Building Heights 2

[ From: "Building height initiative launched," By Eric Lindberg, DAILY SOUND, November 28, 2008 ]


A week after city leaders narrowly shot down a proposal to draft a charter amendment relating to building heights in Santa Barbara, they revisited the issue and narrowly approved the concept.

Some councilmembers hope to qualify the amendment for the Nov. 2009 ballot to offer an alternative to a citizen-led initiative seeking to lower building heights in the downtown core.

“Choice is a good thing for the voters,” Councilmember Das Williams said. “There are those of us who feel the status quo isn’t acceptable … but at the same time don’t want to put an insurmountable roadblock in the way of creating workforce housing for the next generation of Santa Barbarans.”

... Although the City Council voted the idea down last Tuesday with a 4-3 tally, Councilmember Roger Horton asked for reconsideration and changed his vote yesterday. He said concerns about workforce housing and sustainability drove him to ask the council to take another look.

While he had been hopeful that the Plan Santa Barbara process would be the arena to address concerns about the apparent bulk and height of buildings in the city, as well as other complex issues, Horton said he realized that wouldn’t be accomplished before next year’s election.

As a result, he pressed for an alternate ballot initiative that would offer a compromise of sorts — still lowering building heights but allowing the city to grant exceptions for projects that are deemed a community priority.

Since launching their efforts last summer, a group of citizens known as Save El Pueblo Viejo have gathered more than 11,500 signatures in support of their building height initiative.

If approved, the citizen-led charter amendment would lower building heights in the commercial zone from 60 feet to 45 feet, and to 40 feet in the city’s historic district.

Bill Mahan, chairman of the group, said projects that deserve additional height allowances could be put to a vote of the people for approval should the amendment pass.

He noted that only three of 39 projects listed as a community priority during the past 18 years have been taller than 45 feet. While it might be inconvenient to have voters decide on each project seeking additional height, he said, “It’s not wacky.”

He also took issue with arguments that those citizens signed the petition out of a knee-jerk reaction to larger buildings in downtown areas.

“They’re smart and educated,” he said. “Most of the 11,000 who signed our petition knew exactly what they were signing.”

Others voiced their support for the city’s proposal, which would also lower heights to those proposed by the citizens group, but would include setbacks for some areas and give the council the ability to approve exceptions for projects that offer a community benefit.

Michael Holliday, an architect and representative of the American Institute of Architects, said while he is opposed to any reduction in downtown building heights, the city’s initiative offers much more flexibility than Save El Pueblo Viejo’s...

Williams agreed, saying it would hurt the city’s ability to build workforce housing. While the thousands of signatures gathered by Mahan and others clearly shows the city has to do something, he said that doesn’t mean the citizens’ initiative is the best way to go.

“I believe there has got to be a middle ground,” he said. “If we were hell-bent on building as much workforce housing, we’d probably do something real bad.”

On the other hand, he said, if the city creates a “freeze effect” on downtown, it will negatively impact future residents.

“We would prevent succeeding generations from being able to live here and thrive here,” Williams said.

[Councilmember Dale] Francisco, however, cast the city’s alternate initiative as an attempt to condense a huge portion of the Plan Santa Barbara process — an overhaul of the city’s guiding principles — into a very short timeframe in order to compete with the Save El Pueblo Viejo proposal...

Mayor Marty Blum agreed with Francisco, citing concerns about the additional workload for the planning department and the cost of developing the ballot initiative.

She also expressed worry about the motivations, whether real or imagined, behind the push to place the city’s initiative on next year’s ballot...

Ultimately, Horton was the only councilmember to change his vote, flipping the council’s direction in favor of launching a city-led initiative. Councilmember Iya Falcone was absent.

City planners will go before the ordinance committee on Dec. 16 to discuss and draft the charter amendment. If given the go-ahead by city leaders again, it would go through a series of public meetings and environmental review. The City Council would then vote on whether to place the initiative on the ballot.

Councilmember Grant House, who voted in favor of initiating the process, said he sees no downside to offering another choice to the voters next year.

“What’s the harm?” he said. “…I think everybody would like to have a richer discussion.”

Ventura Big Box Vote 2009

[ From: "Ventura voters will decide fate of big box measure," By Marie Lakin, VENTURA COUNTY STAR, November 25, 2008 ]

... the Ventura City Council failed to adopt Stop Wal-Mart Ventura Coalition's anti-big box initiative and it will instead go on the ballot in the fall of next year. It will join the Ventura Citizens' Organization for Responsible Development (VCORD)'s view initiative for a full vote of the citizenry.

Council members all agreed the measure should be left to the voters to decide. "There are so many implications with land use, our tax base and the future of retail in our city. It's something that we need to let the citizens weigh in on. It could affect retail uses 20 years from now," Council member Ed Summers said.

.. The [proposed] ordinance would prevent a major retail project that sells goods and merchandise -- primarily for personal or household use -- and whose total sales floor area exceeds 90,000 square feet and which devotes more than three percent of the sales floor area to the sale of non-taxable merchandise such as food.

Wholesale club stores like Costco would be OK. Other stores such as IKEA or an electronics store, both on wishlists for Ventura, would also be allowed. Another Super Target would not and the ordinance could affect the ability of the existing one at the mall to expand.

