abstein to give an opinion, just want to play it safe, but don't have the best interest of the community at heart either. That's sad.

Kudos to the Independent for bringing this measure out of the closet and to the forefront of voters' attention.

citti, I appreciate your reasoning. However, I come to a different conclusion. I agree there is a planning process in place and that there are people who implement the process - the city council indirectly through their appointments, and the planning appointees themselves (plus staff).

But all processes, no matter how perfect, do not always produce perfect results. That is because they are human endeavors implemented by people. This is true of everyday things, our political system, and also our local planning process.

So don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. In this case, for those who aren't pleased with the results, its the planning commissioners who failed you, not the process.

The rigidity that Measure B would add to the planning process, I claim, is bad because you lose flexibility to address the unique aspects of each individual project.

The logic used for this endorsement appears rushed and confusing.

The author first describes Measure B as a way to preserve "the City's historic skyline" by limiting the height of new competing buildings.

Fair enough.
If height limits are set, this will give the Courthouse, the Arlington, and the Granada building preservation.

Next the author says we should not support these limits because they don't address "the lack of setbacks from the street" and buildings that "sprawl out laterally". The intent of Measure B is to preserve the historic skyline. Measure B also does not address foot and mouth disease or the war in Iraq. The lack of setbacks from the street and buildings that sprawl out laterally are serious issues and hopefully the City or another citizens group will have the courage to take these on.

Next the author claims that "limited housing opportunities" exist for the non-rich, and that "affordability by design" would help as it has in Portland and Los Angeles. These ideas assume that only by building new high-density buildings can we as a City house workers.
It assumes that people who live here want the City to grow, and by somehow preserving our historic skyline, this vision of just growth will fail.

I hope we can agree that Portland and Los Angeles are terrible role models for Santa Barbara. The traffic, congestion, pollution, and crime from their high density developments is awful. Santa Barbara has become a traffic pollution problem itself. People who buy small density housing don't walk to work and they all own cars, and most of these supposed new units will be bought by the rich, or children of the rich who can qualify with low incomes and big down payments borrowed by Mom and Dad.

Worker housing is available that is already built. The City could easily purchase fixer-upper apartment buildings. It would save the City money and staff time not to have to review an already existing structure. Once the units are individually sold at affordable prices, the City could get its money back and buy another one, if needed.

The author feels we should trust the "commissioners" who the author then admits "have allowed themselves to be steamrolled"

Sorry Independent, I still don't trust politicians and developers to stop doing what they love to do: MAKE MONEY AND GROW.

Next the author endorses the 20 year general plan that the public knows little about and if they did, they would probably reject as well do to it's assumption that the citizens of Santa Barbara want much more growth, which anyone who's lived here awhile knows the majority of people don't want.

Perhaps the motivation for this endorsement is due to the Independents support of the City's P&D employees who could lose work if growth is slowed, or perhaps it's a blind faith in the smart growth ideology that has destroyed so many mid-small towns like Fresno, Modesto, as well as many Bay-Area towns. I hope the author can refocus their thoughts and resubmit a clearer motivation for their endorsement.

I was against Measure B until I heard this argument: smaller buildings simply leave a smaller footprint on the earth. Why do I live in Santa Barbara? Because it feels like a small town. I'm sorry, I'm not swallowing the developer Kool-aid. The builders have convinced a lot of people they really care about building affordable housing.

Make no mistake, the development community wants to maximize its profits. That's why the most successful affordable housing projects have been built by (or in conjunction with) the city Housing Authority, and those buildings are not 60 feet tall! There are appropriate places for two-story or three-story, very dense housing projects.

Without Measure B, the city of Santa Barbara will indeed have numerous buildings 60 feet tall, over time, as various city councils come and go, as money creates influence, as political courage falters. Preserve our beautiful city. Vote Yes on Measure B.

>>>To our way of thinking, these are the real problems posed by the new mondo-condos on Chapala Street. On all but height-and the proposed 40-foot limit seems decidedly capricious and arbitrary-Measure B is utterly silent. (It should be noted, however, that state law only allows initiatives to address a single issue.)<<<

Does this mean the Independent will refuse to endorse any measure on this topic?

What can happen at 60 feet that can't already happen at 40? Anyone taken the time to run through a few GIS models to compare the two?

You nailed it Indy. Measure B is poorly written and financed by one of the largest developers of tract homes in Texas. Why, you may ask? Because he knows that if building heights downtown are reduced, growth will go OUTWARD resulting in environmentally-destructive sprawl (i.e., Texas). He can then make more money as he leads the charge for sprawl in Santa Barbara.

