Saturday, September 15, 2007
Chant 1447
Surprise, surprise...
[ Excerpt of "I.V. May Add 1,447 Housing Units - Density, Dude," SB INDEPENDENT, September 6, 2007, By Chris Meagher ]
With the passage of the Isla Vista Master Plan last week, Santa Barbara County officials believe they have met the state’s housing mandate and have sent a letter to the state’s Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) asking for final certification. As a result of rezoning included in the plan, 1,447 additional housing units can be built in the already densely populated Isla Vista area. Of those units, 1,415 can be “built at densities ranging from 25-45 dwelling units per acre” — a density rate consistent with state guidelines for lower-income housing in the county. The 1,415 units will sit on 259 acres of recently rezoned land in Isla Vista.
County planners knew the completion of the plan would help make up for the county’s overall shortfall of available affordable units, but wouldn’t speculate on how big the effect would be until the Board of Supervisors okayed the Master Plan. Up until that point, the county had a reported shortfall of 1,235 units out of a designated 6,064 units it had to zone for by December.
The state housing mandate doesn’t call on counties to build homes, but rather requires them to prepare for housing through policy decisions and incentive packages for builders. HCD crafts a Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) for agencies such as the Santa Barbara County Association of Governments (SBCAG), which then divvies up that number as requirements for each city and county. David Matson, the county deputy director of long-range planning, said the primary consideration in placing housing units is providing a balance between housing and available jobs. The South Coast received 38 percent of the RHNA-zoned units in the county. Another 30 percent went to the Santa Maria area — primarily Orcutt — while Santa Ynez received 13 percent, Lompoc 14 percent, and Cuyama five percent. Because the greatest job generation in the county comes from the South Coast, Isla Vista was an appropriate place for the units, Matson said.
Meanwhile, some groups have stepped up against the choice to make I.V. housing even denser. Chris Henson, director of the Coastal Housing Coalition, called the move by the county “shortsighted,” opining that the housing units should be geared to an entire county community and not just I.V.’s student population. Henson pointed to a section of the county’s Housing Element which states that the “county shall ensure adequate sites zoned at densities that accommodate the county’s ‘fair share’ housing needs for the current planning period at all income levels and in all Housing Market Areas.”
When asked if the county was just putting the units in Isla Vista to get through this round of housing mandates, Supervisor Brooks Firestone — whose 3rd District includes Isla Vista — said that various options had been studied and that the option adopted was ideal. “The county ultimately must do what the state requires us to do,” he said. First District Supervisor Salud Carbajal said that while the housing crisis is by no means solved with this move, rezoning Isla Vista allows the county to move on and address the next cycle of mandates from the state. The county didn’t go about the last cycle in the most productive way, Carbajal said, but is working to improve this time around.
SBCAG is already working on the next cycle of mandates... As it sits now, the county will be forced to accommodate 13,312 new housing units between 2008 and 2014 as part of the RHNA program. SBCAG officials are attempting to negotiate with the state, saying a cookie-cutter mandate doesn’t work in Santa Barbara. “Housing Elements are a sham throughout the state of California,” Carbajal said. “The state is not providing the tools —
the creativity and the flexibility — to meet our mandates. It’s a bogus process that polarizes our community.”
[ Excerpt of "I.V. May Add 1,447 Housing Units - Density, Dude," SB INDEPENDENT, September 6, 2007, By Chris Meagher ]
With the passage of the Isla Vista Master Plan last week, Santa Barbara County officials believe they have met the state’s housing mandate and have sent a letter to the state’s Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) asking for final certification. As a result of rezoning included in the plan, 1,447 additional housing units can be built in the already densely populated Isla Vista area. Of those units, 1,415 can be “built at densities ranging from 25-45 dwelling units per acre” — a density rate consistent with state guidelines for lower-income housing in the county. The 1,415 units will sit on 259 acres of recently rezoned land in Isla Vista.
County planners knew the completion of the plan would help make up for the county’s overall shortfall of available affordable units, but wouldn’t speculate on how big the effect would be until the Board of Supervisors okayed the Master Plan. Up until that point, the county had a reported shortfall of 1,235 units out of a designated 6,064 units it had to zone for by December.
