[{"_1":2,"_123":-5,"_124":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75,87,99,111],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6279195,"mediaKeyId","2625328-f5e798ef409d027bfa3e20da8af2d693","parentId",2625328,"title","Board approves routine business and several delegations; notable votes include a 3‑2 split on committee term limits","audioSeconds",312,"startMs",1102000,"endMs",1414000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2625328-f5e798ef409d027bfa3e20da8af2d693&start=1102&end=1414","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2625328-f5e798ef409d027bfa3e20da8af2d693/thumbnail_1102000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6279195/San-Benito-County/California/Board-approves-routine-business-and-several-delegations-notable-votes-include-a-32-split-on-committee-term-limits","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6279195-de594a6c4ce69eb8d0e9ca8f732362bf/orig.mp4?Expires=1771189520&Signature=WHemP-ERGdZckfAVMak18aCWWwEYySGf7ddH3l8z-zPFBxGpf8r4vwPafF9Oop391foNg8Pt~ZN6H~yKYp8RoGgNZKuruo8qWIBKqPI3-oN5ZtqZcY9XKXuexc02iE7RfRYfYTLxfbOsG7bgzCK7LnKsnNid-OXsFltKxoLUwlOcl0LYbWFB9vF0zQbfdodDbJBiAa4fCuJKv2oXSB76pIF91vfJrBS4lIOh~ZIQfWZDZYhNASHLvjB8IGvqgdNiBgjB-J2NVGv2EoffiKRIxYP~ESEHbDeZibfltWrPagT8C4~dFpG3cjdRtpQe0ebkUo6y07isAWb2IJbiXxie~g__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","San Benito County, CA","date","2025-03-11T00:00:00Z","article","The Board addressed routine agenda business and multiple motions tied to appointments, letters and ad hocs during the March 11 meeting. Highlights and recorded outcomes follow.

- Consent agenda and pulled consent items: The board approved the consent agenda with several items pulled for discussion. Specific pulled items were discussed and either further considered or approved after comment.

- Item 1.2 (rescind fixed terms for board committees and commission assignments): After discussion, the board approved a motion to rescind fixed multi‑year terms for supervisor committee assignments and confirmed appointments would be at the will of the board. The motion passed on a 3‑2 vote; supervisors Sotelo and Curl were recorded as opposed.

- Item 1.3 (appoint supervisor to agricultural element stakeholder planning group): The board approved an appointment swapping the nomination to appoint a supervisor to the county agricultural element stakeholder planning group; the motion was moved and seconded and passed (recorded as approved during the meeting record).

- Item 1.4 and 1.6 (letters to federal/state representatives): The board approved drafting and delegating authority to finalize letters to Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren and state legislators to request FEMA and federal assistance and to add two bridge projects to congressional request letters; the board passed motions delegating authority and authorization to the chair to sign these letters (unanimous on both items).

- Item 1.7 (creation of FY 25‑26 budget ad hoc): The board created a fiscal year 2025‑26 budget ad hoc committee and assigned supervisors to the committee; the motion passed unanimously.

- Other: The board approved a request to move forward with various appointments and committee updates; staff were directed to circulate draft letters to supervisors when timing windows required quick submittal.

Where votes were explicitly recorded, the board used roll calls; in the case of Item 1.2 the board recorded a 3‑2 vote (opposed: Supervisors Sotelo and Curl). Several other items passed unanimously by voice vote; staff were directed to follow up where timing or additional details (e.g., project cost numbers) were needed.

