- Home
- News Grid
- Local News
- Green Hawk
- Politics
- School Zone
- Youth Camps
- Nonprofits
- Missing Pets
- Multimedia
- Arts
- Movies
- Outdoors
- Sports
- News Releases
- Columnists
- Blogs
- Opinions
- Classifieds
- Advertise
- Donate
- Partners
Plan Santa Barbara Hears from Residents About Growth, Housing
About 100 people attended the first night of Plan Santa Barbara’s public workshop targeting density and affordable housing. The city’s housing policy doesn’t encourage middle-income units by offering subsidies, and there is no financial incentive to build standard units.
“The key policies we’re looking at today focus on future growth and the resources that are available to us,” said John Ledbetter, the city’s principal planner.
Affordable housing and community character also were on the list.
Many of the changes being proposed are for more dense residential projects that would be built in a “transit rich, very walkable and very walkable” downtown area. “We’ve heard across the board that people want to see smaller, more affordable units, not pricey luxury condominiums,” he said.
Maintaining the character of the community while increasing density and building more units is the challenge the city has been grappling with. “Today’s challenge is how close are we to encouraging this balance? That’s what we’re asking you,” Ledbetter said.
Dena Belzer, who works as an economist for Berkeley-based Strategic Economics, walked the public through the analysis she’s been working on that assesses the financial feasibility of building units targeted toward middle-income “work force” households.
“These are the people who work in Santa Barbara and fuel your knowledge-based economy in many ways,” she said. “This is a very important part of your community.”
Since no subsidies exist for this group and developers want to make a profit, Belzer’s group looked at a number of factors, including the real estate market and construction costs, and interviewed architects, developed a series of building scenarios and worked with city staff to see which would be the best.
Belzer’s model assumed that the units would be for sale, because that is the strongest market right now, and that they would not be rentals.
“If you assume rental, they don’t pencil out at all. In other places, this would not be considered a low or moderate income,” she said, and those people are still are not making enough money. “No one’s building housing for them.”
They found a demand for large luxury units but also a demand for nonluxury one- and two-bedroom units. “They’re not super big and super fancy, but would be built at a market rate,” she said.
They also tackled parking issues. Land costs are the same whether two or 25 units are built, so making smaller units would help instigate financial viability.
Belzer broke down the exact cost of those units in their model. An average luxury unit would sell for $1.4 million, a standard unit for $800,000 to $900,000, the work force units for $400,000 to $500,000 and a moderate unit for $300,000.
To put that in perspective with yearly salaries, a luxury unit buyer would need to earn $300,000, a standard unit buyer would make $200,000, a work force buyer $120,000 and a moderate buyer $80,000.
She then showed several scenarios for how the number of units related to developer profitability. The scenario with the most developer profitability of 15 percent had 62 units per acre.
Belzer said the study showed that the city would have to increase the number of units quite a bit to make the projects feasible.
During the meeting’s public feedback period, one commenter called the proposed increases to density “totally out of the question” and said Santa Barbara’s small-town character would not allow it.
Belzer said examples of that type of density can be seen in Minneapolis, Denver and San Franciscio, and Garden Court and Casas Las Fuentes are local projects that are subsidized but also serve as examples.
Anne Patterson, who recently retired from her position at the Public Health Department, said she was concerned about the community’s lack of work force housing. “The majority of my staff that worked in Santa Barbara did not live here,” she said, with most of them commuting from Ventura and Santa Maria. “It’s really a problem for lots of professionals and service workers.”
Cathy McCammon expressed concern that a 950-square-feet unit would be too small for families with children.
“Maybe those households are not so great for families with children,” Belzer said, but added that only a third of U.S. households include children younger than 18.
Eric Lohela, a 28-year-old city employee, said even though he makes well above the median income, there’s no way he’ll ever buy a house in Santa Barbara. “All of my friends are leaving because they can’t afford to live here,” he said.
