"Listen Live"

Listeners have heard a lot about community efforts in Monterey County to achieve General Plan policies that will protect the long term vitality of Monterey County agriculture, while opening up new affordable housing opportunities, and protecting the County’s spectacular natural resources.

In case you just tuned in, a General Plan Update is underway. The Board of Supervisors has spent something like seven years and seven million dollars, and has not yet produced a final document. Admittedly, they may be getting close. In 2004, the Board responded to the protests of developer attorneys and threw out a General Plan Update document that was unanimously recommended by the Planning Commission. That Plan had cost six years of effort, and six million dollars, as of that date. The Plan the Board is now proposing is much more sympathetic to opening up natural resource lands, agricultural lands, and other rural lands for the kind of sprawl development that makes lots of money for developers, but that leaves the public with higher taxes, more traffic congestion, and a dwindling quality of life.

In summary, there is a “big debate” in Monterey County about land use. If you’re a Monterey County resident, and haven’t gotten involved, it’s probably still not too late. But you shouldn’t hesitate much longer. As Bob Dylan might say, “it’s not dark yet; but it’s getting there.” I’ll have a bit more on this gloomy thought tomorrow.

For KUSP, this is Gary Patton.

More Information

The LandWatch Monterey County website remains the best way to get a quick feel for what’s going on with land use in Monterey County – http://www.landwatch.org.

The “big debate” on land use in Monterey County is centered on whether rural, natural resource, and agricultural lands should be open for subdivision and subsequent development, or whether new growth should be channeled into existing urban areas. That’s the heart of the dispute. Everyone agrees that Monterey County needs to accommodate reasonably expected growth, and should maximize affordable housing opportunities, and that those people who own rural properties should be able to build a house on their existing lot. The issue is where new subdivisions should go. Should they go in the rural areas, where the developers make the most money, and the public costs are highest, or should they go in the existing urban areas, where the public costs are lower, and the public benefits are higher, but where the developers make less of a windfall profit. Make no mistake, paving over rural and agricultural lands is good for developers. It raises their land value by about ten times. The difference between what the Board of Supervisors is proposing and what the Community General Plan group is proposing is about $3 billion dollars in windfall profits for the developers. That’s the driving force for Monterey County’s “big debate.”

The Community General Plan (now contained in an initiative measure that may or may not reach the ballot) would focus new growth in non-rural areas. Tomorrow, I’ll tell you something about the court case that may well decide the fate of Monterey County land use.

For KUSP, this is Gary Patton.

More Information

The LandWatch Monterey County website remains the best way to get a quick feel for what’s going on with land use in Monterey County
http://www.landwatch.org.

Persons interested in reading the decision of Judge Ware, keeping the Community General Plan Initiative off the ballot, should contact LandWatch, and request a PDF copy of the decision. Contact Chris Fitz at .

The “Community General Plan Initiative” was circulated by Monterey County residents who had reached the end of their patience with the Board of Supervisors. After the Board acted in 2004 to reject the draft General Plan Update unanimously approved by the Planning Commission (that General Plan Update having taken six years and six million dollars to produce) and voted simply to “start over,” as requested by developer representatives, many community members who had been participating in the County’s process decided they had to “do it themselves.” A consortium of eighteen local groups, including the League of Women Voters of the Monterey Peninsula, drafted a complete and legally-sufficient “Community General Plan,” and submitted that to the Board. When that was ignored, they circulated an initiative petition, to let the voters decide. They got many more signatures on the petition than were needed to qualify the initiative for the ballot, and normally the voters would now have a chance to vote on what sort of land use future they want in Monterey County.

However, the voters may not get that chance. A Federal Judge has decided that the whole initiative effort should be scrapped, because the initiative should have been circulated in both English and Spanish. No case has ever held this before, and if that decision stands, it will be impossible, as a practical matter, for the public to use the initiative process to set land use policy.*

Check the KUSP website for more information.

For KUSP, this is Gary Patton.

More Information

The LandWatch Monterey County website remains the best way to get a quick feel for what’s going on with land use in Monterey County
http://www.landwatch.org.

Persons interested in reading the decision of Judge Ware, keeping the Community General Plan Initiative off the ballot, should contact LandWatch, and request a PDF copy of the decision. Contact Chris Fitz at .

