Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Housing Cap topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Midcoast council backs staff plan to change housing-cap accounting; 5-2 vote
Summary
After staff described a proposal to change how the county averages the existing 40-unit annual housing cap, the council endorsed a staff-supported 'look-back' approach intended to use unused historical permits to avoid immediate Coastal Commission triggers; the motion passed 5-2 and council volunteers will draft formal comments.
County planning staff told the Midcoast Community Council that Cypress Pointe, an affordable project approved in 2025, exceeded the countys 40-unit annual growth limit and that state reviewers require the county to include policy language explaining how the cap would be addressed if the limit is reached. Planning services manager Bharat Singh summarized options presented at a June 30 public meeting and said the staff recommendation is a "look-back" approach that changes the averaging rule to count permits from Jan. 1, 2013 forward, giving the county a larger reserve of unused permits available only for affordable-housing projects.
Steve Monowitz, director of Planning & Building, framed the countys position as an effort to retain the 40-unit cap while avoiding a required, time-sensitive request to the California Coastal Commission that could arise the next time the cap is reached. "We're seeking to resolve this issue in a way that helps us retain the existing cap and growth rate to the best of our ability," Monowitz said, adding the county felt time pressure after hitting the cap late in 2025.
Council members questioned survey methodology, who participated in the countys online poll and whether nonlocal respondents skewed results. Staff said the in-room vote at the June 30 meeting and subsequent email distribution accounted for a large share of responses but that their web-technology vendor could not reliably geo-filter respondents; staff added that the proposed "bank" of unused permits would be restricted to affordable-housing projects and would not be used for standard single-family or ADU permitting. After further discussion, the council voted to endorse the staff-recommended look-back alternative (described to the council as option E). The motion passed on roll call with a recorded tally of 5 in favor, 2 opposed. Council members also volunteered to compile and submit a formal comment letter to county staff before the next meeting.
