Oversize houses

[ SBN-P Letter to the Editor, 4/10/2005 ]:

Oversize houses a building blight | Preservation ordinance worthless

Voice From Santa Barbara: Claudia Madsen


Claudia Madsen has lived in Santa Barbara since 1930.

The author is a former president of the Foothill Preservation League and Allied Neighborhoods Association and former vice-president of Citizens Planning Association.


It's a political hot potato. Supersized houses keep popping up and poking holes in Santa Barbara's Neighborhood Preservation Ordinance. The NPO has no teeth.

On the Mesa, houses are doubling in size and invading the privacy of next-door neighbors. On the Riviera, monstrous structures mar public views of the mountains and ocean. In Las Positas Valley, bright-eyed developers want to put two-story houses in a sensitive creekside area without any comprehensive planning for rezoning or annexation of county land.

All this bloated development has set off alarm bells.

Neighborhood preservationists have called for stricter rules to regulate the size of new and remodeled homes. Investors and developers oppose any new size limits. City Council members and candidates are caught in the middle trying to split the difference. Some want to put off council action until after the November election.

The existing Neighborhood Preservation Ordinance doesn't work because it has no rules, just guidelines, which can't be enforced. Adopted in 1992, the NPO was first called the Big House Ordinance because people were up in arms about the oversized houses on Shoreline Drive. Then the city decided the problem was not size, just design, and the council caved in to the growth machine.

Now the Neighborhood Preservation Ordinance doesn't preserve anything.

Even the City Council has recognized the failure of the Neighborhood Preservation Ordinance and told the NPO update committee to fix it. At the first NPO work session last year, concerned citizens blasted the bloated development that's ruining our neighborhoods. A solid majority voted in favor of a maximum Floor Area Ratio to limit home size according to lot size. In plain English, floor area ratio means you can't put a huge house on a little lot. If you want a big house, you need a big lot.

FAR limits on home size are common practice in other South Coast communities including Montecito, Goleta, Summerland and Carpinteria. Now it's time for Santa Barbara to catch up.

Last year, established civic groups like Citizens Planning Association and the League of Women Voters requested a sliding-scale FAR with the strictest limits for the smallest lots.

Fighting back, a new group called the Mesa Improvement Association formed to oppose any new limits on home size. This pro-growth group has now morphed into the Citywide Homeowners, whose spokesmen recently wrote an article saying size limits are unreasonable. (See the News-Press, March 6).

Santa Barbara already has size limits regulating building height and front-yard setbacks. So it seems reasonable to limit the total square footage of home size including the garage.

FAR limits are not a substitute for design review. The city has no plans to eliminate the Architectural Board of Review or the single-family design guidelines. On the contrary, the maximum FAR will simplify the design review process by providing an objective tool for project approval. The goal is to ensure good design within reasonable size limits.

But the devil is in the details. For months, the NPO committee has been struggling to find the right numbers for the maximum FAR.

"It's like trying to catch a greased pig," quipped Councilman Brian Barnwell, vice-chairman of the NPO update committee chaired by Dianne Channing, past president of the Riviera Association.

In response to public input, the NPO sub-committee on Floor Area Ratio limits proposed a maximum FAR of 0.30 for a 6,000-square-foot lot. That would limit the maximum home size to 1,800 square feet, plus a 450-square-foot garage for a total of 2,250 square feet.

Then came the blow. The sub-committee recommended a 15Êpercent bonus FAR on top of the "maximum FAR" for certain projects. In my book, maximum means as big as it gets. How can you have a bonus on top of a maximum? It's a contradiction that sets the whole idea of a maximum FAR on its head.

The bonus idea came out of the blue with no public support. Nobody from the public asked the NPO committee for a bonus FAR in addition to the maximum FAR. Nobody from the public has testified in favor of a bonus FAR. Now, there's a new twist to the bonus buzz.

Councilman Das Williams has floated the idea of selling bonus FARs. The bonus bucks collected from builders would fund a land acquisition program to buy parks, playgrounds and open space.

Would that be a boon or a boondoggle? Why would investors get a bonus from the city for building big houses? Won't everyone want to build to the max? The mushy concept of two size limits has created mass confusion.

To discuss these questions and many more, the NPO Committee has scheduled a public meeting for 1:30 p.m. Saturday in the Gebhard conference room, 630 Garden St. A maximum FAR is not a magic solution, but it is an effective tool for neighborhood preservation. If we do it right, here's what the FAR can do for Santa Barbara:

-- Provide a clear set of rules for builders, neighbors and decision-makers.

-- Ensure fair and consistent review based on objective standards.

-- Cut down endless debate over big houses on small lots.

-- Reduce the flood of proposals for oversized houses and remodels.

-- Shorten the review process so neighbors don't have to come back to ABR meetings every week.

-- Require consistency with city policies and zoning laws.


As campaign season begins, voters need to know exactly where council candidates stand on neighborhood preservation issues. Don't be fooled by empty slogans. Pin down your candidates on the precise size limits that should be enforced by the Neighborhood Preservation Ordinance.

Let's send the City Council a message: Stand fast, Santa Barbara. Protect our neighborhoods from bloated monstrosities.

[ SBN-P online edition:
Oversize houses a building blight | Preservation ordinance worthless ]