Dueling campaigns' final drive
Voters to decide on unincorporated county's growth for next quarter century

Posted June 3, 2007

By JIM JOHNSON
Herald Salinas Bureau

Down the home stretch, they come. Two days away from one of the most important elections in Monterey County history, the competing campaigns in the general plan debate are feverishly arranging news conferences
and blitzing local media with ads in preparation for Tuesday's showdown. Voters are charged with deciding the future of growth in the unincorporated parts of the county for the next quarter century, likely influencing the way growth occurs in the county's cities. Four questions form the ballot, three of
which apply to the general plan debate. Measure A asks voters if they want to approve the citizen-authored general plan initiative, known as GPI. Measure B asks voters if they want to repeal the supervisor-approved general plan update, known as GPU4. Measure C asks voters if they want to approve
GPU4. Measure D asks voters if they want to approve the Rancho San Juan-area Butterfly Village project and is not directly related to the general plan questions.

Whichever of the first three measures gets the most "yes" votes wins, according to the County Counsel's Office, with one exception. Here is how the
exception would work: Measure A, the GPI approval, gets more "yes" votes than "no" votes. Measure C, the GPU4 approval, fails. But Measure B, the GPU4 repeal, gets more "no" votes than Measure A gets "yes" votes, meaning the approval of GPI would be trumped by the failure of the GPU4 repeal, said Deputy County Counsel Lee Blankenship.

That would leave GPU4 in effect, in keeping with its approval by supervisors in January, which would preclude adoption of GPI. If all three measures get
more "no" votes than "yes" votes, the supervisors' adoption of GPU4 remains in effect because the repeal effort failed, Blankenship said. He said that this
analysis will likely be subject to court review.  Competing visions| At the the heart of the debate are competing visions for growth — GPI and GPU4. GPI
seeks to amend the county's 1982 general plan, specifically its land-use and housing elements, while every other part of the plan remains in effect. Any
changes to the initiative's guidelines must be approved by a public vote. GPU4 represents a full update of the county's 1982 general plan and addresses
a range of issues, including land use, housing, agriculture, traffic, economic development, water and public safety, among others. Any part of the plan
could be changed by supervisors. The crux of the debate is about how and where development will occur in the county's rural and semi-rural areas. Despite a range of analyses on how much growth would be allowed
under either plan, both sides tend to agree that GPU4 is more permissive of growth than GPI, which includes more restrictions on future growth. GPU4 allows growth, including housing and commercial development, in more areas than the initiative, and the initiative sets stricter policies on providing infrastructure before development can occur. GPU4 allows growth to
occur, under certain conditions, in seven "community areas," nine "rural centers" and other areas around the county, and allows the "phased" addition of infrastructure. GPI allows growth in five "community areas" and none in "rural centers" or other areas. It requires the addition of infrastructure "prior to or concurrent with" development. GPU4 requires a "long-term" water supply, while the initiative requires a "permanent" water supply. Both allow
development on existing lots of record. Supporters insist the kind of growth outlined in GPU4 is necessary to accommodate population increases during
the next quarter century. They say the initiative is too rigid about where development can occur. They say valuable housing projects, such as CHISPA's San Lucas subdivision and Don Chapin's Rogge Commons subdivision
near Salinas, would be prohibited under the initiative. Allowing semirural communities to develop will create jobs and pump more money into
county coffers to pay for basic public services such as law enforcement, fire and ambulance, GPU4 backers say. They point to an economic study that indicates the initiative would effectively "down-zone" property in the county and trim tax revenue for services.

Initiative backers maintain that most of the needed growth should occur in the county's cities, as well as a few rural and semirural areas in unincorporated
areas that can absorb more development. They say GPU4 would allow "sprawl" to creep over the county's landscape, dooming the county's $3 billion a year
agricultural industry by developing farmland and crowding farmers. They claim that too much spread-out development will further stress county resources,
including an already shaky water supply, will increase traffic congestion and stretch public services. They point to subdivisions, such as Las Palmas off River Road, and planned projects, such as Rancho San Juan north of Salinas, as examples of development that would be precluded by the initiative. They say growth in or near cities makes more sense because it is near
existing services.

