County supervisors Tuesday decided to include “special study areas” for prospective development in the general plan draft after debating over potential consequences of leaving them in or out.
Supervisors voted 4-1 to leave those study areas in the draft, following discussion centered on those designated zones where the county will promote larger-scale residential building. Those study areas remain in the draft of the general plan update – the county’s growth blueprint in planning stages for about four years and running a tab of around $1.2 million.
Supervisor Anthony Botelho was the only board member opposed to the special study areas. He criticized some of the areas included in the plan, including a location near Rocks Road where the supervisor contended there is no available water. Botelho also mentioned the El Rancho San Benito property, which has flirted with potential projects for decades.
“With these growth community study areas I really question whether or not this is really a good practice or standard practice for revision,” Botelho said. “It’s not like we need this to encourage residential growth. We’ll get it anyway. I’m from the thought that our county is going to grow.”
Botelho argued that residential growth should occur in and around Hollister. He contended that the county should address major development proposals and geographic placement on a piecemeal basis.
Supervisor Robert Rivas spoke in favor of the study areas, emphasizing the need to plan the direction of growth. Looking ahead, he said he would like to see a “brief explanation or narrative” on each one of the study areas, a suggestion that supervisors included in their approval Tuesday.
“I want to bring some clarity as to why these designations, why they’re important and why they’re study areas,” Rivas said.
He said he could not oppose the idea of special study areas just based on one prospective project at El Rancho San Benito – “based on a potential project that, it doesn’t even exist right now.”
One of the four special study areas highlighted for possible future growth was the El Rancho property off Highway 25 near the Santa Clara County border. Development firm DMB, which had proposed 6,800 homes on 4,500 acres, shelved the project in 2009 after nearly a decade of planning and lobbying efforts. The Floriani family, which owns much of the land, spoke to planning officials earlier this year about the prospect of developing it once again.
Aside from the El Rancho property to the northwest of Hollister, other study areas include locations near Highway 156 and Highway 101, southwest of Hollister, and northeast of Hollister.
Supervisor Jerry Muenzer, among those in support of the study areas, stressed his desire to keep future, local development in the northern portion of the county. Muenzer’s district encompasses the largely desolate south county.
“I feel growth needs to be in the northern part of county,” Muenzer said, “not all entirely in unincorporated areas.”
Botelho also supported the idea of development, in general. And like Muenzer, he was unfavorable to the prospects for study areas in his district – which includes San Juan Bautista and Aromas, communities where many residents tend to oppose growth. San Juan Bautista is an historic mission town, while the valley is lush with prime ag land.
“I see areas that should be considered as growth areas for the county that are not on that map,” said Botelho, who went on, “I’m for growth, but I’m for smart, well-planned growth that provides a benefit to this community.”
Wayne Norton from Aromas was one of 10 or so speakers on the study area topic. He agreed with Botelho.
A director on the Aromas Water District board and resident near the Rocks Road area, Norton wanted assurance that county officials would work with other, affected districts on the matter to examine “whether these areas make the most sense.”
“Is this really down the road where the county wants to be and where the county wants to go?” Norton said.
Former Supervisor Pat Loe told board members that the county should focus less on housing and more on economic development zoning. She said it is important to improve the jobs-to-housing ratio.
“The county’s new general plan will send a message on how we as a community plan to grow,” she said.
Three of the public speakers were from the L&G law firm, which has developer clients locally and represented DMB with the El Rancho property. L&G attorney Brad Sullivan talked about labels and being viewed as pro-growth. He said most people just want development to be smart and flexible.
“There really is no one who’s no growth in this county,” he said. “They just want a different kind of growth.”