This article summarizes procedural board business; on agenda items with policy or program implications staff will return with more detailed items and timelines as directed by the board.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","San Benito County Board of Supervisors March 11, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","During its March 11 meeting the San Benito County Board of Supervisors approved routine consent items, delegated authority for several federal/state request letters, created a budget ad hoc and recorded a 3‑2 vote to rescind fixed terms for committee appointments.","taxTitle","San Benito County, California","taxId",26838,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6279201,"Board accepts 2024 Housing Element annual progress report, staff to submit state filings by April 1",799,11677000,12476000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2625328-f5e798ef409d027bfa3e20da8af2d693&start=11677&end=12476","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2625328-f5e798ef409d027bfa3e20da8af2d693/thumbnail_11677000.jpg","/articles/6279201/San-Benito-County/California/Board-accepts-2024-Housing-Element-annual-progress-report-staff-to-submit-state-filings-by-April-1","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6279201-7fe9b5b627a2c9c892a12a1341dea8be/orig.mp4?Expires=1771189520&Signature=PoC5yTGFGFbkTgArwgjBjFzK5uzHFIQ0k13U6iJFNmDdzB9uEGzjA81xI0gx-FdmyFG~BWoe-Hs2yyj8xQdVEGS7pu4qDYgLDSrTw-KUtKt~o0Kzv7pwJbl5bu97a70jgaMRYuUbuhQuOZqYoHYQrUeAulKkAid7cpc7j-GhUGUZgWqJPFhVeP1kr-ieJkXxVE-BoVpVg3NLAFTVg0iFl345hoJ-cA4q~3TCXeAERJHlNMtKTI7b6h3Q6a94yrfJzztTc0ECQCtbq4X2uQu5xFz9VU9IKeE9ChZnvT8Ii8uUMQG9SK1TnPPpQOFPiTEUnGK0OR8r6qeL9R7XFg7l-A__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The San Benito County Board of Supervisors accepted the county’s 2024 Housing Element Annual Progress Report (APR) on March 11 and directed staff to file the report with the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research and the California Department of Housing and Community Development by the April 1 deadline.

Associate Planner Stephanie Recht reviewed the purpose of the housing element and APR: the APR documents municipal progress toward Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) goals, tracks permits issued and outlines barriers to development. The county’s sixth‑cycle RHNA allocation for unincorporated San Benito County is 754 units (246 very low, 98 low, 103 moderate and 207 above‑moderate). HCD also requires tracking of extremely low‑income units (treated as half the very‑low total in default accounting).

Recht told the board the sixth cycle began on July 1, 2023, and that annual reporting shows the county has exceeded the above‑moderate allotment for the cycle (211 above‑moderate units issued to date) while leaving unmet needs in the lower income categories: 235 remaining very‑low, 98 low and 103 moderate units as of the report. The county also reported 11 extremely low‑income units permitted in 2024 at a migrant housing center.

Board members asked questions about infrastructure constraints (water, wastewater and roads) and how those constraints affect the county’s ability to site and permit housing. Planning staff noted that some candidate sites are in city spheres of influence or city islands and that utilities and annexation issues (including LAFCO processes) are common constraints the county documents in its housing work.

The board voted 5‑0 to accept the 2024 APR and to direct staff to submit the required documents to OPR and HCD by April 1.","The San Benito County Board of Supervisors accepted the county’s 2024 Housing Element Annual Progress Report on March 11 and directed staff to file it with OPR and HCD by April 1.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6279208,"Board weighs wide-ranging zoning rewrite; asks staff to tighten rules on cannabis, charging stations, animal buffers and shooting ranges",2248,2296000,4544000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2625328-f5e798ef409d027bfa3e20da8af2d693&start=2296&end=4544","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2625328-f5e798ef409d027bfa3e20da8af2d693/thumbnail_2296000.jpg","/articles/6279208/San-Benito-County/California/Board-weighs-wide-ranging-zoning-rewrite-asks-staff-to-tighten-rules-on-cannabis-charging-stations-animal-buffers-and-shooting-ranges","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6279208-1a9e322642ae7fedb96ac9da8560438d/orig.mp4?Expires=1771189520&Signature=SiNerOs~jh5h~HAlCkdSS0mwDG~iOPt60yDEaGXNThL3HERULAvMUmjdnOAdO3Qwj3zi3hxiDqaZ1JGDAEo93yU~MRdBDO62mf2zc6hUPKdGwdXhLDmwzYP-77OptWAlEUXL4AOydkP~HUCOezn8yJiTVHgmEnQ8UlGDag4Oe6aVP1snfVnNM5PMW8VEsWV4N-nrfzYGZGSyc7nkCiXuZJHV~2Awipwxo1pObTqcfHX0P0MmORn5ej02aXaTYeDn8UGr2GdlX2p1VrINnKNAWjGWXkyEfM7AE4ThsMt9Xx8CT-heZRoXQXM2l8aDewH9thJcS371dEKNrhl6vPGjUA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The San Benito County Board of Supervisors held a public hearing March 11 on proposed, comprehensive amendments to Title 25 of the county zoning code and directed staff to return with several targeted changes and clarifications.

