Supervisors signal support but set some conditions for the
developers
San Benito County supervisors Tuesday indicated they would
approve the proposal for a Ridgemark commercial center
– but with several conditions presented by board members.
Supervisors spent several hours Tuesday on the matter, an appeal
to the county planning commission’s August rejection of the
proposal for a 19,500-square-foot commercial structure at 151
Ridgemark Drive.
Supervisors signal support but set some conditions for the developers
San Benito County supervisors Tuesday indicated they would approve the proposal for a Ridgemark commercial center – but with several conditions presented by board members.
Supervisors spent several hours Tuesday on the matter, an appeal to the county planning commission’s August rejection of the proposal for a 19,500-square-foot commercial structure at 151 Ridgemark Drive.
Supervisors agreed to continue the item to the Oct. 18 meeting for a possible, final decision at that point.
The board members did express some concern about issues broached by critics of the proposal, but there was nowhere near the tension as the August meeting and supervisors appeared willing to OK the idea with some minor adjustments – and without sending the proposal back to the planning commission.
“I think it’s just what Ridgemark does need,” said Supervisor Anthony Botelho, though he added, “if it’s done appropriately.”
The shopping center is designed to house “neighborhood-friendly” businesses to increase convenience for the gated community’s residents. Ridgemark would run an upscale market and bakery, while other stores could include a dry cleaner, beauty salon and others that would fit the bill. Developer Alex Kehriotis from JMK Investments also mentioned talks with the sheriff’s office about possibly placing a substation there.
Conditions for such an approval requested by supervisors included:
– Moving the setback on the site of the proposed commercial structure from 10 feet to 20 feet, and to maintain the same 20-foot setback for any patio that Ridgemark might place on the site
– Ensuring there is a landscape buffer between the commercial property and neighboring condominiums
– Revising the parking plan to maximize its efficiency on the site
– Including a screen of some kind to prevent noise issues from the heating and air-conditioning unit on the commercial building’s roof
– Barring trash containers in the back of the commercial structure neighboring the condominiums
That discussion went further than the August planning commission meeting. At the prior meeting one of the Ridgemark owners, John Kehriotis, responded to questions about possible conditions – such as moving the proposed building adjacent to the golf course as opposed to abutting the condo properties – by telling the panel members he would not accept their changes.
The other owner, Alex Kehriotis, his son, addressed supervisors Tuesday and answered officials’ questions. That came after a slew of public speakers who offered their opinions for and against the idea. He noted that moving the building would be “cost prohibitive” – an added $300,000 – due to a drop-off in the location.
Most of the speakers, largely Ridgemark residents, were in favor of the proposal.
“I think it’s a terrific idea,” said Ridgemark resident Jack Biersdorff. “I’d like to really be able to walk down and get some milk and bread and things like that.”
Another resident, John Hayes, calculated that if each of the 1,050 homes in Ridgemark uses the shopping center once a month instead of going to Nob Hill, it would save about 80,000 miles in vehicle trips.
“That’s a lot of pollutants,” he said.
But others, especially residents of the adjacent condos, contended that major problems remain.
“Like you, we want to give JMK a project,” said Penny Bettencourt, president of a homeowners association there, “but not at the cost of residents’ quality of life, not at the expense of traffic safety and not at the economic expense of members of our association.”
Bettencourt argued that among other issues, including concerns about traffic congestion at the community’s entrance, Ridgemark doesn’t have the legal access to build the shopping center there because it doesn’t have an easement for the use. The developers disagreed, and supervisors conceded that the issue must be resolved between the two private parties – though they did include a condition that would halt the use of the center if the courts ruled there was no legal access.
Alex Kehriotis spoke last before supervisors and made the case the building would largely improve the site “both aesthetically and functionally.”
He showed pictures of the old tennis courts, which are rundown, and gave an example of how high the fencing used to be with a photo of the current tennis courts, where there is fencing now.
He mentioned an estimated $2.6 million cost for the construction and said it would boost the local economy, while adding tax revenue to the county.
