Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors Selects Sites for Future Housing

May 3, 2024, 8:28 pm 5.8k Views 32 Comments

ADU Design in Santa Ynez (Photo: Art Studios / County of Santa Barbara)

Sites Rezoned in North and South County to Meet State Requirements

The County Board of Supervisors met on Tuesday, April 30, 2024, in Santa Maria and Friday, May 3, 2024, in Santa Barbara to review and select sites to accommodate affordable housing throughout the county. On Friday, the Board voted to rezone ten sites in the North County and 17 sites on the South Coast that can accommodate affordable housing units for lower-, moderate-, and upper moderate- income households countywide. The Board also selected nine County-owned sites to provide needed housing units, all in the South County. This is the final step in the Housing Element Update process and ensures the County remains in compliance with State Housing Law.

The selection of sites is the end of a long process that began in 2021 when the State Department of Housing and Community Development (State HCD) through its Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA, pronounced REE-nah) process mandated how many housing units the County had to accommodate as part of the current Housing Element Update cycle.For this cycle, State HCD required that Santa Barbara County identify sites to accommodate 5,664 new housing units in unincorporated portions of Santa Barbara County between 2023 and 2031.  This is an 8-fold increase from the last cycle. The RHNA was further broken down to require 4,142 units in the South Coast region and 1,522 units in the North County region. This breakdown attempts to address the current jobs-housing imbalance. The State further mandates the number of units the County accommodate at lower-, moderate-, and above moderate affordability.

The Board of Supervisors selected more sites than required to meet the RHNA, and asked owners of sites to guarantee more affordable units than are required under State and local housing regulations.

The Board voted to rezone 9 of 18 potential rezone sites identified in the North County region. The majority of the North County rezone sites fall within Orcutt, with one site in Cuyama, and one site in Santa Ynez. The Board also voted to rezone one pending project in Vandenberg Village. The Board’s North County selections exceed the State’s requirements for lower-income affordable units plus a 15% buffer by nearly 200 units.

At the North County hearing on April 30, Supervisor Bob Nelson, whose district includes Vandenberg Village and Orcutt, began the North County selection of sites, acknowledging, “The decisions that we make here are going to be lasting and impactful.”

In the South Coast region, the Board voted to rezone 15 of 18 potential rezone sites, nine County-owned sites and two pending projects. The Board’s selections exceed the State’s requirements for lower-income affordable units plus a 15% buffer by 360 units and moderate-income units by just over 250 units.

“This is a significant step to provide much needed lower- and moderate-income housing in our County,” said Lisa Plowman, Director of Planning and Development.

“We worked to make the rezones itself an opportunity to promote more of what our community needs. Low-income housing by encouraging partnerships with the Housing Authority and other low-income housing developers with a record of keeping their housing affordable over time.  Workforce housing by encouraging partnerships with employers with the South Coast Chambers Housing Consortium.  And community benefits such as parks, trails, childcare, and other opportunities we also encouraged,” said Supervisor Joan Hartmann.

The County’s Interactive Map, available on the County’s website, will be updated to show the sites that were rezoned by 5 p.m. Tuesday, May 7.

As part of the process, the Board certified the Final Program Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the 2023-2031 Housing Element Update (HEU). The final document, comments received, and the County’s responses are available on the County Planning and Development website.

The County Board of Supervisors adopted the 2023-2031 Housing Element Update (HEU) on December 5, 2023.  The California Department of Housing and Community Development (State HCD) found the County’s adopted housing element in substantial compliance with State Housing Element Law on January 22, 2024. The Adopted HEU can be found at:https://www.countyofsb.org/3177/Housing-Element-Update.

The Housing Element Update is one of the mandated components of a General Plan. It directs local governments to plan for the existing and projected housing needs of all economic segments of the community. This is the 6th Housing Element cycle, covering 2023-2031.

