Anonymous
Artist rendering of the 30-unit Housing Authority building planned for 116 Cota Street in downtown Santa Barbara.
Source: Housing Authority of the City of Santa Barbara
A May 14, 2020 article in the Los Angeles Times reports that “With the coronavirus-induced shock to the economy crippling businesses of all sizes and leaving millions of Americans out of work, homelessness in the United States could grow as much as 45% in a year.” The data trend, which comes from research conducted by Dr. Brendan O’Flaherty, a professor of economics at Columbia University, is mirrored in our community. According to the most recent Point-in-Time count completed in January 2020, the study found 1,897 homeless residents countywide, with 914 (48%) living in the City of Santa Barbara. The chronically homeless in the county rose from 423 to 614, a 45% increase. While the nation continues to grapple with adequately addressing this issue, the Housing Authority of the City of Santa Barbara (HACSB) is moving forward with plans to build new housing specifically to address the needs of homeless individuals. The project exemplifies the agency’s mission to create safe, affordable, and quality housing opportunities for families and individuals while promoting self-sufficiency and neighborhood revitalization.
While the site, located at 116 Cota Street, is currently approved as an AUD project for 15 market rate rental units, HACSB plans to convert the development to provide 30 affordable housing units. The property consists of two parcels with a combined total of approximately 11,000 square feet. It is a mostly flat parcel and sits just to the east of the shopping center on the corner of Cota and Anacapa Streets that houses Dune Coffee Roasters (formerly The French Press). The property sites across the street from the current Cota Street commuter parking lot. The HACSB plan for the lot will not change the mass or exterior design of the building. The Housing Authority recently received approval from the Santa Barbara City Council for the City to provide funding of $2.0 million for the $2.6 million for acquisition of this property. The funding source from the City can only be used to support affordable housing efforts. In addition, the Housing Authority intends to apply for Low Income Housing Tax Credits to provide the bulk of the funding needed for the development.
The Cota Street property will feature:
- A walkable downtown location that is close to essential services and other amenities.
- A strong “good neighbor” policy, and a proven track record with permanent supportive housing developments.
- Project-based rental assistance to provide affordable rent to every resident
- On-site supportive services to provide ongoing case management and independent living skills.
- A full-time on-site manager to oversee the apartment complex.
- A community room for resident programs, group activities, and support groups
- Controlled access points for entering and exiting the property.
- No parking demand for residents, reducing the traffic impact of the area
- Homes next to Veracruz Park which will provide community oversight of the recreational area.
Rob Fredericks, HACSB Executive Director/CEO shares that, “Despite our efforts, our nation, state and city continue to grapple with adequately addressing this issue affordable housing to those most in need and living without a home. We believe access to housing save lives. For over 25 years, the Housing Authority has worked to eliminate homelessness in Santa Barbara, one home at a time. However, we cannot do it alone. The Housing Authority has collaborated with several local agencies to provide supportive living situations at housing developments such as El Carrillo, Artisan Court, Bradley Studios, and Johnson Court. The services are designed to build independent living and tenancy skills, and, connect people with community- based health care and treatment. We are excited to add the Cota Street project to our affordable housing portfolio.”
It is unclear to me from this blurb if these are to be rental units or owner occupied. I assume they are rentals. If not this is a big mistake.
Is that East or West Cota????
East Cota.
It reads that the intention is to convert to affordable housing units.
Another SB Housing Authority project- They must own at least 25% of all housing units within the City now, and subsidized housing continues to grow… I wonder what % of Californians will still be taxpaying citizens compared to those on subsidies?
This has got to be the stupidest use of public funds I can imagine. Free, brand new housing units, 5 blocks from the beach, for the homeless while so many hardworking folks can’t afford their own rents. Why not build twice as many units for half the price in a less expensive area?
I think the planned affordable units will be pretty small. The site was approved for 15 market rate units, and will be altered to be 30 affordables, plus supportive services.
