Having studied the financial feasibility of creating more middle-class housing in Santa Barbara by building smaller units, a couple of consultants from Berkeley-based Strategic Economics delivered their verdict to a rapt audience of civic activists and architects on Wednesday night. For those who missed it, they will repeat the presentation tonight, Thursday, from 6 to 9 p.m., at the Faulkner Gallery in the central branch of Santa Barbara Public Library.
The existing standard for development in the City of Santa Barbara, Dena Belzer and Sujata Srirastara discovered, is 26 condos per acre, 22 of those luxury condos going for $1 million or more, and four costing $300,000 and geared for buyers with “moderate” incomes of $80,000 per year. Those four units represent the 15-percent-affordable requirement the city imposes for condo projects, and people enter a city-run lottery for a chance to purchase them. This mix typically nets developers a 16 percent net profit.
Belzer and Sririastara set out to see how much middle-income and moderate-income housing they could introduce into the mix and still make the project profitable enough that developers would build.
The winning scenario featured 62 units on one acre. It yielded a 15 percent profit, the only one that penciled out of the three hypothetical projects Srirastara and Belzer studied. None of its 62 units were luxury condos, but 38 were what the consultants called “standard” condos, costing up to $1 million, for buyers with incomes of $200,000 a year. Another 18 were called middle-income workforce housing - geared toward families making $120,000 a year and costing $800,000. Six were for moderate-income buyers. Parking was calculated at 1.5 spaces per condo instead of the usual two because it is “unbundled” from the units. Buyers can choose zero, one, or two spaces, with the condo’s cost adjusted accordingly.
Belzer and Sriristara were able to fit that many condos onto an acre by making the units smaller than normal, ranging between 1,000 and 1,400 square feet, except for the affordable units, some of which were as small as 925 square feet. Half were one-bedroom, half two-bedroom, all with ceilings nine to 10 feet high, conglomerated into either a layered four-story building, or a three-story building with a flat roof.
Following the presentation, a homeowner who lives near Cottage Hospital was among those expressing horror. She said that such a project would ruin her neighborhood. The unbundled parking would lead to more people parking on the streets, she said, and three- to four-story buildings are already killing the character of the Westside, where 100-year-old homes with large street setbacks are already being demolished. Among the fans of compact units who answered the critics was Eric Lohela, 28, who said that “everybody my age is leaving” the city. He argued that a vibrant community includes youth, and, after sharing the variety of living situations he has endured in Santa Barbara, said he would love to buy a smaller-sized condo. Santa Barbara city planner Betty Weiss said a project of this size would more likely be zoned for the city core than for Eastside and Westside neighborhoods.
The consultants said they were aware of examples of developments as dense as the one that they projected in San Francisco, Minneapolis, and Denver, but couldn’t cite any names or addresses on the spot. Some audience members sang the praises of exemplary ultra-compact developments in Santa Barbara - such as Casa las Fuentes, Garden Court, El Carrillo, and Casa las Granadas - as well as backyard granny units measuring less than 700 square feet, and very small attractive units in Vancouver and Victoria, Canada, that are reportedly “selling like hot cakes.”
One audience member noted that there are few one-acre lots in downtown Santa Barbara, a point the consultants conceded. They said they would have to go back to the drawing board and recalculate for smaller lot sizes. Also still unanswered, because the consultant’s floor-to-area ratio calculation method differed from the city’s, was how much garden space these projects might contain and how that compares to existing examples in Santa Barbara.
Following tonight’s presentation, the study of smaller units will next be reviewed by the Planning Commission at its July 23 meeting, as part of fleshing out Plan Santa Barbara, a precursor to updating the city’s general plan for the coming 20 years.
This story has been amended to reflect the true date for Planning Commission meeting at which this study is tentatively scheduled for review.


Print friendly
E-mail story
Tip Us Off
Comments
Share Article
Myspace




Previous Month



Comments
Smaller units makes sense (we don't need more "luxury" condos) but the "No-Growth-Preservationists" will yell and scream because apparently it's better to have a stagnant downtown full of low-rise buildings and gang-bangers than a vibrant core with workforce housing and lively cafes! Personally, I'd rather walk the streets with nurses, cops, gov't workers and teachers (who can afford to live in the town they work in for a change) than the lowlifes and thugs presently loitering on lower State.
