Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Affordable Housing topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Board denies county sign-off on $21M bond issuance for Baylor Place affordable housing after neighborhood concerns

San Bonito County Board of Supervisors · April 28, 2026
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Supervisors voted 3-2 to deny a requested $21 million tax-exempt bond issuance for the Baylor Place 53-unit affordable housing project, citing neighborhood fit, design and property-tax concerns and directing more community outreach and design work.

The San Bonito County Board of Supervisors on April 28 voted 3-2 to deny a resolution approving a California Municipal Finance Authority issuance of tax-exempt bonds for Baylor Place, a proposed 53-unit affordable rental development at 340 Bridgeville Road in unincorporated Hollister.

County staff told the board the proposed not-to-exceed financing amount was $21 million and that the county's action would be limited to the TERO/TEFRA hearing required under federal tax rules; the county would not be financially liable for bond repayment. Jared Suzuki of the CMFA explained the bond amount was a not-to-exceed cap, and that the project had to meet state allocation timelines to remain eligible for competitive tax-exempt financing.

Several supervisors and nearby residents objected to the project's scale and design. Supervisor Velasquez said a three-story building facing single-story homes was out of scale with the neighborhood and predicted strong public opposition. A resident warned of lost property-tax revenue if the project received a welfare exemption via nonprofit ownership. The developer's representative, Ryan Andrews, said the team had engaged planning staff and built on a prior entitled design and that outreach had occurred during permitting.

Board members debated options including continuation to allow more neighborhood outreach, tabling, or denial. County counsel and planning staff noted the project had proceeded under a ministerial entitlement pathway and could be processed without a public hearing, but that the board could require additional outreach and development-plan review. After discussion the board voted to deny the CMFA bond issuance, and directed staff to schedule community workshops and to engage the Affordable Housing Ad Hoc for broader review.

What this means: The denial does not mean the project is permanently blocked, but it removes county sign-off on the specific bond issuance at this time and requires the developer to pursue further neighborhood engagement and potential design changes before returning to the board or reapplying in a future financing cycle.