Edhat Staff
By the edhat staff
In a significant development for housing in Santa Barbara, the city’s Planning Commission has approved a 63-unit housing project located at 400 W. Carrillo Street. The project, proposed by the Housing Authority of the City of Santa Barbara, aims to provide affordable housing options in the downtown area.
The Planning Commission voted 6-0 in favor of this project earlier this month.
The approval for comes as a breath of fresh air, as it has received widespread support from members of the community, with no negative comments raised during public meetings. Commissioner Lesley Wiscomb expressed her surprise and delight at this unanimity of support, stating it’s “really rare.”
One distinctive aspect of this housing project is that it will be 100% rent-restricted. The units will be made available to moderate-income families earning between 80% and 120% of the area median income (AMI), as well as middle-income affordable renters earning between 120% and 160% of the AMI. This approach aims to address the housing needs of individuals who earn too much to qualify for low-income affordable housing but don’t earn enough to secure a home loan.
The proposed development includes a four-story building, comprising 39 one-bedroom units, 19 studios, and 5 two-bedroom units. Currently the plot is a downtown commuter parking lot.
Parking lot located at 400 W. Carrillo Street (courtesy)
Although the project faced initial resistance last year when a larger version was proposed and rejected by community members due to size and parking concerns, the current revised version has garnered strong support from the Planning Commission.
The approval of the housing development at 400 W. Carrillo Street is seen as a significant step in meeting the pressing housing needs of the Santa Barbara community. By addressing the missing middle-income bracket, this project offers a viable solution for individuals and families who struggle to find suitable housing options.
The Commission acknowledges the project’s exemption from the California Environmental Quality Act, and it will now proceed to the Santa Barbara City Council for further consideration.
More information on the project can be found at https://hacsb.org/properties/400-w-carrillo-street-proposed-development/
This bumps up the subsidized housing within the City of Santa Barbara to 7,221 units of publicly supported housing.
Which is a pretty ridiculous amount for a very expensive vacation town. We should be closing in on 20% of downtown housing subsidized by taxpayers while out of town developers are allowed to build ridiculous, expensive projects and flip them immediately.
COAST – still waiting for that source for your 20% claim. And so what if it increases the amount? We need homes for employees whether you like it or not.
Got the info from the SBHA. The TOTAL # of Housing units is 39200… 20% of that is 7900…
The City of Santa Barbara housing web page says that affordable housing is 10% of the housing stock.
LETMEGO – It does. I’ve linked to that as well. COAST insists it’s 20% because he said he “got the info from the SBHA.” I looked and didn’t find it. Yes, in SB City, the number of housing units is 39200, but I don’t know where he pulled the 7,221 units from. On the contrary, the Housing Authority for the COUNTY states “4,057 are assisted in privately owned rentals through the Federal Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) program, operated locally since 1975.”
4,057 homes are Section 8 (subsidized) out of the 160,905 units in the county (https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/santabarbaracitycalifornia,santabarbaracountycalifornia/HSG010222) = 2.5% of COUNTY units are Section 8. There are other subsidies, but this is just an example of the general amount of subsidized housing in the COUNTY.
Now, in SB City…. the City claims 10% are affordable housing. That doesn’t always necessarily mean subsidized. https://santabarbaraca.gov/services/housing-human-services/affordable-housing
There seems to be NOTHING suggesting 20% of the housing units in SB City are subsidized. In fact, it seems it may be far less than 10%. If I’m wrong, I’ll happily admit it, but I don’t see the stats COAST is citing.
If we are going to fill in every open spot with housing, I’m glad to see this kind, rather than the developments that have a couple token affordable units and mostly “market rate.” I’m sorry to lose that lot full of trees. But otherwise, it’s a sensible location for dense housing.
Agree. This is the type of housing we need. Low income and the often forgotten middle income. The wealthy can fight over $5million homes.
This is going to displace a bunch of Winnebago homeless rigs.
Ironically, it’s going to displace a lot of people who commute from less affordable areas. They will still have to park somewhere as they probably don’t qualify to live in this project.
And you’re mad that now some employees (think support staff) will be able to live AND work here or because the homeless in that area will be displaced? Or just complaining again about everything and anything?
No, I think it’s a good thing. Winnebagos don’t belong there.
What about people getting on 101? A restriction on owning a car if you purchase this housing? Or perhaps more Caltrans changes to no on, no off at Carrillo St.
The biggest risk for this site is air quality. It is within 250′ of 101; no residential is allowed for such locations unless the some nebulous mitigation is provided. The Housing Authority’s mitigation is an air filtration system; but that might result in sound levels exceeding the 45dB standard. And there are no standards or prescribed tests to determine if the filtration actually results in acceptable air quality. And the filtration does nothing to improve air quality in the required open space. And to add further uncertainty, the 2009 Air Quality Study was defective. The City could arrange for a new air quality study (as the General Plan mandates), but has not done so. Measuring air quality is cheap these days (I paid $264 for a device at my residence). Take a look at map.purpleair.com .
It certainly sounds like a positive solution, but losing that many incredibly beautiful, mature trees and replacing them with more reflective stucco with air-conditioning seems like backward move. They should consider this next week when it’s in the 90’s, and realize that it’s only going to get warmer here. “One large tree can provide a day’s supply of oxygen for up to four people. Trees also store carbon dioxide in their fibers helping to clean the air and reduce the negative effects that this CO2 could have had on our environment.”
There were virtually no trees in Santa Barbara other than the sparce oaks and sycamores along the creeks 200 years ago…
Hate to lose all those beautiful trees! I wish they would force some of the hotels to turn into affordable housing for locals. This city is ALL and ONLY about the tourist dollars. Wish it wasn’t so.