Condos Summary by A.P.

[ Excerpt from The Angry Poodle column in the SANTA BARBARA INDEPENDENT, by Nick Welsh, 6/26/2008 ]

... [recently] the Santa Barbara City Council wrestled with some exceedingly modest measures designed to secure a toehold for the middle class — and the upper-middle class — in the South Coast’s ever forbidding housing market. It used to be that affordable housing programs were designed to help the poor and the very poor. In Santa Barbara, the focus has shifted to the middle and upper-middle class. Once upon a time, teachers, nurses, and cops could afford to buy a home here. Those days are gone. Now doctors and lawyers can barely make it. Just imagine when the lawyers we need to sue our doctors for malpractice can no longer afford to live here. Is that the kind of community we want to become?

On the table were changes to city rules requiring that developers include a token number of affordable units in whatever housing they build. Four years ago, the council imposed these requirements on developments of 10 units or more. Anything smaller was not affected. Nor were condo conversions. Guess what? In the intervening four years, we have discovered that the vast majority of new housing units going up — 95 percent of them in fact — are smaller than 10 units. And there’s been a whole lot of condo converting going on, too. In response, councilmembers Helene Schneider and Das Williams have led the charge to include condo conversions and projects with two or more units. Given the resistance they encountered, you’d have thought they were demanding rent control...

The new plan requires that 5 percent of all condo conversions and new units be affordable. And by “affordable,” we’re talking upper-middle-class income brackets. Developers can opt out by paying an in-lieu fee of $17,700 per affordable unit. Admittedly, that’s not much when you consider that the median price of a South Coast home is still just over $1 million. But if these rules had been in effect during the past two years, City Hall would have collected $3.5 million to underwrite housing subsidies for people who, until recently, would never have needed subsidizing.

Council deliberations can be windy affairs where councilmembers deploy such phrases as “folks,” “thinking outside the box,” and “providing another tool in the toolbox” with criminal abandon. This Tuesday’s phrase du jour was “silver bullet,” as in, the new rules would definitely not be “a silver bullet” for dealing with the high cost of housing, but they would provide “another tool in the toolbox.”

...Councilmember Iya Falcone agonized at such length over the pros, the cons, and the “unintended consequences” of the measure that she seemed to be waging a one-woman filibuster with herself. Council conservative Dale Francisco... objected that the proposed ordinance language constituted “extortion.”

... Schneider responded that people who converted rentals into condos  —  a ministerial transaction effectuated by City Hall  —  reaped such a huge financial windfall that taxing them a little bit was more than fair. This being City Hall, no action is ever truly final. Still, the council voted 6-1 to approve the changes in concept and send them back to committee for further refinement...

Condo Conversions

[ Excerpt from: "Are Condo Conversions Putting the Squeeze on Renters?" By Rob Kuznia, Noozhawk, 6/24/2008 ]

... Santa Barbara has long been a nearly impossible place for middle-class families to enter the housing market, but some evidence suggests it’s becoming increasingly difficult for renters as well.

For one thing, the median rate for a two-bedroom rental unit rose disproportionately last year: an 8 percent increase, to $1,950 — the highest jump since at least 2002, according to a city study.

Also, some Santa Barbara City Council members are sounding the alarm on the number of landlords who are converting their rental units into condominiums. In two years, the city has approved roughly 100 conversions. There are 71 more conversions pending.

“This is an alarming number,” said Councilman Das Williams. “One of the most important things we need to do as a city is protect our rental housing and middle-class housing. To do that we need to have less condo conversions.”

Meanwhile, the vacancy rate in Santa Barbara has long been low — just below 3 percent — and few, if any, market-rate rental units are being built, because there is no financial incentive for property owners to do so...

Council members like Williams, Helene Schneider and Mayor Marty Blum have expressed interest in tightening existing restrictions on condo conversions... [including] a disincentive to condo-ize rental units [by] extending the so-called inclusionary housing ordinance to developments under 10 units in size.

... other council members don’t think the answer is to impose more restrictions on property owners. Councilwoman Iya Falcone prefers the idea of providing incentives for landowners to keep rental housing. Councilman Dale Francisco outright opposes any measures that would try to limit condo conversions...

... Williams said he would like to lower the cap on the allowable number of condo conversions every year.

As it is, the city allows no more than 50 units of condo conversions that require no construction. (Conversions that do involve construction for some reason are not subject to any cap.)