Great location. A short walk to downtown, close to the beach, across the street from the farmers market and next to a great coffee shop. What a wonderful place to live. Millions of people across the country would likely kill to be able to afford to live in such an area. Who new in only takes some mental illness, drug addiction, and/or the unwillingness to work and you too can be gifted the opportunity for free? What a generous town we live in. SMH!
How…umm…wonderful. I guess.
How is it that a city with roughly 100k people is responsible for tending to and caring for so many? While generous, the scale and scope of Santa Barbara’s social welfare and aide is totally out of whack for a city of this size.
I’m in “affordable” housing that is controlled by the City, and I own. Median income affordable housing
4:22: That is the ambiguity. Affordable housing units does not mean either apartments for rent or condos for sale.
EXACTLY….!
I really enjoy the comment by the Executive Director/CEO that the growth of his little kingdom is steady and upward. How much salary do we pay him? This means that there will be more “staff” needed to operate the “Authority” and we will pay for that , as well. Do these “tenants” get permanent subsistence or are they cycled out at some point? How does that work? At least the Police will be able to just look across the street and keep an eye on it.
No parking demand – ? Many will be moving out of their cars, and they’ll need to park them somewhere.
The Farmers market across the street will make a nice place for the residents to park.
Go back and read “bullet point three”.
Try reading the article. It clearly states it’s changing from 15 market rate units to 30 affordable units.
Bosco, your lack of compassion is stunning.
Wow, I am so surprised. Every time there is a fire in a creek bed or other problem concerning our unhoused neighbors, there are dozens of comments here about “getting those people off the streets”. Now here some are to get off the streets and not a single one of those dozens of you whiners has a good thing to say about it.
Yes, but the city also just makes red tile roof construction expensive by adding in ridiculous demands during the ABR phase, like “make it more poetic” and requiring little balconies and sweeping staircases and stuff. There is no reason we cannot build minimal and historic-looking red-tile roof and stucco buildings without a zillion flourishes all over for a more affordable price. It’s more architecturally honest and correct, too, than the new Morocco-via-Disneyland crap they’re pushing.
Which of our wonderful city leaders voted for this idiocy? It’s a terrible waste of money, land, and our citizens’ good will. Our city leaders coddle the “homeless” as if they were all Mother Teresa’s.
To your point, it does nothing to address the visible homeless problem in the city. Therefore, again, it does nothing and serves no purpose of being in this particular area.
I suggest we listen to Roger’s comments.
Everyone is an addict some people are addicted to coffee, some sugar, some drugs, alcohol I’m addicted to be a grumpy old asshole.
and come, and come, and come. When anything is pretty much free, there will be long lines. Instead of being the American Riviera, we could become Vagrant Vacation Are Us.
Can’t win with this crowd. If they’d proposed a site in suburbia people would be up in arms about how it doesn’t fit in with the neighborhood, or it’s too isolated for people without cars, or we don’t want those homeless types around our children.
It is beginning to look like the CoronaVirus is a calling. More people should not return to their jobs, run through all their unemployment/corona payments, then let the city take care of us. Why keep paying rising taxes to support the needs of everyone else? Hmmmm.
I hope this won’t be “living in the projects” Santa Barbara w/i a few short years. Is there any provision for dweller-provided-upkeep and eviction for criminal behavior?
Why can’t it at least attempt to look like the “Santa Barbara Style” buildings around it rather than a bad 1960s style LA airport motel.
It will be a good addition to the neighborhood and may help to cleaning up needle park.
Reminds me of “The Projects” tried in other cities. And we saw what happened in those.
I think this is a great idea, and well – isn’t it literally across the street from where they are building the new police station? The farmer’s market lot?
The rate of homelessness is going to vary by location. Rate of homelessness in CA is approximately 38 per 10,000 (so…380 for 100,000). Or 76 if you lump in the whole of the south coast – 760. However, you need to factor in cost of living. Santa Barbara is much more expensive than much of CA, and much more likely to result in homelessness. Thus, we shouldn’t be surprised at the need for housing for 1000+ people. However, you are correct in wondering if it’s “all our job”. No. It’s everyone’s job, but we simply don’t have a national system for this, nor does the current administration have a desire to make that happen.
