It used to be that cities would allow for all types of housing, via zoning, and the market determined when and what to build.
Now, the state has upped the game. Through a series of 15 or so housing-related bills approved last year, lawmakers have made clear that it isn’t enough to put the housing allowance in a place; rather, housingneeds to be built. And since cities aren’t cutting it, the state is helping them out.
Gubernatorial candidates tackle issue:Candidates for California governor take on housing crisis
In the pipeline:Cabrillo to begin construction of 22 affordable housing units
Up, up, up:Seasonal dip aside, Southern California housing prices continue to climb
That meanstwo bigthings:
- Citieslost a significant amount of control over the planning process, which in theory means a quicker, simpler path from paper to structure.
- Citieshave a significant amount of work to do to complywithstate laws and help ensure they get the types of projects they want.
On Monday, Ventura’s policymakers andplanning and design staff got a look at how a slew of changes will affect them. The changesare substantial andwill take a lot of staff time to implement, and more are likely to come, Ventura Community Development Director Jeff Lambert said.
More on housing:Habitat for Humanity of Ventura County gets top marks on financial health, accountability
“This continues to change in Sacramento. The state is continuing to respond to our housing crisis in California and taking actions toimplementpoliciesand procedures at the state level to do that,” Lambert said.
This year, Lambert said, he’s aware of at least 24 additional housing bills being considered in Sacramento.
Here’s a look atsome of the bills approved in 2017 and how theycould impact Ventura, as well as cities across the state:
Housing Element Law and ‘No Net Loss’ (Senate Bill 166)
This law centers on a city’s “housing element,” which determines how many units at each income level are neededand lays out the zoning to allow for them.This requirement has been in place since the late 1960s, but state lawmakers last year decided that planning wasn’t enough.
There needed to be actualplacesto move into, regardless of income.
Helping the homeless:Throughout Ventura County, counting every homeless person remains goal
That’s where the bill known as “No Net Loss” comesinto play. This one says that beforea project is approved at a lower density than it iszoned for, or it doesn’t have the right income mix, a city must quantify that the remaining sites identified in its housing element have enough capacity to still meet the housing targets.
Let’s use the city’s recent approval of 306 apartments off Johnson Drive as an example of how this would work.
The developer’s project includes 19 units for low and very low-income populations, but the city’s housing element identified it as carrying 55. The city’s staff report says simply that other sites could make up the difference. Now, staff will have to produce documentation that proves it.
If the findings show capacity is insufficient elsewhere, a city must, on its dime, rezone an area to allow for the extra units. That must occur with 180 days of the project approval.
Housing Accountability Act (Assembly Bill 1515) and Streamlined Housing Approval (Senate Bill 35)
The Housing Accountability Actsays that if a project meets “objective” standards and criteria, as set under the general plan, zoning and design review guidelines, a city mustapprove a project and notlower the density unless there is a “specific, adverse” impact to health and safety.
That would require a city to prove that impact by a “preponderance of the evidence,”said Dave Snow, an attorney with RWG Lawhired by the city to help understand the impact.
It’s a high standard, and “intentionally so,” Snowsaid. The original act was passed in 1982 with the goal of increasing housing and not allowing governments to deny, reduce or impose so many conditions that a project can’t happen. “This intent has not been fulfilled,” the new act reads.
This applies to projects that includemore thantwo residential units, dedicateat least two-thirdsof a space to a residential use, includeboth affordable and market-rate units, are transitional/supportive housing or are an emergency shelter.
Under streamlined housing approval,a developer can request ministerial approval, thereforebypassing Planning Commission, Design Review or City Council approval. The project must be two units or moreand useprevailing wage, typically wages negotiated by unions and significantly higher than the minimum wage. The project also mustallocateat least 15 percent of its units as affordable. In jurisdictions with no existing inclusionary housing ordinance, the allocation is 10 percent.
It excludes projects located in the coastal zone and has other exemptions but is applicable to most areas of the city. If a project is within half a mile of public transit, there is no parking requirement.
Inclusionary housing
This is not new to 2018, but prior-year changes included allowing cities to require projects to have affordable units whether they are rentals or for sale.
Ventura has both ordinances on the books, although its for-sale ordinance applied to downtown, and because of questions overits validity, wasn’t applied to some recent developments. A residential project at Junipero Street, Santa Clara Street and Thompson Boulevard of 255 apartments, for example, will have 16 affordable units per the agreement reached between the developer and the city.
That’s opposed to the roughly 37 or 38 it would need to include, had the city applied its ordinance.
The city had a group study its inclusionary housing ordinances and the groupwill return to the council with recommendations, including whether to allow developers to pay an “in-lieu” fee instead of producing an affordable unit. Setting that fee will require the most time and likely spur the most debate, Lambert said.
Ventura has 1,700 units under construction or in plan checkand an additional 1,200 units on the horizon.
“We are producing but we’re also making up for lost time,” Lambert said, referring to the recession and the years that development largely stopped.
Carl Morehouse, a former City Council member and planner, urged residents to get on board with infill projects if they want to protect the hillsides and farmland. The city’s general plan, its blueprint for planning, stresses infill projects because they fill in gaps in neighborhoods or business districts rather than pave over open space.
“You can’t go back to 1956,” Morehouse said, paraphrasingfrom an opinion piece he wrote last year in The Star. “Housing is necessary. The state is going to cram it down our throat.”
Council member Christy Weir urged the city staff to do what it could to help guide development, including creating objective standards to have a say in design.
“The numbers matter but the actual quality of life and compatibility also matters,” she said.
Getting the city’s development process in line with the new state laws will be a significant undertaking, Lambert said. That’s for a staff already stretched thin from working with households impacted by the Thomas Fire.
Consider this:Ventura officials hear Thomas Fire update, clear the way for new housing
