The Santa Barbara County Grand Jury believes that publicly owned land could be a solution to the region’s housing problems, and the Board of Supervisors agrees.
In a June report, the jury found that the county and some local governments own more land than they need to function. The jury recommended that the county and the cities of Santa Barbara, Carpinteria and Goleta review which properties could be used for new housing.
In response, county staff agreed with the finding and said they have already made efforts to identify which pieces of land could be used for future development projects.
The Housing Element Update identified nine county-owned sites that could be used for housing, and estimated that the county could add 320 new units by 2031.
A workforce housing study by the county also identified 19 sites that could be used for workforce housing developments. The county has partnered with local nonprofit organizations to use county-owned sites for emergency shelters and supportive housing.
The Board of Supervisors approved a response on Tuesday to the Grand Jury review of the region’s housing situation and its recommendations moving forward.
Second District Supervisor Laura Capps expressed support for the initiative. She has spoken out in the past in support of the use of county land for development.
“I think that every single jurisdiction should be (doing) an assessment of their underutilized land for housing,” Capps said.
Other findings from the Grand Jury included criticisms of the county’s permitting procedures, which it said were “costly, time-consuming and complicated.”
The county’s response to the finding was partial disagreement, and included an explanation.
Lisa Plowman, director of Planning & Development, said the state has implemented a series of laws that have streamlined the permit process for different projects. An example of such laws includes Assembly Bill 130, which exempts “infill” housing projects from reviews under the California Environmental Quality Act.
“I think we all know that we do have a complicated process, but with the advent of the state laws, things have gotten simpler and move more quickly through the process,” Plowman told the board.
The last finding from the report stated that there are not enough funds to build adequate housing.
“In finding three, the Grand Jury, to some extent, stated the obvious,” said Jesús Armas, director of Community Services. “There’s insufficient funds to identify and fund the development of affordable housing, certainly something we can all agree is the case, particularly in our county.”
The report also suggested that the county give more money to the Housing Trust Fund of Santa Barbara County. However, staff said they could not comply with that request since the HTF is not a county organization.
The county did agree with the report’s recommendation that local governments build relationships with the local philanthropic community and the public to promote contributions to the county’s Housing Trust Fund.
The fund is not set up to receive donations from outside sources, but county staff said it will implement that change by 2031.
During the board discussions, Fourth District Supervisor Bob Nelson expressed some hesitation about the report. While he acknowledged that housing is still an issue, he stated that the North County does not have the same issues that are common in the South County.
Nelson added that the housing market is working better in his district, and he does not want to interfere too much as the county tries to solve its housing issues.
“(I) just want to keep that in mind as we move forward with some of these things — that we do them carefully and regionally, because I think that what ultimately matters is we all try to accomplish the various goals that we all have in our various districts,” Nelson said.
During public comment, attorney Marc Chytilo advocated for affordable housing and expressed concern about the county’s plans to use public land for new developments.
“Many of our open spaces are kind of a target for housing projects because they’re low cost,” Chytilo said. “That’s reasonable and appropriate, but I’d ask that the board and the development community recognize that there are some parcels that are providing extremely high biological and recreational values to the surrounding community.”
