Edhat Staff
500 block of State Street
By edhat staff
The Santa Barbara City Council voted 6-1 on Tuesday to move forward with an expedited AUD plan to facilitate the development of housing in the downtown area.
Councilmember Kristen Sneddon was the lone opposer while the other councilmembers agreed on a narrowly focused work effort to prioritize and expedite the Average Unit Size Density Incentive (AUD) Program Zoning Ordinance amendments affecting the Central Business District (CBD).
Late last year the council voted on approximately twenty items to amend to the AUD program. They included changes to the density map, parking incentives, floor to lot area ratios (FARs), building height, open yard requirements, AUD program expiration, protection of existing affordable housing, and more.
It was expected to take one year to complete those amendments, including planned public outreach, for a final report to the council in December of 2020.
This new plan involves removes the option for public outreach and will not include full-scale public workshops but instead might target certain stakeholders. The council agreed to speed up the timeline to have the amendments sent to the Planning Commission on June 4 and for the council to vote on July 21.
The changes would include adding high density with a priority housing overlay in the CBD (except for the Brinkerhoff Historic District), remove priority overlay and high density from potential historic districts on lower De La Vina and Castillo Streets, allow housing developers to pay in-lieu fees instead of providing required on-site parking, allow unbundled parking for multi-unit residential development (parking spaces leased separately from housing unit), increase the maximum building height from 45 to 48 feet, and eliminate the open yard requirement on properties between Chapala and Anacapa Streets.
The offer to speed up the development timeline came out of last week’s meeting during a COVID-19 update. Sneddon stated this was not an appropriate action item to come out of a pandemic update and is uncomfortable with it. Ultimately she doesn’t support cutting out the option for public opinion.
“I had the full expectation that there would be thorough public outreach and workshops. I cannot support truncating that process,” she said. “This topic would ordinarily be standing room only in chambers. We want to value the input and outreach.”
Sneddon continued that the pandemic is changing the landscape and wonders why there’s a rush to move forward right now, especially as we all may have to reenvision how we live in this community due to COVID-19.
Other councilmembers disagreed. Councilmember Eric Friedman stated there were multiple hearings on the AUD program in the past two years. “To say we’ve had no public outreach is just false,” he said.
Councilmember and newcomer Michael Jordan echoed Friedman’s sentiment and argued for pushing up the timeline.
“To me, it’s about having a future vision,” he said. “Do you want to have one or not? Our new world should not be paralysis. It is still time to move. It is not time to say we can’t move.”
Councilmember Meagan Harmon was perhaps the most vocal in support of the fast-tracked plan stating structural change happens when you’re willing to change the structure.
“To me, this is a response to the outcry from our community members that we work towards structural change and that we are responsive to their needs and their desires so we can all work together towards recovery from this crisis, ” Harmon said.
oh great.. more congestion, less parking available on the streets..etc. What ever happened to the no growth Santa Barbara of 30 years ago? The only nice side effect of Covid19 is the improved quality of life with less traffic and congestion. IF the city of Santa Barbara can really get cracking on the expedited approval and building of more AUD’s before everyone goes back to work, post Covid 19, the quality of life can really collapse all at once.
I support the AUD program in the CBD. The CBD does not need to be a dead zone any longer. I’ve watched it decay over the last 20 years to the point that I am actually embarrassed to show State St. to friends who come to town to visit. I have to explain that it used to be a much nicer place. If we increase living in the CBD, we will necessarily boost local business. More people, more foot traffic, more skin in the game from those who live there demanding action on the homeless, etc. No one wants a hobo shooting up or crapping on their doorstep, and citizens deserve a right to feel safe and comfortable in their own town and in their own homes. We should consider redeveloping some existing large retail spaces into office, or something else – even living if possible – too. And perhaps converting some office space not at ground level to living. We have too much dedicated retail and too large of spaces to be supported by the current population, and even with a population boost, large commercial spaces are challenging in a contemporary retail landscape. We CAN grow in a specific part of town without compromising the feel of this town, which is regionally unparalleled in terms of character. We can keep Santa Barbara feeling Santa Barbara – I care very much about this. But we need more housing, and we do not need open “yards” in a 2 block wide strip on either side of State Street. We should also consider allowing – under vote by residents who own and live in the existing CBD condominiums – to rezone and increase density. No one needs a 1700 square foot ONE BEDROOM condo. The value on these units has sat or even deflated for years because this type of housing is irrelevant to the needs of 90+% of our population. There is no good reason to prohibit rezoning of these existing units in order to add bedrooms so families can consider condominium living downtown as a viable option. More housing, more development in targeted areas. Anyone who would like to downvote me is welcome to tell me why I’m wrong. I welcome my opponents’ opinions.
