Hollister
– A plan to change county growth restrictions hit a barricade
Tuesday, when some residents told the San Benito County Board of
Supervisors the new rules would give developers an unfair
advantage.
Hollister – A plan to change county growth restrictions hit a barricade Tuesday, when some residents told the San Benito County Board of Supervisors the new rules would give developers an unfair advantage.
Alexander Henson, a Carmel Valley attorney for a group called Concerned Citizens of San Benito County, said his clients are “appalled by this assault on the ability of voters to participate in the land-use process.”
“Essentially, this is a back-room deal that does a lot more than the staff report or any other report says it does,” Henson said.
Under the existing ordinance, developments of 100 units or more that require a general plan amendment must seek approval from county voters when the application is submitted. The new rules would move the election to the end of the application process. County staffers have said the changes could delay the election by months or years and require the developer to spend millions of dollars.
The proposed changes prompted heated discussion Tuesday between the board and citizens, and led to Supervisor Jaime De La Cruz cursing at a speaker.
De La Cruz complained about lawyers “throwing around 15-letter words” and predicted that delaying the vote – as Henson requested – wouldn’t really address critics’ concerns.
“They’re going to be (expletive) and complaining about something else,” he said.
After the meeting, De La Cruz told the Free Lance he was referring to lawyers, not the general public.
Henson said that if necessary, the Concerned Citizens of San Benito County would oppose the change through litigation or a voter referendum.
The supervisors voted unanimously to delay the decision until Aug. 7, due in part to Supervisor Pat Loe’s lingering concerns. Loe said she supports the revisions overall, but she called new rules exempting developers from an election in exchange for building affordable housing “a giant loophole” that needs to be tightened.
Ray Becker, project manager of the proposed 6,800-unit El Rancho San Benito, has said developer DMB supports the new rules because they allow the county to negotiate changes and verify the developer’s claims before the election, which might help projects win favor with voters.
De La Cruz noted that Hollister voters rejected another development, Sun City Hollister, in the November 2006 election. Many Sun City opponents contended that holding the election at the beginning of the approval process was a way to “go around the system,” De La Cruz said.
But most of Tuesday’s speakers said they are vehemently against the changes. Hollister resident Ann Carpenter said voters wouldn’t want to oppose a project if it’s already been approved by the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors.
“Why are you taking away the value of my vote?” Carpenter asked.
Hollister resident Aurelio Zuniga made a similar argument.
“Every campaign brochure mailed to voters, every campaign sign on the highway will say … the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors have already approved the project,” Zuniga said. “If you give the developer three aces before we’re even dealt a hand, who has the upper hand?”
Residents also complained that the meeting agendas, which described the decision as an “ordinance revising Chapter 30 of the San Benito County Code and General Plan,” obscured the decision’s real significance.
Other supervisors aside from De La Cruz also bristled at the suggestion they hadn’t been open about the changes.
“I adamantly object to somebody calling me a back-room dealer, Mr. Henson,” Supervisor Don Marcus said.
