Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Inclusionary Housing topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board launches review of county inclusionary housing rules; asks ad hoc and staff to bring options
Summary
Supervisors reviewed the county’s inclusionary ordinance and directed staff and the housing-policy ad hoc to return with options on increasing inclusionary percentages, removing or tightening in‑lieu provisions, and requiring a stronger mix of affordable rental and for‑sale units.
Get email alerts on the Inclusionary Housing topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The San Benito County Board of Supervisors on Feb. 11 heard a briefing on the county’s inclusionary housing ordinance and directed staff and the board’s housing-policy ad hoc to return with specific policy options.
Staff presentation: Planning Director Abraham Prado reviewed the county’s current inclusionary regulations (chapter 21.03). Under current code, residential developments of 11 or more units must include 15% inclusionary units on‑site for both for‑sale and rental projects; the ordinance allows in‑lieu payments in certain circumstances (septic/sewer constraints, large‑lot zoning, or projects more than 10 miles from a city). For rental projects the ordinance requires sub‑allocation across very‑low, low and moderate income categories; for‑sale on‑site requirements are split between low and moderate with no very‑low set‑aside. Prado and staff summarized state guidance (Senate/Assembly bill cited in the presentation) requiring an alternative‑compliance path and HCD review when jurisdictions propose inclusionary levels above 15%.
Board direction and discussion: Supervisors and staff discussed raising the inclusionary requirement, removing or tightening in‑lieu options and offsets, and increasing the required share of very‑low and low units. Several board members said the county has underproduced affordable units and urged stronger requirements and more integrated project mixes (multifamily/rental components placed within larger residential projects). The board asked staff to gather comparative ordinances from neighboring jurisdictions and to meet with the housing‑policy ad hoc to draft options. There was no formal adoption; supervisors asked staff to return with draft ordinance language for further consideration.