Social distance or pack people in a tighter space? hmmmmmmm………..
What happened is reality. The world changes. Population grows. Places don’t stay trapped in time unless they want to become irrelevant. Ironically it is exactly this type of trapped-in-amber “preservation” which leads to towns ending up as nothing more than tourist traps. Yet this approach is fetishized by so many on this website, who are understandably nostalgic for another time. Which I get. But we need to be pragmatic. Now is not the time for holding onto memories of halcyon days from 30 years ago. We need a new strategy to save our town from becoming a dump and from being the tourist trap that so many people here do not want. New housing in a central district enables us to house workers for companies and industries that keep us relevant and make us thrive. What do you want? A little bit less parking and more people out on the State St. helping revitalize our core, or an empty and dead downtown coated in human waste and dominated by strung out vagrants but where you can find parking?
“To me, this is a response to the outcry from our community members that we work towards structural change and that we are responsive to their needs and their desires so we can all work together towards recovery from this crisis, ” Harmon said.
What does this mean? Is the crisis the COVID crisis? The housing crisis? Structural change? What is this? Who are the community members? The ones that won’t be allowed to comment on this change? What are their ‘needs’ and ‘desires’? I need a covid vaccine. I ‘desire’ getting my hours back. What is she saying? How is preventing more public input going to help us from this ‘crisis’? Maybe this needs more context; otherwise, sounds like a bunch of BS to me.
A big giveaway to big developers who have been working on this for years. The takeaways are standards in place for generations to keep the height and density of Santa Barbara appropriate for its’ character and limited roads and infrastructure. This is not Barcelona where generations of families live in the same building.
Ah, so the result of not enough growth and congestion is homeless on the street defecating on the sidewalks? You must be one of the developers that pushed for all of the new water meters being approved 20 years ago for all of the same reasons..NOW, You have over built the town,! WE have spent many millions of dollars on a very inefficient and polluting desal plant to support our ever increasing water needs, our quality of life has slipped dramatically with more pollution, congestion, traffic…. and now YOU feel that the only way out of it is to build more density in the downtown corridor.. Doing the same think over and over and expecting a different result is the definition of insanity or stupidity. I assume that this is only because you do not live or shop in the downtown corridor! The reason for the blight of the downtown is the forced escalation of real estate pricing by guys like you, so called “investors”.. The next sucker buys the commercial real estate in downtown at 50% above the last time it was sold , and then squeezes the tenant for another 50% increase in their rent to support his increased expenses and need for profit. Eventually, he realizes that he just can’t rent it out at that price and the shop goes vacant. What we really need is another reset of prices. The current model is not sustainable! By cramming in more housing downtown, all you are doing is pushing it all a little further and escalating the crisis. Things will not get better as a result for most of us. For guys like you that want to make another 30% on that property.. then you will get what you want!
Just look at any of the towns that have dramatically increased their density in the downtown corridors.. You just get higher prices, more density, crime, pollution and defecation. It is all very predictable. Though, it will not affect you at all, congratulations!
Really weird assumptions. I am a 34 year old woman and I am definitely not a developer. Or related to one. Or married to one. Or working for one. I don’t own any commercial real estate. I am a property owner – get this… DOWNTOWN! My house is downtown! I’m also a native. Your insistence that anyone with my opinions must be an “evil developer” really highlights how illogical and emotional your viewpoint is.
Who will come visit SB if all we have is a tiny funk zone to offer? We already have a pretty lousy entertainment scene. State is pretty much where tourist go. I hope you people aren’t expecting to have tourist come all the way over here for Ross and Target. No more people. No more high density housing.
So SBROSES, tell just how many more AUDs, ADUs, condos, apartment complexes, etc. do we need in your opinion. You do realize that whatever that number is, it will not meet demand and then we’re back to square one, with all of us with a quality of life that’s a little more degraded, our streets a little more clogged with cars, our water supply even more insecure, with housing that is still more than most can afford. Our city council should be ashamed of themselves for trying to push this through without the public’s input ( not that they ever listen to ‘the public’) under cover of an unprecedented health emergency.
So SBROSES, tell just how many more AUDs, ADUs, condos, apartment complexes, etc. do we need in your opinion. You do realize that whatever that number is, it will not meet demand and then we’re back to square one, with all of us with a quality of life that’s a little more degraded, our streets a little more clogged with cars, our water supply even more insecure, with housing that is still more than most can afford. Our city council should be ashamed of themselves for trying to push this through without the public’s input ( not that they ever listen to ‘the public’) under cover of an unprecedented health emergency.
