Lifetime Citizen Portal Access — AI Briefings, Alerts & Unlimited Follows
County hears developer plan for Missouri Gulch workforce housing; project aims for 65–100 units across two phases
Loading...
Summary
Community Housing Works presented a preliminary proposal to build phased workforce housing at Missouri Gulch, proposing roughly 40–50 affordable units plus 25–30 middle‑market units, targeting 30–120% area median income and pursuing state TCC and other grant funding. Supervisors and residents asked about site infrastructure, ownership, local hiring and unit mix.
Community Housing Works (CHW) on Jan. 13 gave Mariposa County supervisors and residents a preliminary plan for workforce housing at Missouri Gulch, presenting a two‑phase project that would combine an affordable component and a middle‑market component and rely on state grants and tax credits rather than county general fund dollars.
CHW vice president Steve Swaziki said the developer is proposing ‘‘somewhere between 40 and 50 units’’ in the affordable phase and ‘‘25 to 30 units’’ for a middle‑market second phase. He and county planners said the county has secured a project‑development grant through the Strategic Growth Council’s Transformative Climate Communities (TCC) program to pay for engineering, permitting and design; securing construction funding would require further competitive grants and tax‑credit equity.
The proposal grew out of the county’s Integrated Mobility and Housing Strategy and a housing‑element site selection process that identified Missouri Gulch as a high‑scoring candidate. Planning staff and CHW said the governance committee includes local partner organizations (Sierra Foothill Conservancy, the school district, Yosemite National Park and others) and that a Park Service representative sits on the governance council, but any preference for Park Service employees is still being negotiated.
Why it matters: county staff say Mariposa loses housing stock to wildfire and storms and produces mostly higher‑income units; planners noted more than 300 low‑income renter households lack access to affordable housing. County Administrative Officer Joe Lynch told the board Mariposa’s 2020 census median household income is $65,378, emphasizing that many local families fall below statewide AMI figures used for grant calculations.
Key details and developer responses - Unit mix and phasing: CHW described a two‑phase plan with an ‘‘affordable component’’ (roughly 40–50 units) and a ‘‘middle market’’ component (roughly 25–30 units) that together could total about 65–80 units; CHW said the affordable phase would rely on low‑income housing tax credits and other subsidies while the middle‑market units would use conventional debt plus grants. - Income bands: CHW and planners said the project would target households between 30% and 120% of area median income (AMI); planners translated the range for the public as approximately $28,000–$122,000 annual income for a family of four and roughly $19,000–$78,000 for an individual, based on state AMI tables. - Ownership and funding: Planning staff confirmed the site would be privately owned and developed; CHW indicated it would purchase the land and that the TCC planning grant covers only the design phase. Planning staff said ‘‘there is not public funding’’ from county general funds for development of the private site. - Management and operations: CHW expects to hire a specialized housing operator to manage tenant income verification and operations; CHW cited ConAm Management as the proposed property manager experienced in affordable housing portfolios. - Local labor and economic links: CHW said its general contractor partner is Brown Construction (Sacramento), which has a local workforce presence and that the developer will include local‑hire preferences where possible. Supervisors and residents pressed for stronger local hiring commitments and closer coordination between housing and economic development to keep jobs close to new residents. - Infrastructure and safety: Residents and supervisors raised concerns about sidewalks, pedestrian routes to town, and emergency/fire access; planning staff said those gaps are identified and that project entitlement will include conditions to address site access, frontage improvements and fire access in coordination with county fire and public works.
Public reaction and next steps Local speakers largely supported workforce housing but asked for details on income thresholds, studio units, local contracting, and who would pay long‑term maintenance costs. Justin Barnard of Operating Engineers Local 3 asked whether the county would own the site and whether prevailing‑wage rules would apply; planners answered that the developer would own the land and that the project would not be a county public‑works contract subject to prevailing wages. CHW said the project may include studio and one‑bedroom units to serve single workers.
The governance committee meets regularly; planners said the next governance meeting would produce additional details and that the CHW presentation is scheduled again for a public Q&A tomorrow at Creekside Terrace Community Room (12:00–1:30 p.m.). The board received the presentation and public comment; no binding action or final approvals were taken at this meeting.
