The project manager for the Santana Ranch development said the
plan is
”
going all right
”
while San Benito County officials review the administrative
draft of the environmental impact report. With the recent departure
of DMB’s 6,800-unit El Rancho San Benito proposal, Santana Ranch is
the largest development plan on the table in the county.
The project manager for the Santana Ranch development said the plan is “going all right” while San Benito County officials review the administrative draft of the environmental impact report.
“The county is reviewing the administrative draft EIR,” said Project Manager Jim Weaver. “It looks like they’ve got a few more weeks on that process and it does seems like it is going all right.”
County Director of Building and Planning Art Henriques said his department and the developers have been meeting regularly, but it is still “early on in the project.”
“We are still moving forward and (the developers) are good to work with.”
The Santana Ranch development is scheduled to have 1,100 units on 292 acres in an area north of John Smith Road and south of Santa Ana Valley Road. The development is planned for 1,092 dwellings, including single-family homes, multiple-family homes, apartments, parks and a school. With the recent departure of DMB’s 6,800-unit El Rancho San Benito proposal, Santana Ranch is the largest development plan on the table in the county.
Although Santana Ranch is not nearly as big as El Rancho, Henriques said, “It’s still a good sized project, and we have quite a bit of processing underway.”
Santana Rancho developers have stated their goal of building the development over a 10-year period.
Even with El Rancho San Benito out of the picture, a major concern for Santana Ranch is the number of building unit allocations that can be given by the county. In January, the county awarded the project 22 allocations. The county’s growth management ordinance allows for no more than 50 percent of the available allotments to go to a single, major project. By allowing partial allocations, the project could be completed in segments.
Another caveat of the growth management ordinance is that major developments – 100 units or more – can make up only 75 percent of that year’s allocations, which would be another hurdle unless the ordinance is changed, which supervisors are considering.
As the processing has progressed and in reviewing the administrative draft, Henriques said his department has recognized some areas of the project that the consultant needs to address and update before the process can move forward any further.
“It will be at least a few more weeks until that is completed,” Henriques said. “The goal is to still have the EIR for public review in probably the next three or four months and be set up for public meetings near the end of the calendar year.”
Once the administrative draft EIR is reviewed, the draft EIR will go out to the public for a minimum 45-day review period. Once that period closes and the county has comments from the public, staff members will work with the consultant to review and respond to those comments.
After that is completed, public hearings are held and then the EIR is presented to the planning commission for review. Henriques said the commission will get more time to review the document due to its size rather than the normal one-day turnaround.
After the commission discusses the document, it will make a recommendation to the board of supervisors to approve or deny the project.
Henriques said the developers are asking the county to have flexibility to how the code and ordinances operates.
“They are trying to get allocations under the current system,” he said. “And we are working on some updates in the inclusionary housing and growth management process.”
