Whose property rights?
If you’ve ever gazed at the hills that embrace our communities
and appreciated them, it’s time to start worrying.
Only a week ago, we opined that the new county hillside
development ordinance on its way to the Board of Supervisors merits
speedy passage. In the interim, one supervisor, Reb Monaco,
expressed doubts about the proposed law. After unanimous approval
last week by the county Planning Commission, the ordinance is
headed for a vote of the Board of Supervisors.
Whose property rights?
If you’ve ever gazed at the hills that embrace our communities and appreciated them, it’s time to start worrying.
Only a week ago, we opined that the new county hillside development ordinance on its way to the Board of Supervisors merits speedy passage. In the interim, one supervisor, Reb Monaco, expressed doubts about the proposed law. After unanimous approval last week by the county Planning Commission, the ordinance is headed for a vote of the Board of Supervisors.
The ordinance under consideration would replace an earlier statute that supervisors tossed out last spring after deeming it too restrictive. Only one supervisor, Pat Loe, dissented at the time. The board charged the planning commission with coming up with a new ordinance.
While the old law applied set standards, the new one would allow a flexible design review – one as stringent or as lax as county staff and policy-makers deem. The new ordinance would only apply on hillsides visible from major transportation corridors, and then, only when a proposed building is located 200 or more feet above the corridor. However, while the old ordinance only applied to major subdivisions, the new one brings every building application in affected zones under scrutiny.
There are many good reasons to pass the ordinance into law.
Many hillsides in San Benito County are notoriously unstable. A glance at the Flint Hills, or the Gabilans around Cienega Valley, shows obvious signs of frequent earth movement. While other standards are already in place to guard against buildings schussing down hillsides into creeks, the obvious evidence argues for great prudence.
Our hillsides today are largely absent trophy homes. Instead, they support the county’s vibrant agricultural industry, mostly as grazing land.
An effective hillside ordinance protects the views those of us who are already here invested in when we purchased our property.
The ordinance in no way constrains growth. A flexible design review simply mandates that people not impose themselves on their neighbors. We can think of dozens of homes in San Benito County that enhance their landscape, or just disappear into it, while still capturing million dollar views.
Monaco this week reportedly wondered aloud, “where do we build in San Benito County?”
His own staff might be best equipped to answer that question. But with DMB preparing to submit a proposal for some 6,800 homes – none of them on hillsides – the question about where to build seems moot.
San Benito County’s economic well-being and its moral obligation to the larger Bay Area dictate that we have an obligation to provide housing.
The Planning Commission’s carefully drafted ordinance allows just that – even on hillsides when done sensitively.
The ordinance supports property rights rather than compromising them. It recognizes that an individual’s property rights end at his fence, and that his presence should detract neither from the value of his neighbors’ property or the quality of their lives.
