Housing authority previews two dense, 100% affordable projects; staff flags lack of open space and parking

Guadalupe — The Housing Authority of Santa Barbara County and its architect introduced two pre‑applications to the City Council on Aug. 26 for small infill projects that would deliver studio and one‑bedroom affordable units but rely on state density‑bonus concessions that local staff said raise livability concerns.

Planning staff described project 1 at 855 Pioneer Street as a three‑story, nine‑unit building of studios and one‑bedrooms on a 7,500‑square‑foot lot. Project 2 at 4542 Twelfth Street was presented as a pair of two‑story buildings on a 5,000‑square‑foot lot with four apartments and two accessory dwelling units (ADUs).

The projects would be 100% affordable with rents targeted to households between 60% and 120% of area median income, and both seek density bonus incentives that would allow more units, reduced parking and reduced setbacks. “Density bonus law is a state mandate,” planning staff said. “The government code says when an applicant seeks a density bonus for a housing development, that local agency shall comply.”

Why it matters: Council and staff framed the projects as a way to increase Guadalupe’s limited housing stock, but they emphasized tradeoffs between state law and local standards — particularly elimination of required private open space and reductions to off‑street parking — that could affect neighbors and long‑term livability.

Key staff concerns

- Open space: Both pre‑applications request waivers of municipal open‑space minimums. Planning staff said the zoning code generally requires 100 square feet of common open space per ground‑floor unit (and 50 square feet of private upper‑floor space) and noted that neither project provides the required private or common outdoor areas. Staff recommended the applicant explore ways to add some outdoor space where feasible even though the density‑bonus law can override that local standard.

- Parking: Under the city’s zoning, the two projects would normally require roughly one covered and one uncovered space per unit (about 18 spaces for the nine‑unit site). The density‑bonus parking standard for studio/one‑bedroom affordable units allows one space per unit; the Pioneer proposal shows nine spaces. For the Twelfth Street site staff estimated an 8–10‑space requirement depending on how ADUs are treated; the design shows six spaces. Staff warned that “any parking reduction will likely result in some kind of parking impact” on the adjacent streets and encouraged mitigation measures such as transit passes, parking management plans or tow‑away rules for inoperable vehicles.

- Setbacks and height: Both projects request reduced rear‑yard setbacks (5 feet instead of the 15‑foot standard). Staff said the Pioneer site backs onto agricultural fields and recommended the reduced setback could be acceptable there; for Twelfth Street the reduced setback raises privacy concerns because a nearby single‑family backyard could be overlooked. Pioneer also proposed a three‑story building within the 35‑foot height limit; staff signaled no objection and noted the city intends to amend zoning to allow three stories in certain locations.

Applicant response and design choices

Tom Jess, project architect, said the Housing Authority is the client and described the proposals as responses to local demand for smaller units. “The housing authority’s mission is very simple. They wanna provide as much housing as possible for a community that needs housing,” he said. Jess said the unit mix (studios just under 500 square feet; one‑bedrooms around 600 square feet) reflects the authority’s view that smaller units are most needed in these locations and that maximizing unit count drove site design choices, including locating parking where it allowed the most units.

Jess and staff said the housing authority intends to meet the state parking standard for affordable one‑bedrooms and studios and is not asking for further parking reductions beyond the density‑bonus allowances. He said the authority chose to prioritize interior unit size over private outdoor areas on the small lots.

Council and public concerns

Council members asked about likely occupancy and management. The architect said occupancy limits follow typical standards (two persons per bedroom plus one). “In a studio, that’d be two,” he said. Several council members and residents pressed for more detail on property management, enforcement of occupancy and parking rules, and opportunities to add landscaping or street‑front buffering. A resident warned she did not trust the housing authority to fully police occupancy and parking: “I don’t believe it,” she said during public comment.

Staff noted that a density‑bonus agreement to preserve affordability will be required if the projects move forward, and a formal design review, environmental determination and public notice process would follow any formal applications.

Next steps

Planning staff said these were early pre‑applications meant to solicit council feedback prior to formal submittal. If the applicants file formal permit applications staff would evaluate complete site plans, floor plans and landscape plans, and council would receive public notice and an environmental review determination before any approvals. The projects would also require execution of a density‑bonus agreement to secure the affordability restrictions.

Ending note: Council members generally expressed support for adding affordable units while urging the housing authority and staff to address parking, open space and neighbor‑compatibility issues in later plans.