Planning staff summarized the package as a deletion and restatement of multiple zoning chapters to reflect recent policy changes and state law updates. Planner Abraham Prado told the board the package broadened public notice from 300 feet to 1,000 feet in many cases to \"go above and beyond what's required in government code,\" clarified administrative procedures, and updated a wide range of use tables and standards for specific uses, including accessory dwelling units (ADUs), kennels, short‑term rentals, and indoor shooting ranges.

The hearing generated detailed comments and questions from supervisors, members of the public and industry stakeholders. Key topics the board asked staff to refine before a second reading included:

- Agricultural buffers and ag‑land mitigation: Supervisors and farm stakeholders urged stronger protections for prime farmland and recommended the county consider raising mitigation ratios above the draft 1:1 standard for conversions. Staff said the ag element and a stakeholder planning group will reexamine definitions of \"prime\" soils and options for mitigation; the board asked staff to bring interim zoning changes where feasible to limit subdivisions while the ag element proceeds.

- Waiting period for reapplications: Staff noted the draft included a 1‑year waiting period for reapplying on a denied application; after discussion the board agreed to consider changing that to 2 years and to add language preventing trivial edits from being used to circumvent a denial.

- Cannabis permitting and security: With new cannabis applications arriving, staff and supervisors asked for explicit fencing, security and parking standards for cannabis facilities in agricultural zones; the board directed staff to return with proposed language.

- EV charging stations: Planning staff had proposed treating charging stations as a conditional use requiring Planning Commission review. Supervisors asked staff to propose a higher threshold (for example, a small number of chargers) that could be permitted without a full conditional‑use process to avoid unnecessary delays for small businesses.

- Shooting ranges: The draft added indoor shooting ranges to some commercial and industrial zones and added facility standards. Supervisors asked staff to revisit provisions for proximity to residences, enforcement options for violations and impacts on existing ranges.

- Animal‑keeping and right‑to‑farm matters: Several supervisors and public speakers said new residences near existing farms have created conflicts (for example, organic certification impacts). The board directed staff to prioritize amendments to Title 13 (animal‑keeping) and to coordinate those changes with the agricultural element work.

The board did not adopt the rewritten code at this meeting. Staff advised that some changes could be moved forward more quickly via zoning code amendments while larger ag element work continued; supervisors asked staff to present a timeline and to solicit input from the farm stakeholder planning group and the Farm Bureau. Planning staff also agreed to provide potential language to avoid gaming of reapplication time limits and to circulate proposed edits to the board before the next hearing.

Public commenters included farmers, members of the Farm Bureau and residents urging more protection for farmland and clarity on residential standards near agricultural operations. Several supervisors said they wanted follow‑up meetings or special hearings to speed changes on priority items such as the animal‑keeping code, cannabis security and EV charging thresholds.

