CityofSantaBarbaraSource: City of Santa Barbara
The City’s Land Development Team is seeking input following changes to the development review process. We are launching a Land Development Customer Experience Survey to get feedback on this past year’s changes and to request additional input on ways to continue to improve and expand our services. This survey is for both our “frequent flyer” customers as well as infrequent or one-time permit seekers.
This survey is for people who have done business with the City of Santa Barbara land development process at least once since July 2020 (in the past 14 months or so), when some changes to the process were made. Please answer the following questions to the best of your ability based on your own experience and opinion. There are no right or wrong answers and your responses are confidential. Instructions for submitting any additional comments you may have can be found at the end of the survey. Thank you!
Newsom (right after he survived the recall) obliterated density zoning restrictions. The “progressive” fools can now QUADRUPLE development on a single-family-dwelling lot. And the city can do nothing to stop it.
I guess maybe we should all build big 2nd units with windows looking into each other’s living rooms, and then rent or sell to cash in on the crazy house prices. Parking is going to be fun, too.
I understand the need for more housing, but densifying single family neighborhoods is not the solution to me. It seems like well-built multi-story apartment buildings along with more neighborhood parks is a better solution.
Santa Barbara’s development policies have been catastrophic, resulting in the severe housing shortage we are facing now. The new state laws are not perfect, but they will result in the construction of a lot of desperately needed housing units. It’s a shame the city could not have done a better job managing the construction of housing over the last few decades. Instead, the city abused its power to regulate housing development. Now the city’s authority has been revoked. Make way for the lot splits, duplexes, and ADUs.
They’ll complain about those consequences yet continue voting for representatives that put party politics ahead of their constituents.
It’s telling that neither Limon or Bennett voted on these two bills when they were going through the state legislature. They were part of several state reps with no vote recorded. Sad they couldn’t stand up for their communities because of the need to tow the party line.
We dont need any more people. We dont need any more homes. The only natural barrier to over population in today’s world is to limit building. Which puts market pressure on the value and if there is demand – of which there is plenty, prices will naturally balance. Money is the only real equalizer in the housing market. Its colorblind and allows anyone with it to purchase what they can, where they choose. Its not the Government or your neighbors duty to support you in your life. What makes this place special, is its character and its natural population cap. Our roads, our neighborhoods, our highways, our infrastructure is not equipped for more residents. Keep it expensive. Make it special. Make it hard. Nothing good in life comes easy.
Solutions are above Chip’s pay grade. He’s in charge of complaining.
There are plenty of homes on 1/2acre+ lots through out the city and the county. Some people want to be in a crowded neighborhood for the lifestyle, others for the energy. But if you want peace and privacy you will need to seek out peace and privacy. Those small Westside houses are insanely overpriced right now. Maybe its time for you to sell your humble abode and find your Eden to avoid the very thing you hate?
Here’s a winning formula: first invite everyone to live here by declaring yourself a Sanctuary City/State. Now, when you realize there are too many people chasing too little real estate, throw out 100 years of local zoning laws. And while you are at it, don’t require any new infrastructure to support all the people/building. That is winning formula our politicians have given us. What could go wrong?
Who elects these incompetents?
Bumblebee – have you served in any public office or fashion – or are you just whining?
Bumblebee, this is not a break from 100 years of zoning. Until the 1970s, people commonly converted old homes into apartment buildings, and even built apartment complexes.
Voters can absolutely pass a ballot initiative to counteract SB9, and if done correctly the legislature couldn’t implement any similar law again. We could call it the “making housing unobtainable for the working class forever” act.
You elect them and keep electing them. Do the names Hannah-Beth Jackson, Das Williams, Monique Limon or Steve Bennett have any meaning to you? They are the “state” who writes this legislation, even if they cop out and only vote “abstain”. They do not vote no, they vote abstain to avoid personal responsibility locally, while their party ensured them this would pass without their votes anyway. They try to have it both ways. Our very own local elected representatives, this chronically revolving door of the same names and the exact same party, play it down the middle to not ruin their own re-election here, and maintain their party’s backing in Sacramento. They are “the state” who tells us what to do. Remember their names. No one should give them a free pass on this one.
Courts are constantly over-turning ballot initiatives we want; yet cramming down legislation we don’t want. We now have dysfunctional disconnect passing for our “government”.
We don’t need to keep growing the major sources of employment in this town: bloated government employment and bloated health industry employment.
Solution: close the borders, disband sanctuary cities and throw out the “progressives”.
Who has done a pro forma on how this loss of protected SFR changes current property tax revenues – when current $2 million SFR property turns into a four-to eight flex properties? Will the property taxes be the same, or will the underlying value of the land as a four flex or eight flex be higher or lower than the current property tax it generates? I assume this “improvement” will lead to an increase in property taxes for that parcel, even though there are now more people who will be paying the tax rate. Whereas the neighboring SFR property values will most likely suffer a strong decrease in value now being in a multi-family R-4 type zone, which should demand a reassessment. Unless they too are now forced into a “highest and best” use valuation of their former SFR property and must now be taxed as a 4-8 plex property
The upside it no one wants to become a landlord anywhere in this state – laws are totally stacked against the landlord. One bad tenant, and one never wants to rent to anyone again. So these SFR will be sold larger rental operations or with the intent they will be sold to a property developer to turn into multi-plex rentals, as they are right now – notice the names in the real estate sales listings. No longer individuals; but limited liability corporations. The heart of this city will have finally been torn out – the one that used to thrive on community volunteerism and community engagement. Now it will be a mass of anonymous owners, fly by night renters while still demanding the premium rental rates because these are no longer homes; they are frank investments and have a bottom line to meet. Willing buyer meets willing seller. The buyers with the bucks have arrived. So don’t kid yourself this is going to open up new “affordable” housing – except when willing buyer meets willing seller, it is affordable. Voters knew this was coming – they had a chance to put some brakes on this and at least get a veto with a new governor. But that was not the will of the voters. Now only the law of unintended consequences is prevailing, and the need for government operations to keep property tax revenues at their max which does not allow for more subsidized housing – only open market rate housing can do that. Until it finally devours itself and over-exploitation makes the entire area undesirable. Like Oxnard/Ventura.
