The San Benito County Board of Supervisors will revisit the
Growth Management Ordinance during Tuesday’s meeting and possibly
rescind the controversial law that was passed more than a decade
ago.
The San Benito County Board of Supervisors will revisit the Growth Management Ordinance during Tuesday’s meeting and possibly rescind the controversial law that was passed more than a decade ago.
The county law, adopted in October 2000 as an urgency ordinance, was intended to slow the population spurt of a rapidly growing area. But in the past 10 years, the housing atmosphere of the county has changed.
Over time, the ordinance has been amended multiple times coinciding with the changing economy, and now its necessity is being questioned altogether, according to a staff report.
“It’s not really needed anymore,” said Gary Armstrong, county planning director.
The ordinance serves as an extra safeguard that the developer and county staff have to worry about, adding time to the permitting process, Armstrong said. To streamline the permitting process, the county would need to remove the ordinance.
“Repealing the GMO would significantly streamline the permitting process and reduce costs to both applicants and the county,” according to the staff report that will be presented to the board of supervisors at the 9 a.m. meeting at the County Administration Building, 481 Fourth St.
Armstrong believes removing the ordinance would accomplish some of the countywide streamlining that the board wants.
“I was told to streamline the various processes, and this is one way to do that,” he said.
Armstrong noted that the ordinance adds an extra “burden and cost” to the county and developers, and it adds an extra year to the permitting process.
“This is a major step,” Armstrong said. “If you want to streamline the processes of the county, this is the number one hurdle.”
The idea to remove the ordinance came from the county’s planning commission, and specifically Planning Commissioner Ray Pierce.
“The growth ordinance, in its day, was a good ordinance that was supposed to slow growth down,” Pierce said. “But, today it’s not needed.”
The removal of the ordinance would free up the allotment process, said Pierce, a local real estate professional. Unlike past years, the county has enough allotments to go around and there is no need to take up staff time on sorting through the applications.
Armstrong said the ordinance acts like an early warning to developers who apply for an allotment – developers must accomplish a set of tasks or county needs at the space before it ever reaches the planning commission. Rescinding the ordinance would remove those steps and put the burden on the planning commission to make sure applications pass all of the county requirements.
“There are a number of checks and balances that will protect the county,” Armstrong said.
The new general plan, which the planning department and commission have been working on, will protect the county and create “good growth,” Armstrong said.
If the ordinance gets rescinded, the county would no longer have an “anti-growth” stigma, Pierce said. By promoting growth, the county can attract more businesses and jobs.
“We can show businesses that we aren’t anti-growth, and they will come here,” he said.