Lohela also said that 950 square feet was quite large. “It can work and it would work for me personally,” he said.
The event, in the Faulkner Gallery of the Santa Barbara Central Library, will continue its public workshop at 6 p.m. Thursday.
— Noozhawk staff writer Lara Cooper can be reached at .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address).
Comments
Noozhawk's comments are moderated, but by posting here you accept your responsibility to follow our rules.
- No abusive, defamatory or libelous attacks. In plain English: No personal attacks.
- No vulgar or discriminatory language.
- If you do not follow these rules, don't be surprised if your comment is removed.
- Please use the Report Abuse button on offensive comments.
- Share what you know, ask about what you don't. Give us your eyewitness accounts, observations, background and history. Tell us what else you want to know about the story.
- Stay on the topic, PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK, and forgive people their spelling errors.
Noozhawk's intent is not to limit the discussion of our stories but to elevate it. Thank you for your respectful participation. Click here for our complete Terms of Use.
Comments are moderated, and will not appear until they've been approved.
» on 06.25.09 @ 02:24 AM
I remember a few decades back the talk was about “slow growth” and “rent control”. Today, all we see is out-of-control prices and increasing traffic jams.
The days of a laid back and affordable Santa Barbara are long gone. Too many people.
» on 06.25.09 @ 06:35 AM
Bill, Bill, Bill, there is not too many people here. The city has grown very slowly over the last 4 decades. That slow growth coupled with high demand and an outrageously expensive government control over building gave you your high prices. The traffic is a result of scuttling any attempt at expanding road and street capacity to accommodate what growth did occur. BTW, when was Santa Barbara ever affordable? Seems when I moved here before the no growth ninnies took over back in ’69 it was expensive then too. And laid back? Hell they were burning a bank in IV and the smell of tear gas covered the airport. No Bill not in recent memory. Maybe you are referring to the war days in the forties? A bit far back for me, but according to my father it was the city of the newlywed and nearly dead back then. Maybe that is when you are referring too?
The city says it is grappling with increasing residential units and density in the downtown core. No argument there. The building height limits they imposed make that process impossible, at least in an acceptable way.
» on 06.25.09 @ 07:33 AM
You can’t examine denser housing in a vacuum. Until you solve the problem of diminishing water supplies due to global warming, and how much local food we can produce on diminishing farmland, any talk of building more housing is premature.
Santa Barbara like anyplace has a finite carrying capacity for how many people can sustainably live in our regional watershed. That analysis has to be made before an isolated housing analysis is meaningful.
» on 06.25.09 @ 08:13 AM
Even with these “Accommodations” it is nearly impossible for someone making the median salary to purchase one of these homes. The issue is that in order to make $80,000 a year in this town you will be walking into the housing market with $120,000 worth of educational debt and that doesn’t even account for car loans and credit card debt. Let’s face the reality here: owning a home in Santa Barbara happens for people who inherit a home or inherit a trust. Unless there is a system that offers subsidies or businesses are encouraged (through tax incentives etc.) to offer low cost housing to employees, this is little more than a dream.
» on 06.25.09 @ 08:19 AM
AN50 is wrong. Santa Barbara used to be affordable. I can remember being able to afford an apartment on a part time job. I had tons of friends move when rents started to go up, up, up. They were all middle class or artists or just marginal but they could afford to live in Santa Barbara. Santa Barbara could easily become an new big city, as big as San Diego if we let it. There is a huge pressure to live here because of the climate, beaches, access to L.A. Unless the climate changes this will always be the case. L.A. was once a sunny paradise, even into the 1950’s. Look at it now! Santa Barbara could easily become the same if restrictions are removed. The huge, huge buildings along Chapala are just a taste of what could come. They are exploitive abominations built to make the developers, architects, and builders rich at the expense of a somnambulant community. Stop these projects or they will crush Santa Barbara.
