I’ve been repeatedly requested about my disapproval of the council’s proposed actions to realize state approval for the Housing Component. My concern comes from two areas, the method used to resolve on applicable websites for rezoning to allow new housing and the end result when it comes to the impacts on the adjoining neighborhoods from the proposed websites.
First, some background. Cities are required to point out the state Housing and Neighborhood Improvement (HCD) how they might accommodate the state mandated goal variety of new housing models. The state is seeking to see that the cities decide to rezoning lands presently not now zoned residential, with a give attention to lands which can be vacant or underutilized. Particularly, the state wished to see low-income housing. Nevertheless, at this stage within the course of, the state depends on a proxy: Any new housing that’s zoned at above 20 models per acre or better is deemed to be “low earnings” for the aim of getting a Housing Component accredited.
Beforehand Goleta despatched different variations of our proposed “housing factor” to HCD. Nevertheless, HCD has indicated that the town’s websites stock has a 637-unit shortfall in lower-income class (plus a further buffer of round 15 p.c or 96 models, bringing the full to 733). Thus, for the previous a number of weeks, the Metropolis Council’s discussions have been to establish non-residential websites that could possibly be zoned at 20 models per acre or better, which the state would then rely towards fulfilling the requirement for low-income housing. The websites with zoning densities beneath that degree are absolutely useful for HCD approval however aren’t the fulcrum upon which HCD approval is decided. The town exceeded the HCD goal of 733 models of lower-income housing by 89 models. Beneath is a desk displaying the websites that have been chosen.
So, what’s my beef? My first concern is with the method for selecting websites for the state submission. The selection of websites for rezonings is neither honest nor equitable. There was restricted foundational or goal foundation for the alternatives made and minimal evaluation to again up our decisions.
The town had beforehand developed a set of goal requirements for evaluating rezoning proposals. When the County of Santa Barbara proposed how they might select lands for his or her housing factor, we argued that their proposed motion did not be honest and equitable for 4 causes: (1) Goleta was singled out for the overwhelming bulk of the brand new housing initiatives flanking the town; (2) there have been no websites within the wealthier enclaves of Montecito or Hope Ranch; (3) they did not assess the impacts of the proposed actions on the neighborhoods close by; and (4) they did not adequately consider the environmental impacts, particularly from rezoning agricultural lands.
However when Goleta was placing collectively its personal assortment of websites to rezone, it thought of none of those objectives. Beginning with the primary criterion of equity. Of the 822 low-income websites chosen, 520 or 63 p.c are alongside Hollister in Western Goleta (District 4). Thought of each side of Freeway 101, of all of the low-income websites, 91 p.c are in western Goleta (districts 3 and 4). If we embrace the average and above average housing, which as mentioned was not the main target of the hassle, 46 p.c of the housing is in District 4, whereas 67 p.c is in western Goleta. Few if any wish to see further housing of their neighborhood. For that motive, we had advocated to the county {that a} purpose of sharing the burden would have guarantee better equity.
Second, like widespread criticism of the county’s plan to keep away from new housing in Montecito and Hope Ranch, Goleta’s northeastern part (District 1), stuffed with upscale, single-family housing, was largely exempted from rezoning. There was zero rezoning for housing that certified as low earnings in northeast Goleta. Furthermore, even the proposed moderate-income housing was not likely new. The landowner had already initiated a rezoning plan to extend the housing from the prevailing residential housing to a senior care facility, which certified as medium density. If the council may have been keen so as to add the 43 extra models to the positioning, it could have then been in a position to rely all of the 127 models as low earnings, relieving strain to rezone elsewhere.
Alas, that was to not be. Not like elsewhere within the metropolis, many native residents raised considerations about visitors, property values, and parking from constructing of their neighborhood. As an alternative, they proposed to rezone parcels in Western Goleta, websites flanked by much less well-off renters. Environmental justice, which had been a purpose in our discussions with the county, was not an element for within the metropolis’s course of. Northeast Goleta residents had argued that declaring that some districts have been receiving a disproportionate share of the housing was pitting one district in opposition to one other and that was incorrect. This isn’t in contrast to a wealthy man advising a poor one to not fear a lot about cash.
The third of our analysis criterion for the county mirrored neighborhood impacts, notably visitors. Whereas Goleta had been extremely crucial of the county for proposing rezoning to areas that might have an undue affect on visitors, the town repeated the motion for its personal Housing Component. The county proposed a possible rezoning of the Glen Annie golf course to allow nearly 1,500 housing models (as a lot because the county is proposing for the whole North County.) This could have an amazing affect on Goleta neighborhoods instantly adjoining to the golf course. It might invariably lead the town to have so as to add lanes to Cathedral Oaks to accommodate the brand new residents. An unsafe highway could be made that rather more unsafe.
On the subject of the town’s proposed rezoning, we’ve got the identical issues. Based on the town’s director of Public Works, the town’s proposed rezoning of the websites close to the Jubilee Church alongside Hollister Avenue (305 models) would necessitate further lanes be added to Hollister Avenue to cut back the intersection’s congestion. Each the county’s and the town’s proposed rezonings would burden the absurdly overtaxed 101 freeway off-ramp, which is already an excessive security hazard.
