A day after the San Benito County Board of Supervisors voted to
completely repeal an ordinance restricting hillside development,
county leaders remained divided on the issue
– and what the vote means for the county.
HOLLISTER
A day after the San Benito County Board of Supervisors voted to completely repeal an ordinance restricting hillside development, county leaders remained divided on the issue – and what the vote means for the county.
Supervisor Jaime De La Cruz, who voted with Don Marcus and Reb Monaco against the ordinance, said the restrictions – like the defeated growth-control initiative Measure G before – basically discourage any development at all.
“We’re basically saying we don’t want growth,” De La Cruz said. “We need growth. I have three kids of my own – where are they going to live?”
Supervisor Pat Loe, who joined Supervisor Anthony Botelho in voting for a new hillside ordinance, agreed that the supervisors made a statement with their vote. But it’s the wrong one, she said.
“The message sent yesterday was, ‘We don’t care,'” Loe said.
The hillside dispute still isn’t completely settled. County staff said Tuesday that that the ordinance needs to go before the planning commission for environmental review and comment, then to the board for a final vote.
At the meeting, De La Cruz said he was concerned that further discussion will lead to indefinite delays, but Deputy County Counsel Shirley Murphy said the board’s next vote should be the final vote.
Planning commissioners Dan DeVries and Robert Scattini said Wednesday they’re not sure what the commission will do.
“I’m interested in what the staff is going to recommend now,” Scattini said.
DeVries, who described the board’s decision as “insane,” said he’s not sure if the commissioners have any flexibility now that the supervisors have voted. DeVries, though, also wondered if the environmental review might create new problems, since repealing the ordinance removes environmental protections.
“How can you mitigate that?” he said.
Like the supervisors, commissioners also disagree on the best course of action. Scattini has called the proposed ordinance “redundant,” while DeVries defended it as a good compromise.
“I have a lot of concerns about the future,” he said. “Is prime ag land going to be the next thing to go?”
DeVries added that opposing any hillside restrictions puts San Benito County at odds with many other cities and counties in California. He was most impressed by Monterey County’s rules, which he described as “very, very similar” to the ordinance proposed by the planning commission.
The Free Lance found language restricting hillside development in Santa Clara, Santa Cruz and Monterey counties’ codes.
Greenbelt Alliance spokeswoman Elizabeth Stampe, whose group advocates for open space preservation, agreed that the board’s position sounds unusual.
“I would say (similar growth restrictions) are common, especially in the Bay Area,” Stampe said. “It’s especially surprising that they’d dismantle a rule they already had.”
The original hillside ordinance was approved in December 2004 by an outgoing board of supervisors. Of those pro-ordinance supervisors, only Loe remains.
When told about the change in leadership, Stampe said: “We usually try to get those rules passed by a vote of the people. That way when you get new supervisors, they can’t undo the ordinance.”
In addition to potentially marring the view of local landscapes, unrestricted hillside development also brings up concerns with landslides and watersheds, Stampe said.
But De La Cruz said it’s unfair to compare San Benito’s laws with those of other counties.
“We can’t compare (apples and oranges),” De La Cruz said. “Be honest. Has San Benito County gone out of control in terms of growth? No, it hasn’t.”
Hillside rules in review
The original hillside ordinance places specific restrictions, such as height and color limitations, on major subdivisons built on county hills with a steepness of 15 percent or more. The proposed revision, which supervisors also rejected Tuesday, would have replaced those rules with “flexible” design review and applied to all properties at least 200 feet above the valley floor and visible from the county’s major transportation corridors.
