PRESERVE AND PROTECT

Santa Barbara's "small town feel"

Endorsements     Contribute - Contact     Q & A     News - Commentary

The citizens' initiative was qualified for the November 2009 ballot after the SEPV group gathered valid signatures of 18% of the city's registered voters.

The City Council, some of whom saw the ballot certified Initiative as too simplistic, proposed a draft of a competing charter amendment. The proposal would have allowed building heights to exceed 45' to accommodate "community priorities," the most prominent being affordable uses, including rental housing. The majority of the Council decided on March 24 to not place a separate measure on the November ballot.

Following are responses by the SEPV committee to "problems" cited by critics of the ballot initiative:

 

ANSWERS TO THE "PROBLEMS" CITED BY CRITICS OF THE CITIZEN'S BUILDING HEIGHTS INITIATIVE

"PROBLEM" Architects say we can't fit four floors of attractive housing within buildings limited to 40 or 45 feet, because between-floor mechanical needs (ducting, utilities, etc.) will eat up too much space; are they right?

Short Answer: There are architects, and there are architects.

Long Answer: The architects making the above claim support it with drawings and illustrations. But other architects claim otherwise, also providing drawings and illustrations that show that four floors of housing can indeed be nicely accommodated.

The answer seems simple enough: When the shorter buildings are built, employ the architects who can accomplish the between-floor space savings and successfully execute the projects!

Considering building 4 stories, however, does not take into consideration the high cost of land in the SB downtown, El Pueblo Viejo area; if built, they'd not likely be "affordable".

"PROBLEM": If we are forced to contain all our city's future building needs into shorter (40 & 45') buildings, won't those buildings tend to be uniform, boxy, bulky and unattractive, and lack set-backs and other important amenities?

Short Answer: Who's gonna approve short ugly buildings?

Long Answer: Are we to believe that our review bodies and exceptional architects, who for generations have been devoted to assuring beautiful and appropriate building design, are simply going to roll over and abdicate this responsibility when it comes to shorter buildings?

And if we can't trust our review bodies to insist upon appropriate amenities, we can require them to - by way of ordinance. And if we do so by ordinance (rather than Charter amendment) we can change things as community values and tastes change. (For example, most of the new bigger downtown buildings may be "mixed-use", and good urban design might not call for setbacks for first floor commercial uses. Such determinations are appropriate ordinance subject matter.)

"PROBLEM": If we are going to have to contain our future building needs within shorter buildings, won't the resultant city skyline be a boring, uniform 45', as development pushes up to that maximum limit, precluding an interesting variety of building heights?

Short Answer: This isn't a legitimate issue, since we aren't going to build enough new big buildings to even approach such a possibility.

Long Answer: As the recent Plan Santa Barbara process has impressed upon us, this city is substantially "built out", and what additional building we undertake (especially for housing, which any taller buildings most probably will be for) will be very limited, due to the constraints of our limited resources. Therefore the prospect of constructing enough new buildings to threaten a congested and uniform skyline is a practical impossibility.

And if it weren't - if substantial amounts of housing development were possible - then (if we continue to allow the possibility of 60' buildings) a boringly uniform skyscape of 60' rooflines would be just as plausible a threat!

return to top

"PROBLEM": If we are to provide for our future housing needs, for our workforce, for our kids — since we can no longer "grow out" — can't we only provide for these needs by "growing up"?

Short Answer: If we consider our realistic "givens", the height differential (between the Citizens' Initiative and the City's amendment) won't make any real difference.

Long Answer: Do a little, simple rough arithmetic. Given #1: Because of the limitations of our resources (and long-held attitudes about growth), even without any new height limits we certainly are not going to build more than a handful of 60' buildings, under any conceivable scenario. Given #2: The height differential between 60' buildings and 40'/45' buildings is a mere 15/20 feet. Now multiply the space represented by that differential (as it converts into potential housing space within a building of a maximum of 4 stories) by the limited number of new 60' buildings we might anticipate, and ask yourself: Can this difference possibly ever account for a meaningful, or even perceptible, impact upon Santa Barbara's housing situation? (Keep also in mind: the number of housing units in the 60' buildings that qualify as "affordable" will be very limited.)

 

"PROBLEM": Can't 60' buildings be constructed much more economically than 40'/45' buildings, thus facilitating affordable housing possibilities?

Short Answer: Even if true (which it probably isn't) the difference is insubstantial.

Long Answer: This is a very questionable notion, upon which local architects disagree. In any case, given our limitation of 4 stories (which nobody is suggesting we revise), the possibilities of cost advantages - even if they did exist - accruing to per-unit costs in buildings a mere 15'/20' higher is insubstantial.

 

"PROBLEM": By concentrating so on height limits, aren't you ignoring, even opposing the need for affordable housing in Santa Barbara; and what's the source for how even affordable units change the jobs/housing imbalance by creating the need for new jobs?

Short Answer: No. We all support affordable housing. The ballot initiative is limited to building heights and that's why we keep the discussion to that.

Long Answer: Everyone agrees that there should be affordable housing in Santa Barbara. The difficult questions revolve around how to achieve that goal and yet keep Santa Barbara an attractive place to live (the small town character often mentioned) and a destination for visitors that is different from other Southern California cities.

