Planning commission tables proposed local tenant preference ordinance, directs staff to revise language and seek stakeholder input

San Benito County planning staff presented an ordinance drafted by a Board-appointed ad hoc committee to add Chapter 21.04 (Local Tenant Preference) to Title 21 of the San Benito County Code. After substantial discussion about scope, legal risk and implementation, the Planning Commission voted 5-0 to table the ordinance and asked staff to return at the June regular meeting with revisions and outreach to housing stakeholders.

Associate Planner Stephanie Rek presented the ordinance and explained the stated purpose: to mitigate displacement, improve access to affordable units for county residents and workers, encourage neighborhood stability, and preserve community ties. The draft ordinance applies to projects with four or more units that receive county development assistance or meet the county's affordable-housing regulations. It enumerates preference categories including displaced households, neighborhood residents (within the project district or a one-mile radius), county residents, and county workers; it also affords "additional weight" to applicants who spend more than 50% of income on housing, have children in county schools, or are agricultural employees or farm laborers. Rek summarized required documentation for residency and employment verification and explained that property owners and management agents would initially qualify applicants but the county could set standards and verify eligibility.

County counsel told commissioners the proposal raised legal issues. Counsel explained federal law (the Fair Housing Act) and the Privileges and Immunities Clause could constrain residency-duration limits and other restrictions; the transcript records counsel saying these federal protections limit how far a jurisdiction can restrict access based on residency. Commissioners raised multiple concerns: the proposed "non-durational" preference (no minimum residency period), the phrase "additional weight" for several categories, and which county official would implement rules. One commissioner asked that the County Administrative Officer (CAO) be replaced with the Director of Planning and Building as the official tasked with implementing program rules; staff agreed to draft that change.

Commissioners also requested staff consider adding a durational residency requirement (for example, 6 months to 1 year) but were warned by legal counsel that any durational requirement increases legal risk and may prompt challenges; staff noted Santa Cruz has a one-year durational preference and offered to look into other jurisdictions' experience. Multiple commissioners expressed a preference to avoid language that creates an open-ended pathway for applicants to establish nominal residency simply to secure a preference.

Commissioners directed staff to revise the draft to: - Replace the County Administrative Officer with the Director of Planning and Building as the implementing official (and identify the department designee as appropriate). - Reconsider or remove the "additional weight" clause in favor of incorporating those factors into the main county resident/worker preference language or specifying numeric weighting. - Consider and report back on a reasonable durational residency requirement and relevant legal precedents. - Solicit input from affordable-housing stakeholders (the commission requested invitations to two named housing practitioners) and return the ordinance to the June regular meeting.

A motion to table to the June meeting with the above direction carried 5-0. No formal preference ordinance was adopted at this hearing.