So SBROSES, tell just how many more AUDs, ADUs, condos, apartment complexes, etc. do we need in your opinion. You do realize that whatever that number is, it will not meet demand and then we’re back to square one, with all of us with a quality of life that’s a little more degraded, our streets a little more clogged with cars, our water supply even more insecure, with housing that is still more than most can afford. Our city council should be ashamed of themselves for trying to push this through without the public’s input ( not that they ever listen to ‘the public’) under cover of an unprecedented health emergency.
So SBROSES, tell me just how many more AUDs, ADUs, condos, apartment complexes, etc. do we need in your opinion. You do realize that whatever that number is, it will not meet demand and then we’re back to square one, with all of us with a quality of life that’s a little more degraded, our streets a little more clogged with cars, our water supply even more insecure, with housing that is still more than most can afford. Our city council should be ashamed of themselves for trying to push this through without the public’s input ( not that they ever listen to ‘the public’) under cover of an unprecedented health emergency.
So, with unmistakable correlation between housing density and high death rates from the current pandemic our local politicians will continue to insist on increasing housing density.
“This new plan involves removes the option for public outreach and will not include full-scale public workshops…” meaning that they are going to refuse to listen to the Santa Barbara taxpayers.
“The changes would include adding high density… , allow housing developers to pay in-lieu fees instead of providing required on-site parking, allow unbundled parking for multi-unit residential development (parking spaces leased separately from housing unit), increase the maximum building height from 45 to 48 feet, and eliminate the open yard requirement on properties between Chapala and Anacapa Streets.” This sentence speaks for itself as bad enough.
The SB City Council is attempting to make Santa Barbara like New York. “Let’s bring this epidemic to Santa Barbara”…seems to be their rallying cry.
The only “outcry” that councilmember Harmon may have heard is an echo of herself. She’s a newcomer to Santa Barbara, got on the council by appointment (thanks, Jason Dominguez) and then, as Oscar Gutierrez, was unopposed in the election. Bottom line, she’s there, NEVER having gone through an election. …She certainly knows how to play the DCC game and is no fool — the council job is parttime for her with her other job being a real estate/finance lawyer. Noone but developers (as Brian Cernal) has supported having not even a tiny balcony on these proposed downtown developments. And as for having a car, not so much: parking is going to be in short supply — and it’s expected that the millennial tenants will use UBER/LYFT. (That’s the same old, same old: do as I say, not as I do: one doesn’t see Cearnal and Rob Dayton and most of the other supporters of little to no parking for these downtown units biking to meetings or, Dayton, work.)
Shoppers are expected to go to Goleta (Ross, Target, CostCo and many more.) Dense housing, with a section of it affordable is what is intended for State Street. The shopping probably will be grocery shops and a few KnickKnacks. It’s unlikely that tourists will want to visit Santa Barbara just to see dense AUD housing downtown, no matter how attractively designed.
I would be in favor of having a vote on these AUD amendments, but NOT just by those living in the CBD condos now. A city-wide vote, since the proposed changes will change greatly the SB character. That may be a good thing; it may not be, also — but it will be a significant change which, like the Measure B, height limit proposed, was a city-wide ballot measure. All agree, that there’s too much retail now downtown. Likely what will come will be more offices, as well as residences — and, likely, a some life-needs, groceries, pharmacies, immed-medical, and, hopefully, movie theaters and restaurants. The housing that is needed for Santa Barbara is affordable and Affordable housing. This Covid-19 crisis has shown that higher/high densities is an environment much more attractive to the virus. Eliminating balconies is extremely short-sighted.
SB used to have Charm… every time I see a charming place go out of business, it’s replaced by upscale superclean-design. ‘exposed warehouse’ style buildings, metal chairs with no cushion…
if you live in the CBD.. your local food store options will be…. Ralphs, Riteaid, the 99 store.
2/3 of those are sketchy at best and already running at pretty full capacity, long lines, just barely keeping up with restocking (prepandemic)
most will truck over to TJ’s … which already are pretty packed places…
There is in fact not necessarily that correlation – in any meaningful way. Please look at Taiwan, Hong Kong, South Korea… do I need to keep going?
Did you even bother reading what I wrote? I specifically advocated for new AUD apartment buildings in the CBD only. I did not advocate for ADUs, or new condos or apartments anywhere except in a specific downtown district. What’s your plan?