Below is a list of sites the Board selected to rezone. These sites may be seen on the County’s Balancing Act tools (North and South), available on the County’s website:

North County

Site Name

Units by Income Level

  
Lower Moderate Above Moderate Zone/Proposed Density (u/a)
Apollo (Vandenberg Village) 302 0 0 DR-20/30 and REC/OS
Blue Sky Center (Cuyama) 0 50 0 DR-20 and C-2
Boys and Girls Club (Orcutt) 52 20 8 DR-20/25,

DR-3.3
Chumash, LLC (Santa Ynez Valley) 91 30 0 DR-30/40
Key Site 1 0 181 160 C-2 and MR-O
Key Site 3 0 0 8 DR-1
Key Site 10 (Orcutt) 59 23 8 DR-20/30, REC
Key Site 11 (Orcutt) 52 36 8 DR-20/30, REC, C-2
Hummel Cottages (Orcutt) 30 0 0 DR-20/25
Element Church (Orcutt) 20 8 2 .8 ac. DR-20/25

South Coast

Site Name

Units by Income Level

  
Lower Moderate Above Moderate Zone/Proposed Density (u/a)
Bailard 50 0 132 DR-20/30
Van Wingerden 1 118 59 59 DR-20/30
Van Wingerden 2 90 45 45 DR-20/30
Hope Church 25 13 12 DR-20/30
St. Vincent’s East 75 0 0 DR-20/30
St. Vincent’s West 100 0 0 DR-20/30
San Marcos Growers 228 50 746 DR-20/30 for SM 1

DR-30/40
Tatum 110 27 408 DR-20/30
Montessori 80 40 76 DR-30/40,

DR-12.3, REC
St. Athanasius 150 75 75 DR-30/40
Scott 123 62 61 DR-30/40
Ekwill 109 55 54 DR-30/40
Caird 1 96 48 48 DR-20/25
Caird 2 38 19 19 DR-20/25
Caird 3 195 98 97 DR-20/25,

AG-I-10
Friendship Manor 18 9 9 DR-30/40
Glen Annie 300 350 350 DR-20/30, DR-5

COUNTY-OWNED SITES:
Flag Lot 13 0 0 N/A
Probation Building 0 36 12 N/A
Juvenile Hall 0 45 30 N/A
Page and Fire 18 0 0 N/A
Food Bank 14 0 0 N/A
Hollister Lofts 36 0 0 N/A
Child Family Services Lot 18 0 0 N/A
Archives Parking Lot 0 59 0 N/A
Above Behavioral Wellness Deck 20 19 0 N/A

 

 

Related Articles

Board of Supervisors to Vote on Rezones May 3 for Unincorporated South Santa Barbara County

CityofSantaBarbara

Written by CityofSantaBarbara

What do you think?

3 Points

Comments

3 Comments deleted by Administrator

Leave a Review or Comment

32 Comments

  1. It is absolutely horrific to place 2,100 units in one block. What they are building are The Projects and we all know how they magnificently failed. Just like The Projects were built near public transportation corridors, so are High Density housing as it is now called. The name changed but the end result is the same. What the Governor, State and Board are accomplishing is the demise of communities. They choose to ignore History, just like they choose to ignore water resources and long term drought. This is not sustainable as experienced with Water wars just a couple of years ago…8 years of severe drought with very little water.

    1

  3. The Supes just effing killed Goleta. I hope they never sleep another peaceful night again. Say goodbye to Glen Annie golf course. This is tragic. Appalling, really.

    They’ll all be getting some mail.

    0

    • I will never bemoan the loss of a golf course. They are horrible wastes of water and space.

      But I agree that this housing plan places waaaay too many units for that area given its limited infrastructure, which is already stressed from all the recent development. Plus, I don’t see how the limited water resources for our area can possibly support this dramatic jump in homes. Droughts are a fact of life in California.

      2

      • KIRK – True, it’s not just about the golf course, although it does provide affordable recreation for thousands of locals, including youth.

        The biggest affront here is to the bucolic beauty of western Goleta. 1000 housing units abutting Cathedral Oaks will not only destroy the beautiful views of the hills and fields, it will decimate the quiet, small town feel of that area. Neither Cathedral Oaks, nor Glen Annie, nor their intersections can really be widened. The impact on already busy morning traffic, not to mention the pollution and safety issues, will be horrendous.

        There is NO need for housing right there. The Supes have proclaimed their disdain and disrespect for the people of this area and they won’t soon forget it.

