Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Housing Element topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Supervisors direct changes, keep York sites and pick Marina alternative in housing-element workshop
Summary
At a March 11 workshop on the county's 6th-cycle housing element, the board directed staff to revise site assumptions, retain York School sites, add other opportunity sites, and—after a separate vote—accept a proposal swapping UC Triangle Site 7 for a Marina-located alternative (Site 53) for RHNA accounting.
Monterey County supervisors held a lengthy workshop March 11 to review staff recommendations responding to California Housing and Community Development (HCD) comments on the county's draft 6th-cycle housing element. The board and staff focused on opportunity-site assumptions, state feedback about large nonvacant sites, and how to preserve an adequate buffer above the county’s RHNA (Regional Housing Needs Allocation) targets.
Staff told the board that the state’s first-review findings requested more substantiation for the county’s assumed unit yields on some large opportunity sites and flagged sites that have builder’s-remedy applications. Staff recommended reallocation of unit counts on several large parcels, removal of a UC-owned site in Marina (Site 53 originally) and retention of a different UC parcel with adjusted assumptions, removal of two York School sites as recommended by the Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC), and other edits intended to make the county’s submittal more defensible to HCD.
Board members and many members of the public urged a different approach. Numerous public speakers — including York School trustees, faculty and outside developers — asked the board to retain York School’s Sites 46 and 47 in the inventory so the school and partners can develop faculty and workforce housing. LandWatch, Save Tarpy Flats and other community groups urged removal of Tarpy Flats/Olmstead Road and other environmentally sensitive sites; York School representatives and workforce-housing developers argued those sites could yield hundreds of units if engineered to meet ALUC setbacks.
After extended discussion, staff revised its recommendations and the board voted on a package of directions for the draft submittal: retain York School Sites 46 and 47; include the Las Lomas site now identified by county staff; include an amended Olmsted/Road proposal conditional on the developer-submitted alternative with stronger affordability and a reduced footprint; and adopt unit-allocation adjustments for large sites that staff judged more likely to withstand state review. The board also directed staff to continue seeking additional opportunity sites to ensure at least a 15 percent buffer above RHNA and to prioritize sites in higher-resource areas to meet Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) objectives.
After that motion passed, the board separately debated an alternate proposal about two UC-owned parcels in the Marina/UC property area (commonly called Site 7, the UC Triangle, and Site 53, a Marina-located parcel owned by UC Regents). The board voted to substitute Site 53 (the Marina parcel) for Site 7 in the updated inventory for the current submittal to HCD, contingent on a memorandum of understanding with the City of Marina that would allow Monterey County to claim the RHNA credit; the vote passed with four supervisors in favor and one opposed. Staff explained both UC parcels could be developed by UC Regents independently of the housing element, but including a site in the housing element influences the county’s RHNA buffer and the programmatic environmental work the county must complete.
Board members emphasized the importance of prioritizing sites that are most likely to be built with significant affordable components and to protect important environmental and scenic areas. Staff noted that the housing element update remains out of compliance with state law until it is certified by HCD and warned of further state review and possible penalties if the county does not finalize a certified housing element.
Next steps: staff will prepare a revised housing-element submittal incorporating the board’s directions, finalize related environmental analysis (programmatic EIR work is paused pending finalization of opportunity sites), and resubmit the document to HCD for a second review. Staff also identified a potential shortfall of roughly 66 very-low-income units to reach a 15 percent buffer under staff-recommended adjustments and asked the board for direction on additional opportunity sites or other remedies to protect against further erosion of the required buffer.
