|
|
 |
|
2
0
0
3
|
|  Happy
Holidays from PANA
The debate about housing, and particularly affordable
housing, continues to take place throughout Santa Barbara
County. At various times it is lively, contentious,
and emotional. All too often it is misleading and unproductive.
Simply put, land use planning mandated by the state
to accommodate growth is running headlong into neighborhood
concerns for wise and realistic planning. PANA has long
been involved with land-use decisions and how they can
be expected to impact our neighborhoods. The following
are some updates on current issues that we feel deserve
your attention.
|
|
| Housing Element Update- the requirement
to build more
On November 17 representatives from PANA met
with Supervisor Susan Rose, staff from the county’s
Planning and Development department and a handful
of other neighborhood associations to get an update
on the housing element. The housing allocation
for the unincorporated South Coast for the period
2001-2008 is 1,182 homes. Adjusting for housing
units that have been approved, pending or are
forecast, the county roughly estimates that they
need to rezone for 46 low-income units and 111
very low-income units to satisfy the State mandate.
It should be emphasized that these 157 units are
an estimate only. However, to get 157 units built
will require that an unknown number of market
rate units will have to be built to subsidize
the affordable units.
In an effort to find space for these 157 units
the county continues to attempt to link development
of the San Marcos Growers’ property on Hollister
to the update of the housing element. Further,
the county intends to make a considerable financial
commitment to hosting a land-use planning workshop
for it and some surrounding undeveloped properties.
PANA is supportive of the planning process and
we believe that a well-thought out plan with broad
community input would be valuable. We, however,
do not believe that the process should be “fast-tracked”
in order to be included with the housing element.
More than conducting a meeting with immediate
neighbors and the county we would suggest that
the planning effort take into account evolving
spheres of influence, potential annexation, probable
growth in the City of Goleta and UC Santa Barbara,
and the projected effects on traffic and circulation
patterns in the area. This is a reasonable approach.
Taking the time to do a thorough study will serve
the community well in the long run.
We are also aware that the argument to this approach
is that not rezoning the land would jeopardize
our ability to get the housing element certified
by the State. This response appears flawed for
a variety of reasons but most importantly because
State housing element law allows communities to
adjust their housing goal to a quantified objective.
We have to look no farther than the City of Santa
Barbara to see a community that has significantly
downsized their housing goals based on a long
list of constraints. The unincorporated area of
Goleta shares many of these same constraints.
At the end of the day, there can be very little
disagreement that we can satisfy (or come extraordinarily
close) to meeting our housing allotment without
needing to rezone any agricultural or open space
at this time.
|
|
|
| Housing Element Update-changing the nature
of our neighborhoods
Coupled with the housing element’s efforts to
rezone are design standards to regulate future construction.
Here are three proposed standards that we feel must
be deleted from the housing element.
1. Four story buildings. Buildings of this height are
totally out of character with in-fill projects in Goleta.
2. Reduced parking requirements. These have already
resulted in creating significant problems in recently
constructed projects in our region. The theoretical
level of car ownership has proven to be out of touch
with the every day reality. Carte blanche approval of
reduced parking requirements will have a very serious
impact on both the new developments and the older neighborhoods
they are set in.
3. The variable density program. This program is misleading
to the public and will rightfully generate hostility
as its impacts are felt. One unit must equal one unit,
not a fractional value thereof, so that our discussion
of zoning and development can be held on a level playing
field. For example, to describe a project to the community
as 100 units and then invoke the variable density program
to convert it to 130 units is a bad policy.
|
|
| The Noel Christmas Tree Farm
On October 28th PANA helped organize a neighborhood
meeting to listen to the latest development plans
for housing on the Noel Christmas Tree Farm. (For
those of you keeping track, this is version 11!)
Jeff Nelson, the developer hired by the Cavaletto’s,
described the plans for 134 units. The county
has not yet indicated if it would be supportive
of development at this proposed density. Many
neighbors continue to express considerable concern
about the project in terms of compatibility and
traffic impacts.
|
|
|
| The Rowe Property
Approximately 4 acres at Camino Campana and Kellogg,
currently being used to grow citrus, are slated to be
developed for 11 houses. The property owners are working
with local developer Trudi Carey (developer of the self-storage
units--Patterson All-Store and the soon-to-be developed
Patterson Packing at Calle Real and Patterson). Ms.
Carey has already met with the immediate neighbors and
it is anticipated that she will host a neighborhood
meeting in the near future to discuss these plans. PANA
will help publicize the meeting when details are available.
|
|
| Second Units
Getting less publicity than the housing element
but carrying its own promise of creating significant
change in our neighborhoods is Assembly Bill 1866,
which went into effect on July 1, 2003. This bill,
known as the Second Unit Ordinance, relaxed permitting
standards to facilitate the construction of second
units. You may have read articles in the local
newspapers how communities like Montecito and
the City of Goleta have taken steps to manage
the placement of these units into their neighborhoods.
Importantly, much of the support for AB 1866
was based on the promise that facilitating the
construction of 2nd units would provide additional
affordable housing. Make no mistake, it was an
empty promise. Santa Barbara County has made it
clear that their goal is to ensure that property
owners achieve a maximum return on their investment
by enlarging the allowable size of second units
that are subject to “ministerial”
(i.e. no public review) approval.
There is nothing wrong with property owners maximizing
the return on their investment. There is, however,
something wrong if this is done under the guise
of creating affordable housing and excluding public
comment from the permitting process. The impacts
of additional units are many and include the lack
of parking, loss of privacy and obstruction of
views to name a few. Eroding one homeowner’s
quality of life to maximize the profit potential
of another is intrinsically unfair and AB 1866
did just that by blindly rezoning long-established
neighborhoods that are the result of carefully
crafted zoning and design standards
Following on its heels is another pending bill,
AB 1160, which would further erode existing zoning
standards and diminish our ability to make land
use decisions at the local level. Crafted from
the perspective that one-size-fits-all, if enacted
this legislation would provide yet another example
of the failure to recognize the important but
sometimes subtle factors necessary to create a
vibrant, vital community and will instead degrade
community standards and ultimately destroy the
quality of life in and for our neighborhoods.
|
|
|
Dutcher Design 2003
|
 |
|
