Santa Barbara County Plans for Workforce Housing; Questions on Size, Scale Remain

County’s Two Priority Sites Could Add Up to 160 Units of Workforce Housing Downtown

Santa Barbara County planners presented their workforce housing plans to the County Planning Commission on Wednesday, June 5. | Credit: Elaine Sanders

This article was underwritten in part by the Mickey Flacks Journalism Fund for Social Justice, a proud, innovative supporter of local news. To make a contribution go to sbcan.org/journalism_fund.

For many, wages have not kept up with the cost of housing in Santa Barbara County. That includes the county’s educators, public safety officers, agricultural workers, county staff, hospitality workers, and more.

“The lack of housing affordable to our workforce affects every aspect of our lives,” said Lucille Boss, the county’s housing programs manager, at Wednesday’s County Planning Commission meeting. “From local businesses and schools struggling to hire and retain workers to amplifying childcare challenges [to] long commutes between homes and workplaces, increasing freeway congestion and carbon emissions.”

More than half of Santa Barbara is rent burdened, meaning they spend more than one-third of their income on rent, according to the Housing Trust Fund of Santa Barbara County. And research from Harvard University on housing markets across the nation shows that countywide, the cost of a house is about 11 times the median income — that’s more than twice the national average and nearly double what it was here in 1990. Rent and home ownership prices are generally highest on the South Coast.

From left, Joe Dzvonik, deputy director of housing and community development; Lucille Boss, county housing programs manager; Andrew Kish, senior housing program specialist; and Jesús Armas, the county’s Community Services Department director | Credit: Elaine Sanders

In March 2024, Santa Barbara County’s Board of Supervisors approved a contract for the firm Harris and Associates, which studied the area and created a plan for workforce housing. The contract cost approximately $247,000 and was paid for with re-allocated funds from the county’s American Rescue Plan Act funds.

The county said the study was completed in October of last year.

Santa Barbara’s supervisors received the results of that study at the April 8 meeting. The supervisors directed staff to move forward with an RFP, or request for proposal, to build on one of the 21 sites Harris and Associates studied — the probation building at 123 East Carrillo Street. The county says that site can hold around 60 units, either low or moderate income.

The county is also focusing on another site downtown: the County Engineering building, its Human Resources building, and the administrative building’s parking lot. In April, the supervisors directed staff to determine the feasibility of building housing at this site — that feasibility research is still in progress. At the Planning Commission meeting, the county said the site could include 100 units.

The study also recommended the county pursue the state’s prohousing designation (the supervisors voted to do so last month). It recommended the county update its law on inclusionary housing — the guidelines set in place to build more affordable housing in the area and meet the goals outlined in the housing element — adding inclusionary requirements for some projects and providing flexible options to meet requirements generally. Finally, it recommended the county regulate short-term rentals in the coastal zone.

Fast-forward to this week: The county’s Planning Commission had the opportunity to comment on this presentation.

Commissioner John Parke pointed out that the county can designate sites that it owns to the density it wants.

“How will the county itself make decisions on what’s acceptable for a developer partner to develop?” he asked.

Jesús Armas, the county’s Community Services Department director, said that the request for proposal, or RFP, that the city must create for each project will help set expectations of the size and scale of developments.

“Crafting that RFP affords the county an opportunity to establish a criteria and expectations, both related to densities and the like, and then can work together with a selected developer, the preferred developer if you will, to drill down into the nitty gritty of the details of how that gets accomplished,” he said.

Planning and Development Director Lisa Plowman said the county must report back to the state on which sites it is developing to make sure it is meeting its housing element, which outlines the county’s residential plans.

Planning Commissioner Vincent Martinez | Credit: Elaine Sanders

Commissioner Vincent Martinez asked if the goal of workforce housing was ownership or affordable rent, to which Armas said the situation was more complicated than one avenue over another. He said that ownership, given the cost of housing, will be challenging for low-income people.

“Ownership is obviously something that is the American Dream, but may not be achievable in every instance, and so we want to make sure that the array of options are available for residents that need housing,” he said.

“I kind of agree the American Dream is becoming less and less,” Martinez said, saying how in expensive U.S. cities like San Francisco and New York, the focus is renting for many residents.

Martinez also asked how the plan to build affordable units for the workforce could take into account the rising cost of living more generally. The county said it was focusing on housing, specifically.

The county told the Santa Barbara Independent that it plans to find a consultant to help determine whether it can develop the site of its Engineering building, Human Resources building, and administrative parking lot into housing. It says the contractor can help the county navigate the current state housing legislation. If it can, the county plans to start looking for a developer in about six months.

Regarding the changes to short-term rentals and the county’s inclusionary housing law, it anticipates those changes to come before the Planning Commission within the calendar year.