|
|
 |
|
2
0
0
3
|
| In our August newsletter we highlighted some ongoing
concerns about the County of Santa Barbara’s housing
element update. These concerns remain following our
review of the updated draft of the housing element released
at the end of August. In reading the document and placing
it in context of community needs and goals it strikes
us as disturbingly detached from reality.
These concerns fall into three main categories:
• The county’s push to convert open space
and agricultural land to high density housing is unwarranted,
unjustified and goes against the wishes of the majority
of the community.
• The development standards included in the housing
element, including four story buildings and reduced
parking requirements, are inappropriate for our neighborhoods.
• More oversight and scrutiny of the county’s
affordable housing program is necessary in order that
the public can be reasonably confident that the affordable
housing program is fulfilling its purpose.
|
|
| The effort to rezone agricultural
land to residential
As most of you know, the State of California
has assigned the County of Santa Barbara what
it has determined is our fair share of needed
state housing. This allocation for the unincorporated
area for the current 7 year planning period is
6,064 homes.
Data provided by the county show that a total
of 8,547 additional units could be applied for
and constructed under current
zoning in the unincorporated area. So, in essence,
the county’s current zoning can accommodate
40.9% more homes than the state requires.
At the same time the housing element clearly
states that “Santa Barbara County is committed
to preserving unique habitats, unspoiled lands
and agriculture” (page 39). This is reassuring
since this sentiment would appear to reflect the
overwhelming desire on the part of the community.
We have enough land available under current zoning
to provide for the homes the State requires and
we have a commitment from county government to
protect open spaces, including agricultural lands.
So what’s all the fuss about?
Of the 6,064 units that the State has allocated
to Santa Barbara County a certain amount of them
must be built to be affordable to low, very low
and moderate income applicants. The county believes
that the only reasonable way to provide subsidized
homes to these various income levels is to allow
high density development to take place. To do
so, they have identified several parcels in the
unincorporated area of Goleta that are currently
zoned as agriculture as possible locations of
high density housing.
PANA finds this approach illogical. Our commitment
to preserving open space should be just that –
a commitment. Before any discussion of converting
ag lands to high density housing takes place we
should be assessing the possibility of increasing
density on some of the lands currently zoned for
residential development. To take land zoned for
agriculture and compel its conversion to high
density housing is an extreme action that the
community needs to carefully consider before supporting.
There is one additional point that should be
noted. State law acknowledges that total housing
needs identified may exceed available resources
and the community’s ability to satisfy this
need. Under these circumstances, the quantified
objectives need not be identical to the
total housing needs. As way of translation, the
State target of 6,064 homes is not absolute. A
lesser, more realistic target can be aimed at.
The county has determined that the quantified
objective should be 4,618 homes. In light of our
ability to consider increasing the zoning density
of some of our land currently zoned residential
and the lowered expectations of our quantified
objectives, it is inappropriate for the county
to propose to rezone agricultural land to housing
at this time.
|
|
|
| The programs of the Affordable Housing Program
The Housing Element proposes new development standards
designed to ensure compatibility with surrounding neighborhoods.
PANA is pleased to see that the county is now emphasizing
its commitment to issues of compatibility. In the initial
draft of the housing element released in June this issue
was effectively ignored.
PANA continues to be concerned about many of these
standards. As we have mentioned repeatedly, there should
be no provision for four story buildings. Three story
buildings should be the very rare exception and only
if they receive support of the community. No matter
how they are designed, in the majority of cases of in-fill
development they are unlikely to be in any way compatible
with surrounding neighborhoods.
Reduced parking requirements for developments are not
appropriate. The persistence of this standard enables
developers to provide more housing but it comes at a
high cost to quality of life issues. Goleta already
has ample experience with the results of this approach.
Overflow parking from new, higher density developments
impact the surrounding neighborhoods. Any new developments
should be self-contained in this respect and not a burden
on adjacent areas.
The county has also proposed something called the Variable
Density Program. Under this program a studio would account
for .7 unit, a one bedroom would be .8 unit, a two bedroom
home would be .9 unit and a three bedroom home would
be 1.0 unit. The result would be that land zoned for
10 units per acre could actually have as many as 14
studio homes. This is a clever way of increasing density
but it will come at the expense of the surrounding areas
since it will create more traffic and parking problems.
This assertion is not based on speculation. In a Housing
Market Analysis prepared by the county in July of 2000
the difference in occupancy levels of two and three
bedroom units in a nearby development, the Positano
Apartments, was negligible. An average of 3.68 persons
lived in two bedroom units, 3.76 persons in three bedroom
units. In light of the facts, the variable density program
should be removed from the housing element. It is misleading
and will result in overcrowding.
