Thousand Oaks Gets State Warning on SOAR

In a warning that could be used to bolster arguments against SOAR initiatives countywide, a state housing agency has informed Thousand Oaks that the city may be unable to provide enough housing in the future if voters approve the growth-control measure this fall.

As a result, officials from the state Department of Housing and Community Development say they plan to take a look at every city with a Save Open Space and Agricultural Resources measure on the ballot to ensure each can shoulder its share of the regional housing load if the measures become law.

“We are concerned that a growth-limitation ordinance that unduly constrains housing development may preclude a locality complying with state housing element law and may constrain the private sector’s ability to meet housing demand and need,” Kimberley L. Dellinger, the agency’s deputy director, wrote in a letter to Thousand Oaks. “We urge the city to evaluate the housing impacts of the SOAR initiative and educate the electorate.”

In the July letter, the state agency informed Thousand Oaks officials that the city’s planning blueprint continued to meet state-mandated requirements to accommodate its fair burden of growth.

It went on to state, however, that state officials had become aware of the city SOAR measure on the November ballot, and were worried it could prevent the city from meeting its legal requirements in the future, particularly those for low-cost housing.

The citizen-drafted Thousand Oaks measure--such as similar SOAR initiatives set to go before voters in Simi Valley, Oxnard, Camarillo, Santa Paula and possibly Moorpark--seeks to prevent the city from growing beyond a set of designated boundaries without voters’ approval.

The SOAR group is also hoping to pass a countywide measure preventing farmland and open space outside city borders from being rezoned for development unless voters sign off on it first.

Members of the Coalition for Community Planning, a diverse group formed to oppose the SOAR movement, said the state’s concerns gave weight to one of their central arguments: that housing needs will be hostage to the “not in my backyard” whims of “ballot-box planning” if the measures pass.

“The approach of SOAR is, ‘Let’s not provide any housing, let’s keep things the way they are,’ ” coalition member Lynn Jacobs of Ventura Affordable Homes Inc. said. “It sounds pretty elitist to me. It’s somewhat ironic that SOAR bills itself as a way to help preserve agriculture, but it’s putting a major obstacle in front of one of the key issues facing agriculture, and that is providing housing for farm workers,” she said. “It’s a real problem.”

But SOAR leader Richard Francis played down the state letter’s relevance, saying state officials did not seem to take into account that all the city measures contained exemptions for affordable housing.

Indeed, the SOAR initiatives would allow cities to expand their borders slightly if needed to meet state requirements for low-cost housing without asking voters for approval. Francis does not believe housing catering to higher-income groups will ever be a concern in Ventura County, and even for affordable housing, he argues the exemptions will not be necessary.

*

“Obviously, that is an issue that we were concerned about, because we put in an exemption for affordable housing,” Francis said. “We believe there is ample room for housing within all the [SOAR boundaries] for the next 20 years. There are a few that are tighter than others, but our fundamental position is that in every jurisdiction there is room for housing.”

Francis, who has served for five years on the board of Cabrillo Economic Development Corp., a nonprofit builder of low-cost housing, said opponents’ claims that SOAR supporters care little for the housing needs of the poor are insincere at best.

“I think the state should be concerned about this, because it is an important issue,” Francis said of the potential for growth-control measures to affect low-cost housing. “But in our case, I believe we made efforts from the beginning to ensure this would not be a problem. I am not worried about this at all.”

Mario Angel, the state housing official who conducted the review of Thousand Oaks, stressed he is not suggesting the city and others will experience housing problems if the SOAR measures become law.

But given the history of other growth-control measures around the state, he said, it is reasonable for state officials to worry.

“We are concerned about the impact on low-income housing, because it has been a factor in the past,” Angel said. “When you put in an urban limit line, it raises the price of land, and then developers complain they can no longer provide affordable housing and still make a profit.

“I know that people are always concerned about the state coming down and telling them what to do at the local level, but these are issues we need to get involved in sometimes,” he added. “We think these cities in Ventura County need to educate the public about this. If all these measures pass in Ventura County, the growth could spill out into other areas.”

*

Thousand Oaks planning official Larry Marquart said he was somewhat taken aback by the state’s letter and its references to SOAR. The letter noted that in Thousand Oaks a law known as Measure E already prevents the city from increasing zoning densities without seeking voter approval, and therefore the city would face twofold housing constraints if SOAR was approved.

Although he stressed that he believes Thousand Oaks should have little problem meeting state housing goals in the foreseeable future, he acknowledged the issues raised by the state are valid--particularly from a countywide standpoint.

“I don’t think Thousand Oaks has many concerns regarding housing in the future, I really don’t,” Marquart said. “But what this letter shows is that the state is interested in this issue and wants to make sure that we can deal with this.

“They’re saying, ‘this is a requirement of your general plan,’ and they’re looking at this from a state perspective,” he said. “They are concerned because growth is going to occur. People are going to be born, and they are going to need a place to live.”

It is unlikely that Thousand Oaks would become involved in any educational efforts regarding the impact of the SOAR initiatives, Marquart said, citing the political volatility of the issue. But he hopes that some impartial community organization steps forward and does become involved in the educational aspects.

“If we’re not going to be paving over agricultural land, then cities are going to have to come up with a way to accommodate growth within the cities’ boundaries more effectively,” Marquart said. “It’s a trade-off. People need to weigh all the consequences.”

*

Angel declined to specify how involved state officials would get in reviewing SOAR’s effects on county housing, calling it a “policy issue” that has yet to be decided.

But Dee Zinke of the California Building Industry Assn. said if she and other SOAR opponents have any say, the review will be a thorough one.

“People have this misconception about affordable housing that needs to be rectified,” Zinke said. “We’re talking about our teachers and our policemen and other important segments of our community here.

“I was completely surprised by the [state] letter--pleasantly surprised,” she said. “I had no idea they were looking into that, and we certainly didn’t influence them. But now that we know about this, we’re going to be pushing hard to take a look at this issue for all cities. The more they do, the better.”

Francis said he expected the opposition to try and spin the housing issue in its favor.

“It’s a political process, state agencies are political entities, so I expect this to become politicized,” Francis said. “Frankly, I don’t begrudge them for looking to make an issue out of this.”