Lea este articulo en español aqui.
BenitoLink, as part of its commitment to serve the San Benito County community, is identifying false or misleading claims and providing context to statements made in local political fliers ahead of and during this year’s elections. Flyers that show no clear author, that BenitoLink receives complaints on or present blatantly questionable facts are eligible for a Fact Check review.
In this second fact-checking article, we examine a flier titled “20,000 More Houses,” looking into which statements are correct, false, misleading or taken out of context.Some of the statements are variations of claims we have previously documented as false in our “Where Did Our Money Go” fact-check article. BenitoLink has not found evidence the two fliers are connected. Similar claims have been grouped together to avoid repetition.
As a point of reference, according to the U.S. Census Bureau, there were 21,437 housing units in San Benito County in 2022.
The “20,000 More Houses” flier includes accusations against Hollister Mayor Mia Casey, Hollister City Councilmembers Dolores Morales, Rick Perez and Tim Burns and Hollister Planning Commissioner Carol Lenoir.
The flier was distributed by The Hollister Enchilada, which also has a private Facebook page that bills itself as “Serving the Whole Truth to Hollister, San Juan Bautista, and San Benito County.” The page states that it’s administered by former Hollister mayor Ignacio Velazquez, who lost his bid for reelection in 2022 to Casey and is currently running for Supervisor District 5. The flier also uses an address to a building Velazquez owns at 501 San Benito Street in Hollister.
The flier uses photographs without permission of Perez and Lenoir taken by BenitoLink reporter John Chadwell.
Claim: “Red lines indicate areas that Mayor Mia Casey wants changed from Farmland to Residential Developments.”
The record: As documented in “Where Did Our Money Go,” the areas outlined in red indicate proposed changes to Hollister’s sphere of influence, which is a planning tool that, according to the California Association Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO), exists to “ensure the provision of efficient services while discouraging urban sprawl and the premature conversion of agricultural and open space lands.”
Designating land as being within the sphere of influence does not change the zoning in any way. Zoning changes in the unincorporated areas are decided by the San Benito County Board of Supervisors, not by the city of Hollister.
There is a difference between zoning in general plans and existing zoning. The zoning in general plans, which are required by state law, plans for the next 20 to 30 years and establishes the basis for long-term plans for services and infrastructure. Zoning also refers to what the jurisdiction finds acceptable to be built in a particular area in the future. That area would still require the property to go through the process of rezoning, which establishes specific standards and regulations.
If the property in question is annexed into the city, which requires LAFCO approval, then the city may consider rezoning it with consent from the property owner, or if the property owner submits an application to rezone.
Conclusion: The claim is false. While the county identifies the properties as agricultural productive, the city does not have the power to rezone county property to allow residential developments.
Claim: “When asked about the Farmland in Buena Vista [Planning Commissioner Carol Lenoir said] ‘It’s a waste of land right there.’”
“As [Lenoir] talked about needing more houses to be built around Buena Vista Road, she said, ‘Show me something better than ag land right there.’”
The record: At the Hollister Planning Commission meeting on Aug. 10, 2023, there was discussion on the proposed rezoning of a small open space on Buena Vista Road bordered on two sides by housing, which is outside the identified zones in the flier.
BenitoLink has reproduced two zoning maps from the San Benito County GIS Open Data Portal to illustrate the area. In the city zoning map, the blue overlay indicates that the area is within the city and designated as “medium-density residential.” In the county zoning map, the blue overlay indicates that the land surrounding the area is county land and is designated as “agricultural productive.”
The quote in the flier followed Lenoir pointing out that electric, gas and water lines already had been laid on that property in expectation of future development. “Those lands were always slated as residential,” she said during her remarks at the meeting. “I’m not telling you to develop it right away and Joe Tonascia is here to tell you sometimes farming doesn’t mix with residential.”
She went on to say that the council should listen to the property owners who, according to her, had made it clear that they do not want it to be ag land.
She continued, “If you’re the planners, show me something better than the ag land right there where all the services are and then I’ll consider it. I’m not a planning consultant. I just know that this is a waste of land right here. The city can’t just give it all away like that.”
Lenoir then said the city would have to consider properties like the one on Buena Vista if it was to meet the Regional Housing Allocation set by the state of California. She said it was important for the city to “take control of our outskirts or quit crying about the county building in our outskirts.”
At the Nov. 16, 2023, Planning Commission meeting, Lenoir spoke about the flier, disputing the accusations and describing the land in question as “fallow ag land.” She said, “The property owners and the farmers were insisting they could not farm there. There is too much environmental impact when they are trying to abut residential. That did not come from me. That came from folks in the audience.”
