Lea este artículo en español aquí.
Editor’s Note: A proposed land swap involving the San Benito High School District and would trade a larger, district-owned Wright Road property and $1.5 million for a smaller Thomas Orchard property for use as a second high school site. A previous version of this story was inaccurate.
A proposed land swap intended to secure a site for a future second high school was rejected by the San Benito County Planning Commission on Aug. 19. The commission vote was 4–1 with Commissioner Robert Scagliotti casting the lone “no” vote.
The San Benito High School District’s plan involved disposing of its 49.68-acre Wright Road property, purchased two years ago for more than $2 million, and acquiring the 33.58-acre Thomas Orchard parcel on Buena Vista Road, valued at $1.5 million.
According to Karson Klauer, a registered lobbyist acting as the district’s broker and land use advisor, the owners of Thomas Orchard would receive the larger Wright Road parcel and the district would also pay $1.5 million as part of the exchange.
Commissioners expressed no concerns about the district selling the Wright Road property, noting that the land would remain agricultural. Their objection centered on the acquisition of Thomas Orchard, which would require converting agricultural land to school use—an action inconsistent with the county’s General Plan and agricultural zoning.
Legal framework
Deputy County Counsel Rebekah Kira Mojica presented the legal requirements governing school site acquisitions. She said state law requires the district to submit the “location, purpose and extent of proposed acquisition and disposition” to the commission for a report on General Plan conformity.
Mojica noted that even if the commission rejected the plan, the district may overrule that disapproval by a two-thirds vote of the district’s governing board.
Zoning and compatibility
Mojica emphasized that the Thomas Orchard site is designated and zoned agricultural productive, triggering additional requirements under the Education Code.
“Those requirements reinforce the need to examine whether the school use is compatible with the nearby agricultural operations and the surrounding setting,” she said.
Thomas Orchard site
Mojica described the district’s intent to use the entire Buena Vista Road parcel for the new high school. The site is currently designated agricultural and zoned agricultural productive, meaning a high school is neither a permitted nor conditionally permitted use.
“The agricultural land use designation is intended to maintain productivity of ag lands, especially prime farmland,” she said. “The agricultural designation’s purpose is an operative land use standard, not just an aspiration.”
District response
Superintendent Shaun Tennenbaum described the move from one property to the other as “pivoting to an east-west campus configuration supported by the California Department of Education.”
He argued that the Buena Vista Road property is not isolated farmland and described it as a location that would create a “walkable, bikeable neighborhood school.” Tennenbaum said he visited Calaveras Elementary to observe students walking and biking home.
He also noted that wastewater treatment, sewer, water and fiber infrastructure already serve nearby residential development, meaning the school would represent less encroachment on agricultural land.
Tennenbaum said the district evaluated 24 different sites throughout the county, including the Best Road property it has owned since 1997. He added that the district does not have a large student population in South County, meaning most students would need to drive to Best Road. “There is no walkability.”
Klauer estimated that “there’s probably close to 1,000 students within the distance from this [Thomas Orchard] proposed site, with less than 20 students on the Best Road site.”
During deliberations, commissioners disagreed on whether further discussion was useful. Robert Scagliotti pushed for a vote, saying, “We don’t have the authority to overrule their board. People are talking about Best Road and it’s not even on this agenda. I think we need to wrap it up.”
Commissioner Vincent Ringheden disagreed. “They may have the final decision, and they may override us in 30 days on whatever we decide, but our voice still matters. It still needs to be heard.”
Commissioner Robert Gibson agreed with Scagliotti. “They just came here to say they came before us. They’re going to do what they want tomorrow. So, I’m with Robert. Let’s just move on.”
In other news, the commissioners listened to a detailed description of numerous delays in the drafting of an ordinance for the proposed solar installation at the intersection of Hwy 156 and San Felipe Road. Instead of taking action to move the ordinance forward, they opted to form an ad hoc committee consisting of Gibson and Ringheden, and agreed to report on their findings on Oct. 21.
Related BenitoLink article
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.
You must be logged in to post a comment.