By Christine Breen
A little more than a year ago, the city adopted a new general
plan, intended to guide Hollister’s growth over the next 20
years.
The plan incorporates an infill and phasing strategy, which
prioritizes areas for development.
A little more than a year ago, the city adopted a new general plan, intended to guide Hollister’s growth over the next 20 years.
The plan incorporates an infill and phasing strategy, which prioritizes areas for development.
The city is still drafting implementing ordinances to effectuate its infill scheme, as well as the other aspects of the plan.
In the meantime, development pressure within the city is temporarily stayed by the mandatory building moratorium imposed after Hollister’s over-taxed sewage treatment facility failed.
“Infill” is a term one hears often these days when discussing urban development and revitalization projects. It is a means of development aimed at curbing sprawl, by targeting underutilized property within urban areas, often for high-density residential or mixed-use projects.
Downtown Hollister has been identified as a prime opportunity for infill development, particularly with the wealth of underutilized property east of San Benito Street, and also parcels west of downtown and Park Hill.
The concept of infill is not, in and of itself, a panacea to the unchecked sprawl that occurred here in the early 1990s.
In order for infill development to be an effective asset to Hollister, we must revisit policies enacted as a reaction to unmanaged growth, and demand a concerted effort of local government, in collaboration with community leaders and development interests, to formulate projects that are financially feasible and consistent with our community character.
Effective infill projects cannot proceed under the city’s current growth cap.
The cap, which was approved by city voters several years ago as Measure U, limits the number of building permits issued annually within the city to 243.
This cap seemed sensible in light of the tremendous growth, and the associated strain on local services and infrastructure, that Hollister experienced a decade ago.
Unfortunately, it did not anticipate the precipitous rise in local housing costs, the dearth of affordable housing in our area, or the building moratorium and its grave implications to local business.
As the city formulates ordinances to enforce its general plan’s principles, it should consider a more effective approach to addressing the ills Measure U aimed to ameliorate.
An initial step would be to identify and delineate a central urban core, and then identify infill opportunities within that core.
Any proposed projects within the core should be held to certain standards to be exempted from the building cap.
If such opportunities are identified, specific criteria for such projects should be developed, along with corollary incentives.
Certainly, such criteria should contemplate proposed minimum density, ratio of rentals to owned units, and minimum number of “affordable” units.
But it would also have to address more nebulous concerns, including the impact of gentrification on affordability and community character.
Currently, the very high costs of construction and development make most infill projects, particularly those that incorporate affordable and rental units, unfeasible.
Single-family developments proliferate because they are the only means by which builders can make a profit.
Local government and community leaders will have to consider creative approaches to mitigating these costs. Simply put, high-density residential and mixed-use projects have to make financial sense for the developers if they are to be realized.
Last fall, Del Webb’s campaign to pass Measure S demonstrated that Hollister remains susceptible to pressures to sprawl beyond its developed boundaries, notwithstanding a general plan that prioritizes infill and managed growth within established parameters.
The building moratorium will likely be lifted next year. We need to implement a creative, proactive strategy to address the community’s housing and economic needs and lend integrity to the collective vision that the general plan represents.
Christine Breen is a member of the Free Lance Editorial Board.