Blum, meanwhile, said she’d consider revisiting a modified version of an ordinance that once existed in Santa Barbara until it was overturned about 15 years ago: Putting a moratorium on conversions when the vacancy rate dips to a certain level...

“Less than 5 percent of the people who live in Santa Barbara can afford to buy here,” she said. “That’s a very, very low number. I know that I probably couldn’t afford to buy here if I were starting over.”

...

Inclusionary Housing Ordinance

[ Excerpt from: "City Council Buys Into Plan to Make Condo Developers Pay Up," By Rob Kuznia, Noozhawk, 6/25/2008 ]

... Closing a potential loophole for small-time condominium developers, the Santa Barbara City Council on Tuesday gave the nod to a draft ordinance that would require them to set aside money for building housing for the middle class.

Tuesday’s 6-1 decision was in favor of an amendment to the four-year-old “inclusionary housing” ordinance, which aims to help retain middle-class workers in one of the nation’s most expensive housing markets.

The ordinance requires developers of condo complexes of at least 10 units to set aside 15 percent of them for people with middle-class incomes. Tuesday’s amendment would extend the ordinance to include projects with as few as two units.

Under the new rules, the developers of such projects would not be required to build extra affordable units, but instead must contribute a fee of $17,700 per unit to the city’s affordable housing fund. It turn, the city could use the money for a variety of purposes, such as subsidizing developments for workforce housing.

Voting against it was Councilor Dale Francisco, who... [said of the ordinance] “It is extortion.”

... Council members Das Williams and Helene Schneider said the amendment would close a loophole, noting that the vast majority of condo developers have skirted the requirement of the original ordinance by building fewer than 10 units. Staff members said that 95 percent of the nearly 200 condos added to the market since the original ordinance was passed have been a part of such smaller developments.

“That’s about $3.5 million of inclusionary fees that we just didn’t capture,” Williams said...

5-2 for Veronica Meadows Dev.

The Santa Barbara City Council has voted 5-2 (Helene and Das dissenting) to go ahead with the proposed Veronica Meadows project. The following are some reports of the action:


[ Excerpt from: "Santa Barbara Council Backs Veronica Meadows — Again," By Rob Kuznia, Noozhawk, 06/18/2008 - see also some excellent photos of Rob's, along with a map, too, at the Noozhawk site. ]

In what’s beginning to resemble a game of ping-pong, the Santa Barbara City Council on Tuesday approved — for the second time in a year and a half — the development of 25 single-family homes in Las Positas Valley, despite a judge’s ruling in December revoking the earlier approval.

The 5-2 decision most likely means that opponents of what is called the Veronica Meadows project will take the matter back to court.

“I think because (of the decision) we’re going to get sued, and we’re going to lose,” Councilman Das Williams said after Tuesday night’s vote. Williams, along with Councilwoman Helene Schneider, voted against the project.

The plan, which over the course of eight years has wound up pitting neighbors against environmentalists, is to build most of the two-story homes on 15 acres of brushy green space across from Elings Park. In return, developer Mark Lee would spend his own money to restore the nearby Arroyo Burro Creek, preserve open space and bring bicycle and hiking trails to the area.

Many of the neighbors like the plan, as the trails would allow them access to Arroyo Burro Beach without having to get in their cars or walk along the shoulder of fast-moving Las Positas Road...

But the environmentalists who successfully sued the city blasted the project on several fronts, saying it is too much development for such an environmentally sensitive area. They also say the project’s considerable distance from downtown would encourage more car travel.

“This is the biggest example of dumb growth the city has deliberated in decades,” said planning activist David Pritchett.

Specifically at issue was Lee’s proposal to build a bridge over the creek leading into the development. In an official study known as an environmental impact report, a biologist decided that the bridge — which would be located off Las Positas Road, directly across the street from the entrance to Elings Park — would impose a significant negative impact on the creek habitat.

The City Council nonetheless approved the project in December 2006, deciding that the promised benefits to the public and environment outweighed the negatives... A month after the approval, the Citizens Planning Association filed suit against Lee and the city.

Last December, Superior Court Judge Judge Thomas Anderle ruled in favor of the opponents. In his highly technical ruling, he said the project violated the California Environmental Quality Act, or CEQA. Specifically, when biologists find that a proposed development will potentially have a certain high degree of impact on the environment (known as a “Class 1 Impact”), agencies must explore other options.

