Days after county OKs ad-hoc committee to meet in private,
officials change their minds
The San Benito County Board of Supervisors agreed to discuss the
county’s growth management and affordable housing ordinances once
per month for the next several months in a motion passed at an Aug.
5 meeting, just a week after initial plans for a committee to
discuss the issues behind closed doors.
Days after county OKs ad-hoc committee to meet in private, officials change their minds
The San Benito County Board of Supervisors agreed to discuss the county’s growth management and affordable housing ordinances once per month for the next several months in a motion passed at an Aug. 5 meeting, just a week after initial plans for a committee to discuss the issues behind closed doors.
“All that’s going to be happening is research and analysis and public input,” said Board Chairman Jaime De La Cruz.
The public will also have a chance to comment at planning commission meetings, De La Cruz said.
Initially De La Cruz ordered a subcommittee, composed of two supervisors and two county planning commissioners. The committee would have included De La Cruz, Supervisor Don Marcus and Planning Commissioners Mark Tognazzini and Richard Bettencourt. In the week since members were first contacted by Weekend Pinnacle staff, De La Cruz and others decided the meetings should be held in public. The growth ordinance has been a contentious issue in the county for years.
This week, De La Cruz attempted to explain his reversal. “Talking to members of the community, I felt that the public wanted to get involved in the democratic process,” De La Cruz said.
Though De La Cruz presented the idea of rethinking the ordinances, he declined to give an opinion on them.
“It’s not for me to provide my opinion,” De La Cruz said.
His constituents support changing the growth ordinance because he ran on a platform of economic development and won the election by 61.2 percent, De La Cruz said.
Many supervisors and and county planning commissioners agree the ordinances should be re-evaluated. They disagreed about timing and the process.
San Benito County’s affordable housing ordinance, adopted in 2004, requires that subdivisions of more than 20 units include 30 percent affordable units.
Typically, affordable housing requirements in California are 10 percent or more, said Art Henriques, the county’s building and planning director.
The growth ordinance, adopted in 2000, imposes a 1 percent cap on new residential growth in the county and allows 60 new residential units per year. Affordable units are exempt. Some larger developments are required to be submitted for a public vote to earn approval.
The growth cap quickly became popularly known as the “Any Given Tuesday Ordinance,” since it could be changed at one of the board’s regular Tuesday meetings.
“In a particularly robust year, you might have 80 or 90 wanting units,” Henriques said. “It’s not like there’s hundreds and hundreds of requests every year and the department can only approve 60.”
In 2004, voters defeated by 69 percent another slow-growth initiative, Measure G, which would have rezoned much of San Benito County.
To some degree, county officials are taking advantage of the reaction against Measure G and Hollister’s sewer moratorium to make San Benito County friendlier to development than it has been for some time, said Franz Schneider, a former planning commissioner for Hollister and San Benito County.
“Jaime [De La Cruz] is a friend of mine, but if you look at a list of his campaign contributors you can pretty well figure things out,” Schneider said.
In the June 2008 election, 47 percent of De La Cruz’ campaign contributions came from development-oriented individuals or businesses, according to campaign contribution disclosures.
Schneider said he believes the supervisors will try to amend the growth cap and inslusionary housing, and take away voters right to vote on projects of 100 or more units.
“It has to be on the action agenda, of course, before they can take any vote on it, but there’s a lot of things on the action agenda,” Schneider said. “They can give it an innocuous name and vote on it immediately.”
The public discussion could turn into an argument between pro and anti growth individuals, Schneider said.
“Then Jaime can say, ‘See, this is why we need to conduct these meetings in private,” Schneider said.
Joe Morris, who led the campaign against Measure G, said he believes there is a better way to plan growth than a set percentage.
“In my opinion the county still lacks that clear vision of what we want to become,” Morris said. “We’re moving away from things we don’t want but that does not ensure that we get where we want to go.”
Since the inclusionary housing ordinance was passed, 61 affordable housing units were built in the county, said C.J. Valenzuela, housing programs coordinator for San Benito County.
“It takes several years for an affordable housing development to take place,” Valenzuela said.
Because his goal is to increase the amount of affordable housing in the county, if construction continued at the same rate, a high requirement for affordable housing would be a good thing, Valenzuela said.
Chuck Ortwein, senior planner for San Benito County, did research for the planning commission regarding ways to amend the growth ordinance, he said. Although the options were presented at a planning commission meeting, he declined to go into detail.
One of the alternatives is to repeal the growth ordinance, Ortwein said.
“It’s an alternative I think we should look at,” Ortwein said.
County officials would have to establish findings that the ordinances do not meet their intended purpose, Ortwein said.
“I don’t think it’s helped us from meeting our regional housing needs,” Ortwein said. “I don’t think it’s stopped us from being a bedroom community at all.”
Some supervisors disagree about reviewing the ordinances outside of the general plan process, including Supervisor Anthony Botelho.