The board set a second reading date for the larger Title 25 package (staff had proposed March 25) but instructed staff to return with the narrower, higher‑priority amendments sooner if possible.","The San Benito County Board of Supervisors held a public hearing March 11 on proposed, comprehensive amendments to Title 25 of the county zoning code and directed staff to return with several targeted changes and clarifications.",{"_33":100,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":101,"_41":102,"_43":103,"_45":104,"_47":105,"_49":106,"_51":107,"_53":108,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":109,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":110,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6279213,"Residents and supervisors press county for stronger oversight of Hazel Hawkins Hospital",372,336000,708000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2625328-f5e798ef409d027bfa3e20da8af2d693&start=336&end=708","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2625328-f5e798ef409d027bfa3e20da8af2d693/thumbnail_336000.jpg","/articles/6279213/San-Benito-County/California/Residents-and-supervisors-press-county-for-stronger-oversight-of-Hazel-Hawkins-Hospital","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6279213-6152ef83a6cc76d15f9340c8aed2dfcc/orig.mp4?Expires=1771189520&Signature=GAKkKojk9kldRvVYqQoTlh~UQqz8-9bXZXlsBbuotr-DIx9bqhhQNEewnNiBwVLeO-rvczYNbrUBkjNnccw23DPhiuRKyP~yImyNRl02JVdY6UWlCd~1op5rYkrMwdOR-ubV8XX7esD85Ya18Yy5fhoOz-vPUzzVPjiBfCXQ41U53bE6cE~xeOZy5-rkgz4K1CL-dequz1s2VsGLnNCT4Qt3OZp0cJgVJtfjtXvszcvWM7p4~H3rvua95rQCMN7fPCXsTCmuJhdE-jkCfUIGplV1R8CQ~rzsoJZy08X2cx9lGxM79efSpaQzT~N4Sh3lu0yiS4uaeHCbm~fSPihgMw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Public commenters urged the San Benito County Board of Supervisors on March 11 to step up oversight of Hazel Hawkins Hospital after concerns about recent district board decisions and capital spending.

\"Since July of 2021 this hospital has billed and collected $538,000,000 in revenue,\" resident Robert Nowski told the board during public comment, adding he and advocacy groups are preparing a written timeline of how the hospital arrived at its current condition.

The concern centers on recent expenditures and a lack of transparent checks on the hospital district board. Nowski said the hospital district moved to spend roughly $8,300,000 on capital improvements that, in his view, were not reflected in fair market valuations discussed at a January district meeting. Another public commenter urged supervisors to use their seats on LAFCO — the Local Agency Formation Commission — to push for a municipal services review of the hospital district and to treat the facility as countywide infrastructure.

Supervisor discussion and public remarks focused on what tools the county has: LAFCO authority to initiate municipal services reviews; requests to state legislators; and the option of seeking additional reporting from the hospital or the district. One public commenter asked the board to prioritize getting the hospital on a LAFCO municipal service review to make internal operations transparent to countywide taxpayers.

Board members did not take formal action on the hospital during this meeting, but members acknowledged the issue and reiterated the need for staff to pursue avenues for information. A number of supervisors signaled willingness to press the hospital district and LAFCO for reviews and to coordinate with state legislative offices. No binding county control over the hospital district was created at the meeting.

The speakers who raised concerns said they will continue to provide written materials to the board and pursue legislative outreach. The board did not adopt any new ordinances or motions specifically changing the hospital’s governance at this meeting.

Looking ahead, public commenters asked supervisors to: press the hospital district for regular, itemized financial reports; use LAFCO to request a municipal services review of the Hazel Hawkins Hospital District; and pursue meetings with state legislative staff about policy options. Supervisors said staff would follow up and that the topic would remain on the board’s radar.

