Tale of two plans
Opponents vie over growth proposals

Monterey County Herald
Posted on May 13, 2007

By JIM JOHNSON
Herald Salinas Bureau

Between them, the two sides in the general plan debate have raised well over $1 million for the campaign about what policies will guide growth in
Monterey County for the next quarter century. The result has been a mass of campaign signs, political mailers and unending TV ads that accuse opponents of everything from threatening the future of county residents by denying them housing and basic services, to backroom deal making that will result in massive development and sprawl. Both sides are utterly convinced they're right. On one side is Plan for the People, which includes Common Ground Monterey County, agribusinessmen, developers and social advocates who support the pro-growth, supervisor-approved general plan update known as GPU4. On the other side is the Community General Plan Committee, including LandWatch Monterey County, and environmental and neighborhood activists who back the slow-growth general plan initiative known as GPI. In the end, voters must look beneath the haze of rhetoric and hyperbole for the essence of the debate to decide how to vote June 5. Voters will face four questions, three of which are general plan related: Measure A asks voters to approve or reject GPI. Measure B asks voters to adopt or reject GPU4. Measure C asks voters to repeal or uphold the supervisors' adoption of GPU4.

Measure D asks voters to approve or reject the supervisor-approved
Rancho San Juan-area Butterfly Village project. The general  plan-related measure receiving the most votes above 50 percent will take effect. If none does, the 1982 general plan remains in place. The creation of a general plan, perhaps more than any other political issue in recent history, has created a deep rift in Monterey County — and created strange new political
allies. The side that supports Measure A is a coalition of environmental groups from throughout the county, the League of Women Voters and elected
officials. The side that opposes Measure A and promotes the county-endorsed plan includes agribusiness and real estate interests, community advocates who support low-income housing and labor union officials. The coalitions were established years ago as county officials tried and failed to create a new and improved general plan to replace a plan that has been the working policy document for growth since 1982. The general plan is a blueprint for growth and development in rural areas for the next 20 years. During the past seven years, the Board of Supervisors spent approximately $7 million and rejected three proposed general plans written by county officials and debated by the community. The long period of time has heightened a sense of entrenchment, to the point that compromise doesn't seem an option. Opponents of Measure A call the Community General Plan too constricting. They say the General Plan Update approved by supervisors will create new housing projects in rural areas — projects that will create affordable homes for low-income Monterey County residents. "It's far too rigid and it's overreaching, and it doesn't match the community's needs," Common Ground Monterey County director Tom Carvey said. "If this goes through, it locks us in for a generation." Common Ground was created several years ago by farm and labor groups as an umbrella land-use organization to counteract LandWatch Monterey County, which was established in the 1990s. Common Ground's roster of support over
the years includes groups as diverse as the Monterey County Farm Bureau, the Monterey County Cattlemen's Association, the Salinas Valley Builders Exchange, the Carpenters Union, the Monterey County Association of Realtors and the Center for Community Advocacy, a Salinas organization that promotes low-income housing. A group representing chambers of commerce from
throughout the county announced its opposition to Measure A last week. The "No on A" campaign finds support from among the most visible Latino leaders in Monterey County, mostly from the Salinas Valley. They say the Community General Plan would thwart construction of new homes affordable to farmworkers and to employees in the hospitality industry. "We have a beautiful area in Monterey County and we all want to preserve it," said Supervisor Simon Salinas, "but I have a lot of constituents who come to me and want jobs and housing. We're losing a lot of good people who could be contributing to Monterey County."

As of two weeks ago, the coalition had raised about $640,000 in its "No on A" campaign. The largest contribution has been $150,000 from the California
Association of Realtors. Supporters of Measure A have raised at least $500,000 in the fight they believe will stop "sprawl" in Monterey County. They
say the county-approved general plan would allow development to gobble up precious agricultural acreage and replace it with subdivisions while slowly killing the county's $3 billion-per-year agricultural industry. They claim that too much spread-out development would result, putting stress on county resources, such as an already shaky water supply, and public services, such as law enforcement, fire and ambulance. Traffic congestion would increase, they believe. "The initiative does a much better job of managing growth," LandWatch Monterey County director Chris Fitz said. "GPU4 doesn't pay the bills." Fitz and others argue that new development should be concentrated in existing cities, where services already exist. The "Yes on A" campaign finds among its supporters many environmental and community activist groups, ranging from chapters of the League of United Latin American Citizens to the Highway 68 Coalition. Officials from both chapters of the League of Women Voters in Monterey County analyzed the General Plan Update and the Community General Plan, then issued its support for Measure A. The group has strong roots on the Monterey Peninsula and in North Monterey County — and is banking on a sense that voters in Monterey County do not trust the Board of Supervisors. Under provisions of the Community General Plan included in Measure A, about 10,600 new homes could be built in Monterey County through the year 2030, including 2,440 affordable homes. The
General Plan Update proposal contained in Measures B and C would allow 21,500 new housing units during that period, including 3,380 affordable homes. The issue will come to a head in about three weeks, when voters
in the county will finally weigh in. Until then, both sides will be pitching their arguments. The Community General Plan, says Farm Bureau executive Bob
Perkins, "is a very one-sided view of things. Instead of promoting the industry, it's about preventing any kind of change that some people regard as negative."

Supervisor Dave Potter, who has long been the lone vote against the county's general plan, said that big-money influences have had their way on local
land-use decisions for too long. "People have really come to the point where they're saying we can't go on like this," said Potter. Jim Johnson can be
reached at 753-6753 or jjohnson@montereyherald.com.