KINGSBURG – Rather than see high-density housing in certain areas of the city, Kingsburg opted to amend its already-adopted housing element and risk temporarily falling out of compliance with state law.
The Kingsburg City Council unanimously voted on Dec. 4 to have staff reexamine the full sites inventory detailed in the housing element and add newly annexed land through an amendment, giving the city more space to accommodate potential housing units. Council members believed this to be the best option because it would give them more control over future development.
“It’s a risk, but unfortunately, it is a risk that I have no problems taking for Kingsburg,” Councilmember Staci Smith said of the decision. “We need to keep Kingsburg, the design of our town, the structure that we have, I really think that’s what we need to do to maintain that.”
The conundrum came about after the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) issued a letter of substantial compliance to Kingsburg in September following the council’s adoption of the 2023-2031 Multijurisdictional Housing Element in July. Substantial compliance means the essential requirements of the housing element have been met but the city must take additional steps to ensure it remains in compliance.
The letter said the city would need to continue “timely and effective implementation of all programs” outlined in the housing element. Specifically, HCD told Kingsburg it needed to address its shortfall in meeting the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) for low income housing by Dec. 31. Otherwise, the city’s housing element could lose its certification from HCD, which would make Kingsburg ineligible for a variety of funding programs.
Residents, council members and city staff spent nearly three hours at the early December council meeting discussing options for rezoning vacant land within the city to meet state requirements, with no perfect solution. Two presented options that would rezone certain parcels did not sit right with council members or residents, and the third option — which was ultimately selected — could put the city in a less than favorable place with HCD.
Although the city has the ability to amend the housing element, doing so would likely take another six months, first with city staff working on the amendment and then with waiting for additional HCD review. During that time, City Manager Alex Henderson said HCD could decertify the currently-compliant housing element and open the city up to additional HCD review of the full housing element, meaning the department could comment and request edits on items that do not currently need work.
Mayor Brandon Pursell Jr. said he felt the third option was still the most logical for the town, and accepted “the consequences falling on my shoulders as the mayor” if the action does put Kingsburg at odds with the state.
“And I do think that us adopting that first portion of this also does show some good faith, and I think that does give us a little bit of equity if we do end up in court, so I think we’re on the right path,” Pursell said.
Rezoning, the ‘right’ way
The first option presented to the city council involved rezoning four parcels to accommodate high density housing, with a minimum density of 20 dwelling units per acre and a maximum density of 30 dwelling units per acre. Community Development Director Holly Owen explained that this would grant Kingsburg the 209 low-income housing units needed to meet the required RHNA numbers. This would comply exactly with HCD’s recommendations.
The second option presented would involve the city making technical corrections to the proposed rezoning sites. This could allow the council to remove one or two of the parcels slated for rezoning by making smaller changes elsewhere to the original RHNA allocations; the council would still need to rezone some sites to have a minimum of 20 units per acre, but it would leave out other sites.
Henderson called option two a “hybrid approach” that would allow the city more flexibility but would likely be seen as “less cumbersome” by HCD than a full amendment to the housing element, which is what the third option proposed.
It was important for city staff to note that rezoning the parcels did not mean that any future development would have to be designated as affordable housing, and no developments on those lots are currently planned. The housing element does not mandate that a city develop housing, merely that it has policies that facilitate housing development. Still, Henderson said the city would not be allowed to down-zone, or decrease the zoning density, at a later time.
The third option to reevaluate the entire site’s inventory and make an amendment to the housing element was presented to the council because the city has recently annexed land that it should be able to incorporate into the RHNA.
“There is the potential that this could potentially result in no need for up-zoning of any of these sites, but without additional analysis of all of our vacant sites, staff cannot guarantee this outcome,” Henderson said. “This simply would allow us to bring in sites that were not available when the housing element update was completed.”
Council members and residents strongly objected to the first option and were hesitant to put their support behind the second options as well. Multiple residents said they did not want to see higher density housing at all within the city, while others said that high density housing would be acceptable, just not on the proposed sites.
The sites slated for rezoning included three parcels of vacant land near the intersection of Stroud Avenue and 10th Avenue, just north of Rafer Johnson Junior High School, and one parcel located on the east side of the city, behind Tri-County Family Medical Clinic on the south side of Sierra Street.
Residents who spoke against rezoning these specific sites brought up concerns related to traffic congestion, including pedestrian safety around the junior high school, the potential for increased crime with higher density housing and the way it may alter the “character” of the neighborhoods.
Following public input, Councilmember Laura North spoke about how it is expensive to live in Kingsburg, and it saddens her that there are not enough affordable housing options for younger generations to live in Kingsburg once they reach adulthood. Still, she said that while Kingsburg needs affordable housing, the proposed rezoning “isn’t the way to do it.”
“I do think that the conversation for affordable housing for our young families that are starting out needs to be a discussion, whether that’s duplexes, triplexes, different options,” North said. “I think that conversation needs to be continued, and I’m leaning towards more of the risky options. But that is not why, it is not because I think that we shouldn’t have low income people here.”