No formal vote or binding directive specific to Hazel Hawkins Hospital was recorded in the minutes for March 11; the matter remains a subject of continuing public comment and staff follow up.","Public commenters and supervisors urged the Board of Supervisors to press for greater transparency and LAFCO review of Hazel Hawkins Hospital’s finances and recent board decisions, citing a reported $538 million in hospital revenue since mid‑2021 and disputed capital spending.",{"_33":112,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":113,"_41":114,"_43":115,"_45":116,"_47":117,"_49":118,"_51":119,"_53":120,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":121,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":122,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6279204,"County chooses top‑ranked architect and directs phased contract negotiations for old courthouse design",3507,5118000,8625000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2625328-f5e798ef409d027bfa3e20da8af2d693&start=5118&end=8625","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2625328-f5e798ef409d027bfa3e20da8af2d693/thumbnail_5118000.jpg","/articles/6279204/San-Benito-County/California/County-chooses-topranked-architect-and-directs-phased-contract-negotiations-for-old-courthouse-design","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6279204-3442c4fe437d07acd18e3f69c619ed85/orig.mp4?Expires=1771189520&Signature=FzGpng-2GIMxAUiArhX68KrVmwIJZYOONQO578wCAGM6C-fdZhWwiZgZIrnUA7f~F-nPLj8NxYmKK8rH~YRpgFA1dk6MQMf5ZROGmI9bBtQD4iCMQk18Ed1EMrFynvfhDxD91v-bB9zOpDgLQdg3L442Ro1yKivdTOkTS8t6W-RdP4D8RUjo~pfnbJzUqTPkQNyT3zBey8~gFR2ONsuWMIRNfh7b90pWOZwM1AQRYQz7ACXYb73HU1PR6UzLdJvIoLDJJ0h0pwRWq5gUnZBs7dVnVRaCSy6Cbaufx50AprlgU4G59iIv1hsz5r-s~lClBd2zUCa4WpVTC1b7hQqHFQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","San Benito County staff told supervisors on March 11 that they received nine proposals in response to an RFP for interior and exterior design of the county’s old courthouse and recommended negotiation with the top‑ranked team. The board authorized staff to negotiate a phased scope of work with the top‑ranked firm and to return the recommended contract to the board for approval.

Public Works Administrator Steve Luke described the procurement process and results: the county released an RFP in November 2024 and posted it through OpenGov; 105 entities downloaded the notice, about 20–25 downloaded the full RFP and nine firms submitted proposals. \"We received 9 very, very good proposals,\" Luke said. He also explained that points were included in the evaluation for firms that attended an optional pre‑proposal site walk and that seven of the nine teams attended the scheduled walk.

Staff presented ranked scores and fee proposals. The top‑ranked team (Anderson Brulé Architects, ABA) scored highest in the evaluation and proposed a design fee the county described as roughly $924,000; the second‑ranked firm (Christina Perez Architects) proposed roughly $803,000. Staff said both proposed schedules were similar, with the top firms estimating roughly eight to nine months to complete construction documents.

After public comment from both competing applicants and a representative of the Friends of the San Benito County Free Library, the board discussed process fairness and cost uncertainty. Several supervisors asked for more flexible contracting and for staff to pursue a phased approach given that the county has not yet received final insurance reimbursement figures and that asbestos remediation and other restoration work have only recently been completed. The CAO and staff confirmed asbestos remediation had already occurred and that the county held a $1,800,000 set‑aside; staff said the restoration/remediation billing totaled approximately $1,284,000.

To keep the project moving while limiting fiscal risk, the board voted 5‑0 to direct staff to negotiate a phased contract with the top‑ranked firm that would allow preliminary, investigatory, and seismic evaluation work to proceed first and that would return later with a recommended overall contract amount and schedule. The board also asked staff to seek a narrow cost range estimate that would map design fee percentages to several construction‑cost scenarios (for example, lower and higher budget assumptions) so the board could compare design fees to likely construction outcomes.

Board members also requested staff to pursue a second mandatory site walk or more robust notice procedures in future procurements to avoid disputes about optional site walk credit. Several supervisors said they expected staff to return to the board at a near term meeting with a phased contract authorization and a clearer picture of the insurance reimbursement and construction budget.","After receiving nine proposals, staff presented rankings for an RFP to design the old courthouse remodel; the board directed staff to negotiate a phased contract with the top‑ranked firm and include seismic/phase‑1 work, voting 5‑0 to proceed.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Board approves routine business and several delegations; notable votes include a 3‑2 split on committee term limits

Board accepts 2024 Housing Element annual progress report, staff to submit state filings by April 1

Board weighs wide-ranging zoning rewrite; asks staff to tighten rules on cannabis, charging stations, animal buffers and shooting ranges

Residents and supervisors press county for stronger oversight of Hazel Hawkins Hospital

County chooses top‑ranked architect and directs phased contract negotiations for old courthouse design