“I think we have to identify the areas that you do want to grow and allow for that growth,” Botelho said.
The county could have a higher growth cap in areas with existing infrastructure and areas that could eventually be annexed into Hollister.
Supervisor Don Marcus disagreed that the growth ordinances should be reviewed by the general plan committee.
“It’s quite possible that the growth ordinance could be changed prior to a new general plan,” Marcus said.
County residents and officials need to decide if a cap is the correct way to deal with growth or if a more comprehensive plan should be put in place, said Scott Fuller, general manager of San Juan Oaks.
“Do we have leaders that we trust to make decisions about projects as they come in without a growth cap?” Fuller asked. “I think it needs to be looked at carefully and adjusted. By adjusted I don’t mean that one percent becomes two percent. The whole concept needs to be looked at.”
The growth and affordable housing ordinances need to be looked at in tandem, Fuller said.
“When you take the 1 percent growth control and you put it together with the affordable housing, you don’t get any affordable housing,” Fuller said. “I also think that the 30 percent requirement was very aggressive.”
Ordinances by county:
San Benito County
Affordable: 3-20 units requires an in-lieu fee
21 or more units requires 30 percent of homes be affordable
Growth cap: 1 percent
Merced County
Affordable: none
Growth cap: none
Santa Cruz County
Affordable: 2-4 units requires in lieu fee
5 or more units requires 15 percent of homes be affordable
Growth capt: .5 percent
Details of San Benito’s ordinances
Growth Management Ordinance
Purpose:
· Maintain growth at a level that county services can keep up with
· Protect agricultural resources.
Cap:
· One percent of population in unincorporated San Benito County per year
· Planning commissioners can increase the number of permits annually by up to one-third
Exemptions:
· Replacing, adding onto or remodeling an existing units
· Commercial and industrial with one or less dwelling units
· non-habitable structures
· affordable housing
· senior developments with at least 50 percent affordable housing
Details:
· At least 25 percent of the allocations are reserved for subdivisions of four lots or less
· No project can be assigned more than 50 percent of the annual permits
Ranking System:
· Allocations based on a point system that ranks projects based on characteristics such as avoiding Grade 1 soils
Appeals:
· Within 10 days of the staff decision, appeals can be made to the planning commission
· Within 10 days of planning commission decision, appeals can be made to county supervisors
Revision:
· To review the ordinance and recommend changes, the board of supervisors may appoint a sub-committee comprised of members of the board, planning commission, development community, public at large and county planning staff.
Inclusionary Housing Ordinance
Purpose:
· Encourage construction of affordable housing by the private sector
Income limits for a family of four:
· Uses guidelines established each year by staff from the Department of Housing and Community Development, a state agency
· Very low- $39,000
· Low- $61,500
· Moderate- $93,600
Requirements:
· Between 3 and 20 units- in-lieu fee
· 21 or more units- 30 percent affordable housing
Exceptions:
· Developer of 21 or more units may pay an in-lieu fee if characteristics of the site make it unsuitable for affordable housing
· County officials can approve off-site affordable housing units if they provide a greater contribution to the county’s affordable housing needs
· Density bonuses are available for developers who go beyond the requirements
Proportion of total units in new projects:
· very low income- 6 percent
· low income- 12 percent
· moderate income- 12 percent
Information compiled from San Benito County documents.
A timeline of growth ordinances
October 10, 2000- Supervisors adopt the growth ordinance, a 1 percent growth cap
April 2, 2002- Supervisors amended the growth ordinance to revise the way projects are scored, which has happened several times
October 2003- A report paid for by an anonymous group alleges Supervisor Richard Scagliotti engaged in several acts of corruption based on his support of Measure G, a slow -rowth initiative that would have rezoned much of the unincorporated areas in the county
March 2003- Marvin Jones, then chairman of the San Benito County Republican Central Committee, requested that the district attorney’s office conduct an investigation into how the pro-Measure G campaign was conducted by members of the Citizens for Responsible Growth Political Action Committee
April 1, 2003- Supervisors approve Measure G, rather than put it on the ballot. They later renege and put it on the ballot
May 2003- The district attorney’s office determines that there was no evidence of Election Code violations by Citizens for Responsible Growth Political Action Committee members
November 2003- A judge dismisses a lawsuit that attempted to eliminate Measure G from the March ballot
Jan. 27, 2004- Supervisors adopt the inclusionary housing ordinance, which mandates that subdivisions of 21 units or more have 30 percent affordable housing
March 2, 2004- voters reject measure G by 69 percent
November 2007- Monterey County attorney Mike Pekin files new claims that former Supervisor Richard Scagliotti incorrectly identified his financial interests. Although the case was dismissed, the client will likely appeal
August 5, 2008- Pekin and Scagliotti go to court regarding the 2003 corruption charges, including that he would have benefited financially from his support of Measure G
