Santa Barbara has a long history of limiting building heights. It began with the Santa Barbara City Planning Commission, which was created in 1923, one of the earliest in the country.
In 1924 a Building Zone Ordinance was adopted which permitted six stories and 80 feet in commercial and manufacturing zones. The great earthquake occurred in June, 1925, and the new building code and zoning ordinance were put to an unforeseen amount of use.
Prior to the earthquake and the zoning ordinance, a few tall buildings were constructed downtown. The Granada Building—116 feet—was built in 1923. Architectural historian David Gebhard wrote, “The construction of the eight-story Granada Building ... stood as an object lesson as to how the Hispanic character could be more easily destroyed by inappropriately scaled buildings than by structures whose image was not Spanish.”
The Masonic Temple on East Carrillo Street—67 feet—and the new Lobero Theatre—70 feet to the top of its stagehouse—were built in 1924.
Then, on June 26, 1930, the first “comprehensive” zoning ordinance was adopted by the City Council. It lowered the maximum allowable heights to four stories and 60 feet in the general commercial and manufacturing/industrial zones; to three stories and 45 feet in multiple-family zones; and to two stories and 30 feet in single-family and two-family zones. These regulations remain in effect today.
Variances Granted: In the 1960s the City Planning Commission found itself considering applications for variances from the zoning ordinance’s permitted building heights. One of the most visible buildings granted relief was the 88’ Suski Building next to historic El Paseo at 820 State Street.
Height variances were also granted to the 45-foot limit to two apartment properties on East Anapamu, one at 48 feet and the other at 55 feet. In 1966 and later, Cottage Hospital was granted permission to build to 81 feet and 72 feet in a 45-foot zone.
The El Mirasol Case: In 1967 the owner of the El Mirasol Hotel, a full city block on East Micheltorena Street where Alice Keck Park Memorial Gardens are now, applied for a variance to permit nine stories. Many were opposed, and the Planning Commission denied the application.
A partnership applied for a variance the following year for an eleven-story condominium project, a “tower in the park.” At the Planning Commission’s hearing in October 1968, an opposition petition of 1,008 signatures was submitted. The Commission found that it could not make the four findings required for approval of a variance, and the request was denied.
The applicants appealed to City Council. A citizens’ committee was formed which included Pearl Chase and the League of Women Voters. The committee called for a City policy on high-rise. The appeal was withdrawn in order to revise the plans.
Shortly thereafter another variance application was filed; this request was for two nine-story condominium buildings, 107 feet tall. Tensions and pressures rose; meetings were held; advertisements and letters appeared in the press. In February 1969, the same application was re-filed and the following month the Planning Commission voted 4-3 to deny the variance, being unable to make the required findings.
The applicants filed an appeal, and on March 25, 1969, the City Council overruled the Planning Commission, granting the variance on a 4-2 vote. However, the motion did not contain findings that the four required variance conditions had been met.
Opponents successfully obtained a court order prohibiting start of construction, and three citizens residing in the El Mirasol neighborhood filed a petition in Superior Court to have the Council decision set aside. On July 8, 1969, the judge said he could find no evidence to sustain a presumption that the City Council had somehow made variance findings.
Subsequent Building Heights Activity: A three-meeting forum called “Should Santa Barbara Go High-Rise?” was held in the spring of 1970, with 14 cooperating organizations and a large attendance. A City General Plan Goals Committee recommended that the current building height limits be incorporated into the City Charter.
In early 1972, the Planning Commission and City Council adopted an amendment which recommended that the present building height maximums be maintained or reduced in certain areas, such as El Pueblo Viejo.
Later that year City Council voted 6-1 to place a measure on the ballot. It carried on a vote of 26,499 to 8,048. The opening lines read, “It is hereby declared the policy of the City that high buildings are inimical to the basic residential and historical character of the City.”
Both the current and proposed charter amendments do not contain limitations in stories, just in measurements. The ordinance definition of “building height” provides that unoccupied towers, steeples, and similar features are exempt from the height limit.
Thirty-foot limits in single and two-family zones would not be changed. Measure B is a continuation of the public’s efforts to regulate building heights and enhance community character.
The author is a native Santa Barbaran who was employed by the City Planning Department for over 35 years. She is a local historian.
Double-clicking on any word or phrase in this story will open a reference window with definitions and links to other reference material.

Print friendly
E-mail story
Tip Us Off
iPod friendly
Comments
Bookmark This
Previous Month


Comments
Discussion Guidelines
I see that the author, Mary Louise Days, is listed as a supporter at the Yes on B website.
What is the point of her letter? City planning commissioners have always considered & debated project heights, that's their job. There is nothing in that history to justify the ill-conceived and heavy-handed Measure B.
As the Indy said in their "No on B" endorsement, Measure B is a blunt instrument where a scalpel is needed.
Readers say: Thumbs Up: 1 of 2 • Thumbs Down: 1 of 2
EastBeach (anonymous profile)
October 9, 2009 at 1:11 a.m. (Suggest removal)
This comprehensive history of Santa Barbara’s regulation of building heights clearly illustrates how the current Measure B issues bear no relation to the historic examples cited.