PANA has other concerns about programs proposed in
the housing element such as in-lieu fees, set back reductions
and waivers of development fees. All of these will be
included in PANA’s response to the housing element
submitted to the county.
|
|
| Administering Affordable Homes Built
Whatever rezoning or design standards might be
decided upon, PANA feels that it is absolutely
essential that homes that are built and marketed
as affordable be administered in such a way that
they remain affordable. In too many instances
our affordable housing program is in effect producing
market rate homes. This undermines the whole argument
to build subsidized housing.
Here is an example of the affordable housing
program from our neighborhood: Six years ago the
Cathedral Pointe development was constructed at
the corner of Patterson and Cathedral Oaks. To
comply with the county’s affordable housing
requirements two units of subsidized housing were
built. Ownership of these two units was limited
to households making 50% of the median income,
so less than $30,000 per year. The terms of the
purchase agreements were that the homes could
not be sold at market values for 10 years. In
the housing element update the county bemoans
the fact that these two units of affordable housing
are “at-risk”. The lucky owners will
be able to sell their homes in four years time
and, at current values, will make profits in excess
of $600,000 each.
And this is not an isolated example.
Also “at-risk” are the 13 affordable
units in Forte Ranch and the 2 affordable units
in Sungate Ranch. Owners of these units have hit
the lottery and stand to make a tremendous amount
of money when resale restrictions expire in the
next few years. In the meantime, the community
will continue to struggle with building affordable
housing.
We do not understand why the county should expect
the community to support the building of affordable
housing if this is the result. Fortunately, the
county now proposes that affordable units must
be sold or rented at affordable levels for least
at 30-year periods, with a maximum of 60 years.
The county also needs to develop a program which
will monitor and enforce the covenants under which
affordable housing is sold because of past and
current abuses in the program (e.g. allowing affordable
homes be rented at market rates). Rather than
spending thousands of dollars to hire consultants
to “educate the public about housing need,”
the county should use this money to increase and
strengthen their oversight program.
For twenty years the county has included language
in the housing element that recognizes the importance
of annual evaluations of the effectiveness of
its programs. In the current housing element the
requirement for annual evaluation has been removed.
We feel that evaluation is as important now as
it has ever been and it should be once again included,
along with a commitment on the part of the county
to follow through with and actually prepare the
evaluations annually.
|
|
|
| Development along the Hollister Avenue Corridor
One recurring concern with the county’s desire
to see increased development along Hollister Avenue
is traffic congestion. Traffic engineers measure an
intersection’s efficiency and safety by balancing
volume and capacity and assigning it a letter grade
for its level of service with A being the highest grade.
There are three intersections in the entire south county
that are performing at the level of D. One of them is
Hollister at Patterson and another is Patterson at 101.
Therefore, concerns about traffic are well founded.
County planners often point to the availability of
public transportation along the Hollister Avenue corridor
and how this can be used to promote increased density.
This "transit oriented development" may be
a successful strategy in high-density urban areas along
frequently scheduled and conveniently routed bus lines,
but with no such public transit in place, it is hard
to understand how this method of alternative transportation
can be used to reduce congestion. And the county's further
assertion that the south coast properties mentioned
for affordable housing sites (i.e. San Marcos and MTD
sites) which are located near "rail centers, will
help to reduce commute times . . ." is preposterous!
Since when has rail ever factored into commuting options
on the south coast? At a minimum, the housing element
must be realistic in its assessment of alternative transportation
and its miniscule impact on congestion reduction.
For those wishing to examine further community housing
needs and transportation impacts, The Goleta Housing
Leadership Council will be sponsoring a forum on “Hollister
Avenue: Opportunities for Housing and Transit”
on Wednesday, September 24, 2003 at the Goleta Valley
Community Center from 7 to 9 PM. |
|
| The Noel Christmas Tree Farm
At the end of August the owners of the Noel Christmas
Tree Farm presented the county’s planning
commission with revised drawings of their proposed
housing development. This draft calls for 134
homes on the property, in considerable contrast
with earlier indications that the county wanted
to see plans for up to 300 homes. It is unclear
whether the county will be supportive of a development
at this new, reduced level. If this proves to
be the case, PANA will host a community meeting
to review the plans and get neighbors’ feedback.
|
|
|
| Better Late than Never
County planning staff should receive credit for their
recognition that “neighborhood organizations,
special need groups, and homeowner associations have
traditionally been underserved . . . [in] express[ing]
concern over potential impacts associated with new housing
development." The county's efforts to step up their
outreach this summer have helped make the public more
aware of the importance of their involvement in this
process.
For those interested in being heard and becoming a
part of the process, send your comments or suggestions
by September 26, 2003 on the county's draft housing
element, found at http://www.countyofsb.org/plandev/comp/programs/housing/2003/DraftHousingElement.html
to Jeff Lindgren at Jlindgr@co.santa-barbara.ca.us
or Alicia Harrison at Aharris@co.santa-barbara.ca.us
|
|
Dutcher Design 2003
|
 |
|