» on 06.25.09 @ 08:26 AM
Terrific article, Lara! The reported breakdown of what a “standard” buyer makes annually in Santa Barbara is very intriguing. If $200,000 per year is considered a standard salary in this city, no wonder all the professionals are high-tailing it out of here. I mean, 200 grand, isn’t that the president’s salary? Sheesh! Who makes that kind of money around here other than CEOs and trust fund babies? And, by the looks of the empty offices around here, it doesn’t look like Santa Barbara is booming and brimming with well-paid executives these days. Based on the typical cost of a crummy old condo, you’d think we had a booming, alluring, executive economy. Who do we think we are, Manhattan? Paris? San Francisco? No, we’re a beach town with an identity crisis.
» on 06.25.09 @ 08:46 AM
The increased traffic is not due, in large part, to growth. It is due to policies of the City government which creates business with high numbers of low paid service employees who have to commute here and park somewhere, as well as the large numbers of “day-trip” tourists, 99 percent of which drive here in their cars. Now the City Council, who created this jobs-to-housing imbalance, fancy that they have to find a way to build “low cost housing” at taxpayers expense for the problems they created!
The Santa barbara City Council evades the restrictions created by the Measure E growth limitation ordinance by claiming many so called exceptions for development projects that are, “in-fill”, and “spot zoning” or badly needed under the “public use exceptions” like they used to justify building the “Casa Esperanza” homeless enabling shelter (with only 6 parking spaces).
They routinely come up with idiotic ideas worthy of something out of “Alice in Wonderland” like building dwelling units right next to commercial or retail businesses outlets without the parking requirements of law because these folks can “share parking”.
That hairbrained idea forsees that the residential users will be off somewhere during the day and the common parking spaces can be used by those patronizing the businesses during the day. Then in the evening the businesses will be closed and the residential users can return and park in those same (now vacant) spaces, right! Hhopefully none of the residents want to come home for lunch, works a night shift, gets sick or makes the terrible mistake of not leaving town every weekend)
One need only drive the freeway regularly to see the cyclical “inbound” and “outbound” bumper to bumper traffic in the morning and evenings. Although the city spends over a million dollars a year “advertising” to bring even more of the “day-trip” tourist here, they simultaneously institute absurd transportation policies by narrowing roads, eliminating parking (except for the paid parking in the garages they own). This creates massive traffic congestion by people who are site seeing, looking for parking along with all the local traffic using these intentionally constricted roadways.
These traffic obstructing and parking elimination policies are often given catchy, politically correct, feel good, jingoisms like “traffic calming devices”, or “sustainable planning” or “pedestrian or bicycle friendly”, etc. How many of the thousands of day trip tourists coming here do you think ride here on bicycles? How many ride here on buses, or when they get here want to ditch their car at some remote location and then walk around for miles and miles to see all the sites?
I have driven by the five million dollar ($5,000,000) fancy lighted, fenced and walled bicycle lane running all of 300 yards (or maybe less) from Summerland to Sheffield drive on the North side of the Northbound 10l. That boondogle was installed there because a few weekend recreational bicyclists complained they did not like to ride up the narrow roadway over Ortega Hill past the old Jostens ring factory.
Even though I have passed that gold plated bike lane hundreds of times since it was built and at all hours of the day and night, I have never seen a single bicyclist on that path. Now it is becomming a target for graffiti largely because the “taggers” don’t have to fear being caught seeing as no one uses this bike path!
None of the many problems plaguing the City of Santa Barbara will ever be solved until the City hires planners with some modicum of common sense and not those who are infatuated with the politically correct dogma they are exposed to and spoon fed in College under the guise of being THE “cutting edge” of the “green”, “carbon free”, “sustainable”, world of the future.
The voters will also have to elect council members who share a measure of common sense, as well as an understanding of basic human nature and a willingness to challenge the silly notions passed on by their utopian planning crowd, instead of just warming up and wielding their well worn “rubber stamps” of approval like they have been doing the past ten years or so!