As for new housing units creating need for new jobs, this is what Bill Watkins, Ph.D., the Executive Director of the Economic Forecast Project at the University of California, Santa Barbara, wrote former mayor Sheila Lodge in August, 2008:

"The following are rough. No one has calculated exactly what you asked about. What I have are measures of the impact of a new family's income with the stated annual incomes: 

Income                                    Multiplier

$80,000 -124,999                        1.13

$124,000 -174,999                      1.48

$175,000 -249,999                      2.05

$250,000 and up                         3.28

Please remember that these are exceedingly rough.  Any real analysis would need much more. I would use these with extreme caution." (The quote is used with his permission, 3/09, noting "the multipliers will change slowly over time.")

We understand that the City is in the process of studying the question in the Economic Study as part of the Plan SB update process. We look forward to the results.

"PROBLEM": If the citizens' initiative passes, we won't be able to reconstruct any of our great old taller buildings if they were destroyed - nor will we be able to construct any great new ones like them; how do you answer this argument?

Short Answer: Reality exposes this argument as simply a red herring.

Long Answer: Let's look at our taller old buildings: The Courthouse and County Administration Buildings are County owned, outside the jurisdiction of our Initiative. The Arlington's taller features could be replaced, as our Initiative will not affect towers and other decorative features. As for most of the other tall buildings, take a look around downtown and judge for yourself: what if their replacements were limited to accord with the preponderant theme of our low-profile skyline? Were they really positive additions in the first place? How come we so easily assume new taller buildings will be great ones? Recent history certainly doesn't bear this out.

PROBLEM: To be a great city, don't we need to be a city of tall buildings?

Short Answer: Why can't we be one of the many great low-skyline cities?

Long Answer: There are, it is true, many beautiful cities of tall building (lest we forget, also many ugly ones). But there are also many beautiful low profile cities! Why can't we continue our tradition as one of the world's great little low skyline cities?

PROBLEM: Doesn't the initiative proposed by SEPV "oppose sustainability".

Short Answer: What is "sustainable" about simply making this city bigger?

Long Answer: Building more housing downtown - in 60' buildings - is as likely to simply bring more new residents here from other places as it is to prevent sprawl, improve jobs/housing balance, reduce commuter traffic, or bring about any of the other things "sustainability" theorizers dream about.

PROBLEM: Won't the SEPV initiative encourage sprawl.

Short Answer: In such a desirable place as Santa Barbara, building downtown will not abate "sprawl" pressures.

Long Answer: Building more housing in the downtown will only relieve development pressure on the outlying areas in communities where development pressure is limited by the local economy, but not in highly desirable locales like the South Coast. On the South Coast the appetite for development of our open spaces is driven by a worldwide market and is, therefore, virtually infinite. Besides which, County planning and development permits are completely separate from those of the city. The only way we can prevent sprawl in this area is by good planning and the exercise of political will. The SEPV Initiative will not change that.

PROBLEM: Won't having a maximum height limit lead to a more "homogenized city"?

Short Answer: Implausible. As a practical matter, impossible.

Long Answer: As noted above, Santa Barbara's future building potential is very limited, assuring we will never build enough new buildings to create a uniform, homogenized cityscape.

Besides, the 40'/45' height limit will protect the existing older downtown buildings (and their varied rooflines) by eliminating the 60' development potential that breeds financial incentive for their demolition and replacement with (potentially uniform) taller ones.

"PROBLEM": Isn't the SEPV Initiative just "too draconian"

Short Answer: So-called "Draconian" measures have served us well.

Long Answer: The greatness of this little city can be credited in large measure to "draconian" measures: the "Pearl Chase design fiat", the growth management measures, including Measure E and "Living Within Our Resources."

On the other hand, numerous more complex ("nuanced") measures miss their mark as a result of being subject to ambiguous interpretation, and by being easily manipulated.

Btw, what's the etymology of the word "draconian," the word used by some of the vocal architects and developers to describe the People's Initiative? Glad you asked! Here's the definition from Wikionary: From the Athenian lawmaker Draco, known for making harsh laws.
Adjective: draconian Definition: Very severe, oppressive or strict.
eg. The despot chose a draconian punishment.
eg. The Nazi regime was draconian.
eg. The mayor announced draconian budget cuts today.

And as for Draco's laws, "The laws, however, were particularly harsh. For example, any debtor whose status was lower than that of his creditor was forced into slavery. The punishment was more lenient for those owing debt to a member of a lower class. The death penalty was the punishment for even minor offenses. Concerning the liberal use of the death penalty in the Draconic code,
In Stewart and Long's translation, It is said that Drakon himself, when asked why he had fixed the punishment of death for most offences, answered that he considered these lesser crimes to deserve it, and he had no greater punishment for more important ones." (Wikipedia)

"Draconian" — a laughable description of the People's Initiative to lower city building heights from 60' to 40/45 feet! But, seriously, words do have consequences....

PROBLEM: How do you respond to the slur said to be coming from other communities: "In Santa Barbara you allow aesthetics to trump ethical considerations."?

Short Answer: The difference between a 60' limit and a 40'/45' limit produces insufficient "ethical payout" to justify major aesthetic compromises.

Long Answer: The primary reason for the great demand to live here stems from our traditional concern for aesthetics. Should this be tempered by ethical considerations? Certainly. But the trade-offs must pass rational muster. The amount of affordable housing that retention of a 60' building limit will yield will be barely perceptible, certainly not enough to trump the aesthetics of our skyline.

Our forebears decided that aesthetics were to be a major determinant of this city's development, rather than attempting to create a city that tries to be all things to all people. A wise decision, since the latter can be a futile and self-destructive pursuit, while the former produced a city that, in spite of some (probably inevitable) shortcomings, is an incomparable, wonderful place.

 

Save El Pueblo Viejo Initiative Committee, Spring 2009

return to top