The San Benito County Board of Supervisors voted 3-2 Tuesday to
completely rescind the county ordinance restricting hillside
development.
HOLLISTER
The San Benito County Board of Supervisors voted 3-2 Tuesday to completely rescind the county ordinance restricting hillside development.
Supervisors Jaime De La Cruz, Don Marcus and Reb Monaco voted to eliminate the ordinance, while Anthony Botelho and Pat Loe supported keeping some restrictions in place.
The supervisors voted 4-1 earlier this year to repeal the original ordinance, which places specific restrictions on homes built on county hills. But the board had also asked planning staff to come up with a more flexible, “stopgap” ordinance that would give the county some control over hillside development while a new general plan is prepared.
Over several months, the planning commission created a new law calling for “flexible” design review, rather than hard-and-fast rules. On Tuesday, De La Cruz, Marcus and Monaco praised the work of the planning commission, but they said the ordinance is still too restrictive.
“If I had the support of the board … I’d repeal the hillside ordinance right now and not put anything back in its place,” Marcus said, drawing loud applause from parts of the audience.
County Counsel Dennis Le Clere and Deputy County Counsel Shirley Murphy said the motion to repeal the ordinance will go to the planning commission for comments and environmental review, then come back to the board for a final vote.
The existing ordinance was enacted in December 2004 by an outgoing board of supervisors. Of the board members who supported it, only Loe remains.
In April, Loe opposed scrapping the ordinance in favor of a guidelines-only approach. She said Tuesday, “It’s not asking too much” to have some rules to ensure that when people look at the hills, they don’t see “a big white elephant.”
If approved, County Planner Byron Turner said the new ordinance would have required the planning commission to review the details of all proposed homes located at least 200 feet above the valley floor and visible from the county’s major highways. The new ordinance, Turner said, was “in no way meant to prohibit development,” just to ensure that it’s appropriate.
During the meeting, a number of county residents spoke out against the proposal, complaining that, like the first ordinance, the proposed rules are too strict and too complicated.
“You’ve been presented with a false choice … by the previous board,” said attorney Bradley Sullivan. “Don’t feel obligated to enact something to protect the hillsides. The hillsides have not been destroyed.”
Aromas resident Richard Scoles responded to the pro-property rights camp by comparing their arguments to a fisherman objecting to environmental protection by saying the government has “no business messing with his fish.”
“Sometimes, that’s what I hear here, except we’re talking about land,” Scoles said. “It might be their property, but it affects all of us.”
Others, including Botelho, defended the new proposal as a good compromise.
“I would hate to see San Benito County turn into just an extension of Santa Clara,” Botelho said. “I don’t want to take away anybody’s property rights. We’re trying to add property rights with this design review process.”
Botelho made a motion to accept the new ordinance. But with only Loe’s support, the motion failed 2-3.
The hillside ordinance isn’t about protecting safety or the environment, Monaco said. Instead, it’s an attempt to legislate taste.
“You cannot legislate that,” Monaco said. “Period.”
What the supes are saying
Anthony Botelho: “I feel very strongly that we need something in place.”
Jaime De La Cruz: “I take this as a property rights issue.”
Pat Loe: “I just don’t agree that’s taking anyone’s rights.”
Don Marcus: “Our country could not have been built 200 years ago with the restrictions it has today.”
Reb Monaco: “We ought to just throw this thing out, period, and that’s it.”
