Last Thursday, I pointed out that the Highway 156 widening project is now estimated at $300 million dollars, and that the “Nexus Study” which TAMC (the Transportation Agency for Monterey County) will use to assess developer fees says that the cost is $102 million dollars less. That seems to indicate that the developers would get a good deal, at the expense of the public, but Debbie Hale, Executive Director of TAMC, says that TAMC is in fact committed to have new development pay its fair share of its impact on the regional transportation system, and that the formula being used would actually “work out” to achieve that result. Look up the transcript of today’s Land Use Report to review her full comments.

The involvement of interested members of the public can help make sure that public project expenditures are indeed fair to all concerned, so I hope you will start paying attention to TAMC. TAMC will be coming back for another request to the public to spend money for roads, and you can help shape the package that will be offered. In Orange County, Measure M passed last week, because it was a truly balanced package of road improvements, support for transit, and open space protection.

A workshop on Highway 156 will be held this Wednesday, November 15th, at North Monterey County High School, 13990 Castroville Boulevard, from 4:00 to 8:00 p.m.

For KUSP, this is Gary Patton.

More Information

TAMC Website
http://www.tamcmonterey.org/

Highway 156 Improvement Website
http://www.tamcmonterey.org/programs/hwyproj/hwy156.html

Public Notice for the November 15th Workshop
http://www.tamcmonterey.org/programs/hwyproj/
pdf/156%20open%20house%20flyer%20English.pdf

TAMC Nexus Study (that sets estimated costs that will determine developer contributions. See Page 9, “List of Projects)
http://www.tamcmonterey.org/programs/
" devimpfee/pdf/finalnexus.pdf

Comments From Debbie Hale, Executive Director of the Transportation Agency for Monterey County, in response to the November 9, 2006 Land Use Report:
Our engineer's response to your comments about the difference between the cost of the SR 156 project in the fee program and the project description is based on the difference between current year costs and year of construction costs.  At the time we prepared our documents, the project cost for SR 156 widening was $198 million in 2003 dollars but was in the range of $250 million in escalated to the year of project cost. We use the current year cost for the fee program and inflate the fees annually to correspond to construction cost increases. This is because when we collect the fee, it will either go towards current year project costs or sit in the bank and earn interest until the project can be built.

That said, we are keenly aware of the need to update project costs in the fee program.  Once it is adopted, it will be updated every 5 years or so as well as annually adjusted for inflation.  As it is not yet adopted, we are now currently in the process of updating prior draft regional fee study to reflect these changes since the model was run in 2003:

• up-to-date project costs (note, since we've done some more recent conceptual engineering we now know that the SR 156 project will be closer to $300 million)
  
  
• up-to-date land use assumptions in newly-adopted local general and specific plans
  
  
• fee zones (as opposed to one countywide fee) to better reflect travel patterns and to keep fees raised closer to the new development that pays for the fees

TAMC is committed to have new development pay its fair share of its impact on the regional transportation system.  We also have some special features we hope to keep in the final fee program such as a 10% credit for projects that can demonstrate that they are transit-oriented (according to specific criteria) and a 2.3% set aside of fee revenues for transit capital projects.  But it has been three years since we conducted the last nexus study and the program has still not been adopted, which has meant three years without a comprehensive fee program.  We hope to roll out a new draft in Spring 2007 and get approval from all the cities and county shortly thereafter.  Getting adoption could still be a challenge. I look forward to PCL and LandWatch's support in that effort--we will need it!

Debbie Hale

At today’s meeting of the Monterey County Board of Supervisors, at 1:30 this afternoon, the Board will take up the September Ranch project, a high profile subdivision that has been a controversy in Carmel Valley for over ten years.

In terms of land use policy, the key decisions almost always involve “subdivisions;” that is, the legal division of one parcel of real estate to make additional parcels that can be independently sold. Before we realized that growth and development could have very significant public impacts, and that the public needed to be involved in the decision making, it was taken for granted that a property owner had a “right” to divide his or her property, and to sell off pieces as he or she might wish. As that “subdivision by right” process proceeded, however, lots of problems began developing. Water supplies were overdrafted; traffic impacts grew; economically valuable agricultural lands were lost, etc. Now, property owners are not granted the “right” to subdivide their property at will. A property owner needs to get “permission” (i.e. a “permit”) be able to subdivide. This means that the public, acting through its representative government, has the final say on the future of the community.

The question for today is whether Carmel Valley (where water and traffic problems abound) should add more residential developments aimed at housing for the wealthiest members of our society.

For KUSP, this is Gary Patton.

More Information

Monterey County Website
http://www.co.monterey.ca.us/

Board of Supervisors Agenda
http://www.co.monterey.ca.us/cttb/agenda111406.htm

From the point of view of someone who believes that public engagement in land use policy is incredibly important, it has been particularly hard to witness efforts by the Monterey County Board of Supervisors to prevent a public vote on important land use matters, when the public has done everything that the law requires to earn the right to have such a public vote.