Chip, splitting random SFH lots into two sets of duplexes isn’t going to make SB, or California, any more affordable. There are about 50 other interventions we could take to make housing more affordable, but they’re far more “radical” than the capitalist SB9 and thus we won’t enact them. Ironically the “progressives” (who are really just neoliberal shills) will promote policies like SB9 that barely make a dent in rents, if at all, while lining the pockets of the literal capitalists who own the properties being redeveloped. Best estimates from progressive analysis indicate that a 1% increase in housing supply decreases rents by 0.4-0.7% which means in order to reduce housing costs by 50%, we’d need to increase our housing supply here by 80+%. SB9 will have no positive effect on bringing housing costs down. You’ll see. Meanwhile, many people who worked hard and love their homes and quiet, peaceful neighborhoods will see their rights as locals to self-determine anything stripped and their areas forever degraded. One can support the building of new housing, including high density housing and mixed-use zoning and buildings, without forcing high density down the throats of existing SFH dwellers. I’d rather see us put tax payer dollars toward supplying workforce housing and running local housing authorities for this purpose than spend $100,000 a person a year renting motels for the homeless and bulldozing single family homes to build fourplexes that will not in any way benefit the working class.
Elections have consequences. Hannah-Beth Jackson and Monique Limon did this to you.
Pit, our city has steadfastly opposed development since the 1970s and was very successful at it. After decades of burdensome permitting processes, subjective architectural review requirements, and expensive additions to the building code, we now have a severe housing crisis. In response, the state has voided local restrictions. Homeowners can now add ADUs, and the city can’t do much to stop them. Single family zoning is now void along with any CC&Rs that would interfere with building and renting ADUs. In addition, the governor celebrated his landslide win in the recall election by signing SB 9 which will allow property owners to split their lots and build a duplex (possibly up to four units with ADUs) on each resulting new parcel. If a property is in the city or an unincorporated urban area, the owner can split it into two lots of roughly equal size as long as the lots are at least 1200 square feet. That’s small even by Santa Barbara standards. Your neighbor could build a lot more than a second story, and there won’t be any more city council meetings to review and approve their plans. Per state law, any proposal that complies with the rules must be approved.
Santa Barbara voters back in the 1970’s conducted an advisory vote election, which stated they did not want this town to grow to more than an 80,000 population. Planning documents and development policy reflected this advisory sentiment. No law was enacted to limit population; but a clear majority of voters stated their wishes. Slow growth was the will of the people. And remains so even today. Ventura offers the same weather and ocean location,, but does allow a lot more growth, density and building height. If this is what you want, then there are options out there, so there no reason to turn Santa Barbara into Ventura County.
The “progressives” are killing the goose that lays golden eggs. Sad to see the haters win. They ruin everything they touch. Established neighborhoods are just the latest victim of the destructive “progressive” mindset.
Lava, sb9 says it’s based on the census bureau’s urban area maps, which are available on their website. Hope ranch falls entirely within the urban area, and much of montecito does as well. Plenty of opportunity there to split lots and add rental units. In addition, these new laws void cc&rs so HOAs or can’t stop the construction of these units. One major restriction is the owner who splits a lot is required to live in one of the units for 3 years. This is supposed to prevent big developers from being able to split lots under the new law.
Solution: Get rid of the reightwingers and their biases posing as policies.
Classic progressive: accuse others for exactly what you are guilty of.
Too late. The flock of sheep elected these looney progressives. Now we all suffer the damaging consequences
JOEG – you mean like accusing Democrats of rigging the 2020 election when Republican officials actually committed voter fraud?
Joe, I know it might be a stretch for you but one cannot be a Progressive and a Sheep… Sheep are ones who follow their leaders blindly regardless of what the leaders do or say. Progressives are more like Goats. More intelligent and independent but exceptionally needy. Today’s Right blindly follows their leaders (talk show host, reality TV stars, narcissists, Warmongers) to slaughter as their policies and their politics have nothing to do with or for the people. The GOP politicians routinely say one thing while doing the exact opposite, knowing fair well that their voters are not smart enough to pay mind to such things as actual policy… They know that their base thrives on ideology, that they can only handle simple ideas and concepts. And unless you earn more than $1m a year, you’re not even a GOP constituent in their mind. You’re their sheep, in their flock, being led and fed so that they lead you to slaughter.
We’re talking about SB9 and how it will ruin neighborhoods. Again, classic progressive tactic to change the subject. Progressives are ruining our state/country.
Aww, you poor thing JoeG. So sorry your life sucks. However, I do agree with you . Your life is profoundly miserable because all those “progressives” forced you to make really bad life choices…
JOEG – it’s not “changing the subject,” it’s responding directly to your claim that “progressives accuse others for exactly what you are guilty of.” I gave an example of how that statement is also applicable to conservatives. By the way, I’m not “a progressive,” but I do like progress, learning from history and not being selfish.