Das Williams, a legislative analyst for CAUSE, explained that the exclusion for wholesale membership stores was in response to economic development concerns raised by city staff when they were first presented with a draft of the proposed ordinance. Costco is a store Ventura is one day hoping to attract.

Economic analysis from the city on the measure proved inconclusive. While it could discourage one set of investors, it might encourage another. It will serve to limit some consumer choices in the city and could drive shoppers to travel elsewhere.

THE COALITION RECENTLY PAID for its own study by two economists which concluded the city will not gain new sales tax revenue from a Wal-Mart and it will only cannibalize an existing retail market which is already saturated. "A major new retail facility has the potential to negatively impact current business owners since community needs are already being met," the study concludes.

Another anti-big box measure was soundly defeated by nearly 70 percent of Atascadero voters on Nov. 4. However, that city, which is struggling financially and now operating on its reserves, has less local retail available than Ventura within its city boundaries. It is also a staunchly conservative area, Williams said. It is not known yet exactly how much Wal-Mart invested to defeat the Atascadero measure, but "there was a decent amount of money spent," Williams said.

A poll conducted by the Stop Wal-Mart Ventura Coalition found that a majority of Venturans were not in favor of the retailer coming to Ventura. About 8,600 signed the petition to put it on the ballot.

Williams predicts a battle next fall. "It's going to take a lot of organizing for us. But I've operated a lot of signature campaigns in the past and I've never seen volunteers come out like they did in Ventura."

Building Heights 1

In November 2009, Santa Barbara residents will vote on just one building heights ballot measure.

[ From: "Council Rejects Proposed Competing Initiative on Building Heights," By Rob Kuznia, Noozhawk, 11/19/2008 ]


The Santa Barbara City Council... narrowly rejected an attempt to begin the process of putting a measure on the ballot that would compete with a citizen-driven initiative that a year from now will ask voters to significantly lower the height limits of new buildings.

... [The] 4-3 vote means that in November 2009, Santa Barbara residents will vote on just one initiative, the citizen initiative, which supporters say is necessary to maintain the city’s small-town charm, and critics say is overly simplistic, and likely to exacerbate the squeeze felt by the city’s middle class.

As it stands now, buildings in the commercial zones of Santa Barbara can be 60 feet high. The initiative calls for lowering the limit to 40 feet in the historic downtown area and 45 feet in the rest of the city.

The competing initiative, brought to the council by Councilman Das Williams, was a compromise, limiting the height to 40 and 45 feet in the same areas, but allowing developers to go as high as 60 feet when they go well above and beyond on affordable housing. “Above and beyond” may have been defined as any project in which 30 percent of the projects are considered affordable — twice the percent that is required by city ordinance.

Williams and others have said the height initiative as proposed would accelerate the city’s middle-class exodus because developers thus far have tended to build a higher percentage of affordable units than is required by city law only when they can maximize the amount of units in the given space provided.

“The 40-foot limit would not allow for affordable housing — it doesn’t give that flexibility,” he said. “We should at least give the voters the chance to choose between these two measures.”

Meanwhile, Save El Pueblo Viejo, the group that collected more than 11,000 signatures to put the initiative on the ballot, argues that lowering the height limits would not reduce affordable housing options if developers showed more willingness to lower the ceilings of the individual units.

One member of the group, Connie Hannah of the League of Women Voters, criticized the competing proposal, saying it would allow for the construction of the very building that has stirred up much of the recent outcry over building heights: the Paseo Chapala condo complex on Chapala Street. Though the complex is filled with luxury condos, 30 percent of its units are considered affordable to middle-class buyers.

The group’s leader, former Planning Commissioner Bill Mahan, urged the council to vote [for the citizen-driven petition]...

“The voters came and looked at those buildings afterward and they said, ‘Too big, too big. This doesn’t fit Santa Barbara’s character,’” he said...

Michael Holliday, a member of the local chapter of the American Institute of Architects, said he supported the competing measure.

“We think a city-sponsored measure can at least begin to address the complex issues that are going to be involved in a program like this,” he said.

Although four council members voted against it, two of them — Roger Horton and Iya Falcone — also oppose Mahan’s ballot initiative...

... opposed to the competing measure were Mayor Marty Blum and Councilman Dale Francisco, both supporters of the initiative by Save El Pueblo Viejo.

“There’s a long tradition in the city of Santa Barbara of the citizens telling the council what they think,” Blum said. “I think that’s what we have here with this initiative.”

Council members Grant House and Helene Schneider voted in favor of the [alternative] proposal...

Tea Fire Resources

As our community continues to put the pieces back together after the Tea Fire, I wanted to provide everyone with an update and some important information. Our hearts go out to everyone who has been affected by this tragedy and we, as a City, are grateful to the many groups and individuals who have helped in the response and recovery efforts. 151 homes within the City of Santa Barbara were destroyed, as well as 80 more within the County.

For residents returning to your homes, these are the key phone contacts for your gas, electricity, and water connections:

Gas Company - (800) 427-2200 [note: please DO NOT attempt to turn your gas back on yourself! Call the Gas Company for assistance.]

