The Santa Barbara South Coast Chamber of Commerce hosted its annual State of the County conference at The Ritz Carlton-Bacara last week.

Speakers included County Executive Officer Mona Myasato; UC Santa Barbara economics professor Peter Rupert Ph.D., director of the UCSB Economic Forecast Project; and county Supervisors Laura Capps and Roy Lee.

Housing was a key topic and will likely continue to be for the next decade as our county — and California— struggle to deal with housing shortages.

Decades of underbuilding, rising construction costs, surging demand, low turnover of existing homes and limited land availability all have contributed to the housing shortage.

Rupert’s nearby chart clearly highlights the problem — fewer new housing units added each year.

“I know the answer,” he said. “Build more houses. How hard is that?” 

Listening to the speakers — and in my conversations with local officials, architects and concerned citizens — makes it clear that building more housing may not be so easy.

Sacramento has set mandated housing targets for communities throughout the state. The City of Santa Barbara’s “Housing Element” calls for 8,000 new units over the next six years.

So, after years of ever-increasing building regulations, the state decided to go in the other direction with a builder’s remedy law that allows developers to skip much of local regulations in return for including affordable housing in projects.

Under the builder’s remedy law, a housing project can bypass local zoning and general plan restrictions if the jurisdiction has failed to adopt a “substantially compliant” housing element (which the City of Santa Barbara has not).

The project must include 20% of units for lower-income residents, 10% for very low-incom. or 7% for extremely low-income households.

It seems wise to define what “affordable” means for Santa Barbara:

• Extremely Low Income: Around $42,000 per year 
• Very Low Income: Around $70,000 per year
• Low Income: Around $112,000 per year
• Moderate Income: Around $120,000 per year

According to Santa Barbara’s 2025 Rent Survey for the South Coast, the median rent for a two-bedroom apartment was $3,850 in the city. Ironically, rents were even higher in Goleta and Isla Vista, and only slightly lower in Carpinteria.

Assuming 30%-40% of income being used for housing, that means renters would need to earn between $115,000 and $150,000 annually to make ends meet for a two-bedroom apartment.

Despite the lofty housing goals and what is actually “affordable,” the realities of available/buildable land, water, sewer, parking, congestion and schools must be addressed.

Related storIES

Santa Barbara County Leaders Say Region Prepared for Tough Economic Times

Bill Macfadyen: Local Architects, Planners Rise Up to Try to Cut Towering Projects Down to Size

It appears that the push for housing is failing to deal with these practical concerns, however. Not to mention Santa Barbara’s long tradition of protecting the architectural look and livability of our city.

Let’s take a quick look at three current examples:

505 E. Los Olivos St.

The application to build a 270-unit, eight story building behind the historic Santa Barbara Mission is nearing completion.

The project qualifies for a builder’s remedy designation in return for including 54 low-income housing units — the absolute minimum 20% requirement.

Recently, a group of nearly 60 local architects, planners and designers signed a letter publicly opposing the project, noting significant impact to the public’s health and safety, not to mention having the giant building as a backdrop to the world-renowned mission.

1609 Grand Ave.

This is a 30-unit, market-rate and affordable housing project proposed for the Lower Riviera under the builder’s remedy law.

City Councilwoman Kristen Sneddon has said “the project has sparked significant neighborhood impact and safety concerns.” Rob Fredericks, executive director/CEO of the Housing Authority of the City of Santa Barbara, has said the city needs affordable housing, but that neighborhood compatibility also matters.

The 56 local professionals also included this project in their protest letter.

La Cumbre Plaza

In April, Noozhawk reported on plans for 1,127 new apartments — 684 units on the site of Macy’s at La Cumbre Plaza and another 443 units at the former Sears building.

City Councilman Eric Friedman noted that plans could have allowed more affordable housing a couple of years ago, but now the city must negotiate and work with developers in a voluntary arrangement.

“We are trying to get something out of it that will help the community,” he said.

These projects may just be the beginning of efforts to cram 8,000 housing units into the City of Santa Barbara.

It seems important — even critical — for the city, and Santa Barbara County, to balance the needs for housing with the availability of land and the realities of water, sewer, parking, traffic and schools.

Take the proposed addition of 1,127 apartments at La Cumbre Plaza. Let’s assume there is one school-age child per two units — or about 600 kids. If there were one child per unit, we’d be looking at more than 1,000 new students.

The project is in the tiny Hope Elementary School District, made up of thre small elementary schools. A typical elementary school holds about 500 children, so the addition of 500-1,000 students means the need to build at least one, perhaps two, new elementary schools.

I’ve asked two simple questions:

• Where could they be built?
• Who would pay for them?

Frankly, I haven’t seen enough available property for a school, and evidently the developers aren’t on the hook to pay for them.

It seems to me these kinds of issues ought to be fairly dealt with before construction starts.

Perhaps we could take a step back and look for more balanced strategies for meeting housing needs.

Here are a few ideas:

• Montecito resident Lee Ohanian, a UCLA economics professor and Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University, discussed our housing crisis at the UCSB Economic Forecast Project’s Santa Barbara Economic Summit earlier this year. He clearly stated what seems so obvious: California’s population is narrowly concentrated near the Southern California coast, in the San Francisco Bay Area and in the Sacramento area.  Much of the rest of the state is relatively sparsely populated. So, why not include developing areas outside the major population areas, where land is plentiful and affordable? Our neighbors to the north have available and less expensive land.
• Go where the employment growth is. Rupert noted that San Luis Obispo has seen employment growth of 35% since 2000 while Santa Barbara’s is only 15%.
• Rupert suggested manufactured homes rather than traditional buildings. Manufactured homes reduce the cost of structures by 50% or more with faster build times and factory efficiencies.
• Work to reduce development costs by simplifying regulations while still protecting local values. Perhaps “builder’s remedy with a conscience.”
• Dealing with the realities of limited resources (water, sewer, parking) and factoring in costs of infrastructure (roads and schools) in developments. These cannot be ignored.

Folks, it seems like now is the time for citizens to get involved in this issue. The community needs to ask tough questions and make it clear that essential issues be addressed — before projects are approved.

Done in a manner that prudently balances the need for housing with our resources and the desire for livability can create housing that works for everyone.