... city staff presented a revised EIR to the council that officially considered another — the other — option. In this one, there’d be no bridge, and therefore only one way in and out of the development: by driving to the end of Las Positas Road and up the currently quiet Alan Road.

The revised EIR found that this option, too, was a Class 1 Impact.

On Tuesday, this left the City Council in the position of deciding on the lesser of two evils. However, it also had the option to just say no outright — a position strenuously advocated by Williams and Schneider...

View Larger Map

[Excerpt from: "Veronica Meadows a Go … for Now," June 19, 2008
By Ben Preston, SANTA BARBARA INDEPENDENT ]

... the Santa Barbara City Council voted 5-2 on Tuesday night to oppose a joint appeal by the Citizens’ Planning Association (CPA) and the Urban Creeks Council (UCC) that would have prevented landowner Mark Lee from building 25 homes in his proposed Veronica Meadows development, located near the corner of Las Positas Road and Cliff Drive. The vote also included an annexation of the property — which currently falls under county jurisdiction — into the City of Santa Barbara...

In the end, however, it was the desire of several councilmembers to ensure development that delivered a range of community benefits, coupled with a thorough legal analysis by Councilmember Iya Falcone — who is an attorney — that brought the council to its decision. Councilmembers Helene Schneider and Das Williams, as they have in the past, voted in opposition to Veronica Meadows, on the grounds that the proposal has multiple unmitigatable environmental impacts related to the riparian corridor along Arroyo Burro Creek and traffic at the intersection of Cliff Drive and Alan Road...

Many Alan Road residents were on hand, complaining that overflow parking from nearby Hendry’s Beach makes parking bad enough on their street already. City staff nonetheless supported the project, saying it was consistent with the city’s annexation policy, because of the safer beach access it would provide pedestrians and cyclists traveling through Elings Park from the Westside, and because the plan includes creek restoration.

Environmentalists, however, were skeptical of whether Lee’s restoration plan constituted an environmental upgrade. “I don’t support this creek restoration because it’s designed to protect the homes from erosion, not to protect the creek,” said Brian Trautwein, one of the founders of UCC. Others, such as Eddie Harris of the Santa Barbara Urban Creeks Council, objected to the project’s lack of a comprehensive watershed analysis. Some called Amerikaner’s presentation of the project misleading, saying that although most of the property’s 50-plus acres are designated “public open space,” much of this land is impossible to build on due to topographical features.

Project opponents also took issue with the fact that a smaller development alternative wasn’t examined, being dismissed offhand as financially infeasible...

Although the fate of Veronica Meadows seems to have been decided for the time being, the consensus on the dais was that the development will most likely end up in court again.

Wal-Mart Eyes Ventura

[ Excerpt from: "Wal-Mart may revamp Ventura plans - Big box retailer may limit scope to avoid environmental review," By Bill Lascher, VENTURA COUNTY REPORTER, 06/05/2008 ]

... representatives from Wal-Mart have approached the city about changing its plans for a proposed store off Victoria Avenue... at the former site of Kmart, which closed in January. Previously the company expressed interest in demolishing the current building to build a Supercenter — which would include a large grocery section in addition to its regular discount merchandise — at the site, where it already holds a lease. Such a move would require Wal-Mart to seek a conditional use permit, conduct an environmental review and prove its plans would properly mesh with the city’s general plan and New Urbanist design principles.

Now it appears the company may be considering scaling down its plans. In recent phone conversations with the city, the company reportedly asked about the possibility of reusing the existing building and what would be required of it for the tenant improvement process. Such a move could mean the store would avoid a contentious environmental review and pursue only standard business permits, such as those needed for a new sign, repainting of the building’s exterior and a certificate of occupancy...

Wal-Mart is not without its local opponents... and backers of a ballot initiative that if passed would restrict its opportunities to operate in Ventura say they are close to getting the measure on the ballot for the Nov. 4 election. The measure circulated by the Stop Wal-Mart Coalition wouldn’t actually single out the retailer, but it would prevent any store larger than 90,000 square feet from devoting more than 3 percent of its sales area to selling nontaxable merchandise. The coalition doesn’t think its efforts will be hampered by a shift in Wal-Mart’s plans.

Das Williams, an organizer of the Stop Wal-Mart Coalition and legislative analyst for the group Coastal Alliance United for a Sustainable Economy, said mid-level city staffers have told his group Wal-Mart is asking questions that might minimize the city’s discretion over a project. Even if Wal-Mart does seek simply to re-occupy the Kmart site without altering the building, the basic permits could take months to process.