Sorry, I was not clear. Thank you for highlighting this for me. Regarding a vote, what I meant to say is the following: we should consider allowing existing condo buildings in the CBD to be rezoned to allow for additional density. Many of their HOAs also prohibit things like erecting walls within (huge) apartments to create an additional bedroom, so I believe the HOAs should allow – upon rezoning from the city – to vote to suspend those regulations within their buildings. I suspect such cavernous yet low-bedroom units were NOT the desires of the original developers and in fact were a concession to the city which at the time they were built restricted density further than we do now. What is has done is create a huge amount of what is basically useless housing for SB. Very large, very expensive, very specific one bedroom condos that don’t appeal to almost anyone. Many are as large as 1200, 1500, even 1700 SF. It’s a ridiculous waste of space. I do not oppose any city-wide vote or voter input. I do not necessarily agree with the decision to remove the public’s ability to weigh in either.
I remain infinitely confused by everyone’s concept that having more people living downtown means downtown continues to decay. It literally doesn’t make any sense. The types of people who would be living in this housing are the types who live in existing AUD housing. Do you know any of them? I do. I know people who live at Arlington Village, the first building built under the AUD program. They’re local professionals, some with small businesses, working in a variety of industries. They frequent (or did before COVID) restaurants and shops downtown. Some are even families. Most have one car. At least one that I know has no car at all. The block outside the building is not jammed with cars when it’s not business hours. Who do you think is going to live in these buildings? Bums and riff raff and sleaze? It’s people like my husband’s coworkers who are highly paid young professionals working for valuable local businesses. They want to spend money. They want to shop and dine out and buy coffees. Can you explain to me where you think they should live? Because currently far too many of them have to live in Ventura because it’s the only place you can find housing that isn’t absolutely foul and won’t bankrupt them even on their professionals’ salaries. Seriously, are you people renters? Do you know what it’s like out there? Our housing stock is disgusting and has barely been updated since the 70s. It’s absolutely grim. It sounds like too many of you are out of touch with reality. You formed your ideas decades ago, got locked in on some property, never want to see anything in the entire world change, and haven’t kept up with what is actually going on in town, and in the economy at large – nationally and internationally. Where do you get your information? Endless downvotes on my complete rational, based-in-reality ideas show just how out of touch many people here are. You can continue to bury your head in the sand and deny that population is growing everywhere, believing in some fantasy that you can restrict growth here forever, or you can get ahead of it and help direct it in a way that pleases you and helps keep Santa Barbara mostly as it is. It sounds like most of you would rather let this town rot than to see one thing change. Sickening.
Unfortunately, over the preceding decades the powers that be gave away some of the most prime downtown real estate to subsidized housing and/ or other publicly funded facilities. Removing them forever from the tax rolls and the market conditions that produce a level field. So the problem isnt necessarily about building more housing downtown as it is about the market forcing $1-2m condos to be built next right next to Section 8 housing or some random parking lot or crappy apartment building from 1960. Do you know anyone willing to spend $10+k a month to live next to low income housing? This barely works in a city like San Francisco, where jobs pay 3x what they pay here. Its never going to work in SB with the current makeup of SB’s downtown population and economics. The current makeup of the downtown is a design out of 1975, managed by a team living in 1995 while heading towards a 1930’s fate…
Ha, I love your take SBObserver. I agree re: the past giveaway of much prime downtown real estate. It’s a shame.
The faster the fees come in, the faster the pension funds will fill up. Money is what the employees of government respond to and they have a knack for the smell of it. I have lost a lot of respect for this government in the past five years.
“New housing in a central district enables us to house workers for companies and industries that keep us relevant and make us thrive. “
Unfortunately most of those companies are in Goleta. There are far better ways to build additional housing downtown than these big ugly blocky looking buildings with tiny overpriced apartments which many cannot afford. The AUD program is a failure. It should be canned not fast tracked.
Exactly 5:13! I go downtown a lot, I eat there and shop quite often even though it can get pretty nasty at times. If they build houses with “shops” (which will be mostly tech offices and hipster coffee places no doubt) underneath I will mostly likely never go downtown again. Visitors will get word that our downtown is gone and go else where. State needs help but I don’t think 500sq ft box apartments are the solution. The city only wants this because it means money in their pockets.
How about requiring a citizen vote on this instead of a vote from the bought and paid for SB City Council?
“In-Lieu” fees is a great idea – how about $1/hour, first 90-minutes free.
Makes a bad idea even worse!!!!!