The other areas identified in the map reproduced in the ad and their zoning are:
- East of Fairview Road and a part west of Fairview Road: includes rural, Fairview Corners-Specific Plan, Santana Ranch-Specific Plan and rural residential
- Union Road area near Hwy 25: rural residential
- San Juan Hollister Road: agricultural productive
Conclusion: The claims are misleading. Though they quote Lenoir’s remarks, they ignore the context and the existing designation of the specific Buena Vista area within the city limits as being for housing, with some of the necessary infrastructure needed for housing already in place.
Three related claims: “The council, led by Mayor Mia Casey and Vice Mayor Dolores Morales and supported by Councilman Rick Perez and Councilman Tim Burns have voted to spend nearly $500,000 to change the Hollister General Plan to allow more houses to be built.”
“The council finally agreed to expand the Sphere of Influence to allow 2,000 acres of County Farmland to become residential developments.”
“Only Councilman Rolan Resendiz objected to the changes and pointed out that major problems would result, with thousands of additional houses being built.”
The record: As documented in “Where Did Our Money Go,” $762,822 was approved for modifications of the Hollister General Plan. According to the seven-page scope of work memo from the Sept. 11, 2023, City Council meeting, the changes made to the plan include a revised climate action plan, revised transportation modeling and a final environmental impact report as well as changing the boundaries of the city’s sphere of influence.
Changes to Hollister’s sphere of influence would not give the city the power to rezone the land or approve housing in that area. The area would remain under the control of the county Board of Supervisors, which would make any decisions about land use.
Conclusion: The claim is false. The city lacks the authority to allow construction on county property. While it is true that Resendiz objected to the changes to the sphere of influence, his claim that it would directly lead to more housing is false.
Claim: “At an earlier meeting in August, Councilman Resendiz was silenced by Mayor Mia Casey after he pointed out the conflict of interest that Mayor Mia Casey and Vice Mayor Dolores Morales had after they both benefited from tens of thousands of dollars of Political Action Committee (PAC) money from development interests during their campaigns.”
The record: Resendiz has repeatedly stated Casey accepted money from developers, including telling BenitoLink that she and Dolores Morales “are funded by Anderson Homes,” as quoted in a May 5, 2023, article which fact-checked those claims. Casey says while donations from developers were made to her campaign, the funds were not used and were returned as soon as their source was identified. She reported $21,704.87 in contributions, with the majority coming from professionals, unions, and individuals. BenitoLink could not find any PAC reporting contributions in support of Casey’s campaign.
Morales accepted $1,749 directly from developers but not the “tens of thousands of dollars” Resendiz claims. Here is a breakdown of those contributions:
- Bill Lee: $250 (2021)
- Michelle Lee: $250 (2021)
- Michelle Lee: $250 (2022)
- The Anderson Family: combined $499 (2022)
- Victor Gomez: $250 (2021)
- Anietra Gomez: $250 (2021)
Donations also came from trade unions and private individuals. Hollister City Council candidates are limited up to $250 per donor per year.
PACs are allowed to participate in campaigns, and The Million More Voters raised $6,000 in 2022 to support Morales’ campaign. However, candidates have no power or control over statements made by PACs. It’s illegal for a candidate or their campaign to coordinate with PACs in any way.
According to Resendiz’s financial contribution forms, he received $99 from developer Victor Gomez.
Conclusion: The claim against Casey is false. While money was donated by developers, she returned it. There was also no report of a PAC raising money in support of her campaign.
The claim against Morales is partly true. She did take money from developers but far less than what was claimed. A PAC did raise money to support her campaign, but it is prohibited from coordinating with the candidate in any way.
Claim: “The mayor quickly moved to have Mr. Resendiz censured in an effort to silence him.”
The record: Resendiz was censured at the October 16, 2023, council meeting for, among other things, engaging in “disrespectful, discourteous and inappropriate” behavior and “breaching the council’s trust by making unsupported allegations.” The resolution specified that the censure was not a punishment for speech and was intended to distance the council and the city from Resendiz’s remarks.
Resendiz was first censured by the previous City Council on Jan. 21, 2020, for a “gender-based slur and for suggesting there was a sexual and promiscuous relationship between [three] council members.” He also received a written reprimand on May 15, 2023, for “repeated violations of the city’s code of ethics and conduct.”
According to the parliamentary definition, censure is “an assembly’s expression of displeasure concerning the conduct of either a member or of an officer.” It’s a formal reprimand that does not carry any other action with it. Following his censure, Resendiz continues to have the right to speak during meetings and to vote on resolutions.
Conclusion: The claim is false. Censure is a form of reprimand and does not mean Resendiz was “silenced.”
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. It is expensive to produce local news and community support is what keeps the news flowing. Please consider supporting BenitoLink, San Benito County’s public service, nonprofit news.