The historic tall buildings referenced in this article which had prompted city action were clearly beyond the height range of the majority of the existing buildings of their day. For over 30 years there have been no projects proposed to compare with the 8-story Granada Building or the 9-story condominium towers at the current Alice Keck Park Gardens site. These examples, at 116 and 107 feet respectively, are examples of true “high rises”.
Measure B intends to lower the maximum building heights in the downtown core to 40’. This is lower than over 1/3 of the examples of “good design” in the El Pueblo Viejo design guideline handbook. Not just the Arlington and Lobero Theatres, but the News-Press Building, Montecito Bank and Trust Building, the Santa Barbara Mission, the Lobero Building, and many other landmark buildings exceed this arbitrarily low limit. To compare Measure B's proposed height limits to those enacted historically is as inaccurate and misleading as Measure B proponents describing a 3- or 4-story building as a “high-rise”.
Readers say: Thumbs Up: 1 of 2 • Thumbs Down: 1 of 2
sbperspective (anonymous profile)
October 9, 2009 at 1:58 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Good info sbperspective.
I wish more architects and designers would speak out on this issue with info like that.
In my opinion, the Measure B folks are campaigning based on emotions and fear. I'd love to hear an honest justification of Measure B from an architect/designer who thinks that it has any real benefit. Why limit a single design parameter among many? Is it more for political expediency than anything else?
Readers say: Thumbs Up: 0 of 0 • Thumbs Down: 0 of 0
EastBeach (anonymous profile)
October 9, 2009 at 4:15 p.m. (Suggest removal)
East Beach - hang on... drum roll.... We AGREE!
Measure B is stupid, actually, it's insulting to our intelligence and implies we cannot "review" buildings on a case by case basis using guidelines that Pearl Chase herself helped put in place.
For all who don't know enough about the issue, just don't vote. For those who have questions, be careful who you listen to. Fearmongers don't have to tell the truth (and they don't!) YOUR future city will be short squatty boxes... not buildings... if Measure B passes.
Readers say: Thumbs Up: 0 of 1 • Thumbs Down: 1 of 1
maximum (anonymous profile)
October 9, 2009 at 7:11 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Interesting how close the "Tower in the Park" was to becoming a reality. Would anyone like 107 feet where Alice Keck Park is located? There would go the mountains and the view, and why is it we live here in Santa Barbara?
Readers say: Thumbs Up: 1 of 1 • Thumbs Down: 0 of 1
contactjohn (anonymous profile)
October 10, 2009 at 8:28 p.m. (Suggest removal)
As Measure B would limit heights, applications for a higher building variance should be based on the merits. It is pretty ridiculous to say we would not rebuild the Arlington, there is an historical precedent. But we can get along without the mandate for 60 feet and hear the arguments for the higher variances and take that on a case by case basis.
Readers say: Thumbs Up: 1 of 1 • Thumbs Down: 0 of 1
contactjohn (anonymous profile)
October 10, 2009 at 8:37 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Building heights are currently limited by city charter to 60’ in commercial zones. As such, it is not currently possible to obtain a variance to build either a 61’ building, or a 107’ building, anywhere in the city. Measure B is a Charter Amendment proposal, which will reduce this absolute limit to 40’ in the downtown area. As part of the city charter, no variances would be possible to allow buildings higher than 40’ anywhere in the city for any reason (including for Cottage Hospital), or to rebuild a destroyed over-40’ city landmark.
Readers say: Thumbs Up: 0 of 1 • Thumbs Down: 1 of 1
sbperspective (anonymous profile)
October 11, 2009 at 10:43 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Correction: no variances would be possible to allow buildings higher than 45' anywhere in the city for any reason (including for Cottage Hospital), or to rebuild a destroyed over-40' downtown city landmark.
Readers say: Thumbs Up: 0 of 1 • Thumbs Down: 1 of 1
sbperspective (anonymous profile)
October 11, 2009 at 10:57 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I just watched the Measure B town hall debate on City TV. Stan Roden was the moderator and there were two panelists on each side of the debate. Dave Davies was on the No side and Sheila Lodge was on the Yes side.
The clincher for me was when Sheila Lodge admitted that Cottage Hospital's pavillion wing, which is a backstop planned for future expansion when the community needs it, would not be buildable if Measure B passes!!!
A representative of Cottage Hospital (I think he was a vice president of the non-profit) was in the audience and had asked the question which prompted Lodge's response. It was clear the Cottage rep was very concerned.
The only way Cottage could get that pavillion built under Measure B is if a city-wide election were held. Think about that ... we would have to go through the expense of a regular or special election (don't forget each side would have to marshal their forces and spend money on campaigning). And we would leave the building of an important community resource up to the whims of the voters.
That is a serious flaw in Measure B.
Readers say: Thumbs Up: 1 of 2 • Thumbs Down: 1 of 2
EastBeach (anonymous profile)
October 11, 2009 at 2:10 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Post a comment