Lea este artículo en español aquí.
After forming six years ago, San Juan Bautista’s Urban Growth Boundary Committee completed its work on Oct. 17 by approving an amendment to the 2035 General Plan, which will now go to the city Planning Commission.
In two votes, the committee members designated three sets of parcels for possible development within or adjoining the city.
Two of the sections are within the recently set planning areas contiguous to the city limits and intended to slow the city’s expansion. The third section is outside the city limits and would need to be annexed, subject to the approval of San Benito County’s Local Agency Formation Commission.
“Instead of sprawling out onto agriculture and hillsides,” Planning Commissioner Dan Devries told BenitoLink, “our focus is on development within our boundaries first, in light of the Regional Housing Needs Allocation [RHNA] numbers that are handed to us by Sacramento.”
The state requires cities to show they have enough property to build the housing units needed to meet the RHNA quota set by the San Benito County Council of Governments for the 2023-2031 cycle. San Juan’s allotment is at least 88 units.
The RHNA itself does not force approval of any projects, but serves as a framework for filling the state’s requirements.
DeVries said, “The RHNA is the state saying, ‘You have to provide for this number of housing units over the next number of years—how are you going to do it?’ With infill, we have a reasonable expectation of being able to meet those obligations in the near term, and even long-term.”
The committee was formed in 2020 to evaluate growth limits. In 2023, the San Juan Bautista City Council adopted the committee’s recommendation of three measures:
- The urban growth boundary, a line drawn around a city to separate urban development from natural, rural or agricultural areas.
- The sphere of influence, an indicator of the city’s future boundaries. The adopted sphere of influence follows the city limits, removing 130 acres of land from the previous one and reducing potential development areas.
- The planning area, property of concern extending beyond the city limits
In 2024, the city began working with EMC Planning Group on an infill-targeted amendment. A year later, the city entered into a memorandum of understanding with San Benito County to create a joint planning process for development proposals outside of the city.
At the last committee meeting, on Oct. 27, the committee held a study session to provide final direction on proposed residential densities and possible building sites, resulting in the proposed amendment.
Kylie Pope of EMC Planning Group presented the committee with an evaluation of the three sites targeted for infill. The “opportunity sites” include:
Area 1: Fifteen parcels within the property stretching from Second Street down Franklin Street to Fourth Street and bounded by The Alameda and Pierce Streets. Pope said the proposed amendment would increase permitted residential density from 16 housing units per acre up to 20 to 28 units.
“For this area, the question is less about changing what’s allowed and more about whether the General Plan should affirmatively encourage redevelopment of these sites,” Pope said.
Area 2: Three parcels along Muckelemi Street near the western gateway to the city, already under consideration for the new Health Foundation Clinic.
“The General Plan policy would essentially formalize and reinforce a direction that it seems the city is already seeing happen on the ground in terms of development projects,” Pope said.
Area 3: Four parcels immediately south of San Juan Bautista, across from the Copperleaf development and outside of the city limits. These are targets for long-term growth rather than near-term infill.
“The parcels are strategically located at the southern approach to the city and could potentially help establish a more defined southern gateway,” Pope said. “If the city wanted to plan for its future development, the council would first need to include them in the sphere of influence.”
During the committee’s discussion of the proposed amendment, DeVries and Councilmember Chris Martorana pointed out that industrial and business park land in Area 3 had been on the market for decades without developing, suggesting that removing acreage from the sphere of influence was not suppressing growth.
Jim Dassel, who owns land directly south of the city not included in the Area 3 designation, spoke during public comment, saying that because it was not within the city’s consideration, it left it subject to the county’s Measure A restrictions, which would require a public vote in order to develop it.
“It would take quite a procedure to get entitlements to do that from the Measure A situation,” Dassel said. “It’d be a process. Would it be doable? Yeah, I think it’d be doable, but it would be lengthy, costly, and frustrating.”
In a written statement, resident Ken Ottobani had a similar view regarding his property, also located south of the city.
“This location could facilitate a mix and range of housing types that would allow the city to meet current state mandates, as well as anticipated future population growth in a fashion that respects the history of the city without disturbing existing established neighborhoods.”
The committee took no action to include either Dassel’s or Ottobani’s properties in the final proposed amendment.
Speaking to BenitoLink after the meeting, DeVries said, “I’ve listened to plans like that for 30 years, and I do not think that it is the will of the community to double the size of San Juan by creating a new city to the south.”
An unusual circumstance forced the committee to split the proposed amendment into two votes. The first recommended encouraging coordinated mixed-use and visitor-serving commercial uses for Area 2 and excluding Area 3 from any sphere-of-influence change.
DeVries, along with committee members Martorana and Jackie Morris Lopez, voted in favor. Committee member E.J. Sabathia was opposed.
The committee held a second vote on Area 1 separately to avoid a conflict of interest for Martorana, who owns a lot within its boundaries. Martorana abstained, and the other three council members voted in favor.
DeVries said after the meeting, “A lot of people say these measures are anti-growth, or that we are going to kill this town economically. We’re not. We’re just keeping bad development out, which gives us an unprecedented ability to discern and to allow only the best.”
Urban Growth Committee Meeting on YouTube
Meeting agenda packet with powerpoint presentation
Related articles
San Juan Bautista weighing growth parameters
San Juan Bautista holds five public meetings to discuss growth
Initial SJB sphere of influence maps appear to minimize public input in favor of housing
San Juan Bautista asks for input into planned developments outside city limits
San Juan Bautista City Council sends growth measure to supervisors
Draft of understanding between San Juan Bautista and the County forwarded for approval
SJB growth agreement now in place
We need your help. Support local, nonprofit news! BenitoLink is a nonprofit news website covering San Benito County. Our team is committed to this community and to 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.