San Benito planners vote to omit objections of revised
development in the historical record
San Benito planning officials voted this week to omit objections
to a controversial hilltop housing project in the public
record.
San Benito planners vote to omit objections of revised development in the historical record

San Benito planning officials voted this week to omit objections to a controversial hilltop housing project in the public record.

Commissioner Gordon Machado, the solitary managed growth advocate on the commission, asked that the minutes of the commission’s Aug. 2 meeting be amended to include his comments objecting to newly lifted restrictions on the project.

“I hate to beat a dead horse here,” Machado said to his fellow commissioners. “But I’m disappointed that the minutes don’t emphasize my main points of concern about the project.”

Those concerns include the commission’s sweeping changes in upping the maximum number of million-dollar homes from 14 to 52, raising the maximum height of the mansions to 18 feet, and expanding the maximum building envelopes from 5,000 to 7,500 square feet.

At issue is the San Juan Vista Estates project, an upscale housing development destined to perch on what is now vacant land off Searle Road and Highway 101, overlooking historic San Juan Bautista. The project was scaled back by the former Board of Supervisors in June of 2003.

Since the late 1990s, developers Greg Weiler and Mark Johnson have been grappling with what has become a mercurial bureaucracy in county planning. The new board, installed in 2004, fired long-time planning director Rob Mendiola – a veteran in the department of 24 years – “without cause.” Shortly after Mendiola’s dismissal, many of his crew of long-time planners resigned and were replaced by out-of-county newcomers.

The Pacific Grove developers had originally envisioned a community of 34 million-dollar homes, accompanied by a commercial complex at the lower entrance of the development that would have sported a strip mall, hotel, car wash, gas station and fast food restaurant. The former board, as well as the former planning commission, axed the commercial component from the plans.

The announcement of the project compelled a group of concerned neighbors in the Aromas/San Juan area to appeal the approval of the development.

When the old managed growth board was still seated, they compromised between the appealing residents and the developers by restricting the size of the homes to 5,000 square feet and reducing the number to 14. They also mandated that the homes be placed on secondary ridgelines, instead of atop the surrounding mountains, and required that landscaping protecting the viewshed be planted throughout the project. They reduced the size of the garages from four-car to two-car structures, and required that 30 percent of the homes in the plan be affordable.

But now the planning commission has undone those restrictions, not withstanding the objections of the lone dissenting planning commissioner Machado, appointed by Supervisor Pat Loe.

Several weeks ago, Panoche resident Tracie Cone, the candidate running for the 4th District supervisor seat against incumbent Reb Monaco, paid the $575 required to file a second appeal on the new revisions for the project. The appeal is expected to go before the Board of Supervisors in a public hearing on Tuesday, Aug. 22, at 1:30 p.m. in the supervisors’ chambers on Fourth and West streets.

Cone said the cost to appeal is offensive.

“Why should it be so expensive to talk to my elected officials?” Cone said. “Government should be more affordable and accessible to the people.”

When Commissioner Machado moved that the past meeting minutes be amended to include his comments, the other commissioners remained silent.

“Those numerical figures don’t even show up in the minutes,” Machado argued.

Finally, commissioner Richard Bettencourt said that recorded tapes of the meeting were sufficient to reflect the true record. The part where Machado discussed his objections totaled a seven-minute gap in the verbatim record. Recorded tapes of meetings are difficult for a citizen to obtain from the planning department, so concerned parties who want to research issues must rely on hard-copy documents of the meeting minutes if they want to be apprised of what happened at any given meeting.

“If you listen to the tapes, the comments are there,” Bettencourt said.

Planning Director Art Henriques reminded the commissioners that making the written minutes complete was important “so somebody can go to the written record and see it there.”

Deputy County Counsel Shirley Murphy echoed the importance for historical accuracy.

“The question is if the minutes should accurately reflect the record,” she said.

Machado’s motion to make the county’s historical records truthful died for lack of a second. The lack of response baffled the commissioner.

“A commissioner doesn’t have the right to request that?” he asked rhetorically.

Commissioner Mike Smith, newly appointed by Supervisor Jaime De La Cruz, motioned to approve the minutes as is, and the motion passed 3-1, with Commission Chair Dan DeVries abstaining because he didn’t attend the Aug. 2 planning meeting. Joining Smith in approving the minutes were commissioners Bettencourt and Mark Tognazzini.

When appellant Cone was asked for her opinion of the commission’s action, she was exasperated.

“It’s outrageous,” Cone said. “It’s unconscionable.”

Also questionable is the method of revision the developers used to re-do the project. DeVries, an attorney by profession based in San Juan Bautista, rewrote the revisions for the applicants and resubmitted the application just days before the project’s tentative map expired. Such detailed planning documents are normally handled by county planning staff, not a county official who is slated to vote approval or denial on a project.

When asked if DeVries’ involvement constituted a conflict of interest in the approval process, planning director Henriques said, “You’ll have to ask Commissioner DeVries that.”

DeVries was not available for comment by press time.

“This is a brand new project now,” Henriques added.

Previous articleLetters to the Editor (Aug. 19)
Next articleLetters to the Editor (Aug. 22)
A staff member wrote, edited or posted this article, which may include information provided by one or more third parties.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here