Let’s not kid ourselves; the AUDs will be second or weekend homes for out of towners, just like many of the “affordable by design” housing already is.
All I need to see is “allow housing developers to pay in-lieu fees instead of providing required on-site parking.” What a crock. I once lived in an old Jim Del Monte divided-up Victorian with 9 units and no off-street parking. Most people had room-mates, so at least 15 cars parking on the block from that one house. It was only possible to find parking after all the day workers left downtown, and usually if I drove somewhere during the day I parked more than a block from the house when I got back. No “in-lieu fee” makes up for making more neighborhoods impacted with high density.
There has been a lot of opportunity for public input over the past 2 -3 years. Many PC and Council hearings on this. Decisions were made based on those hearings. This just seems to be implementing those decisions.
Over one hundred years of careful and thoughtful planning to make and keep Santa Barbara unique, preserving the beautiful views of the ocean, islands and mountains, requiring setbacks to keep the streets from becoming like canyons and the realization that our infrastructure can only handle so many residents – all flushed down the toilet by the last 30 years of Council and Planning ignorance. Goodbye Santa Barbara and welcome to Santa BarAngeles.
the Hotel district at the bottom of State..removed so many sightlines. now, in order to see a view of the mountains, you have to walk all the way out to the dolphin fountain… which is basically a permanent homeless squat.
Outdoor space needs to be an extension of every living space. No one wants to live inside of a block of overpriced, window-less rodent caging – with no parking. It is utterly senseless to continue to bulk up housing projects with commercial spaces on the ground floors, with the glut of unoccupied commercial space on State Street. The sight lines to the Santa Ynez mountain range must be preserved. How to reign in Mayor Murillo? When is that idiot up for re-election?
Who will be able to afford these units, most of which will be at market rates?
Megan Harmon puzzles me… at least the others have, for the most part spent decades or their entire lives in Sb and while their vote bothers me, they do have some perspective. But Harmon literally moved here to pursue a political career. She needs to do some homework, before mistakenly believing that whatever “outcry” she hears from her developer/builder supporters truly penetrates the average resident of Santa Barbara. I know she sees herself as a great visionary but really- take a step back please.
Not everyone wants or needs outdoor open areas. If you want open garden style apartments then don’t choose one that doesn’t have the amenities that you want. Simple.
There is a lot of parking existing downtown in the unused portions of the city parking lots. It would be simple to rent parking spaces on a long-term basis to those wanting to live in the downtown area but wanting to have a car(s) too. This is down in many towns and cities. We could do that too if the city staff wanted to.
The AUD apartments that have been built are NOT second homes. Virtually all – if not entirely all – are primary homes. They are rentals. They are extremely expensive for what they are, for numerous reasons. But they are not second homes like the even more terribly overpriced condos downtown. Many of those are entirely empty most of the year because the owners never visit.
The parking police on this website don’t want to hear truth. I haven’t spent more than 3 minutes looking for a parking spot even during Fiesta. They don’t want to park past the second level of a parking structure or actually have to parallel park versus pull up along a wide-open curb so they’ve convinced themselves there are massive parking problems here because there are more cars here than there were in 1982.
3:27 what is the solution to downtown then? Please, you should share your opinions and ideas. The dramatic hyperbole here is astounding. You will “never go downtown” again if we get an independent coffee shop. Um, ok.
Lucky777 you have a point regarding providing NO off-street parking but no one is advocating for that. The city has severe rules about how many parking spots per square footage, etc. you must provide. Technically I am suppose to have like 2 or 3 or something for my tiny house? We have one car. So far the math for these buildings has penciled out such that all units have at least one parking spot, but perhaps some with 2 bedrooms will not offer TWO parking spots included in the lease. No one is advocating for building huge apartment buildings with zero parking included. And for those who wonder how housing gets so expensive, look into the costs of developing subterranean parking. It adds an incredible amount to the cost of each unit. This is why developers are looking for ways to work with creating parking at the existing ground level only in order to help keeps costs lower which equals lower rents.
I mean, she’s from Lompoc or somewhere up there. She’s not totally random. I agree – why not take it to a vote and see what happens. EdHat is an echo chamber. I hate to break it to you but this is actually what a majority of people would vote for.
Always with the hyperbole. Everyone on this forsaken website.
Anybody that wants to experience how SB will be in the future if they don’t require adequate parking or provide adequate transit, drive through the Westside neighborhood between Cliff and Carrillo/Meigs in the evening after all of the workers are home. Nary a parking space to be found. People using their cars to block spaces for their relatives to use later on. There’s got to be a better way.