Don't be taken in by the fear-mongering of the SEPV folks. Vote smart. Vote NO ON MEASURE B. Vote NO on Mahan's Folly!

Indyholio couldn't be more wrong. The Texas developer he refers to, Randall Van Wolfswinkel, grew up in Santa Barbara (he was in high school with my daughters), and he's dismayed by the changes that have taken place. He develops in Texas, not here, because "there's lots of land in Texas".

He had nothing whatsoever to do with creating Measure B or with getting it on the ballot. That was done over a period of 1 1/2 years by more than 100 volunteers, most of them members of the League of Women Voters of Santa Barbara. The League supports Measure B as does Citizens Planning Association and the Allied Neighborhoods Association among others.

It was only a few months ago that Mr. Van Wolfswinkel decided to support Measure B. He owns a home here and hopes to move back to Santa Barbara with his family. He does not want to see anymore out-of-Santa Barbara-character buildings "on steroids" as Nick Welsh described them.

Because the city limits the number of stories that can be built to four, the same number of units can be built in 40' as in 60'. Measure B will have no impact on density or sprawl.

The Indie got it right on this one. Amongst the many complexities faced by builders, faulty ORDINANCES are the problem. That has nothing to do with height. Ordinances that dictate number of parking spaces required per bedroom (which means if you have a compact $500,000 three-bedroom unit you need to provide more spaces than if you build a huge luxury two-bedroom unit that sells for $1,500,000.) More parking spaces means more land, which costs big bucks in this town-you get the idea-the price just went up. Another problem is inclusionary housing (mandatory affordable housing) which by default decreases profits so developers are forced to build "luxury units" to recoup costs. So instead of building moderately priced housing developers have to build "cheap" units and "luxury units."

Finally, the elderly Save El Pueblo Viejo supporters claim people that don't want to live in higher density downtown housing. You know what? Speak for yourself! If it were a real option, I'd dig the heck out of it. Stores, nightclubs, restaurants-all in walking distance? The beach a bike ride away? You betcha! We need mixed use housing, lofts, small condos, etc., to keep our workforce vibrant and our downtown safe and lively. (Anyone notice how dead it's been on weeknights since the recession?)

It's YOUR city and YOUR future gang. You younger voters are going to be around a lot longer than the old SEPV crowd. If you want this city to be vibrant vote NO on Measure B.

The Indy makes the classic mistake of letting the perfect be the enemy of the good. Sure, those problems identified in the article do exist but so does the height problem. So why not solve the height problem then we can tackle the others. In addition, as noted, a measure that tried an all-in-one approach might be open to endless and costly litigation.

In short, it's a good measure and has my vote.

I'm not really hip to the skip on the measure or what has been going on with height limit requirments in SB. I do know that the buildings on Chapala (although probably to expensive for anyone who actually would need them) are very beautiful to the eye and I feel are about a good height. I do agree with having a limit on how large a building should be (we do not want this to be LA or NY) but at the same time do we want all the same monotonous cookie cutter buildings? Where would the diversity or art of architecture that alot of Santa Barbara is know for be?

Can anybody explain the 40' value? What is wrong with 45'?
The existing zoning limits ANY new building to at most 4 stories;
and 45' is the current limit in the R3/R4 zones. 45' is enough for a 4 story structure; 40' is a severe constraint for 4-story mixed-use structures, where the first story needs higher ceilings for retail appeal. This "stealth" impact is enough for me to oppose Measure B.

And for those who don't like looking at Chapala One, trying walking one block; you can't see it from State St. I appreciate having a diverse, vibrant downtown.

I don't object to the appearance of Chapala One; however I do object to the size of its units. The market-rate units are gargantuan. We already have a zone for affluent housing; it's called Montecito. The R3/R4 zones should provide appropriately sized workforce housing. Yes, even 1000 sqft 2 bedroom (brand new) downtown condos will be too expensive for most of the workforce; but at least there is a chance to rent such units at a reasonable rate. A 3000 sqft 2 BR unit will NEVER be affordable to anyone.

I have to throw in with BusRider. I wish that the promises of more affordable housing were and would be made real by higher buildings and increased development intensities, but that hasn't been the case and most likely never will be, given the private economic incentives involved in land development. At some point, housing for people of modest means has to take precedence over development for the sake of landowners' and developers' maximum returns.

Architecture=atmosphere
Tall buildings=more people
More people=more services
More services=more taxes

The article proposes the Los Angelization of Santa Barbara.

The article proposes that a partial cure is worse than no cure. That is like saying if your house is on fire do not use a garden hose since only a fire hose will do.

