City splits on building heights amendment
The murky waters surrounding a longstanding conflict over building heights in Santa Barbara cleared up a bit yesterday when city leaders narrowly voted down a proposal to put an alternative charter amendment on the ballot to compete with a citizen-led initiative.
Supporters of the alternative amendment argued it would offer a choice for voters that addresses more complex issues than the citizens’ initiative, which would simply lower building height limits in many commercial areas to 45 feet, with a 40-foot limit in the city’s historic district.
The city’s charter amendment would have created the same height limits while allowing an additional 15 feet for projects deemed a community priority, likely not-for-profit ventures or affordable housing.
Opponents said it represented an inelegant and confusing alternative to the citizen-led proposal.
“What it really boils down to ultimately is the City Council … had all the power we needed to start on this process a long time ago,” Councilmember Dale Francisco said. “We didn’t, and the people got fed up.”
Several of those fed-up community members banded together to create Save El Pueblo Viejo, a group named after the city’s historic core. They gathered thousands of signatures and qualified their initiative for the November ballot.
City leaders responded with concern about the narrow scope of the initiative and debated the merits of an alternative charter amendment for months.
That debate effectively ended yesterday when, after a lengthy parade of public speakers who offered up their take on building heights, affordable housing, sustainability and many other topics, the council voted 4-3 against moving forward with its own charter amendment.
For Councilmember Iya Falcone, approaching building heights through a charter amendment of any kind does not sit well.
“I’m not going to be supportive of either one of these,” she said. “I think the solutions and fixes are elsewhere, not in a charter amendment.”
Specifically, Falcone said complex issues such as building heights, setbacks, open space and parking should be addressed through city ordinances, which offer more flexibility.
Councilmember Grant House, who voted to put an alternative amendment on the ballot, said city planners and officials have already made changes to deal with discontent over the size, bulk and scale of some recent building projects.
While he felt that the proper venue for discussing the complexities of long-range planning is the city’s Plan Santa Barbara process to overhaul its guiding principles, House said the voters are intelligent enough to understand complex ballot measures.
“I believe that the voters really do deserve a choice,” he said. “I believe they are capable of making difficult decisions involving complex choices.”
Councilmembers Roger Horton and Das Williams joined House in voting for the amendment, stressing the importance of giving voters an alternative to a single-issue initiative.
With Falcone, Francisco and Mayor Marty Blum having previously expressed discontent with the alternative amendment approach, the vote hinged on Councilmember Helene Schneider.
While noting that affordable housing and sustainability have remained a cornerstone of her time in office, the mayoral candidate said she believes a simple vote on the Save El Pueblo Viejo initiative is the best path forward.
“As much as I find it difficult to disagree with so many people I work with and respect here on the dais, and many speakers today … my head, my heart and my gut tell me it’s best to just have one vote,” she said. “…My job is to do what I think is best for the citizenry and the voters come November.”
The council’s decision essentially gives voters the choice between Save El Pueblo Viejo’s proposed height limits and the status quo, which is 60 feet for many commercial areas.
Comment on this article
Affordable? housing : 3/25/2009
The problem with the need of 'affordable housing' isn't in construction and politics but in 'matching' the proper available spaces with clients. At any given time there are hundreds of unleased hotel rooms and apartment buildings (some of which gain profit unethicly as vacant). We need to match people with empty properties and stop all new construction.
