Hollister
– After county counsel told the San Benito County Board of
Supervisors that an ordinance allowing voters a voice in large
developments on county land may violate state law, supervisors
created an ad-hoc committee to examine the law before deciding how
they’ll revise it.
Hollister – After county counsel told the San Benito County Board of Supervisors that an ordinance allowing voters a voice in large developments on county land may violate state law, supervisors created an ad-hoc committee to examine the law before deciding how they’ll revise it.
The ordinance calls for voters to decide whether to approve a general plan designation change for a project with more than 100 units before it undergoes the county’s planning process, which includes state-mandated environmental reviews. During the Tuesday board meeting Deputy County Counsel Shirley Murphy told supervisors that state law requires that a project go through environmental reviews before it goes to a public vote.
“We need to take a hard look at the current ordinance and make sure it meshes with state law and provides voters with as much information needed for making an informed decision,” County Administrative Officer Susan Thompson told the board. “We don’t think (the ordinance) works with state law.”
Rather than scrap the ordinance, supervisors say that they want to clarify it so that voters will still have an opportunity to have their opinions heard on large developments proposed in the county.
“We need to clean up the language of the ordinance and make sure it’s solid legally and hope it gives all the information to voters to make a good decision about a development,” Supervisor Anthony Botelho.
Adopted by the Board of Supervisors in 1998, the ordinance amended the county’s general plan, adding to it a Potential Residential Growth Increase land use designation – a temporary designation, which, if approved by voters, stands for one year.
Under the ordinance, developers of large projects submit an application to the Board of Supervisors. The board, rather than approving the application, determines if the application is complete and then calls for an election so that voters decide whether the PRGI designation will be granted.
If voters approve a PRGI designation for a particular project, it will proceed through the county planning process, which includes environmental review, public hearings and review by the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors. The board makes the final decision on whether the general plan change will be permanent.
Former Supervisor Richard Place, who was on the Board of Supervisors when the ordinance was adopted, said that the board intended the ordinance to give the public a chance to have a say about large developments.
“We felt that for large projects the public should have an opportunity to vote on it,” said Place, who is also a candidate for the District 3 supervisors seat.
Since it was adopted, no development had been large enough to trigger the ordinance until DMB Associates proposed building 6,800 homes in their El Rancho San Benito project in north county.
The ordinance has caused confusion in the county, with many people believing that voter approval or disapproval of a project was the final say on whether it would get a general plan designation change. Others say that the ordinance is vague and does not define what an application for a PRGI designation is and how to determine if an application for one is complete.
Supervisors have also said that voters, if forced to vote on a project before it goes through environmental review, will not have enough information to cast an educated vote.
“It’s very important to me that voters understand all impacts and ramifications and effects that projects have on long-term standards of San Benito County,” Supervisor Don Marcus said.
Local DMB representative Ray Becker said that DMB, which is the first developer to go through the PRGI designation process, has also had some trouble figuring out exactly how to comply with the ordinance because there isn’t consensus on what it requires.
When it was discussed last week by the county planning commission, Becker proposed an alternative scenario, which would put the public vote at the end of the planning process rather than before it begins.
The DMB idea entails switching the order of the PRGI designation process, so that locals wouldn’t vote on a general plan change on a project until it has gone through the entire planning process. That way, Becker said, voters would be well informed about the project before they make a decision at the polls. In the DMB scenario, according to Becker, voters would have the final say on whether a project would be approved. Becker said that the board of supervisors could make the public vote the ultimate authority on new development proposals.
Becker said that DMB is committed to a public vote on its project and will follow the ordinance, no matter what the board ultimately decides doing with it. He said that the board was taking the, “Right course of action,” by creating an ad hoc committee to review the ordinance.
“It’s so technical,” Becker said. “It merits time to think about it and understand what it means.”
Luke Roney covers local government and the environment for the Free Lance. Reach him at 831-637-5566 ext. 335 or at
lr****@fr***********.com
