There’s something missing from the County Planning Commission
debate as members decide on the Spur Hotel site proposed at the
intersection of Highway 25 and Southside Road in Tres Pinos.
There’s something missing from the County Planning Commission debate as members decide on the Spur Hotel site proposed at the intersection of Highway 25 and Southside Road in Tres Pinos.
It’s the logic of weighing pros and cons and deciding if the project would carry a significant benefit or detriment to San Benito County as a whole.
A panel majority has failed to recognize the economic development potential, instead wavering over arguments about existing zoning and past planning practices, and whether they should be trumped by a desirable project, which is opposed vehemently by neighbors.
We sympathize with those residents striving to hold on to roots and property values, therefore, taking exception to such a significant change.
But as a county, it’s time to look forward.
Most important, a hotel is needed in that area if the county hopes to expand its tourism industry and further capitalize on our assets, such as wineries and Pinnacles National Park.
Residents opposing the 44-unit hotel argue additional traffic through the area would create a safety threat, with an estimated 250 more trips per day. The project applicants are John Eade and Jae Eade, who sits on the Free Lance Editorial Board. She did not participate in taking a stance on the hotel.
While an area painted by majestic landscapes is destined for some growth with or without the Spur Hotel, and traffic is bound to increase with more tourists entering our borders, planning commissioners should ask two questions:
1. Is it safer if we foster an environment in which overindulging winery visitors constantly drive through Tres Pinos, some of them undoubtedly intoxicated?
2. What’s wrong with more outsiders spending money in the county, which desperately needs an economic boost?
Commissioners requested findings from planning staff to support a narrowly-reasoned rejection. Those findings came back, after that rejection, to contend it shouldn’t be approved because the location is “improper,” it would have an adverse environmental effect and it would not be a “good zoning practice.”
It sounds like a set of findings one could use to oppose any zoning change proposal just about anywhere.
With a 3-2 rejection pending a final stamp from the panel, we urge Commissioner Dan Devries, who has tottered in his weighing of the project, to trust his common sense, reverse his earlier mistake and send the decision in the hands of our elected Board of Supervisors.