This is a terrible idea. The continued buildout of spaces in the downtown area are further increasing the homelessness issue downtown. Everyday these places require everyone to leave. They hang out on state street, create problems for business owners and draw down tourism. Then return to the facilities at night. This is only going to further exacerbate the issue. I disagree with this being built in this area.
My impression is that this won’t be a simple shelter, but rather actual small apartments where people can settle. I haven’t been able to figure out which “category” of homeless will have priority. Will it address the people who hang out on State Street? It might instead be for the more invisible folks—the families, the people recently bankrupted due to medical bills, etc. Hopefully it will save people from falling farther into despair and ruin, giving them a chance to move on and up.
The staff and authority will grow. Affordable or subsidized housing should be for those that are working or at least were before pandemic closure. Drug testing and mental counseling are needed and should be a requirement to live in subsidized housing paid for by the taxpayers. There’s no easy answers to sweeping the camps out into downtown. Most of these poor souls are not house-able. Most are criminals with little to nothing to contribute to society.
This style is probably cheaper and more space-efficient than our red-tile-roof, white stucco style.
I wonder how many moved to SB for the climate and the support services? Have we ever had any surveys on that potential? I know that legally once they arrive in town they are then considered residents so thus eligible for such support.
We COULD be building tent cities next to the fields in places like Santa Maria and Guadelupe, GRAPES OF WRATH style, and these ne’er do wells could go pick fruit for a living. Out in the open air, honest labor, rehabilitation through work. But no, we will build an unsightly rabbit hutch with little pens for them to hole up in, that violates ALL the red tile roof building design covenants any other developer would need to adhere to. We perpetuate the indolent lifestyle of the failures and create jobs for yet more government enablers.
I find the amount of Fake Compassion in this town stunning. You obviously don’t live downtown. I live in the heart of the East Side. I see the parade of homeless people outside my window every day as they do the daily march back to the shelters at the end of the day. Everytime I leave my house I have to step over trash and human waste. I’ve been harassed, screamed at and called all kinds of names by people having mental breakdowns. I have to explain this to my small children that are growing up with this in their neighborhood. Don’t get me wrong, I am extremely lucky and grateful to live here but I can’t afford to move anywhere within the area because no one is going to subsidize my housing (and I shouldn’t have to). We need to stop concentrating our homeless problems in the same areas (Eastside & Downtown). Why are we letting them dictate where they get to live when it’s on our dime? I agree we need more affordable housing, but the burden needs to be shared by the whole County.
If I worked my entire adult life, then it’s MY OWN taxes that I’ve paid in for my unemployment check. I’m not going back to work too soon in the public service sector when there is still a rising threat of Covid-19. It’s MY OWN taxes I’ve paid in, no on else is paying for my unemployment check. I’ve worked all my life for it.
Will the new residents there be drug tested or at least clean and sober before they are allowed to move in or will this become a boom for the local (and not so local) drug dealers?
So this is a way to house the addicts?
If you build it, they will come.
To 11:56. AM’s point, I hope they put a requirement that only long term locals will be eligible for these apartments.
They are all Mother Teresa’s with other peoples’ money.
I pay a fortune, to have a small place in Santa Barbara…..used to be compassionate, about the homeless…have volunteered to help.
Now, am tired of the begging, harrassed, for money.
Helping with long lines at foodbanks…people laid off, kids need help.
The ACLU would never allow these poor souls to pick fruit or vegies out in the fields have you ever done it Hard Work we don’t want anyone to breal a neil or something.
It’s a step in the right direction. Close proximity to the Alano Club on Garden and Cota is a plus. 30 market rate units originally planned, scrapped for helping those in need (not the wealthy) is to be commended and almost unprecedented.
Cuyama needs residents. It would never work there because then the facilitators of the program would have to live there as well. No 7-Elevens or much in the way of liquor stores. Logic has no place in these discussions.We just built a Fire Station and Sheriff sub-station there.I say we get our money’s worth if possible.
Sadly, Roger’s right. The ACLU is the cause of much of this.
But it will attract more of the homeless here.