Insisting that "employed" people purchase the units would be paramount--and begs the question: shouldn't these units get turned over when the "current owner" retires?
As it is, I actually feel unsafe in broad daylight on lower State--never mind going out to dinner. Unless I'm carrying pepper spray! Just sayin'...
maximum (anonymous profile)
June 25, 2009 at 9:38 p.m. (Suggest removal)
That is quite the proposed City government policy where the builders are assured a 15% profit !
At this public meeting session tonight (Thursday), I requested this analysis should run and present what a residential project can become when incorporating both a 15% profit and an mere 10% profit for the builders. Let the people and the City Council decide that, so the report by the City staff should include both profit examples through the review process, starting with the Planning Commission meeting on 9th July.
If the industry is not satisfied on making a mere 10% profit for a downtown housing project that better meets the community needs (for ceiling heights, car parking spaces, selling prices, etc.), then I am sure the innovative market will find a builder who can if they want to build anything here.
For the other side of the equation so the building industry feels confident about such a small, mere 10% profit margin, the City bureaucracy and review process also should set clear rules and give clear direction from the start when the builders initially propose a project. If a project has problems, they should be told from the start instead of wasting time and money and therefore wanting a higher profit margin because some proposed projects crash and burn with in the risky review process.
And that is the Change We Need.
David_Pritchett (David Pritchett)
June 25, 2009 at 11:11 p.m. (Suggest removal)
We lived in Carpinteria at Casitas Village condos (1980s) and later in Santa Barbara at Stonecreek condos (1990s), both under or around 800 square feet. This size was workable but small for a young family of four. These places were like the cars with the bumper sticker - "Don't laugh it's paid for". Don't laugh we own it. But we owned them which was better financial planning than renting.
When the boys got older we really needed a bigger spot and had more income, because I was able to work more. We were lucky that we could afford a bigger condo in Goleta at Storke Ranch. All of these places were built with the goal of affordability.
I wanted to stay in SB but could not find anything in 1999 for a bigger family of 4 in the 400 range. All of these places we've owned were set up to be affordable when first built. We could not afford our current condo at todays prices. I think the condos at Casitas Village were a great model for affordable housing for young families. But sadly what starts affordable does not stay that way.
http://casitasvillage.com/
I do not think a young family of moderate income could afford a condo at Casitas Village anymore. SB needs affordable housing for young families. How much is it a matter of will rather than a matter of profit equations?
cjbowdish (anonymous profile)
June 26, 2009 at 6:43 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Hey Dave- You got contacts...How much are they paying these consultants? I sat through enough presentations to tell canned boilerplate studies when I smell them.
Obviously they didn't do even the most basic survey of potential building sites or even income studies.
What is the assumption on downpayment to buy which is directly related to monthly carry cost. Does their price model take into account the 30% downturn in sale prices in the last couple of years? How about the prevailing cost in building materials? This looks like 2006 price data not todays or next couple of years. I bought my house in 89 during the last bubble and suffered underwater for SIX YEARS. Are they pricing that into their models?
To say that rental housing "doesn't pencil out" is developer propaganda. Mike towbes just pulled off a big one in Goleta with $6 million from COG (that he immediately donated to Grenada Theater, which I still don't understand).
The core problem with affordable housing in this town is the greedy land owners who expect ridiculous ROIs for their property. That's where you need to put the pressure. SIMA, Radius, Bermants and the other funk zone families that own large tracts ...are perpetuating and exacerbating this affordability problem.
sa1 (anonymous profile)
June 26, 2009 at 3:34 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Were is Don Hughe's 15 - or even 10% profit on Chapala One (scheduled for foreclosure July 15th)??? Not only will he not get any profit but he's going to lose a few million he used have. Were is the profit for Radio Square shortly to be foreclosed on? Those who know nothing often have a lot to say.
Casita Village can currently be bought with 3.5% down or around $8,000 plus closing costs and an income of $43,000 a year will qualify - and that's REALLY qualifying, not breath test qualifying. That's two people making $11.00 an hour. Isn't our affordability problem horrendous? Let's stay informed about issues we're discussing people.
