I have attended many meetings relating to the update of the San
Benito County General Plan and I see we all have the same goals
– even the same basic vision. We want San Benito County to be
beautiful and livable, and we hope, affordable. We just disagree on
the details or the way to get there. I suggest this concept:
I have attended many meetings relating to the update of the San Benito County General Plan and I see we all have the same goals – even the same basic vision. We want San Benito County to be beautiful and livable, and we hope, affordable. We just disagree on the details or the way to get there. I suggest this concept:
Look around California, the United States and even Europe. Find the towns, neighborhoods and communities we most admire and ask ourselves, why? What are these places like? What is it that makes them desirable?
Consider Carmel – narrow streets, no sidewalks, no street lights, small lots. Yet people from all over the world visit Carmel. Think of the French Quarter of New Orleans – narrow streets, buildings abut the sidewalks and touch the buildings on each side. Also, a beautiful, charming place. San Francisco – again buildings abut the sidewalks and are built touching the neighboring buildings on each side. Historic New England villages – again they usually have small lots and narrow streets. These towns all have high density and mostly charming architecture. Many of them have the advantage of being small, dense villages, surrounded by countryside. None of these towns could be built as they are under today’s zoning code in San Benito County.
These old-fashioned towns did not require front set-backs, side set-backs, etc., as we are required to build here.
Look at the French Quarter. Houses and stores close together, with patios and hidden courtyards. City squares filled with trees and flowers. Balconies overlook the streets. It’s charming and why aren’t we allowed to do the same here?
New England villages, similar to English country villages, have been built on small lots, generally with a front set-back which is less than our code would require. The houses are different – some only five to 10 feet back from the sidewalk. Others are built closer, others have larger set-backs. Often they have a green area between the sidewalk and the street, planted with trees. But these are still high-density neighborhoods.
Good architecture and aesthetics have a lot to do with the charm of these communities. Secondly, the high density itself makes these towns livable. Residents and visitors only have to walk a short distance to see a lot, or to reach the stores, etc. For residents this means an easy walk to shopping, to friends, to church, to a community park, etc. It is not possible to create an easily walked community unless it is a high density community.
I think another good feature of these successful communities is that they are small – each of them is a community which occupies only a small geographical area. Most of these well-known towns or neighborhoods only occupy two or three square miles or less, so that it really is a distinct neighborhood or village.
I think we can have small, charming communities here in San Benito County, and at the same time, keep the rural quality of our beautiful valley – if we eliminate the “minimum parcel per house” and replace it with “maximum houses per acreage,” to be clustered on a small portion of the total acreage and requiring that the balance of land remain open. For example, one hundred acres of five-acre zoning would not be subdivided into 20 five-acre parcels. Instead it would have 20 homes located on a portion of the land – possibly on a 10-acre area, leaving the balance of 90 acres as open space. This would allow farming to survive, while providing space for homes for our children, as well as a reasonable allocation for population growth. And most important, the small villages which would develop would be charming, livable and affordable.
Loss of our land will be covered with asphalt because the compact nature of the developments requires fewer and shorter roadways. Fewer miles of water lines, sewer lines, etc. are required.
I would like to live in a Spanish village, with white plastered walls, red tiled roofs, narrow cobblestone streets, a one-foot set-back from the sidewalk (just enough to plant vines). The houses will have patios, some in the middle, some at the side – a few will have front patios. My house will have French doors opening onto the patio from the living room and the bedrooms. I will certainly have some trees in my patio. I may drink my coffee on the patio, or maybe I’ll walk down to our “city center park” where we residents meet for coffee and conversation. The city square will have trees, shrubs, flowers (preferably the easy to grow type), and maybe a tennis court and some exercise bars. My water will come from a well on the property. The water system will be professionally designed and monitored. Same for the small sewer treatment plant. These services will be paid by all the homeowners, as a monthly fee which will probably be less than the cost of city water and sewer charges. I will have the satisfaction of knowing that I am not over-burdening the City of Hollister facilities. I will know most, or all of my neighbors, and I will be enjoying the conveniences of city living in a rural environment. I know that the open land around my village will remain open because it was dedicated to open space when my village was created.
Or, if I want to keep a horse, I may look for a village built on some ranch south of Paicines. It might be a log cabin sort of place. It will have western-style log houses, maybe with space to build a horse-barn in the back of the house, and maybe a shared corral instead of a city square. But the community water system and community sewer treatment systems would be the same, or similar. The ranch land around the “western” town would be preserved as open space, because the ranch owner would have used his quota or “maximum houses per parcel” on this small development.
To make this concept happen, cluster housing must become a part of the zoning code. And the set-back requirements must be set aside. More flexibility must be introduced into the code. We must make it possible for developers with integrity, imagination and good aesthetics to reintroduce into today’s world the beautiful communities which were created in the past. Like Carmel, the French Quarter and New England villages.
Charlotte O’Bannon,
Hollister