Tharon Chandler
The unintended consequences : 3/25/2009
The problem is we are talking apples and oranges. The height of a building has little to do with growth and vice versa. The prevailing rhetoric is that somehow if taller buildings are allowed it means more growth. That is utter nonsense and the people who signed the building height initiative believing it will curtail growth are going to be in for a rude awakening. You will see more growth as a result and it will forever change the character of the town. Bill Mahan has created a movement based on the lie that squashing the city’s skyline will preserve the “character of the town and slow growth”. First, the character of the town is taller buildings and has been since the 1920’s. Bill knows this and knows that when the “small town charm” argument is challenged it will fail (what difference does it make if all the buildings are 3 stories instead of 4 when you have gang bangers running around stabbing and shooting people!) So he has linked the biggest hot button issue in the city, growth, to building heights as a way to deflect the argument away from “character” which he will lose. What residence of this city do not realize is the growth will still happen, just 15 or 20 feet shorter and covering far more land area. You don’t have to be a bleeping genius to figure that one out folks. You will end up with sprawling block long 3 story buildings creating a gulag effect everywhere (think Cottage Hospital, what a freaking disaster!) The character of the town has always been a dense downtown core composed of multi story buildings. That will be destroyed in favor of a sea of same height monolithic architecture buildings with a few century old buildings poking though what was once a down town. If you really care one wit about this town you had better open your eyes to the unintended consequences of blanket ordinances that do nothing but create massive institutionalized mediocrity. And for God’s sake wake up people and realize you cannot make small town charm with a building; it’s the people, stupid.
AN50
I’m glad they voted down the alternative. : 3/25/2009
The alternative was confusing. It would have required an EIR, two more votes from Council (one after the election). If Council wanted to work with the Save El Pueblo Viejo people they would have done it a long time ago in the Ordinance Committee. Now Iya’s ready to do what’s right? Took her long enough.
Congratulations to Bill Mahan : 3/25/2009
The Save El Pueblo Viejo folks should be proud. They did the City Council's job for them and then the Council tried to jump in at the last minute and muddy the waters with their own proposal. When thinking about this issue, first start with the motives: the SEPV group wants to preserve Santa Barbara; god knows what all the pretzel-like agendas are of the politicians. Some of our citizens had the guts to stand up for what they believed in and persevere. Hooray!
Government Junkie
Good Government : 3/25/2009
The Citizens Initiative will be alone on ballot. Isn’t this the way it’s should be? Did we elect a City Council to compete against the will of the citizens? I hope not. If people want to go out and gather signatures to make a charter amendment for public benefit projects –go for it! I don’t think the City Council should be putting a competing alternative on the ballot in this election. Thank you Helene.
Iya and Helene know they had to vote yes : 3/25/2009
Helene saved her political campaign by voting yes on this and letting the people decide this issue. This is a change. I will now vote for her if she stays consistent on this from now on.
observer
No : 3/25/2009
Iya Falcone says no on the amendment and no on the ballot measure. I say no to Ms. Falcone. Let the people decide this one.
Get to work now! : 3/26/2009
I'm glad the Council voted against the alternative. If they had moved fwd with the EIR it would have taken too much Council time, staff time & money. Now they can get back to the work of the budget. That means compromises from SEIU, Police and Fire Unions.
Contact Us!
411 E. Canon Perdido, Ste 2
Santa Barbara, CA 93101
Phone (805) 564-6001
Fax (866) 716-8350
Click here to view the PDF Edition
Subscription Required
Tile Ads
Most Read Stories
Check out these most read stories.
- Santa Barbara Police Department cites 21 for driving without a license at weekend DUI checkpoints
- Searching for a cure: Dos Pueblos graduate pursues stem cell therapy to battle Lyme disease
- Santa Barbara budget showdown - 'heat is on' as police union, city management clash
- Santa Barbara church hit by '666,' graffiti four times in year
- Rising pension costs sink city's budget
Most Talked About Stories
Check out these recent talked about stories, and voice your opinion...
- Report suggests Santa Barbara Police Department targets illegal immigrants
- Santa Barbara Police Department cites 21 for driving without a license at weekend DUI checkpoints
- Arrests made in pot shop extortion
- ICE initiative targets dangerous illegal immigrants
- Santa Barbara County greenhouse marijuana bust near Highway 101 leads to two arrests; pot value as high as $80 million
- Forum tackles Santa Barbara's homeless issues
- Santa Barbara budget showdown - 'heat is on' as police union, city management clash
- Lois Capps, activists rally in support of women's reproductive rights