Perhaps they should have painted a “Thin Blue Line” between the street vagrants and the Police throughout the downtown and beach areas, instead of worrying where the Ocean might rise to in a hundred years or so!
» on 06.25.09 @ 10:01 AM
We should be wise to endevours that Mr. Ledbetter’s planning council seeks to ram down the throats of Santa Barbarans. Every time that they manipulate the intents of Measure A that was passed by the people by calling it ‘infill’ or ‘needed low cost housing’ they set the city’s residents up for increased traffic, increased crime and increased air and noise pollution. We’ve seen it over and over. DENSITY DOESN’T WORK!
» on 06.25.09 @ 10:04 AM
The LA Times ran a story last week about the horrible traffic on the West Side call “10 miles in 60 minutes”.
Is that where we want to go?
» on 06.25.09 @ 10:28 AM
I agree that AN50 is wrong
» on 06.25.09 @ 11:17 AM
AN50: My parents house was purchased in 1973 for $44,000, and sold for 1.1 million in 2005. That is something like 25 times more. I don’t remember the minimal wage back in 1973 but I know it hasn’t increased anywhere near 25 times.
As for the social climate, even back in the 90’s one could drive down the street—obeying the posted speed limit—and not have someone running up their tailpipe in a frantic hurry to get nowhere but now it’s an anomaly when that *doesn’t* happen. The social change I refer to is the subtle way that people are so frantic now that they probably are unaware of how their behavior affects themselves and others.
» on 06.25.09 @ 05:43 PM
Strategic Economics is a pro-development firm. The people who hired them knew what they were going to get when they did. This is an expensive political manuveur to get unwanted development past the public.
» on 06.25.09 @ 06:05 PM
“Maintaining the character of the community while increasing density and building more units” is a contradiction. Is there any way to replace Jon Ledbetter with someone who will protect the City?
» on 06.25.09 @ 06:41 PM
Smaller units makes sense (we don’t need more “luxury” condos) but the “No-Growth-Preservationists” will yell and scream because apparently it’s better to have a stagnant downtown full of low-rise buildings and gang-bangers than a vibrant core with workforce housing and lively cafes! Personally, I’d rather walk the streets with nurses, cops, gov’t workers and teachers (who can afford to live in the town they work in for a change) than the lowlifes and thugs presently loitering on lower State.
Insisting that “employed” people purchase the units would be paramount—and begs the question: shouldn’t these units get turned over when the “current owner” retires?
As it is, I actually feel unsafe in broad daylight on lower State—never mind going out to dinner. Unless I’m carrying pepper spray! Just sayin’...
» on 06.25.09 @ 07:17 PM
Bill: sorry that was me driving up yer tailpipe. Jeeze man, move over will ya! The 90’s??? That was like yesterday, Jeeze how old are you anyway, 20?
Larry: yer a nut case, see my response to your sustainability non-sense on the Goleta golf course posting.
Longtimer: no, I’m not wrong and if you think so back it up with proof, otherwise I’m going to put you in the time out box with yer buddy Less is More (BTW- can all you building height activist be a little less obvious? Jeeze you all must live together and share the same mother fer crying out loud! Please can the damned talking points and have an original thought).
I love the way you hyperbole fanatics always compare our measly puny growth, buildings, traffic and anything else you don’t like with LA. You either live in the Land of Oz (smoking crack will do that ya know) or you’re a bunch of hyperactive paranoid hysterics. Which is it? If that is not the case then go back to school and study geography and then look at the difference between our little coastal shelf of 150 sqmi with the LA metro area of 1000 sqmi. Not close goof balls. Go down load Google Earth and see for your self, if you can handle it. Otherwise quit the dopy hysterics, quit calling SB small, charming, laidback or any of the other quaint terms you come up with to describe yer adolescent memory of this place.