The article proposes that the problem is the building is too close to the sidewalk. That is like saying when you put on weight your clothes do not fit because they shrank.

The article propounds the 40 foot limit is capricious and arbitrary as if the 60 foot limit is not. That is like saying choosing vanilla ice cream is capricious and choosing chocolate is not.

The article proposes that smaller square footage housing means lower rents. That is like saying tightening your belt will make you lose weight.

The article appears to be an apologetic puff piece from the Chamber of Commerce. Of them, we wish the chamber and others of like mindedness would change their consume the earth policy because it is good for business to a user friendly entity. Instead of being a pushy and aggressive neighbor who always complains that more is never enough, we want a good neighbor, one that cares about education, neighborhoods, parks, water, a good neighbor who realizes that business is an important part of the community, but not the whole of the community. Good business does not exist in bad neighborhoods.

To those who say progress is inevitable, progress is not our most important product. Do not let your expectations create your reality. Why not 30 feet? Why not just two stories? Do we really want to look like downtown San Luis Obispo?

The pimple that was just finished across from the city hall annex and next to the Alano Club is an example of good bye Santa Barbara. Each tall building like this one is a chain saw buzz cut hacking away the sky.

How the city turns out is from the collective consciousness of all the citizens. The choice is ours. We, the People, every single one of us without exception, is responsible.

Regarding measure B: The best way to focus negative attention on this ammendment is to discuss all the things wrong with our building codes and minimize the corrective one under consideration. Measure B will be good for our city - period. Anyone who has traveled down lower Chapala will agree that the buildings under discussion aren't in the best interest of Santa Barbara. The Independent article refers to 'complex reasons' for building them in the first place. Nowhere does it mention why it was done and who personally wanted them erected. Naysayers all say that the mistakes won't be repeated thus we don't need a building heights reduction ammendment. Yet I can find no evidence that those responsible have been removed from the advisory panels and committees that okayed these abmoninations! The Councilmembers in office when the plans were accepted should be identified and questioned as to why they didn't object when the plans were submitted. Think of it; we are now stuck with these edifices for at least fifty years! You can't blame architects. They design buildings for maximum floor space which is how properties are leased or sold. It's up to our local government to manage the astethetics of structures and no doubt about it they dropped the ball and aren't likely to pick it up again until the voters speak. That is just what we are going to do! I implore voters to pass this ammendment. It may not be perfect but I guarantee it will get the attention of planners, architects, and most importantly, the Santa Barbara City Councilmembers.

@ Shelia Lodge

"The Texas developer he refers to, Randall Van Wolfswinkel, grew up in Santa Barbara (he was in high school with my daughters), and he's dismayed by the changes that have taken place. He develops in Texas, not here, because "there's lots of land in Texas"."

As if that was a justification for urban sprawl anywhere?!

Please:he's a developer plane and simple. Just like all you pro-Measure B folks are saying the developers will rape and pillage our city if this measure does not pass. What does he know that you don't? Perhaps it's that in this miserable economy that making the highest building height and densities in our neighborhoods might be beneficial to an enterprising developer. That's right folks. Here's the dirty little secret, all the development opportunities will now be shifted to the neighborhoods you've been fighting for decades to preserve. Why would a Texas developer have an interest in that, when the only market in the country that is relatively healthy is in Santa Barbara?! Just say'n.

If you really want to save "el pueblo viejo", why not close state street down to car traffic during the weekend (and perhaps even weeknights) so that people can eat, drink, and commune in peace? Measure B is not a solution for anything; all buildings should be handled on a case by case basis which is the traditional and correct approach for city planning. When the next grand edifice is planned (like a courthouse) are we going to make a laughably pint-sized construction? Santa Barbara is a city, not a town or a village.

1. Our city is beautiful (despite, or perhaps BECAUSE of our historic 60 ft. height limit; case in point, the Arlington and Grenada Theatres, and the Courthouse - all over 60 feet).

Permit the next generation of architects the privilege and opportunity of meeting (and perhaps exceeding) the aesthetic value of these beloved landmarks.

2. Smaller building DO NOT leave a smaller footprint on the earth when there is more than one of them. Imagine if everyone on the planet built one small house. New York city alone would sprawl across 3 state lines.

Do not be duped by this "smaller building, smaller footprint" falsehood.

3. Take two minutes to watch this video: http://www.vimeo.com/6520412

Do not live in fear of the future.
Vote no on B.

Bird's points make sense. All I can add is that the underlying issue of population explosion is what is driving this argument in the first place.