Lea este artículo en español aquí.
After reading a recent BenitoLink article about city delays which have prevented 72-year-old Maria Torres from returning to her home five years after a fire damaged it, Planning Commissioner Peter Hernandez contacted our office for more details.
Our paths crossed again soon after. Following BenitoLink’s interview with Sandra and Keith Schwehr, the owners of Little Tree Montessori School, Hernandez spoke with them directly about the challenges they faced in obtaining their permanent occupancy permit.
Hernandez spoke with BenitoLink on Feb. 17 about his views on the Schwehrs and their school, the barriers he’s observed in dealing with Hollister’s building department, and the reforms he has proposed to the Planning Commission, which he anticipates the City Council will soon address.
BenitoLink: What were your impressions after your visit to the Montessori School?
Peter Hernandez: I was really saddened because it’s such a permeating sentiment throughout the county. People are already dealing with small-town issues, like not having the benefits or resources that big cities have. People are really suffering and trying to find solutions to that suffering.
Regarding the school specifically, it was sad because there didn’t seem to be a way out. Every time they thought there was light at the end of the tunnel, the planning department came up with new requirements. Ultimately, it’s crushing them, and that is the consistency I see throughout all the issues in the county. Even though the planning department is a city entity, that sentiment is created because of the leadership of that department.
What do you think about the continuing obstacles they face?
I think it’s either incompetence or a common theme, almost with the intention of shutting businesses down. Their goal does not seem to be facilitating a process, which is the typical duty of an administrative entity. In reality, it seems like they are trying to shut people down. I don’t understand why.
It makes zero sense. There definitely seems to be almost a retaliatory sentiment throughout this bureaucratic process because every time the Schwehrs solve a problem—they don’t run away from it, they solve it—the department comes back with three more. They might even dismiss the first issue, but they layer three more on top of it. It’s just a compounding issue.
What did you think of the Feb. 2 City Council meeting where a roomful of contractors came to voice their complaints?
It’s evidence of cause and effect. The effect is that many people are frustrated and upset. A lot of people are pointing out this gentleman, [building official] Gabriel Martinez, and they are all saying the same thing, which is profound. If these were one-offs, they would be inconsistent, but there is a lot of consistency pointing to certain individuals.
I have heard so many times, “You fix one issue and three more pop up at the end of the line.” The city doesn’t explain things by saying, “Here are the requirements; fulfill these, and we’ll give you a permit.” That is the typical scenario in any county, but it is not the case in the city of Hollister.
What do you see as the problem?
The planning department just gives you hypotheticals, and they don’t really give you much in the way of answers. You have to use the general mailbox and communicate only via email. You can’t even have personal conversations with planners who are supposed to know the code. This wastes a ton of time, and in the private sector, you face deadlines and financial constraints. You are literally destroying businesses by not providing clarity or estimations. That is destructive and needs to change immediately.
There needs to be a principled shift in attitude, with efficiency fundamental to their process. You need expected timelines and actual response times.
What are your biggest concerns?
We need to give applicants more power to appeal the process if there is abuse. This is about a system of checks and balances. The City Council is the administrator of the legislative process, but whoever is in charge must give clarity. If there is a bad actor in the administrative process, the applicant should be able to bring that issue forward early so we can do a deep dive and cut off problems before these businesses go away.
When you spoke at the Feb. 2 City Council meeting, you mentioned wanting to make the Planning Commission play a more significant role in the process. How?
After discussing it with City Council members, I decided to first make recommendations to our bylaws so that our authority is declarative.
One recommendation was that we should be able to make policy recommendations. Staff kept saying we didn’t have the authority to change policy, and I had to clarify that I’m not asking the commission to change policy, but to make recommendations for the City Council to consider.
Once we cemented the bylaws, the next recommendations regarding the administrative process became clear, based on three principles: efficiency, accountability, and transparency. One example is a required response time of three to five days. If there is no response within two weeks, that should be an automatic appeal. Applicants need something concrete, not hypotheticals. I’ve personally gone a month without hearing from people regarding my own permitting process.
I also asked for a descriptive organizational flowchart so we know who is in charge and who is accountable if something falls through the cracks.
What were the specific proposals you made at the meeting?
“Know your rights” information is one of them. Applicants should be aware of this appeals process. I do not agree with an appeal only being triggered by a denial; that puts the power in the administrative body’s hands when it should be in the people’s hands.
I also proposed a zero-fee preliminary review process. This came from an issue in which the city charged a $1,500 preliminary review fee to an applicant, while the planning director, Eva Kelly, told us that the review is hypothetical and has no “teeth.” It was described as paying for their time to “brainstorm.” We are taxed for a reason; these things should be paid for. We keep hearing about “cost recovery,” but without accountability, it becomes an incentive to keep punishing people with fees every time they add an extra requirement.
We need to compare today’s fee structure and collections to the period before 4Leaf Services was involved. I suspect this issue wasn’t as big before them. I don’t think a private organization belongs in a public setting managing a process that should be about administration, not private-sector profitability.
Finally, the required documentation must be provided throughout the process. Currently, they take $1,500 for “brainstorming” and record nothing. The applicant feels vested because they’ve paid, but there’s no record of the guidance provided. If the department changes its mind later, the applicant has wasted money based on undocumented conversations.
How were your suggestions received by the rest of the Planning Commission?
They were unanimously approved. I have also spoken with the mayor and Councilman Resendiz. They’ve agreed, and these points will be part of the public conversation at the upcoming joint meeting [scheduled for March 12].
What are you looking forward to at the meeting?
Solutions. We need concrete solutions and policy changes. I recommend that any decisions be placed on the next agenda as a draft policy change to give the public time to weigh in. Bottom line: in the next three to four months, there needs to be obvious differences in how the process is run.
Are you formally introducing those proposals to the City Council?
I will. These points will guide the conversation. This isn’t personal toward individuals in the administration, but it is personal regarding the community. I don’t have a bone to pick with the staff; I think they are being put in a position where they are set to fail without even realizing it. They’ve set an infrastructure for failure that they can’t rebuild themselves because they aren’t the legislative authority.
I believe this can be resolved through the leadership of the City Council and public pressure. This is the people’s business, and they should be running the show. We are there to do our due diligence in respect of their authority.
I asked if they were having these issues because they were understaffed, and I just got a blank stare. If they won’t say much, we’ll do the deep dive for them. Bottom line: we need to get rid of [contracted planning consultants] 4Leaf, set a strong review process, and anchor that department to results-driven requirements in their job descriptions.
There needs to be more respect for the applicant. Economic development success runs through that planning department, and if we can’t fix it, our city is sunk. We are already dealing with financial issues and budget deficits at the state level. We need to get ahead of this and solve our own problems.
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.