An eight-year struggle: The general plan timeline

Monterey County Herald
Posted on May 7, 2007

Comparing the general plans Related Articles

General Plan Explanation

May 6:
General plans, from A to Z
COMPARING THE GENERAL PLANS
Glossary of general plan terms and description of June 5 ballot measures

May 7: 8 years of general plan contention

1999

Monterey County supervisors approve spending $616,000
to start work on new general plan. They approve an "all-inclusive"
community process to develop a plan that officials say could be finished
by early 2001.

2002

January: Already a year behind schedule, officials release first draft of new plan, which calls for development near urban areas and sharply restricts rural growth.

February: Two groups that will end up on opposing sides of the general plan battle — LandWatch and Common Ground — issue joint praise for draft's overall principles.

April: Factions already evident as draft general plan is described as both a "focused-growth" and "no-growth" plan. Opposition group 21st Century Solutions

Road to a general plan (PDF) forms with business, real estate and tourism representatives; calls the draft plan flawed.

November: Supervisors split 3-2 over draft plan. Supporters pack hearing wearing "Stop the Hijack" T-shirts. "We need to stop the arguing," county administrator Sally Reed says.


2003

April: Second draft released, comes under attack from environmentalists who contend it would allow rural sprawl. Nevertheless, slow-growth coalition urges speedy passage.

July: Attempting to soothe growing divisions, supervisors form 30-member Refinement Group in hopes of resolving major points of contention.

September: After failing to agree on anything, the Refinement Group is dissolved on 3-2 vote by supervisors.

Several groups — representing real estate, farming, hospitality, labor, housing and business interests — keep meeting under
Refinement Group name.

November: Four years and $4 million into the general plan update, supervisors approve one section — the
housing element — to avoid loss of state housing assistance.

December: Chris Bunn Jr., a stalwart booster of the agricultural industry's position on the general plan, releases satiric CD blasting slow-growth advocates. One song is called "Two Million Acres and No Place to Build a Home."

2004

March: Third draft released to more criticism from all corners. Gary Patton, then executive director of
LandWatch, says general plan debate is headed for the ballot.

May: The battle peaks. Plan for the People, a pro-development coalition, threatens to sue over the
third draft; supervisors vote 3-2 to scrap it and go back to the drawing board.

June: Supervisors order a fourth draft and disband previous general plan team. Environmental and
community groups begin work on their own plan.

August: Refinement Group wraps up work on its version.

October: Latino community groups allege that "environmental racism" is permeating restrictive-growth arguments over the general plan.

2005

April-July: Supervisors start work on details of fourth draft, laboriously debating everything from big-box stores to county trails system. Critics say the county is headed the wrong direction, but supporters accuse them of walking away from the
debate.

October: Slow-growth groups kick off campaign to qualify General Plan Initiative for a 2006 vote.

November-December: Supervisors complete their first edit of draft plan, now called GPU4, voting 3-2 to lower performance standard of county roads to allow more traffic congestion.

2006

January: Community General Plan Initiative qualifies for election.

February: Latino residents file voting-rights suit to block GPI, alleging lack of Spanish petitions violated
federal law.

Supervisors vote 3-2 to block GPI, saying it is fatally flawed.

March: Supporters of the General Plan Initiative sue county to get measure on ballot.

Final draft of GPU4 is released, after seven years and an estimated cost of $7 million. U.S. District Court
judge rules GPI invalid because of voting-rights violation over lack of Spanish-language materials.

May: County Planning Commission resumes review of GPU4, with one veteran commissioner saying the process
feels like "marrying the same woman three times."

September: Federal appeals court reverses earlier decision, saying federal law doesn't require bilingual materials for
private referendum drives. GPI supporters elated.

November: Supervisors start final round of hearings on GPU4.

2007

January: Supervisors vote 4-1, with Dave Potter dissenting, to approve GPU4. They also vote to put the
county general plan on the ballot with the GPI.

GPI supporters start referendum drive aimed at overturning GPU4.

February: Supervisors order temporary moratorium on major rural subdivisions until after June 5 election.
Ballot will have three measures related to the general plan and one on the Butterfly Village project.

Foes of GPU4 file lawsuit challenging its environmental impact report.

Plan for the People, the group supporting GPU4 and opposing GPI, kicks off its campaign for the June
election.

March: Federal judge orders GPI and Butterfly Village referendum on the ballot.

April: Latino elected officials blast GPI, calling the June election "a fight for our future."

Campaign finance reports show both sides in general plan fight have raised a combined $1.14 million for
the June 5 election.