Board approves Coastal Commission conditional certification for housing-element rezones after public safety questions
Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts
Subscribe
Summary
The Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors on Jan. 27 approved staff recommendations to accept the California Coastal Commission's conditional certification for rezones tied to the county's 2023–2031 housing element, while residents raised fire-safety and infrastructure concerns about specific sites such as the Baylor parcel.
The Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors voted Jan. 27 to approve staff recommendations on the California Coastal Commission’s conditional certification of rezones tied to the county’s 2023–2031 housing element. The action implements rezones the county says are required to meet its RHNA allocation and enables a by-right permitting path for developers that meet state objective standards.
Supervisor Lee asked staff whether a developer would withdraw a builder’s-remedy application if the site were rezoned; Planning staff said developers told them they would pull such applications and explained the state by-right process requires a minimum density (about 20 units per acre in many cases), at least 16 units on the property and at least 20% of units designated affordable. Director Plautman told the board the county would still review life-safety issues and could require changes or deny projects that do not resolve those concerns.
During public comment, three residents opposed bundling the Baylor site with other parcels. Betty Jepsen said the developer lacked infrastructure and that Carpinteria had previously denied the project; Tristine Rayner described the proposed 'use by right' language as broadly phrased and asked whether reviews such as the fire marshal’s would still occur; Carl Sunken warned of parking and evacuation constraints near Casitas Village and Villa Del Mar and urged the board to reconsider limits on discretionary review.
Planning staff said rezonings included in the housing element were covered under the programmatic environmental impact review and that individual projects meeting the objective standards would be processed ministerially, with county code requirements still applied. After board discussion about the tension between meeting state requirements and local safety concerns, Supervisor Lee moved to support the staff recommendation; the motion carried unanimously on roll call.
The board’s action does not itself approve any specific development proposal; it affirms the county’s local land-use changes needed for the housing element and transmits the adopted resolution and coastal amendments as required for state review. Planning staff said developers retain obligations to comply with county safety standards and that life-safety reviews remain part of the county’s inspections and permitting process.