        But hey, it’s all about the “American Dream” for those few (as in less than 5) investors in the LLC that owns the course. Capitalism is awesome, unless you’re not a billionaire.

        2

          • Buh buh buh buh BASIC – did you read my other comment? Did you vote for Trump? Do you approve of everything he did and stands for? Honestly wouldn’t be surprised if you do.

            What happened to your “wise” advice: Just vote and shut up. Right? You just can’t do it, can you?

            1

            • No, I did not vote for Trump. ‘Shut up and vote’ referred to the upcoming presidential election, if you look back. So, you voted for Gavin and lost your favorite golf course. That’s about it?

              -3

  4. Y’all got time to post on Ed hat but did any of you even go to the meeting? Nope? Did any of your write in before? After all, it’s been all over the local news.

    Nope?

    Thought not.

    Just another bunch of pos(t)ers.

    -1

    • I have sent written comments for all planning commission, board of supervisors hearings and on the EIR. I have spoken at at every hearing. Hundreds of others have done so as well. I have been following the progress since SBCAG decided how to split these ridiculous numbers up. It is such poor planning and really a travesty. Not only will the golf course be gone, this decision paved the way for thousands of units literally on three square blocks surrounding El Camino Elementary, hundreds of units on both sides of 154/cathedral oaks next to the SM preserve and 60 units on Calle Cita between Hope and LaCumbre. This will allow huge apartment buildings right in the middle of single family neighborhoods.

      Dont blame Laura Capps, she came in to the game late. This was decided before she got elected. Blame state legislators, SBCAG and Lisa Plowman the director of our planning department.

      1

      • I do not object to apartment buildings in the middle of single family home neighborhoods. I think they can be a good thing. But the golf course change seems to be poorly planned, unless the whole area is also going to have grocery stores, schools, etc. The traffic at Storke is already pretty horrific.

        3

        • MM1970 – housing where housing is meant to be is one thing, agreed. But this is turning a beautiful, and rare these days, piece of open land to be raped for money. It’s honestly unconscionable. 1000, ONE THOUSAND, housing units will now litter that open land and force an additional few thousand people into a quiet, rural neighborhood abutting the suburban neighborhoods on the other side of Cathedral Oaks. It’s a vast swath of open land that is now open for a couple of investors to make even more millions off as the local are forced to deal with the loss of their views, peace and quiet and additional thousands of people in the area. It’s AWFUL what was allowed to happen.

          NO ONE voted for this.

          1

        • And no, just because I voted democrat, doesn’t mean I “voted” for this. The potential sale by the investors to developers is 100% independent from any County or City influence, nor would this development be necessary for Newsom’s ill-planned mandate. This is capitalism at it’s finest (or worse, depending on who you ask).

          This was never needed, never wanted, except by a couple out of state investors who own the golf course through a real estate transaction crippled by an unfortunate encumbrance.

          The Supes chose to ignore EVERYONE and allow this. Don’t blame the voters.

          1

    • ANOn – did “y’all” ever consider that EVERYONE who lives near these has the right to be upset, whether their personal schedules and abilities afforded them the luxury of attending meetings? Nah, just came in here to bash people voicing their outrage about a life changing decision forced upon us.

      And let’s stow it with the whole, “you voted for this” BS. A vote doesn’t hive unlimited license to what ever they want, nor does it preclude disagreement with the actions of an elected official. If that were the case, everyone who voted for Trump would be a traitor.

      0

  5. “Because the provisions of SB 9 are not reasonably related and sufficiently narrowly tailored to the explicit stated purpose of that legislation namely, to ensure access to affordable housing-SB 9 cannot stand, and the wri petition must be GRANTED.”

    https://lhp-public-images.s3.amazonaws.com/lhp/e-213892/uploads/1apCr3CmP1%28SB%209%29%20Final%20Court%20Ruling%202024-4-22.pdf

    In his April 22 ruling, Judge Curtis Kin agreed and deemed the law unconstitutional,

    For now, the ruling applies to the five cities that signed on to challenge SB9 in court: Redondo Beach, Carson, Torrance, Whittier and Del Mar.

    0

2024 Young Artists Showcase Honors Local Students

California District Attorneys Charge Thrive Market for Violating False Advertising and Renewal Laws