Lea este artículo en español aquí.
In a 10-hour meeting on Nov. 12, the San Benito County Board of Supervisors decided on projects and policies that have been in the spotlight for the past several months.
In its morning session, the supervisors made a surprise decision regarding the county’s administrative officer and took steps to create a new policy regarding clearing homeless encampments. The afternoon session, which went until 7 p.m., dealt with three issues that are substantively or theoretically impacted by the passage of Measure A, an initiative which, if it passes, will fundamentally change how land use decisions are made in the county.
With more than 70% of the votes counted, Measure A is on track to pass easily.
Empowered by their triumph, Measure A supporters filled the supervisors’ chambers to oppose three issues related to three development projects that were in the public eye during the campaign.
Measure A
At 1:30 p.m., the supervisors reconvened to discuss appeals to decisions made by the Planning Commission regarding three of the most controversial development projects in the county.
All of the projects are opposed by Protect San Benito County, the organization behind Measure A. The group’s members filled the chambers and commented on every project discussed.
First to be discussed was the Betabel Road Project, a 30-acre development on Hwy 101 which includes a gas station, a visitor center, a fruit stand and motel. On Sept. 25 the county planners approved redrawing the property lines to make them agree with the commercial use that was approved.
The developers and county planners argued that the subdivision agreement passed Nov. 12 doesn’t change much in practice, and only makes the property lines match with the use designations approved by the supervisors in 2022.
Protect San Benito, the Center for Biological Diversity, and the Amah Mutsun Tribal Band had appealed the decision, claiming the project damages a wildlife corridor, that its environmental impact report is invalid as it is under litigation, and that the subdivision goes against the spirit of Measure A.
“We believe Measure A will pass,” said Mary Hsia-Coron, a Measure A proponent. “We believe that you should honor the will of the people.”
Supervisors Dom Zanger and Kollin Kosmicki opposed the subdivision, arguing that there is a financial incentive behind the new drawing of property lines. “This is not being done for the purpose of selling any additional lots,” Peter Prows, the attorney representing developers Victoria and Rider McDowell, told the meeting.
The supervisors approved the subdivision in a 3-2 vote.
Next up was the development agreement for the property destined for the Ag Center, a proposed project that includes a cold storage building to accommodate trucks hauling local produce, as well as a convenience store, food hall and a truck service building.
On Oct. 16, the Planning Commission, unable to decide whether to approve the development agreement, passed it back to the supervisors. In that agreement, the developer offered to dedicate a permanent easement for open space and a wildlife corridor, and to give the county $500,000 for roads and public safety. In return, they asked for a “vested right” to develop surrounding properties with “California Environmental Quality Act compliance required under the General Plan and zoning designations.”
The move was a way to immunize the property from Measure A.
Had it been approved, the agreement would have maintained the General Plan designation while the Ag Center is still under study and doesn’t yet have an Environmental Impact Report. It would have allowed commercial developments in one of the nodes affected by Measure A. “What the applicant wants is to be able to maintain the existing General Plan designation and existing zoning,” said Arielle Goodspeed, the county’s principal planner.
The supervisors unanimously rejected the appeal, saying they had no prior knowledge of this agreement.
“Staff was also never given authority to negotiate a development agreement of this nature,” said Kosmicki, who also said he rejected the deal as it violates the letter and spirit of Measure A.
Supervisor Angela Curro concurred. “I am adamantly not only against this development agreement but the process that was used to try and bypass Measure A,” she said.
The supervisors unanimously rejected the development agreement.
Next up was Lands of Lee, a 141 single-family-unit project proposed for Fairview Road.
In a special meeting held on Oct. 23, the Planning Commission rejected the project because of the inclusion of 30 accessible dwelling units, which are small houses within the same lot as a single-family unit.
Bill Lee, the project’s developer, appealed, claiming the commission’s decision goes against California’s housing laws. During the meeting, Lee argued that the project is “not subject to Measure A—it’s already designated for residential in the General Plan.”
Zanger and Kosmicki opposed the project, arguing that it would make traffic worse, and called traffic in the county “a public health crisis.”
Ultimately, Lee’s appeal passed in a 3-2 vote.
“We have students that are living in their cars, we have seniors that are on the street,” supervisor Curro said. “This is a great opportunity to have a smaller, more affordable unit that they could then live in.”
Long day kicked off with a surprise
After a tumultuous series of meetings and closed-door discussions, Ray Espinosa, the embattled county administrative officer the county previously said was stepping down, was instead given a promotion.
Espinosa served in this role since 2013 and went on medical leave in May.
The supervisors unanimously approved appointing him as the county’s senior executive advisor. Espinosa’s role will be to assist the supervisors and aid in the hiring process of a new county administrative officer. He will hold this transitional position until April 2026, when he has said he will retire.
Supervisor Bea Gonzalez said Espinosa’s process has been “laborious,” “agonizing,” and “frustrating.”
“If it were up to me, and I could decide how this contract is or how this position is going to be terminated, I would say that we terminate immediately, pay out the contract amount, and then just be done with it,” she said.
Gonzalez argued that the county had no other “feasible” option and that this was the “best” they could do. She said she couldn’t give details, as Espinosa’s situation was discussed during closed sessions.
The board then discussed a homeless encampment cleanup policy the county is in the process of creating which was first discussed at its Oct. 15 meeting. The policy is still under review. The board discussed with the county staff its costs; how encampments on private property would be handled; how community-based organizations will be involved; and whether a new position is going to be created to oversee the process.
Supervisor Mindy Sotelo suggested that oversight might fall into Espinosa’s new role.
We need your help. Support local, nonprofit news! BenitoLink is a nonprofit news website that reports on San Benito County. Our team is committed to this community and providing essential, accurate information to our fellow residents. Producing local news is expensive, and community support keeps the news flowing. Please consider supporting BenitoLink, San Benito County’s public service nonprofit news.
The post County supervisors tackle key issues in marathon session appeared first on BenitoLink.