Maintaining farmlands

GPI supporters say an economic study indicates that every new house built on former agricultural land results in a net loss of revenue and a loss of funding for basic county services. They say the only way to preserve the farm industry is to ensure that farmland won't be developed. GPU4 backers point to their surveys that show agribusiness is less concerned about the loss of farmland than the availability of its work force, from managers to harvesters. They say placing artificial barriers on development of much-needed housing would
have a major impact on recruiting and keeping employees. GPU4 includes an Agriculture Element and an Agriculture and Winery Corridor plan, both designed to promote the agricultural industry by making it easier for new ag-related facilities, wineries and visitor-serving businesses to be built. GPI backers say many of the proposed uses in GPU4 — tasting rooms, bed and breakfasts, restaurants and delicatessens — are inappropriate for prime ag land and rural areas.

An environmental impact report prepared for GPU4 identified a series of "significant unavoidable impacts," such as degradation of water supply and
quality, loss of important farmland, and road quality, among others. Development under GPU4 is expected to result in more daily car trips from unincorporated areas. The impacts were addressed in the environmental
report, but a "statement of overriding considerations" said the growth that would cause them is needed to meet county population projections. Initiative
supporters contend those kinds of impacts shouldn't be allowed. They say adequate growth can be allowed in areas where those impacts will be eliminated or significantly lessened. A key point in the debate is a voting requirement in the initiative. If Measure A passes, all general plan amendments for development would require a countywide vote. Opponents say that would impinge on private property rights by unfairly stifling development, while supporters say voters should have the final say on major projects that would affect the county. GPU4 backers call the initiative
a blatant attempt to circumvent the public process and representative democracy, denying local control over land use by allowing voters in all parts of the county to decide how individual communities grow.

Areas excluded

Opponents of the vote provision object to the fact that voters from the Monterey Peninsula and North County would have a say in how the Salinas
Valley grows. Many are galled by the fact that the initiative, like GPU4, excludes the Big Sur, Carmel and Del Monte Forest coastal areas from its land-use policies. They say the process of submitting most projects to a lengthy public vetting, including a final decision by elected county supervisors, is the most equitable way to make land-use decisions.

Despite initiative supporters' contentions that those areas were left out because they aren't subject to "intensive growth pressures," opponents maintain the voting provision seems one-sided. Initiative backers
argue that development outside designated growth areas would affect everyone in the county and all voters should be allowed to decide their fate. GPI supporters say the land-use process is broken, and supervisors
can no longer be trusted to act in the public's interests. They say the board has a history of approving massive projects with insufficient water and
access to services. GPU4 supporters say initiative proponents showed their colors by abandoning the general plan process in midstream and writing their
own plan with little public input. Initiative backers counter that county supervisors demonstrated their bias by abruptly dumping a third draft of the
general plan, GPU3, that had more public input than GPU4, which they say kowtows to developers and business interests. While initiative opponents say
only the richest developers could afford a countywide vote and smaller projects would be eliminated, GPI backers say county supervisors can order a vote on any project they deem important enough to warrant voter
permission. Agribusiness people worry that the initiative would require a public vote before they could build processing plants or other projects to remain competitive in rapidly changing markets. They also dislike the notion that they would be unable to parcel out their land to family members to build their
own homes and start their own businesses. The contention that agribusiness people are just waiting to convert their farmland to subdivisions is an
insult, GPU4 supporters say. That's all a smoke screen, according to initiative backers. They point to provisions in the initiative that would allow new
ag-related facilities and homes on ranches and farms, as long as the projects don't require a subdivision into parcels of less than 40 acres. Many initiative
opponents contend the measure's "ambiguity" will lead  to lengthy court cases, even if it does pass. But initiative backers say all general plans have some
ambiguity, and the GPI is no different than other land-use documents.

Jim Johnson can be reached at 753-6753 or jjohnson@montereyherald.com.

---------------------------------

Tuesday's ballot Four measures will appear on the ballot Tuesday, three of which are general plan-related:

• Measure A: Asks voters to approve or reject the citizen-authored general plan initiative, known as GPI.
• Measure B: Asks voters to repeal or uphold the supervisor-approved general plan update, known as GPU4.
• Measure C: Asks voters to approve or reject GPU4.
• Measure D: Asks voters to approve or reject the Rancho San Juan-area Butterfly Village project.