*There is no direct “precedent” for what Judge Ware decided, and his mix-up of the dates he cites in his opinion seems to show that he didn’t really understand what happened in this particular case. More fundamentally, however, the nature of an initiative measure is to propose a new “law,” and a “law” has to be clear and certain to be valid and enforceable. Spanish and English are different languages, and while you can closely approximate the meaning of a statement in English, for example, by the Spanish translation, it is technically impossible to provide a direct “equivalence” between the two languages. Thus, if two or more versions of what purports to be the same “law” are circulated in an initiative petition (and in some jurisdictions there would need to be five or more translations, to carry out the effect of Judge Ware’s decision) it would not only be virtually impossible to carry around the petition physically to get signatures, there would then be a fundamental question, if the initiative were adopted, of which “version” of the “law” prevails. The decision of Judge Ware, as a practical matter, means that the Constitutional power of the initiative would be eliminated, in the case of complex land use policy matters. In other words, if the voters wanted to “do it themselves,” which is what the initiative power is supposed to be all about, they really wouldn’t be able to accomplish that. The only way to correct bad decisions by the Board of Supervisors would be to “recall” all the Board Members who had voted wrong. It’s hard to overstate the importance of the legal issues now being decided in connection with the Monterey County Community General Plan initiative.

Monterey County is not the only County where members of the community are trying to “do it themselves,” with respect to land use policy. In Santa Clara County, a group called PLAN, “People For Land and Nature,” is circulating an initiative measure to revise the Santa Clara County General Plan. The initiative would provide greater protection for hillsides, ranchlands, and agricultural lands, by prohibiting inappropriate industrial and commercial development in rural areas.

For listeners who would like to follow land use issues in Santa Clara County, I have another announcement, too. This evening, beginning at 6:00 and continuing to 8:30, the City of San Jose will be holding a community meeting on the proposed Coyote Valley Specific Plan. The Coyote Valley looks like rural and agricultural land, and driving by on Highway 101, you might well think that the Coyote Valley is part of what’s left of “rural” Santa Clara County. However, the Coyote Valley is actually located within the City of San Jose, so the San Jose City Council, not the Board of Supervisors, and not the PLAN initiative, will determine the fate of this critically important place.

The meeting tonight is at the Cypress Senior Center, 403 South Cypress Avenue. You are definitely invited!

For KUSP, this is Gary Patton.

More Information

PLAN Website
http://openspace2006.org/index.html

For information from the City on Coyote Valley
http://www.sanjoseca.gov/coyotevalley/

I’m starting to make it a tradition to inform Land Use Report listeners about interesting opportunities to get out into the environment themselves. Today, I want to alert you to several opportunities for “Wildflower Walks.” I’m giving you some advance notice, so you can mark your calendar, assemble your family members and friends, and actually make use of this information.

On Sunday April 2nd, two days from now, Bill Doyle is going to lead a trip to public lands on the former Fort Ord, to see liverworts and hornworts. This trip will teach you about a Lilliputian world of rare beauty and interest. Be sure to bring a hand lens, lunch, water, and sun and wind protection. Meet at 10:00 a.m. at the Fort Ord Thrift Shop (formerly the Visitor Center) just inside Fort Ord’s main gate on Lightfighter Drive.

On April 7th, which is next Friday, a week from today, there will be another Fort Ord hike, this one led by CSUMB student volunteers.

On Saturday, April 8th, join local resident and trip leader Al Washburn and botanist Bruce Delgado as they lead a group exploration of Garzas Creek, in the Carmel Valley area. The trip leaves at 8:45 a.m., sharp, from Brinton’s Hardware store, and will return at 3:00 p.m. or later.

For KUSP, this is Gary Patton.

More Information

For information on the April 2nd trip, contact Bill Doyle at 831-479-1073.

For information on the April 7th trip, contact Kasey Boyer at .

For information on the April 8th trip, contact Al Washburn at awashburn8@comcast.net, or at 831-373-4873.

For general information about any of these trips, and future Wildflower Walks, contact Bruce Delgado at bdelgado@mbay.net, or 831-384-1376.