The Board of Supervisors weigh in on the county's overdue housing plan in a rush to get it to the state.

Under pressure to stay within California Department of Housing and Community Development's good graces, the Monterey County Board of Supervisors got their shot at reviewing the county's 2023-2031 housing plan on Tuesday, June 11, lopping off potentially troublesome sites for future new homes and directing staff to get the plan submitted to the state as soon as possible.

The public hearing was part of a state-mandated process all counties and cities must go through every eight years to update their housing plans, known as housing elements. As part of this cycle, the County of Monterey must plan to add at least 3,326 units, divided between very low-, low-, moderate-, and market-rate homes to the element.

In addition, the state is mandating that jurisdictions follow Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing laws, to spread out lower income units, placing some in "high opportunity" areas, neighborhoods that include higher income homes and access to jobs, schools and other resources.

The draft housing element first went to the Monterey County Planning Commission on May 15, where commissioners criticized the draft for planning for over 10,000 units, three times the amount required by the state. They told planners to lower the number of units, among other revisions.

The most controversial pieces of land to be removed from the list were sites 1-4, that occupy Tarpy Flats, located across Highway 68 from Monterey Regional Airport. Chair Glenn Church and supervisors Mary Adams and Wendy Root Askew were in favor of removing the sites. Supervisors Luis Alejo and Chris Lopez disagreed.

Neighbors to the open space argued the land should be protected for its environmental and Indigenous cultural significance, and voiced concerns over increased traffic, fire danger and other issues.

The supervisors also removed all sites in rural Aromas far from services, three sites near the mouth of Carmel Valley, two sites near Bolsa Knolls in Salinas, and a site near Rancho Cielo in Salinas, among a few others.

They directed county planning staff to consider adding several sites in Pajaro and Las Lomas—something community members asked for to alleviate overcrowding—as well as a site where the undeveloped UC Santa Cruz MBEST campus is located, and three sites in Carmel Valley where developer Patrick Orosco expressed interest in adding housing.

Because of the AFFH laws, county planners now have a delicate game of Tetris to play: Removing sites from a high opportunity area like Carmel Valley could lead to too many lower income homes in less affluent regions.

On the flip side, adding units in areas like Pajaro and Las Lomas could mean too many units in lower income neighborhoods compared to high opportunity zones. Planners will have to ensure there is a balance between all units and areas before submitting to the state HCD.

While the large group of Tarpy Flats advocates who came to the meeting were probably elated after those sites were removed, they soon got a dose of reality.

Alejo reminded residents that because the county is late in completing a housing element—the deadline was Dec. 15 and a grace period ended April 15—the county is now subject to laws surrounding the so-called "builder's remedy." They allow developers to build projects in the absence of a state-certified housing element, as long as they include 20 percent low-income units.

Which means an undeveloped site like Tarpy Flats, along a major transportation route near employers and services in neighboring Monterey, is currently fair game for development. (The county has received at least two applications for builder's remedy projects, both in the Carmel area.)

The supervisors could have required that planners bring a new revision of the draft element back to a meeting in August, but because the state is waiting, they told county planners to make the suggested changes and send the element to Sacramento as soon as possible. 

The county is also ineligible from receiving state housing grants without a certified element. And while there are sanctions the state could impose on a jurisdiction for being late, it appears for now that state officials are holding off as long as a city or county government is working with HCD staff toward certification.