Housing, part 2

[ Full text "guest post," part 2, from Das at SantaBarbarasBlog ]

“For the past few years, the pace of market and luxury development has been very high, and my goal would be to have little less development, but a higher percentage of it be rentals, affordables, and workforce. The only way to do that is to extract more from developers. I am working to ensure that the City:

-- Levy impact fees on all market rate development and split the proceeds between open space acquisition and the building of rental housing with strong affordability controls. These fees should be adjusted by how hot the market is, so as not to stop buildings downtown, but use it for the public good.

-- Enact higher inclusionary requirements (the percentage of moderate priced units demanded by the City).

-- Spend most of the remaining Redevelopment Agency funds on public housing.

-- Include economic analysis from staff on development projects to ensure developers are not taking us for a ride.

-- Preserve existing rental housing by ending or reducing condo conversions.

I also believe that these mechanisms should be coupled with strong protections for our neighborhoods and effective transit, to reduce or hold the line on our traffic congestion.”

If you have any ideas, please write me at: daswilliams@santabarbaraca.gov .

--------------------

Comments to Das' post and also part 1 can be viewed at SantaBarbarasBlog at:

SantaBarbarasBlog.com » Das on Housing… Part II

Housing, part 1

[ Full text "guest post," part 1, from Das at SantaBarbarasBlog ]


With more than half of the houses on the market being sold to out of town people and a median homes price exceeding $1,000,000, we have a severe housing crisis. With the physical restraints of what building we have on the ground, we can react in three ways, presenting a choice of what is the lesser evil:

1. We could build next to nothing. Despite my bias towards a traditional Santa Barbara, I cannot accept this as a viable solution because it continues the current trend of gentrification. Housing prices will continue to rise out of the reach of our workforce, who will then commute and contribute to our overwhelming congestion issues. Santa Barbara will become only the domain of the rich, who can afford it, and the poor, who double and triple up in our current housing. We will lose our middle-class.

2. We could rezone agricultural land in the County and our last beloved open spaces. As an environmentalist who treasures the Gaviota Coast and the Las Positas Valley, I find this equally unacceptable.

3. We can construct price-controlled affordable and workforce housing on our parking lots and underutilized parcels. Admittedly, this will create added density and sometimes-higher buildings in the downtown and on transportation corridors, but I view it as the lesser evil.

For me the question is how to make scenario #3 work to make the best public good, with the least impacts on our quality of life. For the past few years, the pace of market and luxury development has been very high, and my goal would be to have little less development, but a higher percentage of it be rentals, affordables, and workforce.

I also believe that these mechanisms should be coupled with strong protections for our neighborhoods and effective transit, to reduce or hold the line on our traffic congestion.

If you have any ideas, please write me at: daswilliams@santabarbaraca.gov
__________________________

Comments to Das' post can be viewed at SantaBarbarasBlog at:

SantaBarbarasBlog.com » Guest Post… Das Williams on Housing (Part I)

American Charter High School

[ Excerpt from "New School Ties" By Ethan Stewart, SB INDEPENDENT, March 22, 2007 ]

Friends and Foes Weigh in on American Charter School Proposal

One would be hard-pressed to find a more impressive lineup of supporters than the folks who turned out for Tuesday’s Santa Barbara School Board meeting to pledge allegiance to the newly proposed American Charter High School (ACHS). From City Councilmember Das Williams, Police Chief Cam Sanchez, and Sheriff Bill Brown to legendary UCSB education benefactor Marilyn Gevirtz and several South Coast trade union leaders, the room was filled with people excited about ACHS and the type of educational experience it hopes to offer with its Liberal Arts, School of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, and Construction Technology and Design programs. However, despite a palatable buzz of hope in the air during the presentation of the ACHS proposal and testimony from leaders of the existing schools it is modeled after, several boardmembers and Superintendent Brian Sarvis were decidedly — and at times quite visibly — cool to the idea.

Originally introduced to the public as part of boardmember Bob Noël’s reelection campaign last fall, the idea has since morphed from a series of school-within-a-school academies into a multifaceted charter high school proposal, complete with $405,000 of state start-up money and a 100-plus-page petition detailing financial, administrative, and educational particulars. And given the widespread community support, prospective students, interested teachers, and 13-member board of directors, Noël’s dream seems close to being realized.

... the ACHS — the idea for which was first brought to the board informally by Noël late last year — must open its doors by September 2007 in order to remain eligible for the nearly half million dollars in seed money...

And before deadline issues can even be brought to the table, the school must first receive its actual charter from the school board, the Santa Barbara County Office of Education, or the state — a preliminary step which, at least at the school board level, is anything but guaranteed. Excepting Noël, each boardmember pointed out perceived shortcomings in the ACHS proposal, including its lack of a clear mission statement, the vague outline of its Liberal Arts program, and too few P.E. hours in the anticipated schedule. Less clear-cut worries included Boardmember Laura Malakoff’s concern that she is just not “sure what the advantage is of a charter school over an academy.” Harter similarly concluded that, while she liked portions of the plan, “I just can’t seem to get my head around it.”

