Mass rezoning proposed to open more land in Kern to high-density housing
New housing opportunities and future state grant money hang in the balance as Kern County government prepares to decide on a proposal that would reclassify far-flung swaths of vacant land for potential development into apartment complexes.
The county’s Planning Commission is being asked to rezone about 214 acres — 61 parcels from the Antelope Valley to Lake Isabella to Belridge — to accommodate 14,965 units of high-density residential so Kern can avoid falling out of compliance with state housing requirements.
Concerns have been raised locally about how the plan might impact property values, traffic congestion and the introduction of new Section 8 subsidized housing near established neighborhoods. County staff have responded by saying those concerns are largely unjustified and that any firm development proposals would be reviewed individually.
But the bigger point county officials make is that Kern County, and California in general, badly need more residential units to help address a shortage that has run up rent prices, contributed to homelessness and deprived renters of the opportunity to buy a home of their own.
Executive Director Stephen Pelz of the Housing Authority of the County of Kern commended the county for pursuing changes to land-use designations that would open more acreage to multifamily residential development. He noted that the existing shortage has pushed up housing costs faster than incomes have increased.
“The best way to address this is to increase the supply of all types of housing, including single family and multifamily,” he said by email. “Increasing the amount of land zoned for multifamily is an important step in helping
increase the supply of housing by reducing a key barrier to development.”
The rezoning proposal was originally scheduled to go before the Planning Commission last month, but it had to be delayed because the panel failed to assemble a quorum. The matter has been tentatively set to return to the commission later this month before proceeding to the county Board of Supervisors for final approval.
In some respects, the plan is Kern’s response to a threat by state officials last fall to pull funding sources unless the county opens more land to multifamily residential development.
A letter from the state dated Nov. 29 said 214 acres in Kern had to be rezoned immediately, or else the county could lose access to state resources, including community development block grant opportunities and money for transportation and housing.
The correspondence stated the rezoned parcels must be vacant or underutilized, have access to adequate water and sewer infrastructure, allow multifamily housing development by right, be large enough to hold at least 16 residential units, lack physical constraints that would bar construction of apartments and be located away from incompatible land uses such as oil fields but near amenities like schools and grocery stores.
Kern’s proposal for complying with the state’s request would take the form of an amendment to the housing element of the county’s General Plan guiding local land uses.
County staff, in recommending adoption of revisions they said would address the state’s concerns, listed several indicators pointing a need for more multifamily housing in Kern.
A staff report said results of a housing survey in Kern show 59 percent of the county’s large families wrestle with housing problems, as do 48 percent of disabled households, 37 percent of elderly households and 72 percent of poor households.
Staff also noted that when the county made available 450 subsidized housing vouchers, 11,550 applicants came forward.
Statewide, the report said, California has produced an average of fewer than 80,000 new homes per year during the last 10 years, even as the annual need is estimated at 180,000 annually.
When the county posted notices about the rezoning proposal, it got 20 public comments in response. Eight of them were in opposition, not including 20 phone calls.
The statements of opposition included questions about why the county had selected certain areas for rezoning, what impacts there would be on traffic, whether new housing would reduce property values and whether the changes would bring new Section 8 housing.
To those, the county responded that any development would have to come with measures designed to cushion the impact of new construction, and that multifamily housing can actually increase property values. Staff also noted no specific developments have yet been proposed in response to the changes envisioned.
After a narrowing process intended, in part, to avoid concentrating new housing in any one part of the county, staff proposed changing land-use designations on 103 acres in the Antelope Valley, 18 acres in Belridge, 24 acres in Lake Isabella and 372 acres in the southern San Joaquin Valley.
Housing specialist Marc Thurston with ASU Commercial in Bakersfield said by email that finding land zoned for multifamily residential is one of the biggest challenges facing apartment developers in Kern County.
The search takes time and money, effectively raising costs that must be recouped later through higher rent prices, Thurston noted. Sometimes the result is that developers simply walk away from projects, he added.
“The neighborhood and city also benefit by replacing a vacant lot with a building which is going to pay much higher property taxes,” he wrote.