So. Cal Edison - (800) 611-1911

Water: (805) 564-5413 for the City of Santa Barbara
(805) 969-2271 for Montecito

The City of Santa Barbara wants to help those who have lost their homes re-build as soon as possible. The City Planning department, located at 630 Garden Street, will be issuing expedited permits. For any re-building projects which are of the same Floor Area Ratio, you must comply with new safety regulations but you will not need to comply with any additional aesthetic regulations. Re-building projects which increase the size of the home will need to comply with both new safety and aesthetic regulations. Additionally, the local chapter of the American Planners Association has volunteered their time and expertise to provide guidance and help people through the permitting process. A list of qualified professionals who have offered their assistance is attached to this posting.

The City of Santa Barbara wants to be as helpful as possible to everyone who has been affected by this tragedy. A Tea Fire Local Assistance Center has been opened at the Davis Center at 1232 De La Vina Street to assist those who have lost their homes in the fire. The Center is open from 9am to 5pm. Please distribute this email to anyone who might be interested. Also, please feel free to contact my office with any questions or issues that I might be able to assist with.

apa%20tea%20fire%20resources%2011-08%20%282%29.pdf

Tea Fire

Sources for information on the Tea(house) Fire, regularly updated:

• SBC Office of Emergency Services
  
• SB Independent

View Larger Map

RV Restrictions

[ From: "City Ordinance Committee Denies Plan to Crack Down on RV Parking" by Rob Kuznia, Noozhawk, 11/12/2008 ]

[ KEYT-TV Video on this topic also available at: KEYT-TV: RVs ]


... To the relief of advocates of a growing number of indigent people living in RVs, the Santa Barbara ordinance committee on Tuesday rejected a proposal from the Public Works Department granting it more authority to crack down on RV parking where the department considers the practice problematic.

However, committee members — all three of them Santa Barbara City Council members — said they would like to see a watered-down version of the proposal restrict the parking of RVs near schools, parks and recreational facilities.

The amended proposal could come before the committee as soon as next week and, if passed, could land shortly after on the agenda of the full seven-member City Council.

On Tuesday, city staff members from not only the Public Works Department, but also police and fire departments reported to the committee on why the RVs are considered a problem. The officials said some RV occupants have been known to illegally dump trash or even human waste on the street. They also said the RVs are oftentimes packed with an entire family’s belongings and therefore pose a fire hazard. In addition, they said some RV dwellers have a tendency to gather in large groups and engage in criminal activities such as drug dealing, assaults and prostitution.

Two of three committee members — Das Williams and Grant House — were unmoved, saying the Public Works Department seemed to be overreaching by asking for the power to unilaterally decide which streets need to be cleared.

“I do think there is a problem, and I do want to give staff a tool to deal with that problem,” Williams said. “But to have this ordinance without any criteria is a blank check, and I’m not about to give a blank check to further criminalize poverty in this city.”

... Nancy McCrady, a local advocate for the homeless, said people in RVs have been unfairly maligned.

“I see people in their RVs cleaning up their neighborhoods with bags,” said McCrady, who said she had to live in an RV for 24 years. “People are really, really trying their best. It’s really hard, because there’s a waiting list for housing. … There’s no room anywhere. The shelters are all full. … So what are you going to do with people, throw them out in the bushes again?”

Brian Gannon, an employee of a business on the 500 block of East Montecito Street, said employees have had unpleasant run-ins with some of the nearby RV dwellers.

“I myself witnessed urine and feces dumped in the bushes,” he said. “And I think in retaliation of us reporting this to the police, we’ve had fecal matter thrown at the walls of our business.”

Gannon added that a young man was once thrown through a company window. “I myself have witnessed drug use, drug dealing actually taking place right at our doorsteps,” he said.

Also in attendance was Santa Barbara schools Superintendent Brian Sarvis, who came to ask the committee to keep parked RVs away from schools.

“We would like to have you specifically ban parking for RVs within 100 feet of schools,” he said. “Many of the dangers are frankly unknown, but no parent should be needlessly worried because of the cluster of RVs around the playground of a school.”

Another speaker was Gary Linker, executive director of the nonprofit group New Beginnings, which attracted national media attention for its successful “Safe Parking” program allowing people to sleep in their vehicles in certain parking lots around town.

Linker said his lots serve about 70 people and are full, but he is working to expand.

“We do have a 20- to 25-person waiting list, and we have had to turn people away,” he said. “There are people in the streets who do want to be in our program, but we can’t find a place to put them.”

He added that the organization is in the process of looking to open an RV park.

“We’re trying to find a location that could have an eight- to 10-trailer park that people could stay in before they’re going into housing,” he said. “It would be another enticement for people to be on the list to go into housing.”

On Tuesday, House criticized the proposed ordinance for its vagueness, noting, for example, its failure to define what constitutes an excessive number of RVs on a city block.

“What’s the number? Is it two, three, five RVs in a neighborhood?” he said. “What if they are not causing a problem?”

--------------------------

For full text as well as a good number of comments, please go to:

"City Ordinance Committee Denies Plan to Crack Down on RV Parking"