Ventura County supervisors adopt amendments to high‑density housing standards amid water, wildfire and traffic concerns

The Ventura County Board of Supervisors voted 4-1 to adopt staff recommendations to amend development standards and affordable‑housing compliance options for High‑Density Residential (RHD) sites that were identified in the countyhousing element, staff said.

County planner Jean Hollis, who led the presentation, told the board the project is associated with case PL-24-001 and that state law requires local housing elements be updated every eight years. Hollis said the RHD designation was adopted in 2011 and set minimum densities at about 20 to 25 units per acre; at that time the county identified several parcels in Piru, El Ro and Santa Susana and added roughly 150 units to the public inventory. "La ley estatal requiere que cada 8 años se actualice el plan de vivienda," Hollis said during her presentation.

The ordinance amendments keep the existing RHD density and do not rezone properties, Hollis said, but would add clarified development standards, four compliance options for the county's affordable‑housing agreement requirement and procedures intended to speed and standardize multifamily review. She said the proposed amendments would also require that fees collected under the ordinance be deposited in an affordable housing trust account.

Hollis described the four options the ordinance would allow for meeting affordability requirements. Options 1 through 3 follow the state's required and incentivized approaches; staff also proposed a fourth option that would raise the affordable housing percentage to 30 percent as an additional mechanism to encourage on‑site construction. Alternative compliance mechanisms proposed in the ordinance include land donation, land acquisition for units, and an "equivalent action" pathway; Hollis said each of those three mechanisms would require prior approval by the planning director and preestablished criteria.

Staff said there currently is no development activity on any of the RHD parcels. County staff noted infrastructure constraints raised during an earlier March infrastructure forum: several RHD sites lack adequate water storage or connections under current conditions, and public‑works and transportation staff identified traffic and intersection safety thresholds that developers would need to meet before building permits could be issued. Hollis told the board the county is exploring options to expand water storage and coordination among water providers but could not say when or if such infrastructure improvements would occur.

Public commenter Arthur Valenzuela supported the staff recommendations, saying they align with state law and could facilitate more low‑income housing. "Estoy aquí para hablar a favor de las recomendaciones del personal para estas ordenanzas," Valenzuela said.

Several supervisors expressed concern about the viability of some RHD sites, particularly parcels in Santa Susana and Piru, citing wildfire risk, limited local services and water access. One supervisor said the parcels in Santa Susana "no son apropiadas" and questioned whether the locations chosen in 2011 remain suitable. Planning director Dave Bohr (identified in the transcript as the director of planning) and other staff responded that keeping the sites in the housing element inventory preserves the countyability to receive certain funding and certification from the state but that removing a site would require the county to identify replacement sites to avoid "net loss" under state rules.

Staff noted the Planning Commission voted 4-0 on July 31 to approve the recommendations and submitted several comments to the board, including a suggestion to narrow the alternative compliance options and to add a timetable for reviewing the alternative compliance and affordable‑housing agreement provisions. The package also included a written comment letter from the Santa Susana Homeowners Association; staff said it performed targeted outreach including mailings to addresses within five miles of the Santa Susana parcels and social media posts.

At the conclusion of the item the board adopted the staff recommendations by a 4-1 vote; the record shows the motion passed 4 to 1 but does not list individual vote names in the transcript. The board instructed staff to return as part of future work planning (staff said a March workplan item next year could address supervisorsconcerns) and discussed the option of reviewing specific RHD sites again as part of the next housing element cycle and related technical analyses.

What the action does and does not do: the ordinance amendments clarify development standards and add multiple compliance pathways for affordable housing on RHD parcels; they do not rezone properties or increase the adopted density ranges. Staff emphasized that any actual development would still need to satisfy all fire, water and transportation standards before a building permit could be issued.

Next steps: staff said they will incorporate the boardcomments into implementation, continue coordination on water and infrastructure planning, and may bring workplan recommendations back to the board in March to address site viability and potential replacement sites for the housing element cycle.