The state housing mandate doesn’t call on counties to build homes, but rather requires them to prepare for housing through policy decisions and incentive packages for builders. HCD crafts a Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) for agencies such as the Santa Barbara County Association of Governments (SBCAG), which then divvies up that number as requirements for each city and county. David Matson, the county deputy director of long-range planning, said the primary consideration in placing housing units is providing a balance between housing and available jobs. The South Coast received 38 percent of the RHNA-zoned units in the county. Another 30 percent went to the Santa Maria area — primarily Orcutt — while Santa Ynez received 13 percent, Lompoc 14 percent, and Cuyama five percent. Because the greatest job generation in the county comes from the South Coast, Isla Vista was an appropriate place for the units, Matson said.
Meanwhile, some groups have stepped up against the choice to make I.V. housing even denser. Chris Henson, director of the Coastal Housing Coalition, called the move by the county “shortsighted,” opining that the housing units should be geared to an entire county community and not just I.V.’s student population. Henson pointed to a section of the county’s Housing Element which states that the “county shall ensure adequate sites zoned at densities that accommodate the county’s ‘fair share’ housing needs for the current planning period at all income levels and in all Housing Market Areas.”
When asked if the county was just putting the units in Isla Vista to get through this round of housing mandates, Supervisor Brooks Firestone — whose 3rd District includes Isla Vista — said that various options had been studied and that the option adopted was ideal. “The county ultimately must do what the state requires us to do,” he said. First District Supervisor Salud Carbajal said that while the housing crisis is by no means solved with this move, rezoning Isla Vista allows the county to move on and address the next cycle of mandates from the state. The county didn’t go about the last cycle in the most productive way, Carbajal said, but is working to improve this time around.
SBCAG is already working on the next cycle of mandates... As it sits now, the county will be forced to accommodate 13,312 new housing units between 2008 and 2014 as part of the RHNA program. SBCAG officials are attempting to negotiate with the state, saying a cookie-cutter mandate doesn’t work in Santa Barbara. “Housing Elements are a sham throughout the state of California,” Carbajal said. “The state is not providing the tools —
the creativity and the flexibility — to meet our mandates. It’s a bogus process that polarizes our community.”
Labels: development, IVMP
Friday, August 17, 2007
Bob Goodwin, R.I.P.
Following the burning of the Bank of America in 1970 and the beginning of the community building period of Isla Vista's history, the area battles shifted to controlled growth in the wider Goleta Valley via a "water moratorium" enforced by the Goleta Water District. A major fighter in those battles was Robert Goodwin.
The following is excerpted from "Bob Goodwin’s Good Fight," by Barney Brantingham, SB INDEPENDENT, Augutst 16, 2007]
Water Warrior: Attorney Bob Goodwin received countless threats while defending the Goleta Water District hookup moratorium back in the 1970s and ’80s. Goodwin, who died last week at 64 in Livermore, was one of the main targets of the infuriated development interests who’d been busy trying to pave every inch of Goleta.
Under the good old boys previously running the board, the district was approving every project that came along, sucking up more precious water than could be replenished by nature. Over-drafting the ground water basin meant that, like it or not, at some point Goletans would have no choice but be forced to hook up to expensive state water, which in turn would produce even further growth.
According to Ed Maschke, former water board member, not only was Goodwin threatened, but he himself received threats from anonymous callers while at home with his children. “We will come and get you,” voices at the other end of the line said.
Donna Hone, also a former board member, recalled anonymous phone threats and being severely frightened at a forum when a developer fulminated, stirring up a crowd of burly construction workers with ugly accusations. “It was a scary business,” she recalled. “Passions ran high” in those turbulent days. “We were idealistic and the other side was looking out for its pocketbooks,” including the banking interests, Hone said.
... Until [1971]... few attended board meetings and directors were reappointed without challenge at the polls...
Through the 25 years the moratorium lasted, “Bob was a hero,” Bill Wallace, former Water District board member and county supervisor told me.
In the early 1970s, residents began rebelling against runaway development in Goleta, then known as the fastest growing unincorporated community in California. Young homeowners who had moved in as tract houses replaced lemon orchards were appalled by the unrestrained growth and lack of planning. The pro-growth Board of Supervisors just shrugged.
