Developers for the San Juan Vista Estates satisfied the majority
of the neighbors’ concerns, gaining support to divide a 195-acre
lot into 21 single-family homes.
Developers for the San Juan Vista Estates satisfied the majority of the neighbors’ concerns, gaining support to divide a 195-acre lot into 21 single-family homes.
However, after two hours of testimony and public comments Wednesday, the San Benito County Planning Commission agreed with the project and directed staff to make changes and return Feb. 5.
Resident Dee Dee Bent said the project located at Searle Road and Highway 129 appeared to be balancing concerns regarding the development.
“They want to protect the environment while also developing it in a way that will make sense to them and just as importantly provide benefits to the county,” Bent said.
Fred Goodrich, assistant executive director of the commission, said less than 20 percent of the 195 acres would be develop and about 60 acres was constrained, with 30 percent slopes while 25 acres was being designated for California tiger salamander habitat.
The developers would pay $800,000 in development fees to the county. The new homes would increase the property tax base, and the developers would either pay in-lieu fees, which must be determined by staff or build affordable homes in another portion of the county.
“I’m hoping that the applicants working with staff will be able to provide solutions to the problems and then you will be able to approve the project,” said School Road resident Jerry Coe. “I have received nothing from the applicants, but courtesy and respect.”
Coe had voiced opposition to the commercial portion of the project, but that aspect has been removed from the proposal.
Aromas resident Richard Saxe said the community was against the commercial development and had concerns about the deed restriction proposal in the application.
“I’m not really comfortable with the way it is written,” he said.
A deed restriction proposing no commercial development was included, which would require unanimous approval from adjacent property owners.
County counsel Shirley Murphy said the commission cannot impose a condition requiring deed restrictions because it would be an unlawful validation of authority.
“However, you could require a deed restriction between the applicant and the county in terms of what they can do with that on the final map,” she said. “There is nothing to prevent (homeowners) from making a private deal, but the county can’t get involved with it and can’t require it as a condition for approval.”
Acknowledging there would be some residential-only aspect to the project, Saxe said the application should go back to staff to address concerns.
“Come up with something everyone can agree on,” he said.
The attorney representing the closest neighbor to the project, Irma Burke, said her client supported the project.
However, one concern was fire safety. Officials from the Aromas Tri-County Fire District said the response time would be below standards and recommending sprinklers could be installed in each home, which would then exceed the fire safety standards.
