What Comes After Housing Element and Zoning Approvals?

Goleta’s housing element was approved by the state. What happens now? Where do we go from here?

First, consider what happened and what did not happen. For the housing element, the City Council approved rezoning of 11 sites to allow new housing. It did not approve any housing projects, just the zoning change. The accompanying environmental analysis only considered the impacts of the altered zoning; it was not a new analysis of the whole General Plan. Thus, environmental and traffic impacts were not focused on the local impacts of specific projects but assessing whether there were significant adverse impacts to the city from the zoning change.

Many neighbors adjacent to rezoned sites have expressed concerns about the traffic and environmental impacts of the proposed project. To be clear, the city did not evaluate the environmental impacts of the specific projects included in the housing element. The city has made no judgment about the suitability of a site, including at the housing density proposed. This will only come after the permit review process.

So what will happen next? As part of the review process, environmental reviews will ensure that any proposed project is consistent with the goals of the General Plan. To emphasize what a project must achieve, when the city approved the housing element, we included three additional requirements based in the General Plan.

First, we explicitly required that “the design of future housing projects on the rezoned housing sites may not degrade or obstruct scenic views and should incorporate mitigation, minimization, and avoidance strategies as provided by VH Policy 2.3 so as not to obstruct scenic viewsheds.” Thus, landowners seeking to build either will have to demonstrate that their proposed project will not impair the viewshed, or they must reduce the size and scale of the project or mitigate the impacts in some other manner.

Another concern was traffic. We were concerned about how projects would impact the congestion and safety on streets, intersections, and highway on- and off-ramps. What is important is for us to have a complete understanding of the potential traffic impacts before making decisions as to whether a new project will be consistent with the General Plan’s transportation goals for an adequate level of service.

For example, if there are multiple projects enabled along the same street, as there is along Hollister, there will be cumulative impacts from the different projects. Therefore, in the housing element addendum, we emphasized that “as part of the permitting process, future housing projects on the rezoned housing sites must be determined to be consistent with applicable General Plan Transportation Element policies, as determined by traffic studies that evaluate the potential effects of the proposed projects on local streets and roads, taking into account the cumulative effect of other nearby planned development, including potential effects on service levels, safety hazards, and other adverse effects and transportation concerns.”

Note that the city already has an existing proposed Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) project (9102 Storke Road Corridor Study) to study some of the traffic issues along Storke Road. There are also potential CIP projects that will improve the circulation where there are known concerns (i.e., 9095 Storke/Glen Annie at US 101 Interchange, I-16 Glen Annie Road at US 101 Northbound Ramps, and I-18 Storke Road at US 101 Southbound Ramps).

However, what happens if a proposed project would negatively impact traffic circulation and create dangerous situations for drivers, bicyclists or pedestrians, but the city does not have the available funding to implement the infrastructure projects that would mitigate the traffic impacts? New housing developments will have to pay impact fees to mitigate their traffic impacts, but the collections might not be enough for necessary improvements to ensure that the projects are consistent with the General Plan. So, what happens then?

To reflect this concern, the council included the following clarifying language to the housing element’s environmental impact statement: “[I]f the transportation capital improvements needed to maintain the adopted transportation level of service at the standard level required by the General Plan, including circulation and traffic safety standards, are not able to be fully funded, then the City shall take one or more of four listed actions, including without limitation reducing the scope of the development to reduce the traffic generation below the thresholds set by the General Plan.”

That means that if there is not funding or suitable projects to mitigate the traffic impacts to ensure the level of service does not degenerate below the acceptable standards of the General Plan, the developer must find a solution, including potentially reducing the size and scale of the housing project.

We did not add additional language to the housing element addendum concerning the environment. This was previously addressed when the city updated its regulations (“Title 17”) in 2020, which better defined General Plan environmental requirements. The change clarified that new projects needed to adhere to a 100-foot buffer around streams and wetlands. In addition, federal laws like the Endangered Species Act and Clean Water Act require that if environmentally sensitive habitat is present a project may need to be adjusted – reducing the buildable lands — to protect these lands.

One may ask, how will the state react if it happens that projects included in the approved housing element are reduced in size because of the environmental and design review processes during the permitting process? Does the city have the discretion to reduce the housing density for a site included in the housing element?

The answer is that we do. The city has the authority to reduce the size, bulk, and scale of projects as a result of our permit review and approval process. To satisfy the state, the city created a sizable buffer of 227 units available to backfill any reduction in the housing from the lower-income housing sites (those zoned at or above 20 units per acre). For units not projected to be lower income, the city has an even greater surplus. If there is a need to reduce the low-income housing developments at greater than 227 units, we would have to find a replacement housing.

In short, the city’s zoning action for the housing element is not the final destiny for a project. It depends upon the results of the project-level permit review process.

It is important to remember how we got here. The city had anticipated satisfying the state housing mandates using the existing capacity of sites zoned residential or mixed use. The state housing agency rejected this approach, in essence moving the goal posts, and required not just that we have adequate housing sites to support our housing target, but that we also rezoned new sites of entirely vacant land from owners who expressed an interest in developing the sites once rezoned.

The result was that the city had a reduced ability to set its priorities. Instead, the state would effectively define which sites would satisfy their housing target. As a result, some portions of the city will bear a disproportionate burden in accommodating our RHNA housing requirements. Of the 1,126-unit target for rezone sites, 537 units (48%) are along Hollister, while 234 units (21%) are along Calle Real, both west of Storke. Of the lower income rezones, which is what the state housing agency was principally looking for, 749 units or 91% of the total lower-income sites were either on Hollister or by Calle Real in west Goleta.

Adding new housing is unquestionably important for the region given how high rents have risen. However, there is a cost that affected neighborhoods bear when housing is added — increased traffic and demands on parks and local schools — so people should feel like the process of deciding who should bear the burden is fair.

As the city evaluates permit applications, and considers the project-level impacts, to the extent that we can lessen the excessive negative impacts on neighborhoods, I have faith that we will do so. With the housing surplus buffers we created, we can avoid imposing disproportionate impacts on those neighborhoods with rezoned sites.

Stuart Kasdin is a councilmember for the City of Goleta.