“That gives us even more of a reason to get this qualified as soon as we can,” Williams said. “That being said, we don’t want to rush and submit our signatures before we are ready.”

The coalition is verifying each signature it has received before turning the measure over to county elections officials. Williams said he expects the verification to be finished sometime early this summer.

“The initiative will definitely qualify for the ballot before Wal-Mart moves in,” Williams said.

Even if Wal-Mart abandoned the possibility of constructing a new building, Williams said he doesn’t expect the initiative to be toothless because of the prohibition of non-taxable sales over a certain percentage.

“We’re also asking the city to make it clear to Wal-Mart if they do come in that this initiative might come in, and if it passes they would be required to change or move out after they’ve moved in,” Williams said.

City staff cannot specifically support or oppose a Wal-Mart store on the basis of its brand alone. Instead, [Nelson Hernandez, Ventura’s community development director] said, the municipality’s responsibility is to determine whether a property meets local ordinances and meshes with the city’s overall planning goals...

Ventura planning officials are in the midst of developing a vision for the Victoria Avenue corridor, and Wal-Mart would have to meet standards that are consistent with urban design ideals city leaders have adopted throughout town...

RV Program for Homeless

[ Excerpt from "Santa Barbara’s Reversal Puts Its RV Program on a Roll," By Rob Kuznia, Noozhawk, 06/11/2008 ]


... Santa Barbara’s RV program serves 58 RVs, and in the past year has put 20 families into permanent housing... The program allows homeless people to park their RVs in several city lots, as well as in the lots of some churches and nonprofit organizations.

In the past few months, it has been featured in the Los Angeles Times and on CNN, ABC and CBS’ Early Show. Soon to be added to the list are 20/20, National Public Radio and People Magazine, which is devoting four pages to the story...

The RV program receives much of its funding from the city of Santa Barbara, but is implemented by a nonprofit organization called New Beginnings...

Meanwhile, the program has attracted some – but markedly less – coverage locally than nationally...

In any case, despite the glowing praise from the national media – CBS referred to Santa Barbara’s program as “innovative” – several City Council members expressed concern that the coverage could open the floodgates for homeless people from around the state and beyond.

“As much as I think all this publicity is absolutely fabulous, I would caution us not to make it look too attractive,” Councilwoman Iya Falcone said.

Councilman Das Williams agreed. “We want to take care of our own homeless. We don’t want to necessarily take care of the rest of California’s homeless problem,” he said.

Nonetheless, although no vote was taken, no council members seemed opposed to the proposal to increase city funding for the program from $36,000 to $43,000 for the fiscal year beginning July 1. All in all, the program costs $105,000, much of which is raised through fundraisers.

The city money pays for the salary and benefits of a half-time employee who serves as a kind of “park ranger,” checking on the program’s lots throughout the city to make sure the RV dwellers are abiding by the rules. Those rules include no guests, no barbecues and no drinking alcohol.

“It’s a place for them to sleep, not socialize,” Transportation Director Browning Allen said.

The city has supplied 14 parking spaces in three lots: at West Carrillo Street near Highway 101, and at the intersections of Cota and Santa Barbara streets and Garden Street and Cabrillo Boulevard.

Other spaces are in the parking lots of churches, nonprofit organizations and private businesses...

Farr vs. Pappas in Nov.

[ Excerpt from "3rd District Supervisor Candidates React to Santa Barbara County Votes - Early Election Reactions from Steve Pappas and Doreen Farr; David Smyser Missing in Action" By Matt Kettmann and Chris Meagher, SB INDEPENDENT, June 3, 2008 ]


... the 3rd District Supervisor’s race will come down to a run-off election in November. But while many were expecting that battle to be between left-leaning Doreen Farr and right-leaning David Smyser, it seems that it will really be between former planning commissioner Farr... and neighborhood advocate Steve Pappas...

With support of the county’s largest unions, the most powerful Democrat politicians, and liberal activists from many parts of the district, Farr’s win was of little surprise. She addressed her volunteers and supporters during a party at Hollister Brewing Company in Goleta... As expected, the party proved to be a who’s who of progressive politics: 1st District Supervisor Salud Carbajal (who secured his seat without opposition), 2nd District Supervisor Janet Wolf, Santa Barbara City Councilmembers Das Williams and Helene Schnieder, and former Goleta mayor Margaret Connell were all in attendance...

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

Please read the full text of this article for the complete coverage and some very relevant comments.