|
Local
Government Housing Action
The following are a few points
you may wish to include in correspondence to the City of Goleta.
Address your letter to:
Mayor Jean Blois and Council Members
City
of Goleta
130 Cremona Drive, Suite B
Goleta, Ca 93117
- According to Santa Barbara County
Association of Governments reports, the South Coast (includes incorporated
and unincorporated Goleta) has experienced a chronic and growing
shortage of housing built compared to jobs created over the past
20 years. The growing commute rush congestion in both directions
on Highway 101 reflects the housing deficit of workforce and affordable
residences in Goleta, and the new City has a responsibility to
repair this deficit to the best of its abilities.
- The shortage of South Coast workforce and affordable housing
is resulting in the loss of middle income workers as local
residents and leading to South Coast communities increasingly composed
of “haves” and “haves-not.” Healthy
communities make room for people at all rungs of the economic
ladder.
- The lack of workforce and affordable housing has already caused
some large employers to relocate, leading to loss of good-paying
jobs. Unless we begin providing needed housing, this disturbing
trend will continue with negative effects on our local economy.
- For those jobs that can’t move (public safety like police
and fire, education, health care, local government, nonprofits),
the workforce and affordable housing shortage has already
created employee recruitment and retention problems with real
impacts on South Coast quality of life and personal security.
The question about “where’s a policeman when you
need one?” will
be applicable to teachers, heart surgeons and nurses, as
well as to plumbers, mechanics and electricians, unless we start
doing something about the shortage of housing for local workers.
- For those who say “we have to stop growing” or
that “our
community doesn’t have any responsibility for housing
California’s
projected growth,” we need to remind them that
80% of the state’s growth will be through a net
gain in births over deaths, and only 20% will be through
immigration or migration. Until population growth stabilizes,
all communities in California have legal and moral reasons
to provide housing for their ‘fair
share’ of the expanding population.
- The City of Goleta has so far refused to consider use of currently
zoned agricultural lands within its borders for other purposes – such
as residential development. While economically viable agriculture
should be preserved, some of Goleta’s ag zoned lands have
not been productive for years, and their owners should be allowed
to apply for rezoning and subsequent development. The City of Goleta,
as part of its General Plan and Housing Element process, should
conduct a survey of agriculturally zoned land within its boundaries
to determine historic and current productivity and intentions of
the owners to stay in agriculture.
- New housing in Goleta, if it is to be affordable to local workers,
must be built more efficiently that in the past. Not only should
the City encourage more “compact development” to reduce
the per-unit costs, but the planning processes must be streamlined
for projects consistent with the zoning of their locations. Housing
density should be greatest in proximity to major transportation
corridors and transit centers to encourage less use of private
vehicles.
- In particular, the City needs to demonstrate that our Regional
Housing Needs Allocation production goals can be met on the land
identified in the Land Inventory.
- Inconsistencies between the Housing Element production goals
and policies in the Transportation Element, Conservation Element,
Historic and Visual Resources and Land Use Element that have been
previously identified need to be resolved. Otherwise, the City’s
housing production goals cannot be met.
- The interim Inclusionary Housing Requirement is not flexible
and will result in ‘bifurcated’ housing projects
with the production of only a few low-income units and the rest
at market rate prices that are beyond the purchasing ability
of the local workforce.
- Inclusionary requirements for homeownership housing should focus
on the moderate to middle income workforce range. This will provide
homeownership housing for the next generation of workers in Goleta’s
R&D industry and critical workforce categories such as healthcare
workers, firefighters, sheriffs, and middle management staff. This
is also better public policy in terms of bridging the affordability
gap (the financial resources needed bridge the gap for low-income
homeownership housing is too wide and does not result in the production
of very many units.)
- Lower income housing needs can be better served through a
focused or targeted rental housing development program. The City can use
its resources---from the Redevelopment Agency set-aside funds and
from CDBG and the HOME consortium to provide financial incentives
to non-profit and private developers to develop tax credit affordable
rental projects for retail and service workers in the community
and persons with special needs.
- Other planning policies ---such as higher density, ‘fast-track’ processing,
allowing developers to set-aside land for affordable housing as
an alternative to inclusionary requirements, etc.---can also provide
effective incentives to produce needed affordable housing for lower
wage workers and persons with special needs.
The City needs to develop a workable bonus density ordinance with
effective incentives for developers. Alternatively, the City should
adopt the State standards directly.
We need to carefully examine the interaction between the following
development standards and parameters so that we achieve maximum development
capacity on our remaining vacant sites in Goleta. Otherwise we will
unnecessarily shrink the development envelope of properties and not
reach our community housing production goals:
- Building height
- Lot coverage – 30% standard is too limited
- On-site open space requirements – should be flexible,
depending upon the development type and on-site amenities.
- Floor Area Ratios. and densities – should be flexible;
- Variable density should be adopted to provide a range
of unit sizes for different populations
- Noise standards – 60 vs. 65 DB—the 65 DB standard
should be adopted.
- View corridors—developers should be allowed options
for how to maintain important views rather than have arbitrary
or mandated requirements.
- Streamlining—concurrent processing; ‘fast-track’ and/or
priority for affordable and workforce priced projects, etc.
- Master EIRs ---to facilitate project development.
- Special considerations for development of infill properties
- The definitions and policies in the draft Conservation Element
concerning wetlands, ESHAs and special species areas
are overly conservative and will work to significantly limit the
development capacity of infill sites where the bulk of
the City’s
RHNA housing production must occur.
- The City’s policies do not distinguish between remnant
or marginal ESHA areas and areas where resources can
realistically be protected and enhanced.
- The City policies call for no development at all in identified
ESHA areas, irregardless is the ESHA is a small remnant
or seriously degraded area. Additional ESHAs can also be established
but the standards for this are not clearly laid out.
- The City is imposing the Coastal Zone standards throughout
the entire City. This will make it more difficult for residential
development.
This opens up the door to
environmental groups to claim that ESHAs exist on infill sites and
special species should be protected even if they are foraging on
vacant infill lots. We note that the EDC has already submitted input
to the City of Goleta to this effect.
|