For their part, advocates of ACHS consider the proposal a much-needed bridge to success for students who, as Board of Directors Cochair Martha Salas put it, “have not yet found a way to thrive in Santa Barbara schools.” For Salas, Noël, and company, ACHS would be distinct from more traditional schools in daring to accomplish what few high schools in the state set out to do: prepare high school graduates equally for a four-year college or a career in, amongst others things, law enforcement, the fire service, the building trades, or architecture. As former Santa Barbara School Board member Ray Franco explained to the board, “Seventy or 80 percent of our students don’t know where they want to go and they don’t have parents pushing them … We are asking you for a partnership in something that will help get them there.”

... the district’s staff analysis of the petition document won’t be ready until April 24. However, at Noël’s urging due to the strict state timeline, the board is slated to take a final vote on ACHS on April 10. If the board denies the application, ACHS has the right to appeal the decision to both the County Education Office and the state.





To read the full text of the article, please go to the SANTA BARBARA INDEPENDENT at:

New School Ties

MTD Transit Center

[ Excerpt from "Right Place, Wrong Size" By Nick Welsh, SANTA BARBARA INDEPENDENT, March 1, 2007 ]

... Several months ago, the councilmembers enthusiastically announced their plans to dramatically reinvent the Metropolitan Transit District’s (MTD) downtown bus depot, adding room for more buses, affordable housing, shops, offices, and maybe a new downtown park and day care center.

On February 27, the consultants hired by City Hall to conduct a feasibility study of this wish list unveiled six alternative development scenarios that left most councilmembers stunned and reaching for adjectives to hurl. The plans ranged from big to bigger to biggest...

All sketches showed most of the block bounded by Chapala, Carrillo, State, and Figueroa streets engulfed by a four-story mix of bus bays, a transit center, shops, and housing units. Four of the six alternatives also involved building two levels of underground parking. The smallest plan involved 124 housing units — a mix of affordable rentals and market-rate units for sale — and required a subsidy of $18 million. The most ambitious — which also incorporated the space now occupied by the adjoining Greyhound bus station — included 176 housing units and required a $29 million subsidy.

Of all the councilmembers, Das Williams was the most enthusiastic, urging his colleagues “to have some courage,” and arguing, “If we don’t build a significant degree of housing in downtown that’s affordable, it can’t happen anywhere.” But even Williams blanched at the sketches, warning that if they were shown outside council chambers, “We’ll get burned in effigy.” Councilmember Brian Barnwell stated bluntly, “It’s not only too dense; the building is too large for its mass, and it has too many units in it.” Roger Horton agreed, saying, “I’m particularly concerned the size, bulk, and scale are just terrible here.” And Councilmember Helene Schneider suggested that sexpot Mae West’s adage “Too much of a good thing is wonderful” definitely did not apply in this case. A strong proponent of affordable housing, Schneider admitted, “What I saw here today turned me off. If I saw this for the first time, I’d be very scared of it.” She also asked why the consultants did not include market-rate rental housing in their fiscal analysis.

Councilmember Iya Falcone and Mayor Marty Blum both expressed concern that the consultants suggested ways to physically segregate occupants of affordable housing from occupants of market units. Falcone, like several others, offered no enthusiasm for including market-rate units at all. But Councilmember Grant House said including such units would help underwrite the costs of the affordable units.

MTD boardmembers were glad that most of the plans included 16 new bus bays. (Currently, the depot has only four.) They were also happy — as were the councilmembers — that the consultants concluded the only feasible location for the transit center was where it already is and that the Amtrak depot was too small and inconvenient. But Tom Williams of the Downtown Parking Committee charged the consultants did not include nearly enough parking to accommodate the proposed housing and shop space. City guidelines, which formerly called for two parking spaces per unit, have recently been reduced to one per unit. In at least one alternative, the consultants suggested requiring 0.6 of a space per unit. “I’d like to see someone park 0.6 of a car,” Williams declared, adding, “My concern is real-world parking, not wished-for parking or mythical parking or any other kind of parking.”

MTD boardmember Brian Fahnestock shot back, “I hope we build this in the ‘real world’ of today, not the ‘real world’ of the 1950s. It needs to have solar panels and to accommodate alternate transit of the future.” He was echoed by MTD’s Logan Green, who recalled that the proposed new development had been dubbed “the anti-parking lot” by former city planning czar Dave Davis, now an MTD boardmember. Davis tried to soften his previous rhetoric, suggesting the tag “mobility center” instead.

Regardless of nomenclature, Davis cautioned the proposals tried to do too much at the expense of future transit functions. He objected that the consultants did not include space for a car-sharing operation, a bike station, or a new day care facility. City Hall hopes to circulate a request for another proposal sometime early this summer.





Right Place, Wrong Size