Ezzyme (anonymous profile)
June 26, 2009 at 3:54 p.m. (Suggest removal)
That is nice to hear the Casitas Village is still relatively affordable. However the commute to SB has gotten to be a bit tricky with the Summerland bottleneck. It would be nice to have something like that in SB. Small with safe playing areas for kids and close to work. UCSB has some family housing (East of Storke Ranch) that has a similar model as Casitas Village with safe grounds for kids to play in. It is scheduled to be torn down and replaced, I hope that it still will have grounds for kids.
cjbowdish (anonymous profile)
June 29, 2009 at 5:49 a.m. (Suggest removal)
One problem with young families is that if you want to raise your kids and be home with them most of the time 1.5 or 1.25 of an income does not work too well. I think this is a problem all over. You can buy a house but you can not raise your kids there because it take two full time jobs. I did jobs where I could have my kids with me when they were young but we lived in very small places. We didn't mind that much because we were together.
cjbowdish (anonymous profile)
June 29, 2009 at 5:56 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I think part of the problem with middle class housing is that people who make a middle class income expect the nice house with a yard not the tiny condo with shared grounds. I think that is why many of Santa Barbara's schools are mainly Mexican Americans because of the expectations of most middle class families. However, I think there are some young families who would love to have a very modest condo (at not so modest of a price) if it had nice grounds for their kids and was close to work. The trick is how to keep the not so middle class investors from buying them up and renting them.
cjbowdish (anonymous profile)
June 29, 2009 at 6:07 a.m. (Suggest removal)
There are 2 problems here. The first is so many people want affordable housing and they grab it up and then want to sell years later for a profit. It doesn't work that way, prices should be tied to wages. If you want to buy low and sell high then don't do it with subsidized housing.
The second and biggest problem I see is with Johnny come latelys and carpet baggers. These people have given little to the community and then come in at the last minute to get the affordable units. People should only be allowed on the list if they have lived in the community for the last 10 years consecutively. Let the people who have worked here and supported the area benefit, not some people who decided to come here at the last minute.
El_Informador (anonymous profile)
June 29, 2009 at 10:01 a.m. (Suggest removal)
First of all, I am an architecture student (i obviously have no income yet). I LOVE S.B. I moved here from Alaska about 10 years ago to get residency for school tuition. I would never expect to continue to live here with a normal American middle-class life. People have to accept that everyone in the world wants to live here because of its surrounding beauty and weather. There is no way to get around that. Unfortunately there is only one conclusion to draw: this town will continue to get more dense and stay unaffordable. So either move out and quite your b*t*zhin' or keep on living here and paying the sky high rent. God didn't intend for all of the human race to live here anyways.
What I hate is when others try to play God and say who can and cannot live here and purchase a house. Who cares how long someone has lived here and who cares how much they make or what they "contribute". That is insulting for government to say who is contributing. This is not China people! The free market will keep this place looking beautiful.
Oh and by the way, I promise you the developers are always making more than 15%. They hold all the strings!
I say get rid of all the subsidized housing and let the middle class tough it out (I know I have for a long time) or move out...You're gonna love this: I think a lot of the wealthy only want subsidized housing so educated blue collars keep this place from looking so much like a Mexican Riviera. Maybe its subconscious racism in disguise. At any rate, this place will always have a shortage of quality homes, teachers, police officers, nurses, etc. because many of them can't afford it. It's just a trade off we have to live (or die) with.
cosmosjoshys (anonymous profile)
July 2, 2009 at 12:58 a.m. (Suggest removal)
This article was a little crazy.
62 units on an acre (I'm not philosophically opposed, but...)
If you make $200k a year, you can spend up to $1 million for a 2 bath condo that is 1000 to 1400 sf and comes with two parking spots. Or you can buy a smaller condo for only $800k.
But for $700k, you can buy a 2BR house in many SB neighborhoods, on 1/12 of an acre, about 1000 to 1200 sf. And two parking spots. Sometimes even a garage. You can buy an even bigger home in Goleta.
So...how is this "middle class housing" when you are paying more, but you get less? If the goal is just to create more housing, well then, okay. But shouldn't it be cheaper than a house if you are sharing an acre with 61 other condos?
mm1970 (anonymous profile)
July 2, 2009 at 9:20 p.m. (Suggest removal)