Board may ease county cap and standards for affordable
San Benito County supervisors are considering revisions to the
county’s growth and affordable housing ordinances that include
tying the 1 percent growth cap to the statewide growth rate and
lowering the below-market housing requirement from 30 percent to 20
percent.
Board may ease county cap and standards for affordable
San Benito County supervisors are considering revisions to the county’s growth and affordable housing ordinances that include tying the 1 percent growth cap to the statewide growth rate and lowering the below-market housing requirement from 30 percent to 20 percent.
Revisions will go before the San Benito County Planning Commission for a public hearing in two or three months, said Art Henriques, director of building and planning for San Benito County.
“I certainly don’t think we should throw the door open with no rules,” said Pat Loe, a San Benito County supervisor. “One percent equals about 63 homes per year. Do we think we could grow a little bit faster? That’s what we’re looking at here.”
In August, supervisors directed county staff to put the growth and inclusionary housing ordinances on the table once per month.
Adopted in 2004, San Benito County’s inclusionary housing ordinance requires that subdivisions of more than 20 units include 30 percent affordable units.
The growth ordinance, adopted in 2000, imposes a 1 percent cap on new residential growth in the county outside the city limits of Hollister and San Juan Bautista. Affordable units are exempt. Some larger developments are required to be submitted for a public vote to earn approval.
“When this ordinance was put in place, there was tremendous growth,” Loe said. “Now we’re not seeing that.”
If approved, planned subdivisions would add more than 8,100 homes to unincorporated San Benito County. As of Jan. 1, the county counted 6,454 homes, according to the state Department of Finance. “I believe that we have to take our fair share, but I don’t think that we should become a bedroom community either,” Loe said. “I think if we grow at the same rate as California, I think that’s one way to do it accurately.”
Loe suggested using figures already provided by the state Department of Finance.
“The department of finance has been the Web site everybody goes to,” Loe said. “What they factor in, I truthfully don’t know.” California’s average housing unit growth rate is 1.1 percent this year, down from 1.7 percent last year, according to a Web site from the California Department of Finance.
“I think that every board of supervisors will have to look at this every year and make their decisions,” Loe said.
Locating growth in the appropriate areas is more important than the growth cap, said Anthony Botelho, a San Benito County supervisor.
“I like a small community, but growth is inevitable,” Botelho said. “What I want is well-planned growth. We haven’t had that in the past.”
Growth should be located near existing infrastructure, such as schools and roads, Botelho said.
“I’ve been supporting for consideration of the rest of the board why not exempt areas that are in the sphere of influence of the city and can be hooked up to municipal level of services,” Botelho said.
County staff are looking into it, Henriques said.
County officials should not encourage growth in the city’s sphere of influence, said Chris Fitz, executive director of LandWatch Monterey County, a nonprofit dedicated to land use advocacy.
“That’s inappropriate,” Fitz said. “There shouldn’t be subdivisions that close to the city. The city gets to decide if it wants to expand or not.”
Growth makes more sense in the city center, Fitz said.
“In those areas where you don’t want to grow, you need very strict and solid rules,” Fitz said.
San Benito County has a very progressive inclusionary housing requirement, Fitz said.
But the 30 percent requirement deters smaller, local developers from building projects of 20 or more units, Henriques said.
“That’s not saying that a large developer like Santana Ranch or DMB will see that as a barrier,” Henriques said.
The standard in surrounding communities is 15 to 20 percent inclusionary housing units, Botelho said.
“We’ll try it this other way and bring it down to 20 percent,” Botelho said. “We’ve got to encourage apartments, rental and condo. We have a very big shortage of that in this community, and our inclusionary housing ordinance doesn’t incentivize developers to address that need.”
Revisions will go through public hearings before the planning commission and supervisors, Loe said.
“We’re putting things together right now so the public has time to look at it, so the planning commission has time to look at it,” Loe said. “This is going to be a full public process.”
There are many ways to comment, Loe said.
“They can certainly call me,” Loe said. “They can e-mail the clerk of the board and she will distribute it to all the board. They can write a letter. Or they can go to the planning commission and it will be on the record and we read the planning commission record.”
Growth Management Ordinance
· One cap in unincorporated San Benito County per year
· Planning commissioners can increase the number of permits annually by up to one-third
· 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
Inclusionary Housing Ordinance
· Between 3 and 20 units: in-lieu fee
· 21 or more units: 30 percent affordable housing
· 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
