Affordable housing key issue
Two sides offer different visions for future Last of three parts

Posted May 8, 2007

By DAWN WITHERS

In the debate over which general plan should dictate growth in Monterey County over the next two decades, neither side claims to have a solution for the county’s dearth of affordable housing.

They do, however, point to different visions regarding where new homes would go, how many would be affordable and how long they’d have to stay that way.

In the June 5 special election, voters will choose between two general plans — one endorsed by the Monterey County Board of Supervisors, known as GPU4, and the other a more growth-restrictive measure, the general plan initiative. GPU4 is Measure C on the ballot, while the initiative appears as Measure A.

Both have provisions to offer affordable homes — defined as houses and apartments for people who earn no more than 120 percent of an area’s median income.

In Monterey County, that’s about $57,081 for a four-person household.

“We are not going to solve the problem of affordable housing in the unincorporated county,” said Chris Fitz, an initiative supporter and executive director of LandWatch Monterey County, referring to both plans.

But, Fitz said, the initiative would more responsibly manage growth by requiring new homes be built close to services and jobs. Moreover, he said, it would prevent the construction of housing in far-flung corners of the unincorporated county, as would be allowed under GPU4.

Under the initiative, any development outside Pajaro, Castroville, Fort Ord, Boronda and Chualar would need to be approved by a vote of the people, with few exceptions. GPU4 would allow more growth areas and would give supervisors the final say on development proposals in areas not designated for growth.

A 2006 independent analysis for county officials by Bay Area Economics says the county will need about 11,000 affordable housing units over the next 20 years. Although neither plan would meet that benchmark through their inclusionary housing programs, they both would exceed the overall need for housing as forecast by the Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments.
GPU4 would allow 16,900 housing units, while the initiative would permit 13,973.

Likewise, under GPU4, about 3,380 units would be designated as affordable — or 16 percent of all new units that go up in the next two decades. GPU4 would require 50 percent affordable housing in developments outside community areas and rural centers — more remote parts of the county designated for some commercial and residential development — and 20 percent affordable housing inside those areas.

Developments of three to four units would require the payment of in-lieu fees established by the county.

Under Measure A, 2,440 units would be designated as affordable, about 23 percent of all new units. Measure A would require developments of 20 or more units to offer 30 percent of the dwellings at affordable rates, while developments of 19 units or fewer would require an in-lieu fee. In residential developments on county land on the former Fort Ord, however, 40 percent would have to be affordable.

If the Monterey County Board of Supervisors ratifies a change to the county’s affordable housing rules as expected this summer, GPU4 would keep units affordable for between 15 and 30 years. The initiative, however, would require units to stay affordable forever.

“The initiative will do a better job of providing long-term affordable housing,” said Phyllis Meurer, a former Salinas city councilwoman and past president of the League of Women Voters of the Salinas Valley.

Limits on construction

But Don Chapin, owner of the Don Chapin Co., a Salinas-based engineering construction company, said Measure A would do serious damage to his firm by limiting development in the unincorporated county.

“We do a tremendous amount of (construction) work in the unincorporated area,” Chapin said.

He said Measure A also would thwart projects like his all-affordable Rogge Road housing development just north of Salinas, with its 171 single-family homes and apartments. The development is located outside the designated areas and needed a land-use designation change. Chapin said his company and many others lose qualified employees because of the prohibitive cost of housing, so he designed the project to help keep a skilled work force in Monterey County.

Measure A would slow, if not eliminate, the construction of affordable housing over the next 25 years, he said.

“We have to stop building houses that people have to drive an hour to (from where they work), because there is no affordable housing,” Chapin said. “You have to be able to live in the community where you work.”

According to GPU4’s environmental impact report, which also analyzes the initiative, GPU4 would have more aggressive affordable housing requirements than the county’s current rules, which only require new construction to have 20 percent affordable units. The rules do, however, offer a voluntary program that allows more units to be built on a project site in exchange for 100 percent affordable units.

The county’s total build-out under GPU4 for the next 20 years would be 56,410 dwellings, the report said.

The initiative would set build-out at 2,927 fewer dwellings, it said, along with 14 fewer acres of commercial use and 2,950 fewer jobs over the next 23 years.

While opponents criticize Measure A for providing fewer affordable homes overall, its supporters say the plan would keep homes affordable longer.

Measure A identifies five community areas for growth and limits growth to those areas, while GPU4 has seven community areas and nine rural centers for growth.

Public vote questioned

To meet the demand for affordable housing in the future “we need to go beyond the identified areas” listed in Measure A, Alfred Diaz-Infante said.
Diaz-Infante is president of the Community Housing Improvement Systems and Planning Association, a Salinas-based organization that builds affordable housing and takes issue with the initiatives’ geographic limits on new homes.

Measure A’s opponents frequently cite a CHISPA project now under way in San Lucas, a community area under GPU4 but not the initiative. They say the 33-unit affordable housing development would have required a countywide vote if Measure A had been law when CHISPA sought development approvals. The opponents question why residents in places such as Pebble Beach and Carmel should get to vote on whether remote areas of south county can build more housing.

Juan Uranga, who runs the Salinas-based Center for Community Advocacy, which works for better farm-worker housing, said it’s the county’s Latino community who would lose under the general plan initiative.

“The fundamental flaw with (Measure A) is there was no dialogue — those people talked to themselves and decided what’s good for other people,” Uranga said.

Contact Dawn Withers at withers@thecalifornian.com.