Measure A backers say county's analysis inaccurate

By JIM JOHNSON
Herald Salinas Bureau

With two weeks to go before the June 5 election, county officials and affordable housing fees were the latest targets in the debate over which general plan will determine how the county grows during the next quarter century.

On Monday, backers of Measure A, the citizen-written general plan initiative, attacked what they called "false and misleading information" about the supervisor-approved general plan update on the county's Web site, and demanded that the supervisors correct it.

Today, meanwhile, local taxpayer advocates were set to announce their contention that the initiative contains a "special tax" in its provisions for affordable housing in-lieu fees and therefore should require a two-thirds voter approval.

Measure A backers pointed to a series of what they described as inaccuracies in the county's analysis, including claims that the analysis low-balled the impact the general plan update will have on traffic, water and infrastructure by misstating how and where growth would occur, the provision of affordable housing and infrastructure and how much development would be allowed, among other issues.

Alana Knaster, deputy director of the county Resource Management Agency — which includes the Planning Department — said the county's analysis of the general plan update was written by agency director Wayne Tanda, planner Carl Holm and herself. "I don't think it was false or misleading, it was factual," Knaster said, saying there are plenty of competing analyses being produced. "We're starting to talk about angels on the head of a pin."
County Counsel Charles McKee said the county's analysis was appropriate and legally defensible.

"I suspect this is an effort to get publicity right before the election and to paint the big, bad county in a bad light," McKee said. "We're always an easy target."

Meanwhile, the Monterey Peninsula Taxpayers Association, led by president Ron Pasquinelli and anti-tax attorney Tim Morgan, is challenging the initiative's affordable housing in-lieu fee provisions.

They argue that the initiative essentially creates a "special tax" by requiring all projects from 1-19 units to pay an in-lieu fee for affordable housing.

Developers of larger projects must build a specified number of affordable units or pay in-lieu fees. Since the county currently only requires projects of at least 3-4 units to pay an in-lieu fee, the initiative's provisions represent a new tax, said Morgan, that would require a two-thirds voter approval.

Chris Fitz, LandWatch executive director, said that the initiative doesn't actually set the fee level and only requires that all home builders contribute to affordable housing in some way.

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