Specifically, interested citizens have qualified a referendum on the Rancho San Juan project, and they have qualified an initiative measure allowing the public to vote on a “Community General Plan.” In each case, the Monterey County Board of Supervisors has gone to court to prevent the voters from voting. Most recently, the Board has claimed that they are protecting the rights of Spanish-speaking members of the public.

If you’d like to know what is really going on, and to evaluate the situation, I suggest reading a brief filed in the Rancho San Juan case. A link is in the transcript of today’s Land Use Report. The facts stated in the brief make clear that the Monterey County Board of Supervisors has essentially no valid legal argument, and that it is simply using every legal device it can to defeat a democratic review of its decisions. To quote the brief, the Board’s “refusal to acknowledge the validity of the Referendum is a shameful and self-serving abuse of governmental power, denying the citizens of Monterey County one of their most precious constitutional rights.”

For KUSP, this is Gary Patton.

More Information

The “Stop Rancho San Wrong” Website
http://www.stopranchosanjuan.org/

The latest brief
http://www.stopranchosanjuan.org/pages/
news/110706SummaryJudgment.pdf

Another quote from the brief:
The sole question presented in these cross-motions for summary judgment is whether Section 203 of the Voting Rights Act…requires that privately initiated, drafted, and circulated referendum petitions must be translated into languages other than English. In the more than 30 years that have passed since Section 203 was first added to the Voting Rights Act in 1975, no court has ever held that referendum petitions are covered by Section 203, and no city, county, or state anywhere in the country has ever taken the position that a referendum petition must be translated into and printed in foreign languages pursuant to the VRA. Indeed, prior to the Board of Supervisor’s action in this case, Defendant Monterey County itself certified and held elections on dozens of referendum petitions that were printed only in English, without once raising any objections to the validity of those petitions under the VRA.

Most Americans agree that citizen-based decision-making is the essence of what this country is all about. We think ordinary members of the public should get involved in government. The state of California has a particular commitment to direct democracy, since our constitution guarantees the right of the initiative, referendum, and recall. If you listened yesterday, you’ll know that these constitutional provisions aren’t always followed, the Monterey County Board of Supervisors being a pretty obvious case in point. By and large, though, we can feel pretty good about citizen engagement in government, and particularly where land use policy is the issue.

The November 7th election in California put to the electoral test a number of important land use ballot measures. The UCSC growth measures in the City of Santa Cruz come to mind. The defeat of a developer backed initiative in San Benito County, and the success of a developer backed initiative in San Luis Obispo County are other examples. The defeat of a General Plan initiative in Santa Clara County was heartbreaking for those who had been working so hard to preserve its remaining open space. Whichever way the decisions went, the key thing was that the voters got to have their say. They “fought it out,” as they should, at the ballot box. Again, wouldn’t that be a great idea in Monterey County!

For a complete rundown of results from throughout the state, go to the KUSP website.

For KUSP, this is Gary Patton.

More Information

The California Planning & Development Report has published a pretty complete list of local ballot measures, and what happened to them on November 7th. Their headline is, “Slow Growth Forces Have A Big Day.”

CP&DR Website
http://www.cp-dr.com/binn/main.taf

Report on local ballot measures
http://www.cp-dr.com/binn/main.taf?
function=&type=detail&section_id=3301

Lots of local ballot measures affecting land use passed on November 7th. A number of statewide measures will also have mammoth impacts. Specifically, passage of Propositions 1B, 1C, 1D, and 1E, will make a big difference.

By approving the borrowing of about $40 billion dollars, to invest in infrastructure, the people of the state have made clear that they’re willing to invest in growth. The key is going to be just what kind of growth is going to be facilitated and accommodated, and where that growth will go. This is where the bonds are largely silent. There’s money. Plenty of that (though in all fairness, even $40 billion dollars isn’t enough to meet the real needs of the state). There is not any specific plan, however, to spend that money in a way that will stop the destructive sprawling development patterns that have been undermining our economy and ravaging the environment. Will the $40 billion dollars in investment be focused in existing urban areas, making them better places to live, so that we actually start accomplishing the kind of “smart growth” future that planners talk about? Or, will the money go to subsidize new freeways through farmlands, new dikes to support more residential developments in floodplain areas, and transportation choices that increase our already-escalating VMT figures (VMT meaning “Vehicle Miles Traveled”).

It’s going to depend on us. Stayed tuned for future advisories!

For KUSP, this is Gary Patton.

More Information

The text of the various bond issues (and other information) can be found on the website maintained by the California Secretary of State
http://www.ss.ca.gov/elections/elections_j.htm#2006General

I am expecting that the State Legislature is going to address these key questions, starting early next year. The Planning and Conservation League, for whom I work, will be centrally engaged. Send me an email if you’d like to be kept informed! You can contact Gary Patton at gapatton@pcl.org