Supervisorial candidate appeals ‘trophy home’ development
A proposed housing development along the southwest entrance to
San Benito County has been in the works for years. But just as San
Juan Vista Estates received approval from the county Planning
Commission, the decision was appealed by District 4 supervisorial
candidate Tracie Cone.
Supervisorial candidate appeals ‘trophy home’ development
A proposed housing development along the southwest entrance to San Benito County has been in the works for years. But just as San Juan Vista Estates received approval from the county Planning Commission, the decision was appealed by District 4 supervisorial candidate Tracie Cone.
“This is symbolic of a lot of things,” Cone said. “So this appeal is symbolic. We are going to lose everything when we were headed in the right direction.”
Cone, who followed the project applications as former publisher of the Sunday Pinnacle, expressed concern that many conditions had been eliminated in the latest manifestation of the proposal.
“The former Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors really spent many years whittling it down,” Cone said. “They whittled it down to something that everyone could live with.”
The owner, Mark Johnson of Pacific Grove, and developer Jim Weaver of Santa Cruz’ Pacific Rim Planning Group, had originally proposed 30-plus homes in the San Juan foothills, along Highways 101 and 129, with a commercial center that would include a gas station and other small retail shops. The hills look down on Anzar High School.
“It was proposed as large, trophy homes in the hills,” said Pat Loe, District 3 supervisor and a former planning commissioner. “They just don’t blend in that area with the hillside and the open space.”
Loe and her fellow planning commissioners worked with the planning department to set up some limitations for the developers. They limited the number of houses to 14, requiring that granny or guest units be attached to the main house. Each home was limited to 5,000 square feet and proposed garages shrunk from four-or-five-car garages to two-to-three-car garages, Loe said.
“We did a pole test to see if we were standing in the Valley at [Anzar] school what could be seen,” Loe said.
The tests employ netting held on poles temporarily to mimic the height and footprint of structures for planning review.
The planning staff agreed to allow gated entrances into the development, something that Loe and her fellow commissioners had tossed out of the plans years ago.
In the latest incarnation of the application, county planners have eliminated size limitations for the homes, height restriction for the structures and have agreed that granny units can be stand alone though they “must be architecturally compatible with the primary residence.”
“Basically, they doubled the number of homes on a lot,” Loe said.
Cone, who does not live in the district where the luxury homes would be built, filed the appeal July 31.
Cone explained that although she doesn’t live in the district where the housing development is to be built and rarely drives by it, she appealed the Planning Commission decision on principle.
“It took a long, long time and everything seemed fine and dandy,” Cone said, of the conditions for the developers. “The current majority doesn’t care about sound planning. Apparently these developers believed it was time to go back in and change it to how they really planned it.”
Jim Weaver, who had not seen the letter of appeal by Aug. 2, said he was still unclear about the reasons for the appeal. He has been working closely with the current planning commissioners and planning staff on the latest amended application.
“Since the project was approved, [the county] came up with different criteria and so we changed the plans within those criteria,” Weaver said. “It’s our opinion that the project is actually a little bit better.”
He mentioned one change that moved three houses proposed along Highway 129 to the other side of the project where they would be less visible.
“It’s just a different way of approaching the same thing,” Weaver said.
Cone and Loe both expressed concerns about inclusionary housing since the developer had originally agreed to pay a fee per market-rate house that could be used by the county for lower-income housing elsewhere.
“We were going to get money to put in a pot and that has been way scaled back,” Loe said. “I’m not sure what is going to be paid now.”
The Board of Supervisors is scheduled to review the project and vote on it at their Aug. 22 meeting.
