Despite the lack of a complete development agreement between the
county and Santana Ranch builders, the San Benito County Board of
Supervisors this week approved the 1,092-unit project’s general
plan and zoning change in separate 4-1 votes, with Supervisor Pat
Loe as the dissenting vote.
Despite the lack of a complete development agreement between the county and Santana Ranch builders, the San Benito County Board of Supervisors this week approved the 1,092-unit project’s general plan and zoning change in separate 4-1 votes, with Supervisor Pat Loe as the dissenting vote.
But the approval of the project, its associated permits and zoning change are based on whenever the development agreement is OK’d. The board is scheduled to discuss the development agreement on Nov. 2.
The Santana Ranch project is a 1,092-home development that would span 292 acres near the intersections of Fairview, Hillcrest and Sunnyslope roads. The project’s plans call for 10 percent of the homes to be dedicated for low-income housing, and for 18 acres of parks throughout the development.
The plans also outline 8 to 12 acres for an elementary school that would be infused with the Hollister School District.
During Tuesday’s public hearing, the board heard testimony from the public and the developers on issues regarding the project. Most of the discussion surrounded the potential effect on the school district and the availability of low-income housing.
Most of the public testimony was in favor of the development, which has been planned for nearly two decades.
Several business leaders talked about the positive economic infusion from the development. The Hollister School District’s superintendent, Gary McIntire, supported it as well.
There were an array of business owners who talked, too, including developer Marilyn Ferreira.
“I applaud the Guerra family and Stone Creek Properties for smart growth,” Ferreira said.
But others thought the plan was inadequate and needed to be revised or re-worked.
Jennifer Coile spoke out against the project, stating the low-income housing element was inadequate and unclear. Coile wanted to know who would be responsible for enforcement of the low-income housing element.
“When there is a tenant who has gone over the income level, who’s responsible?” she asked the board. “It needs to be more specific.”
After the public hearing, supervisors quickly turned to the development agreement and the ongoing negations between the county and the developers. Supervisor Pat Loe wanted to make sure the county was protected, she said.
“I want to be fair but I have to protect the county,” she said.
If the developers didn’t follow through with plans for low-income housing, Loe wanted to know the county’s assurances.
County planner Lissette Knight pointed out that the current agreement asks the developer to build 50 percent of its low-income housing by the time 500 units are built – or the overall development can’t move forward.
“They need to have 50 percent of low-income housing at 500 homes or they don’t get a second set of building permits,” she said.
Loe said the county needed to “monitor that,” and also create a system that would protect the county if the houses were not built. Loe worried that if the developers declared bankruptcy their fiscal responsibility to the county would be lost.
Loe asked for a cash deposit to be included in the development agreement that would be given back to the developers over time.
Also in the draft development agreement, the builders wouldn’t have to pay normal construction fees until a unit or house is deemed capable of occupancy. Normally fees would be assessed earlier.
The agreement was considered a compromise because of the economic challenges, Knight said.
“This is enormously important financially,” project attorney Tom Terpstra said.
Supervisor Margie Barrios said the key to the project was for the county to “force the issue of compliance.”
“Compliance and monitoring has been our biggest issue in the past, but it is too big of a project not to monitor it carefully,” she said.
The board will review it and is expected to vote on the development agreement Nov. 2.
