SJB growth cap challenge a lesson for other entities
With a judge recently ruling that San Juan Bautista’s growth
laws were overly restrictive, it opens the door for a relative
development spike there while potentially giving the city access to
previously withheld state housing funds.
SJB growth cap challenge a lesson for other entities
With a judge recently ruling that San Juan Bautista’s growth laws were overly restrictive, it opens the door for a relative development spike there while potentially giving the city access to previously withheld state housing funds.
The ruling is the result of a lawsuit filed by developer Lance McAlpine in 2008, who had sought a 50-unit subdivision near the city cemetery. He had argued, and prevailed, that the growth rules and the city’s 1 percent annual cap were invalid.
Sanders’ ruling that the city had not met its state housing obligations prompted the cap to revert back to 3 percent, as stated in San Juan’s general plan. A city planner actually hailed the decision as positive for the city while calling the prior, voter-approved cap “onerous.” He noted how the highly restrictive 1 percent law prompted the state to withhold allocation of certain housing funds to the financially hamstrung community.
City officials in the past, though grappling with consistently downward revenue trends, had attempted to change the cap to a more reasonable number, but residents at the polls twice in recent years rejected the notion.
The judge’s ruling that supersedes the citizens’ decision means the maximum number of homes built in the Mission City per year can rise from seven to 21, which appears to be a vast improvement. The state has the rules in place for a necessary reason, to spread California’s immense growth in a reasonable manner. San Juan has not met the necessary requirements and its residents as a whole in recent years have created a self-fulfilling bubble surrounding the city.
As the region around it has exploded with growth, with two major highways running through or near San Juan’s borders with the demand for transportation infrastructure throughout the Central Coast continuing to spike, it has developed into more than an unfair approach to take. It has become unacceptable, and apparently it is illegal, too.
Although the ruling was specific to San Juan, the responsibility now lies with Hollister and San Benito County officials to examine their own rules to make sure they are in compliance.
With a successful challenge in the books from McAlpine, we wonder if this could open the door to similar court action against Hollister and the county if they ultimately cannot meet the need through their respective growth rules as well. It’s unclear at this point and remains incumbent upon officials within those municipalities to get a grasp of the potential, if there is any.