“People just woke up,” Wallace told me. “People said (the rate of development) was just too much.” So a group of young professionals — Llana Sherman, a teacher at La Patera School, and Raul Martinez and John McCord, engineers at one of the new research plants springing up — formed a slate that unseated the old Water Board majority.
All that Goodwin and the homeowners swept into district office in 1971 wanted was to enact a moratorium on new hookups until voters approved new sources. It was democracy in action.
“Bob Goodwin was a real superstar,” one former district official recalled. “I remember your comment about Bob being the Billy Martin of water law.” As the board majority shifted, Goodwin was bounced at least twice from his post as attorney for the district. (Billy Martin served as manager of the Yankees five different times.)
The hookup battle led to into a fight over who had the rights to underground water: owners of the land above or the public agency serving the community at large. “It was a classic struggle between private greed and public need,” Maschke said.
“He was a brilliant water attorney,” Hone said. “He tried to change California water law.” Goodwin argued that the public had the right to subsurface water, and he lost only when the case reached the state Supreme Court, Hone said. But the district still gained invaluable water rights.
“He was a genius,” Wallace added. “He really never would give an inch” in his battles with batteries of attorneys. “He would face eight or nine attorneys,” Maschke said. “Without him, we never would have kept the moratorium. It slowed the madness that transformed Goleta into another concrete bedroom community. He was the best and the brightest.”
Goleta also shook up the California water establishment with the then-revolutionary belief that “if you don’t have the water, you can’t build,” Maschke said. Now state regulations require that proposed developments must show that they have a proven water source. But back then, Goleta became a pariah among many in the state water industry, which traditionally served by and large as a pawn for developers, extending service out to new developments, then handing taxpayers the bill.
Early on, Goodwin and the new board also faced hostility from top district staff, who resented their philosophy and just wanted to keep over-drafting. They didn’t like me, either.
Rest well, Bob Goodwin, valiant warrior and good friend...
-------------------------------
[Barney wrote some more in Bob's official obit]:
Robert Goodwin, a key figure in the Goleta water wars and a leader in the homeowner activist movement of the 1970s, is dead.
Goodwin, who died this week in Livermore, served as attorney for the Goleta Water District after a slate of young Goletans unseated board members they accused of bringing the fast-growing community to the brink of a water crisis. The newly elected board then imposed a moratorium of new hookups on grounds that supplies were insufficient to serve added demands unless voters approved new sources.
The water board election, paired with Goleta homeowner attorney Jim Slater being elected to the then-pro-growth county Board of Supervisors, sparked an electrifying ferment among young families that had swelled the Goleta population. A group of well-educated Goletans rose up against what they felt was out-of-control growth, lack of proper planning, and a water district policy of officially promising to serve new developments despite a looming water deficit.
But tumultuous political tides led to fierce disputes as the homeowners won and lost their water board majorities and pro-growth factions regained power. Goodwin, a water law specialist, was ousted as board attorney.
He moved to Livermore around 20 years ago and continued in private practice...
Goodwin graduated from the University of San Francisco in 1964 and its school of law in 1967. He has served as president of the Livermore Chamber of Commerce, president of the ValleyCare Hospital Foundation, director of the Livermore Rotary Club, director of the Eastern Alameda County Bar Association, and Tri-Valley Estate Planning Council.
The following is excerpted from "Bob Goodwin’s Good Fight," by Barney Brantingham, SB INDEPENDENT, Augutst 16, 2007]
Water Warrior: Attorney Bob Goodwin received countless threats while defending the Goleta Water District hookup moratorium back in the 1970s and ’80s. Goodwin, who died last week at 64 in Livermore, was one of the main targets of the infuriated development interests who’d been busy trying to pave every inch of Goleta.
Under the good old boys previously running the board, the district was approving every project that came along, sucking up more precious water than could be replenished by nature. Over-drafting the ground water basin meant that, like it or not, at some point Goletans would have no choice but be forced to hook up to expensive state water, which in turn would produce even further growth.
According to Ed Maschke, former water board member, not only was Goodwin threatened, but he himself received threats from anonymous callers while at home with his children. “We will come and get you,” voices at the other end of the line said.
