Board OKs housing rule update

The Tuolumne County Board of Supervisors has approved the latest update of the housing element of the county’s General Plan, and, in doing so, addressed concerns by a group of developers who felt their input had not been heeded in prior discussions.

Developers had wanted the update to include a stipulation requiring the county to regularly conduct a detailed analysis on whether an affordable housing ordinance passed in 2008 is limiting their profits, and thus serving as a hindrance to the development of new homes.

Housing is one of seven elements of general plans, which serve as a blueprint for development in counties.

The housing market is so bad right now that unnecessary regulation should be scrapped, goes the developers’ philosophy. That has prompted them to ask the county to consider postponing the affordable housing — or inclusionary — ordinance if the analysis can’t be done in a timely manner, likely by the spring, when the ordinance is up for its annual review.

The median home price in the county sits at $232,000; it was $271,000 when the ordinance was adopted in 2008. In 2006, the peak of the housing boom, the median price was $332,000.

The affordable housing ordinance stipulates that builders of 10 or more housing units make 10 percent of them affordable at the median home price. Developers also have the option of paying mitigation fees to the county instead. So far, no affordable homes have been built due to the ordinance, though it has brought in mitigation fees.

Supervisors expressed no interest in postponing the ordinance, but, per their vote Tuesday, they ordered a detailed analysis of the ordinance. Supervisors didn’t identify a funding source for the study, which must be done by outside experts. The study is estimated to cost $7,000 for the first year and $3,000 every year thereafter.

The version of the housing element that had been proposed earlier this month by the county Community Development Department and revised at Tuesday’s supervisors’ meeting had acknowledged that the affordable housing ordinance could serve as a constraint on builders.

That fulfilled a state requirement that said such potential building constraints had to be identified in housing elements, according to Community Development Director Bev Shane and Assistant County Counsel Carlyn Drivdahl.

But local developers — specifically members of the Building Industry Association of Central California — questioned that analysis. They wanted numbers. Supervisors held off on approving the housing element until Tuesday as a result.

Several affordable housing watchdogs were at Tuesday’s meeting, and a few of them spoke up during the public comment portion of the meeting. They didn’t want the supervisors to postpone the ordinance and they expressed concern about the study.

Marge Brown urged supervisors to provide “hope for the hopeless.”

“Without greed, there is more than enough to go around,” she said.

Betsy Hardin, of the local Habitat For Humanity chapter, said the affordable housing ordinance is already subject to annual review, making the developers’ request superfluous.

Added Beetle Barbour of the Amador Tuolumne Community Action Agency: “Despite the grim housing market, not one jurisdiction in California blames an inclusionary housing ordinance for it.”