Ventura council pauses vote on ministerial permitting; asks staff to return after objective design standards

The Ventura City Council on May 19 paused final action on an ordinance that would codify statewide streamlining laws for some affordable housing projects, directing staff to return with the measure after the council adopts citywide objective design standards.

Planning staff told the council the draft ordinances would implement state laws — AB 1397, SB 35 and AB 423 — to create a ministerial permit path for certain projects that include at least 20% lower‑income units, speed approvals under strict objective standards and impose statutory review timelines (60–180 days depending on project size). Assistant Community Development Director Maru Haka and Planning Manager Shana Farley said the rules also include a courtesy notice the city would mail to neighbors, and that the state laws already apply where projects qualify. Farley noted the city’s RHNA shortfall: the Southern California Association of Governments assigned Ventura 5,312 units for the current cycle; the city had permitted 1,393 units by December 2025, leaving a deficit of 3,919 units.

Supporters at the public hearing — including housing advocates, Ventura County REALTORS and the Ventura Housing Authority — argued the ministerial path reduces uncertainty and cost and is necessary to produce low‑income housing. “Streamlined objective by‑right processes are essential tools for delivering homes for lower‑income households,” Rob Leatherwood told the council.

Opponents urged caution. Residents and environmental speakers warned ministerial approvals remove public hearings, limit environmental review for certain sites and could allow projects with harmful adjacencies to be approved without fuller scrutiny. “Ministerial approval would remove public hearings, eliminate the CEQA reviews, and shut residents out of decisions that permanently reshape our community,” Kelly Dorsy said.

Council members also pressed staff on details — how the rules interact with density bonus waivers, whether projects can seek appeals, and the cost of the proposed courtesy mailing (estimated by staff at about $900 per project to notify owners/tenants within 300 feet). Staff emphasized a long list of statutory exemptions — projects in high fire severity zones, hazardous waste sites, mapped habitat or other sensitive areas would not qualify for the streamlined path and would require normal discretionary review.

Faced with divided public sentiment and remaining questions about locally adopted objective design standards, the council voted to delay final adoption. A substitute motion to return the ordinances for formal approval only after the council has adopted objective design standards passed 4–2.

What’s next: staff will proceed with the city’s objective‑design standards work (aimed for later this year) and bring the ministerial permitting ordinances back for adoption after that process is complete. For now, the state laws remain enforceable and can be used by applicants under existing statutory procedures; the local ordinance would simply clarify how the city applies those laws and add the proposed courtesy notice and local design standards where applicable.

Council action: The council voted to defer final adoption and asked staff to return with the ordinances updated to align with the forthcoming objective design standards.

Why it matters: The decision balances two local priorities: speeding construction of lower‑income housing to meet regional obligations and maintaining local review and design control to reflect neighborhood concerns. The outcome preserves staff flexibility to fine‑tune local objective standards before committing to the ministerial approval path.