Family members of Supervisor Anthony Botelho own a 114-acre
property neighboring the 7,000-acre O’Connell Ranch, which DMB-El
Rancho San Benito is vying to purchase as adjacent land to its
proposed development. Botelho, however, will not have a legal
conflict in considering the project or potential further
considerations on the additional acreage because he is not one of
the parcel’s owners.
HOLLISTER
Family members of Supervisor Anthony Botelho own a 114-acre property neighboring the 7,000-acre O’Connell Ranch, which DMB-El Rancho San Benito is vying to purchase as adjacent land to its proposed development. Botelho, however, will not have a legal conflict in considering the project or potential further considerations on the additional acreage because he is not one of the parcel’s owners.
Botelho’s grandmother recently passed away and handed down the 114 acres to the supervisor’s father, aunt, sister and two brothers, he recently told the Free Lance.
Botelho inherited a separate 10-acre property off of Flint Road from the same late relative, while he noted that he does manage the family property bordering the O’Connell Ranch.
Botelho said the inheritance arrangement involving his grandmother’s property and the Flint Road land had been established in the mid-1990s.
He said the proximity of the O’Connell Ranch and his family’s property is something he has been “very concerned” about and he has given “a lot of thought.”
But the board chairman also noted that he does not have a legal conflict when considering the 6,800-unit proposal or any potential, further development on the ranch because he is not named as an owner.
“Having a very, very large family and having business interests within the family, it’s something I give a lot of thought about for a number of things,” he said.
He went on, specifically about the DMB project: “I do give a lot of thought and am very cautious. … “At the moment, I don’t believe I have a conflict.”
According to the law, a public official may have a “real property” conflict if a proposed development area is within 500 feet of a voting official’s property.
The related state law reads as follows: “The real property in which the official has an interest, or any part of that real property, is located within 500 feet of the boundaries (or the proposed boundaries) of the property which is the subject of the government decision.”
Even if Botelho did have some ownership, it would not forbid him from considering El Rancho San Benito because the parcel is on the ranch’s east side far from his family’s property.
With El Rancho San Benito, as with other development proposals, Botelho said there are “certain criteria” – such as mitigation of traffic impacts – which he will examine closely. He said he understands such concerns as water and “social needs” of any project.
El Rancho San Benito is planned on 5,800 acres off Highway 25 near the Santa Clara County border. It would include 6,800 units, 1,360 of them below-market homes. Supervisors ultimately will decide whether to approve the proposal and send it to voters, possibly in 2010.
DMB currently owns only 684 acres, a strip along the El Rancho San Benito project area’s northeast edge. It also has an option agreement, however, on the 2,777-acre Rancho Gavilan to the west of the DMB property and the company is pursuing – “but has not closed yet” – purchase of the 6,850-acre O’Connell Ranch to the west of that, said Mike Roberts, a DMB vice president who manages El Rancho San Benito.
The Botelho family property, meanwhile, is along the O’Connell Ranch’s southwest border.
DMB’s pursuit of the O’Connell Ranch
DMB publicly has considered acquisition of the ranch since the spring of 2007. At the time, the company put out a pamphlet describing the project that included mention of it pursuing the O’Connell Ranch.
In it, DMB noted how there had been offers for the property from other prospective developers and that the company had been concerned someone would “develop the property in an unsuitable manner.”
That document also said DMB had been drafting a purchase agreement with hopes of making the sale final by May 2007. It stressed how the O’Connell land would not increase El Rancho San Benito’s size and, due to the sudden nature of the purchase, the company had little time to study its possible use.
“However,” the literature notes, “if we are successful in purchasing the O’Connell Ranch, we promise the residents and officials of San Benito County that we will conduct the same careful public-input and public-planning process for this land that we have conducted for the El Rancho San Benito property – before we decide what the future plan should be for this 7,000-acre site.”
Roberts recently told the Free Lance that DMB “never had any plans to develop the O’Connell Ranch property” and he said the company had been motivated to buy the land because “it came on the market and it was an interesting piece of property.”
“It certainly had some benefits for us,” Roberts said.
He noted how DMB plans to use the northern slope of the mountain there for mitigation efforts that include grazing and addressing impacts to the red-legged frog, a federally designated threatened species.
Roberts said DMB has “no preliminary thoughts” on potential use of the O’Connell Ranch property aside from preserving the open space and using it for the mitigation.
He also said the company has “no opinion” on Botelho’s family property and any potential for a conflict.
“You’d have to ask Anthony that,” Roberts said. “We don’t have an opinion on at what point there could or could not be a conflict there.”
