By Marty Richman
On a recent Tuesday afternoon I attended the San Benito County
Board of Supervisors appeal hearing concerning the proposed San
Juan Vista Estates development. My purpose was to comment on what I
saw as destructive public politicking and unfounded attacks on the
board’s ethics. I spoke and I expressed my confidence in the
honesty of our elected officials and decided, for lack of somewhere
else to go, to stay through the whole thing.
On a recent Tuesday afternoon I attended the San Benito County Board of Supervisors appeal hearing concerning the proposed San Juan Vista Estates development. My purpose was to comment on what I saw as destructive public politicking and unfounded attacks on the board’s ethics. I spoke and I expressed my confidence in the honesty of our elected officials and decided, for lack of somewhere else to go, to stay through the whole thing.
Three hours later my well-cushioned butt hurt, my head was spinning, my brain was signaling OVERLOAD, and the matter was anything but resolved. What I received, free of charge, was a crash course on the development process – but calling it a process is about as accurate as using the term Peace Process every time the shooting stops for five minutes in the Middle East. This is a process in name only; it’s really a maze studded with hurdles and booby-traps.
Whether you believe the basic problem lies with the “greedy, rich, out-of-town land-raping developers who come here with their evil corporate lawyers” or the “anti-business, anti-growth, commune-loving, back to the caves, obstructionist, do-gooder environmentalists” the results, in far too many instances, are the same – missed opportunities, confusion, increased costs and frustration.
The appellant presented her case, only occasionally insinuating that the fix was in and the big-money interests had bought off the board (with a “wink, wink, nudge, nudge” if I remember correctly – you’ll have to check the tapes).
At one point board members tried to recall just how long this project has been hanging around in one form or another, was it six years or was it eight years? Yes, there had been many changes, but the consensus seemed to be eight years. If the fix was in, the Bagman sure wasn’t getting his money’s worth – “fuhggedaboutit.”
Eventually, the regulations were brought out and the discussion focused on the actual appeal. Was the map too old, was the EIR still good, what to do if the developer paints the homes Flaming Orange? Everyone hates developers’ lawyers, but for this hearing, I believe the county had two lawyers. Perhaps they needed two lawyers and three assistants just to carry the regulations, references and reports?
No one could quite articulate the status of several items, some of which had nothing to do with the appeal. Here is one that did; was the developer to pay the original affordable housing fee of more than $440,000, or the new, ordinance-based fee of $378,000, or a fee that is to determined later? The board settled on the biggest number they could as the minimum subject to upward revision, naturally. After eight years’ worth of changes, it’s not surprising there was some confusion, but there was not much focus on a key point. During the entire period, there has been no benefit to anyone – none for the developer, now proposing 14 homes, and none for the county from either taxes or affordable housing fees. So it’s a lose-lose proposition. This is no way to do business; time is money for everyone.
During the meeting two possible improvements were mentioned, both at the urging of the planning department. The first was the use of architectural review. Instead of applying cookie cutter requirements, the planning department, planning commission and the public get to review each structure design to ensure it meets the stated goals. My only concern is making sure that this requirement is not used merely as another delaying tactic by those who wish to fight every project to the bitter end.
The second idea is critical and should be implemented as soon as possible. It is the use of a development agreement. It would spell out exactly what the requirements and restrictions are for that specific approval. It would be invaluable in laying out the entire project and eliminating the necessity of prowling back through tons of paper. The second advantage is that when new issues come up they can be inserted into the boilerplate of the agreement and act as reminders for subsequent projects.
I do not to support or oppose development; each proposal will have to stand on its own merits, but there is no need to make it the equivalent of the dripping-water-torture. Whether the county approves, disapproves or changes proposals, the planning decision process needs to be effective, efficient and timely. Perhaps this case was not typical, that happens sometimes, but it was not a good example for Planning 101.
Marty Richman is a Hollister resident. He can be reached at
mr******@ch*****.net
