NO, NO, NO AND NO
County's general plan survives Measure B vote; lawsuits possible

Posted June 6, 2007

By JIM JOHNSON
Herald Salinas Bureau

Monterey County voters soundly rejected all three general plan measures on the ballot in Tuesday's special election.

With as many as 15,000 absentee ballots yet to be counted, Measure A, the citizen-written general plan initiative, and Measure C, the supervisor-approved
general plan update referendum, appeared to be going down to defeat.

At the same time, Measure B, which asked voters if they wanted to repeal the supervisors' update known as GPU4, also failed.

According to Deputy County Counsel Lee Blankenship, that means the supervisors' adoption of GPU4 remains in effect, because the repeal option was rejected, despite the fact that voters failed to approve GPU4.

Blankenship previously acknowledged that such an analysis of the election results will likely be subject to court review.

GPU4 is being challenged in court through a lawsuit aimed at its environmental impact report.

Supervisor Jerry Smith said he will ask county counsel for guidance regarding the election results, but added that he was ready to move ahead with GPU4, even without voter approval. Smith spearheaded the final revision of GPU4 and was a major opponent of the general plan initiative.

"I would feel very comfortable moving forward with GPU4. I felt comfortable when we adopted GPU4," Smith said, adding that he believes the update addresses the major issues facing the county, including housing, jobs, economic development and the preservation of agricultural land. "I'm just happy No on A won." LandWatch Monterey County Executive Director Chris
Fitz, a major backer of the initiative, said the failure of Measures A and C should mean the 1982 general plan remains in effect until a new general
plan update is approved that reflects the will of the voters. He said if supervisors try to rely on the failure of Measure B to justify GPU4 it will be a huge blunder — and legally indefensible.

"I think that would be an act of bad faith," Fitz said. "Measure B is meaningless. They put it on the ballot to confuse the voters and they succeeded in doing that. A lot depends on what the supervisors do
(next). Whether we will challenge (the board) or not remains to be seen. This is a time for the board of supervisors to show some real leadership in coming up with a general plan that everyone can agree on."

Paula Lotz, campaign manager for Measure A, said the vote is a "sure sign to the supervisors that people want change" though they rejected the initiative.

The initiative was generally regarded as more restrictive of growth, limiting how and where development could occur in the unincorporated areas of
the county, while GPU4 was considered more growth friendly by allowing development in more areas and including fewer restrictions. GPI required a public vote to change any of its provisions, including where development is allowed, while supervisors can change any part of the updated general plan.

Touted as determining the future of growth in Monterey County during the next quarter century, the election featured a costly campaign, in which the two sides combined to raise nearly $2 million, marked by a month-long media blitz of ads, super-heated rhetoric on both sides, ubiquitous campaign signs and
almost-daily news conferences during the closing rush.

Local agriculture, business and real estate interests lined up behind GPU4, while a group of slow-growth community activists and environmentalists backed the initiative. Major contributors to the campaigns included large agricultural businesses, including wineries and grape growers, real estate associations, and developer interests for GPU4, and environmental
organizations such as LandWatch and the Sierra Club, and slow-growth advocates, for GPI.

Update backers argued that the initiative was too rigid, and would exacerbate the county's lack of affordable housing while crippling its economy by
setting unfair restrictions on the agricultural industry. Initiative supporters claimed that the update was too permissive, and would add to the county's existing water and traffic problems by allowing unchecked "sprawl" development to choke the ag industry.

The update was the result of more than seven years of work by county officials, including several revisions in a process that cost the county more than $7 million. The final version was approved by supervisors in January.

The initiative was created by slow-growth advocates after the supervisors scrapped a previous version of the general plan update in 2004 that was considered more restrictive of development. Initiative backers gathered enough signatures to place their plan on the June 2006 ballot, but the supervisors voted against the electoral bid, claiming the initiative was fatally
flawed.

Initiative backers sued to force the county to place their measure on the ballot, but a federal court ruled the initiative effort was invalid because petitions were not translated into Spanish. The courts later ruled that privately circulated petitions did not have to be translated, and a judge ordered the initiative placed on the ballot.

After the supervisors adopted GPU4 earlier this year, they decided to place the update and the initiative on the June ballot.

Slow-growth advocates responded by circulating a petition to place their own referendum on GPU4 on the ballot in an attempt to keep the update from taking effect until the election. Supervisors placed a moratorium on all new subdivision applications requiring a general plan amendment until after the
election.

The supervisors decided to leave all three general plan-related measures on the ballot, including two that asked voters if they wanted the update.


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