» on 06.26.09 @ 06:24 AM
WE DO NOT NEED HIGH DENSITY PROJECTS IN THE NAME OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING. SANTA BARBARA ONLY HAS A LIMITED AMOUNT OF SPACE, AND WE WANT TO MAINTAIN THE UNIQUE, SMALL TOWN APPEAL THAT US OLD SCHOOL LOCALS GREW UP WITH.
» on 06.26.09 @ 12:13 PM
There are two related, but different, questions raised here:
1. Does Santa Barbara, as a community, have a right to want to remain “small” and
“livable”, in a state mushrooming toward 40-million souls, as long as it doesn’t try
to retain its “livability” by actively discriminating against the struggling working-poor?
2. Who should make that decision, the tax-paying residents of Santa Barbara, or the
bureaucrats and home-builders who’d like to spread “higher density” “affordable”
small housing ... everywhere they can?
Many City legal documents were based on Santa Barbara “living within its resources”. Many of the proposals uncorked by City staff are predicated on pushing past limited resources, in favor of large, new development. Why? On whose authority?
Some of those “limits” are being “re-defined” to mean something else, as the City
begins to approach the farther edge of our resources. Why?
Land speculators, spinning and flipping marked-up houses, were just as guilty as
the banks and unqualified mortgage borrowers in tanking property values. Who will
live in all these “relatively affordable” new houses they want to build everywhere? If
all these new residents come here, will the resulting city, in 10 or 20 years, still feel
like Santa Barbara? Or will it become one of those too-much traffic, too-many chain
stores Orange County types of generic mild-weather places where developer money
drives ... everything else?
» on 06.26.09 @ 02:29 PM
The BUILD BUILD BUILD power structure is at it again. Money never stops trying to ruin a good thing.
» on 06.26.09 @ 09:28 PM
Well said ‘San Roque Resident’. Many years ago we passed Measure A which was to limit building to keep within our resources. But the planning departments and those funding the candidates had other ideas and have kept pressuring our resources in spite of the locals preferences.
What to do about it? One thing is to turn a critical eye to the city council that we elect. Pay attention to where their funding comes from. Learn to read between the lines of their talks with the press. And definitely pay attention to how they vote. If you do this you’ll see that most are best left out of any elected office.
» on 06.27.09 @ 07:10 AM
The S.B housing will drop another 40% plus, and that will be in the next two years. I dont think we need government forced housing, because goleta homes could be in the low 200’s soon 100’s for condos—The liar loans are now dead thank god.
Fire Barney Frank & Chris Dodd for allowing them and pandering.
» on 06.27.09 @ 09:21 PM
House prices may fluctuate but being a moronic loser lasts a lifetime. Without liar loans, you’ll be in that cardboardbox a lot longer than two years…
» on 06.28.09 @ 12:13 PM
The market is Santa barbara is about to burst, and this is a normal one year delay that has accured in the past. Sell now or hang on for a long long time—Obama’s plan could be a complete failure.
» on 07.12.09 @ 05:08 PM
I hope the City Council makes a formal apology for letting this unwanted process take place. Not only is it expensive, it is going against the grain of the people who live here. These kinds of processes are what make people cynical about politics and government.
More Local News »
House Poised to Vote on Historic Health-Care Bill Sunday
As Democrats scramble for last-minute votes, Capps touts legislation's reforms
Does Local Currency Make Dollars and Sense for Santa Barbara?
Economic hardships fuel questions but you may not know we've tried it here before
Phil Wyatt Builds High-Tech Company with Low-Key Approach
Wyatt Technology's founder and CEO serves as a steady guide for his staff in pinpointing a niche in laser-based instruments
Santa Barbara Airbus Picks Up and Moves to New Location
The company will have more legroom at its new home on Technology Way in Goleta
Residents Get Look at Master Plan for Santa Barbara
An open house kicks off a public-comment period designed to help shape the future of the city
Weather: Overcast 64.0º
Search Noozhawk »
