Supervisors are set to consider rescinding rules limiting new
development
A decade-old growth management ordinance designed to slow
population growth in what was then one of the fastest-growing
counties in California could be rescinded as soon as next week by
the San Benito County Board of Supervisors.
”
This would go a long way toward streamlining the process
”
of obtaining and approving building permits, county planning
officer Gary Armstrong told the board at its meeting last week.
Supervisors are set to consider rescinding rules limiting new development
A decade-old growth management ordinance designed to slow population growth in what was then one of the fastest-growing counties in California could be rescinded as soon as next week by the San Benito County Board of Supervisors.
“This would go a long way toward streamlining the process” of obtaining and approving building permits, county planning officer Gary Armstrong told the board at its meeting last week.
Since its adoption as an urgency ordinance in October 2000, the Growth Management Ordinance (GMO), which limits the approval of new lots from subdivisions, has been amended several times. Some county officials believe that continued stagnant economic growth locally means the ordinance – designed to stabilize population growth after a period of rapid expansion – is no longer needed.
Supervisors on Sept. 27 are also expected to vote on repealing or suspending the Potential Residential Growth Increase (PRGI) section of the county code. This ordinance was designed to further control large population growth in the county through a process in which any residential project over 100 units would require voter approval.
In a July report to the county planning commission, Senior Planner Lissette Knight said subsequent amendments to PRGI now provide “significant flexibility that could allow a developer to become exempt from this process,” effectively negating its intended power.
Despite choosing to postpone a vote on the potential repeal of the managed-growth measures until next week’s meeting, supervisors conducted a public hearing to allow for comments on the matter.
Ted Thoeny, a 35-year county resident and former city engineer and public works director for Morgan Hill, urged supervisors to keep the existing ordinances in place.
“Developers make promises they can’t keep,” he said. “Eliminating the present rules will not speed things up. San Benito County does not need to make the same mistakes the city of Hollister made,” allowing for rapid growth which eventually overwhelmed the sewer system and led to a moratorium on all development.
Janet Brians, who owns a 100-acre organic farm off Shore Road, said the growth rules are needed to protect and preserve the county’s ag land.
“We have a vibrant agricultural economy here,” she said. “The GMO provides a scoring system to improve the quality of housing projects.”
Jason Noble, representing the San Benito County Association of Realtors, said there are already too many controls and ordinances in place limiting residential growth.
“We are affected by most if not all restrictions,” he said, pointing out the county’s high unemployment rate. “Given our current economy, they do little to better a difficult situation.”
Brad Sullivan of the law firm Lombardo and Gilles questioned the constitutionality of PRGI, as it wasn’t enacted by voters. Realtor Ray Pierce added that the planning process, including public hearings held by the planning commission and supervisors, is an adequate means of reviewing and approving potential development in the county.
“If we don’t have some type of growth, you’re kids or my grandkids won’t have jobs to work at,” he said.
Attorney Paul Rovella of the firm Lombardo and Gilles said the discussion of rescinding the managed growth measures has been in the works for two years and he urged the board to act.
“Staff worked on it, sought comment, held at least three public hearings,” he said. “This thing has been beat to death.”
Supervisor Anthony Botelho said the ordinances were adopted at a time when growth was rampant and by some accounts unchecked.
“When these ordinances were adopted, we were faced with a difficult time,” with water, sewer and transportation issues arising from population growth. “In my six-and-a-a-half or seven years on the board I have been pressured to rescind these two ordinances but I never felt it was appropriate until we had assurances in place to protect the rural character of our county.
“Smart, managed growth doesn’t mean no growth,” he added. “I feel now that PRGI and GMO is a piecemeal way of doing land-use planning that doesn’t meet our needs today. We need good, managed growth – well-planned growth.”
Supervisor Jerry Muenzer agreed it was time to drop the ordinances and Board Chairwoman Margie Barrios suggested moving forward with rescinding them.
“In 2000 this county was one of the fastest growing in the state,” she said. “We were not prepared. I understand why (the measures were enacted) at the time. We are no longer in those times.”
Responding to critics who claim that agricultural land could be lost to renewed, rapid development, Barrios said the county is committed to protecting that land.
“We have guidelines; we have criteria in place now,” she said.
Supervisor Robert Rivas said the county has “much greater needs” than more residential growth, such as addressing transportation needs and a crumbling infrastructure.
“(GMO) is an ordinance that clearly needs to be updated, amended,” he said, adding that PRGI “was a huge mistake.”
“Clearly we need to have growth, but that needs to be done responsibly.”
The board is expected to vote separately on the potential rescinding of the growth ordinances at its Sept. 27 meeting, with official adoption on Oct. 4.