Donna Hone, also a former board member, recalled anonymous phone threats and being severely frightened at a forum when a developer fulminated, stirring up a crowd of burly construction workers with ugly accusations. “It was a scary business,” she recalled. “Passions ran high” in those turbulent days. “We were idealistic and the other side was looking out for its pocketbooks,” including the banking interests, Hone said.
... Until [1971]... few attended board meetings and directors were reappointed without challenge at the polls...
Through the 25 years the moratorium lasted, “Bob was a hero,” Bill Wallace, former Water District board member and county supervisor told me.
In the early 1970s, residents began rebelling against runaway development in Goleta, then known as the fastest growing unincorporated community in California. Young homeowners who had moved in as tract houses replaced lemon orchards were appalled by the unrestrained growth and lack of planning. The pro-growth Board of Supervisors just shrugged.
“People just woke up,” Wallace told me. “People said (the rate of development) was just too much.” So a group of young professionals — Llana Sherman, a teacher at La Patera School, and Raul Martinez and John McCord, engineers at one of the new research plants springing up — formed a slate that unseated the old Water Board majority.
All that Goodwin and the homeowners swept into district office in 1971 wanted was to enact a moratorium on new hookups until voters approved new sources. It was democracy in action.
“Bob Goodwin was a real superstar,” one former district official recalled. “I remember your comment about Bob being the Billy Martin of water law.” As the board majority shifted, Goodwin was bounced at least twice from his post as attorney for the district. (Billy Martin served as manager of the Yankees five different times.)
The hookup battle led to into a fight over who had the rights to underground water: owners of the land above or the public agency serving the community at large. “It was a classic struggle between private greed and public need,” Maschke said.
“He was a brilliant water attorney,” Hone said. “He tried to change California water law.” Goodwin argued that the public had the right to subsurface water, and he lost only when the case reached the state Supreme Court, Hone said. But the district still gained invaluable water rights.
“He was a genius,” Wallace added. “He really never would give an inch” in his battles with batteries of attorneys. “He would face eight or nine attorneys,” Maschke said. “Without him, we never would have kept the moratorium. It slowed the madness that transformed Goleta into another concrete bedroom community. He was the best and the brightest.”
Goleta also shook up the California water establishment with the then-revolutionary belief that “if you don’t have the water, you can’t build,” Maschke said. Now state regulations require that proposed developments must show that they have a proven water source. But back then, Goleta became a pariah among many in the state water industry, which traditionally served by and large as a pawn for developers, extending service out to new developments, then handing taxpayers the bill.
Early on, Goodwin and the new board also faced hostility from top district staff, who resented their philosophy and just wanted to keep over-drafting. They didn’t like me, either.
Rest well, Bob Goodwin, valiant warrior and good friend...
-------------------------------
[Barney wrote some more in Bob's official obit]:
Robert Goodwin, a key figure in the Goleta water wars and a leader in the homeowner activist movement of the 1970s, is dead.
Goodwin, who died this week in Livermore, served as attorney for the Goleta Water District after a slate of young Goletans unseated board members they accused of bringing the fast-growing community to the brink of a water crisis. The newly elected board then imposed a moratorium of new hookups on grounds that supplies were insufficient to serve added demands unless voters approved new sources.
The water board election, paired with Goleta homeowner attorney Jim Slater being elected to the then-pro-growth county Board of Supervisors, sparked an electrifying ferment among young families that had swelled the Goleta population. A group of well-educated Goletans rose up against what they felt was out-of-control growth, lack of proper planning, and a water district policy of officially promising to serve new developments despite a looming water deficit.
But tumultuous political tides led to fierce disputes as the homeowners won and lost their water board majorities and pro-growth factions regained power. Goodwin, a water law specialist, was ousted as board attorney.
He moved to Livermore around 20 years ago and continued in private practice...
Goodwin graduated from the University of San Francisco in 1964 and its school of law in 1967. He has served as president of the Livermore Chamber of Commerce, president of the ValleyCare Hospital Foundation, director of the Livermore Rotary Club, director of the Eastern Alameda County Bar Association, and Tri-Valley Estate Planning Council.
Labels: Bob Goodwin, development, Goleta Water Board, water
Subscribe to Feed