The final of the analysis standards is the environmental affect. Another excuse that the town was involved in regards to the county’s proposed Glen Annie proposal was as a result of it could have a horrible environmental affect. However equally, Goleta’s rezoning of each the Kenwood property and the Pacific Oaks properties (7190 Hollister and adjoining) would every affect endangered species habitat.
Furthermore, the Pacific Oaks website additionally eliminates the one remaining view hall in western Goleta of the mountains. Earlier than the earlier cycle of housing initiatives, during which the Hollister Village and Hideaway have been developed, together with the Hilton Backyard, there have been views of the mountains alongside Hollister. Builders promised these could be retained — per the objectives of the town’s Normal Plan for the Hollister Avenue hall — however it was to not be. (Additionally they promised that there could be no improve of visitors on Hollister from their developments; once more, not true.)
We did not depend on our earlier yardstick for evaluating proposals. Nevertheless, some councilmembers argued that there have been causes to justify this allocation. It was not simply NIMBY conduct, however that the housing choices is perhaps made primarily based on a brand new set of requirements.
So, what customary did the town councilmembers depend on to justify the websites chosen? A current op-ed by one other councilmember on July 27, 2023, provided a unique set of things for evaluating website options. The query is whether or not these elements are applicable ones and whether or not they have been utilized in a constant and goal style.
• One issue was whether or not a website was in strolling distance to retail buying and different companies. But, when discussing the county’s proposed websites, the South Patterson agricultural block websites, alongside Hollister and between two buying facilities, the town by no means prompt that this could be a sensible choice for brand new housing.
• One other issue provided was whether or not a website is accessible to public transportation and handy to get on an MTD bus, to presumably cut back parking and visitors impacts. Nevertheless, as a normal precept, it’s inappropriate to imagine that the brand new residents will behave otherwise than present residents. Current residents aren’t broadly utilizing buses. Most routes have empty buses and bus ridership has declined lately. Hopefully, it will change in future years, however we will’t rely on it.
• The criterion of “Can our kids stroll or bike to high school safely?” was utilized inconsistently. It was not an element for the property in northeast Goleta (very near the Kellogg Faculty) and ignored for the 7264 Calle Actual website in El Encanto and the 7190 website on Hollister, that are farther away from faculties.
• Lastly, there’s the difficulty of which Goleta Union Faculty District faculties are already closely impacted. A former boardmember of the Goleta Union Faculty District indicated that solely one in every of their faculties was fighting capability and challenged to accommodate extra college students — the Isla Vista Faculty. So, the place will all the brand new college students at 7190 Hollister, the most important proposed new housing rezone, going to be headed? In fact, it’s I.V. Faculty.
Planners within the Sacramento could apply a easy yardstick to make zoning choices, however native planners ought to use their native site-specific data, understanding the context of the proposed new growth location. Simply because a website is alongside an arterial highway doesn’t imply that it is a perfect place for a brand new growth.
For instance, we care about visitors security in Goleta. The town has proposed to cut back the variety of visitors lanes alongside Hollister in Previous City is as a approach to improve resident security. Nevertheless, I don’t see the hand of constant native planning after we at the moment are inevitably going to have so as to add lanes alongside Hollister in western Goleta because of the proposed rezoning. Absolutely we aren’t detached to the hazards from the elevated visitors speeds and security impacts in western Goleta that can comply with.
I recognize the purpose of making urbanized pockets the place there’s a better density of housing and shut proximity to buying and engaging facilities. However that purpose doesn’t apply to each circumstance the place there’s an arterial highway and close by buying. And even when an space is nice for added new housing, it doesn’t imply that there’s a vast capability on bigger roads so as to add housing.
We’d like further housing, particularly inexpensive housing. Nevertheless, how we allocate it issues. How we resolve to put the brand new housing and whether or not our new housing is in the end really inexpensive, apart from the HCD’s planning fiction (i.e., assuming that density makes housing inexpensive), determines our neighborhood’s important character and livability.
So, what now? The town has submitted the revised Housing Component to the state for approval. Subsequent, we’ll put together an environmental evaluation of the cumulative impacts ensuing from the proposed rezonings. Nevertheless, this evaluation is not going to mirror the impacts of explicit housing initiatives, however as a substitute would focus solely on the impact of fixing the zoning designations.
Solely later, when builders suggest their housing initiatives, will there be an analysis of the particular impacts of every undertaking, when it comes to parking, visitors, viewshed, and many others. Council might want to think about these impacts because it critiques the housing proposals, particularly for these impacts that may’t be successfully mitigated. A number of of the builders advocating for his or her initiatives additionally expressed a want that their initiatives enhance the situation of the neighborhood.
Hopefully, between the varied environmental critiques and the willingness of the builders to regulate their initiatives to keep away from these considerably dangerous impacts, we will protect that which we maintain expensive in Goleta, whilst we add extra housing.
Stuart Kasdin is a Goleta metropolis councilmember.
