San Benito County's Board of Supervisors voted unanimously on Dec. 2 to follow county counsel's recommendation to set a public hearing on the housing element for Dec. 16 and a second reading for Jan. 13, and to re-notice nearby property owners and notify the State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) about the timeline.

The action followed a planning commission recommendation against certifying the county's housing element and a staff warning that several grant programs and competitive awards are tied to certification. County staff told the board that some grant opportunities depend on a certified housing element and that missing certification had already cost the county funds in prior years. Planning staff identified state and other funding streams discussed in the meeting as PLHA, HOME, HHAP and CDBG grants. Supervisor Velasquez said the county faced the risk of losing roughly $11 million in grant funding and of widening builders'- remedy exposure if the county remained uncertified.

Why it matters: HCD certification is a prerequisite for some state and competitive grants and a certified housing element restores more local control over project review. Board members said they were trying to balance the county's obligation to comply with state housing law against residents' concerns about notice and density.

Board debate centered on two competing risks. Supervisor Sotelo pressed staff on transparency and said several property owners inside the 300-foot notice buffer reported they had not received mailed notices; Sotelo preferred waiting to the Dec. 16 regular meeting for the first reading to allow additional outreach. County planning staff and the CAO said notices were mailed Oct. 28-31 and that HCD had provided written comments requiring rezones of 12 parcels for certification. County counsel recommended a conservative five-step approach to minimize procedural vulnerabilities: schedule the Dec. 16 hearing, hold the second reading at the Jan. 13 regular meeting, re-notice properties within the 300-foot buffer, issue required publications, and send a letter to HCD documenting the board's plan and the reasons for the scheduling adjustments.

Public comment and ethics: A public commenter during consent questioned the transparency of a separate consent item and requested clarification about a roughly $500 payment disclosed by a supervisor; that consent item was pulled for reconsideration and the board amended the execution authority so the vice chair would sign the MOU on behalf of the county in light of the disclosed conflict.

The motion to adopt county counsel's recommended schedule and communications plan was made by Supervisor Zenger, seconded by Supervisor Currow, and passed on a 5-0 roll-call vote. The board directed staff to re-issue notices and to write HCD explaining the board's timetable and the procedural context that led to the need to adjust regular-meeting scheduling.

What happens next: Staff will re-notice affected properties and send the letter to HCD; the board will hold the Dec. 16 public hearing and, if the schedule proceeds as adopted, consider final adoption at the Jan. 13 meeting. The board's action was procedural: it scheduled hearings and directed outreach rather than adopting the rezones themselves at the Dec. 2 meeting.