It’s long been a refrain from not just Windsor, but virtually every community, that unchecked growth is the enemy. And while that may be true, Windsor’s annual residential growth report shows that unchecked growth is very much not an issue in Windsor, and hasn’t been for several years.
Community Development Director Jessica Jones presented the annual residential growth report at the Dec. 16 meeting of the Windsor Town Council, and what was made clear is that though the 2020 numbers are slightly better than those of the previous years, Windsor is still facing a falling population, minimal construction and a danger of continuing to not be in compliance with state orders regarding housing construction.
In 2017, the town modified its Growth Control Ordinance to suspend the merit process and improve the efficiency of procedures for setting and awarding annual residential growth control allocations. The revised ordinance created a requirement that, unless exempted, all residential dwelling units must obtain a growth control allocation prior to construction, created procedures for allowing growth control allocations to be awarded as part of the entitlement process, set the number of allocations available based on a 1.5% growth rate and allowed banking of unused allocations.
It also established two categories of allocations: Reserve “A” and Reserve “B”. The Reserve A category allows the council to incentivize units that are part of a mixed-use development project or that are part of a higher density housing project with a density of 12 units per acre or greater. The Reserve B category is for any unit that is not eligible for a Reserve A allocation. A five-year annual residential growth control allocation was set at 140 Reserve A Units and 560 Reserve B Units for calendar years 2017 through 2021.
Since 2017, the council has rolled over units nearly every year. In 2017 it rolled over 27 unused 2017 Reserve A Allocations and 109 unused 2017 Reserve B Allocations. In 2018 it rolled over five unused 2018 Reserve A Allocations and 168 unused 2018 Reserve B Allocations and banked 51 unused 2018 Reserve B Allocations for future issuance by the council. Finally, in 2019 it rolled over six unused 2019 Reserve A Allocations and 269 unused 2019 Reserve B Allocations.
The Growth Control Ordinance requires that a report on residential development activity be prepared annually.
What got built
In 2020, 22 building permits were issued for construction of new residential units, down from the 85 permits that were issued in 2019. Fifteen of the permits were for new single-family homes and seven were for new accessory dwelling units.
Of the 22 permits issued, 17 residential units were finaled for occupancy, the majority of which are located in the Victoria Oaks subdivision. This number is up from the single unit that was finaled in 2019, and also up from the three units finaled during calendar year 2018.
The estimated population increase resulting from the 17 new residential units coming “online” in 2020 is projected to be approximately 51, based on the US Census estimate of 2.98 persons per household.
What got applied for
Residential construction application activity is presented in three categories: approved applications, submitted applications and pending applications. Approved applications include residential development applications that were approved in 2020. Submitted applications include applications that were submitted in 2020 but have not yet been acted on by the decision-making authority. Pending applications are projects that went through preliminary review in 2020 but for which no formal application for approval has been submitted.
Approved Applications
In 2020, the town approved two residential development applications. The total number of new units approved was 60, all of which are multi-family residential with half affordable to low income families.
Submitted Applications
Two residential development applications were submitted to the town in 2020. One application was for conversion of existing office space above commercial to six multi-family units (in the Bell Village Shopping Center), and the other was for the Kashia-Burbank multi-family affordable housing project on Old Redwood Highway, near the intersection of Arata Lane.
Pending Applications
Three projects went through preliminary review in 2020 but no application for formal approval has been submitted for them. The projects, totaling 342 units, were reviewed, with approximately one-third of the units being multi-family and 100% affordable.
What’s in the pipeline
The total number of residential units currently in the “pipeline”, including the units discussed above, is 2,171. This is 398 units more than was listed in the 2019 Annual Report. The increase in the number of units in the pipeline is primarily attributable to the addition of the North of Arata project (240 units), the Kashia-Burbank affordable project (60 units), and the Redwood Glen and Redwood Views affordable projects (50 units and 52 units respectively).
Of the projects in the pipeline, 1,110 units are approved, 119 units are in projects for which an application for approval has been submitted but not yet acted on, and 942 units are in projects that have gone through preliminary review and submittal of an application for approval is pending. The composition of units in the pipeline is summarized below.
Unit Types
• Single-Family – 718 units (33%)
• Multi-Family – 1,143 units (53%)
• Assisted Living Units – 310 units (14%)
• Affordable Housing Units – 265 units (12%)
• Units in a Mixed-Use Project – 397 units (18%)
Unit Location
• Infill – 1,276 units (59%)
• Edge of Town – 895 units (41%)
Smart Growth
• Units in Downtown/Station Area – 859 units (39%)
• Units outside of downtown along a transit route or near services – 730 units (34%)
Allocations
Under the provisions of the amended Growth Control Ordinance, unused annual Reserve A allocations are automatically rolled over to the following year’s allocation through the end of the five-year allocation period. As stated above, unused annual Reserve B allocations are “banked” for future issuance at the discretion of the council.
Staff recommended rollover the 34 unused Reserve A Allocations from Year 2020 to Year 2021 and rollover the 356 unused Reserve B Allocations from year 2020 to year 2021.
Challenges going forward
Jones warned that because the five-year allocation period ends in 2021, the council will be tasked with establishing a new five-year allocation as part of next year’s residential growth control report, including infrastructure and services capacity for the anticipated growth. However, she suggested consideration may need to be given to suspending the Growth Control Ordinance until such time as the town has met its Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) requirements set by the State.
Windsor, like most places in California, has struggled to meet the state-mandated housing units each year. With the anticipated significant increase in RHNA requirements over the next housing cycle (2023-2031), coupled with the increasing housing-related state laws that have been aimed at streamlining housing development Jones feels the town will need to consider whether limiting the number of housing units constructed per year is appropriate at this time.
“The state sets the number of units required to be provided in a given region, and we’ve been working with our regional partners for how to spread those out and we will know more in coming months, but that number is set for us,” Jones said.
While all four current council members voted in favor of accepting the report, only Mayor Dominic Foppoli, Esther Lemus and Debora Fudge voted in favor of the allocation rollover.
Vice mayor Sam Salmon is displeased with the allocation system, finding it too confusing and not helpful.
“We set this 1.5% growth rate and all it’s done is put 2,000 houses in the pipeline. Twenty-some years ago a council was faced with a similar pipeline and it was unacceptable back then. Now I guess it’s OK to have all that in the pipeline,” he said. “Sure, a lot of them stay stagnant, we have one development in downtown that’s been stagnant for 6 ½ years. I didn’t support this, (and) I don’t think a regular person can make heads or tails of this process. Jessica is right, we may not need a growth control ordinance at this point … it makes no sense. What we were trying to avoid is an explosion of housing that we couldn’t handle or take care of.
“But, we’re seeing a decrease in population and that’s due to the cost of living here and I don’t think you are going to see that go away.”
Salmon concluded his comments by stating he’s placing his hopes in the town’s upcoming plans to create discretionary and non-discretionary design standards that could help streamline the process and help create the town’s vision of smart growth.
“The developers can get an idea of what we want and where we want it,” he said.
