Comments by Steve_Johnson
Page 1 of 5 | Next
Posted on December 2 at 12:50 p.m.
Thanks, Barry, for starting the Berkus Boyz Bball game on Sunday mornings; and for building the house on Bolero Lane in Huntington Harbor, where my parents lived for 9 happy years.
Posted on May 25 at 10:34 a.m.
Adding the HOV lane will result in additional traffic reaching the downtown core during rush hour, and worsening pollution. Concern about existing levels of pollution has already resulted in a moratorium on residential development within 250' of Highway 101.
But the 250' was based on a mistaken calculation in the Air Quality Report created EIR of the SB General Plan update;
a correct calculation would have resulted in a 1000' prohibition corridor. CalTrans should acknowledge the mistaken calculation, and identify a remedy to the pollution issue before proceeding with the HOV project.
Posted on September 9 at 9:13 a.m.
We have heard this debate for the last 40 years. Of course current residents want minimal further development; it is in their self interest. And current residents will say "Not everyone can live in Santa Barbara". Of course, they did not say that before moving here. The State of California has an interest in ensuring that all State residents can obtaining housing. Bakersfield may not want to house all the poor, and Bakersfield has more voters than Santa Barbara. So the State is going to continue to pressure us to accept more low cost housing.
So why not adopt Portland's approach? Define an urban boundary, and limit high density to the urban core. The south coast has two obvious urban cores at present: downtown Santa Barbara, and Isla Vista. Put the high density there.
Posted on May 25 at 9:59 a.m.
Ms. Zimmer, what is your position on the construction of Icarus V hang gliders in the coastal zone?
Posted on August 18 at 5:41 p.m.
It's a gamble for the developers, but they are not dopes.
Yes, the market is currently in the tank; but the market changes. It will be interesting to see if/when they pull the trigger and start spending $ on construction drawings.
The staff report says there are 29 one bedroom units, ranging in size from 658 to 1251 sqft (pretty big range). Unfortunately,
the staff report did not provide a breakdown. So if there is one unit at 658 sqft and the rest at 1251 sqft, this is a luxury project.
Can anyone enlighten me?
Posted on June 24 at 9:34 a.m.
I'm 62. For decades I thought the cold war would never end. Now my conviction is that our country will never have a rational policy regarding drug use (legal or otherwise).
And the chances for a rational policy on immigration look pretty slim as well.
Posted on May 14 at 10:02 a.m.
The facts: 4 1BR units (one @ 797, 3 @ 975 sqft), 3 2BR units (1488, 1598, 1752 sqft), 3 commercial units (218 to 250 sqft). Lot size is 14,750 sqft (65x226'); currently a parking lot. No units are "Affordable"; instead an in-lieu fee of $100K will be paid. At $350/sqft, the construction costs would be about $3M. The land is currently valued at around $1.7M by the assessor. If the units sell at $800K for the 1BRs and $1.2M for the 2BRs, the developer might make a buck. Go figure. Somebody must be hedging against inflation.
The vertical parking seems fine. The lightly used vehicle will stay in the upper space; the lower space will be as simple to use as any garage space. With a greater presence of zipcars, downtown residents could get by with a single car.
Posted on May 7 at 8:14 a.m.
This is a high stakes game of chicken. The second-to-last thing the investors want to do is take title to 1000 acres of weeds; but the puzzle is: what is the last thing they want to do? Mr. Osgood's gamble has gone south, and it is just a matter of how many life preservers get sucked down in the vortex.
Page 1 of 5 | Next
Previous Month
Posted on March 21 at 1:36 a.m.
So why is it that only the most regressive tax can be passed with a simple 50% majority? Answer: political reality.
On Sales Tax Increase Looms