Last week, Monterey County voters made some major land use decisions through the initiative and referendum process. Tomorrow and Wednesday, I’m going to talk a little bit about the results of the June 5th election.

Today, though, I thought I’d remind listeners of another major land use initiative in Monterey County. I’m referring to Measure A, approved by County voters in the year 2000. This was an initiative measure drawn up by attorneys for the Pebble Beach Company, and then qualified for the ballot by paid signature-gatherers, and then heavily advertised by the Company as a way to “save” the Del Monte Forest. Clint Eastwood, in particular, who has an ownership interest in the company, was prominently figured in television ads, touting the Measure A initiative.

Measure A passed by a decisive margin. However, Measure A did not become law because it purported to make changes to the County’s rules governing development in the Coastal Zone. The State Coastal Act, as a state law, trumps local laws, however enacted, either by local elected officials or by the people. In fact, the Pebble Beach Company is now proposing to cut down about 18,000 Monterey Pine trees, using Measure A as the justification, to allow the Company to expand its golf and resort business. The State Coastal Commission will make the decision, and they’re going to do that at a meeting to be held in Santa Rosa, this coming Wednesday.

For KUSP, this is Gary Patton.

More Information

California Coastal Commission Website
http://www.coastal.ca.gov/

Agenda for June 13, 2007 Coastal Commission meeting in Santa Rosa
http://www.coastal.ca.gov/mtgcurr.html

Coastal Commission Live Webcast
http://www.cal-span.org/State_Webcast/
CCC/stream_index.htm

Coastal Commission Staff Report on Del Monte Forest
http://documents.coastal.ca.gov/
reports/2007/6/W13b-6-2007.pdf

Coastwatcher Website
http://www.coastwatcher.com/

Pebble Beach Company Website
http://www.pebblebeach.com/page.asp?id=863

Last week, Monterey County voters confronted four different ballot measures in a special election. Today, I want to focus on who “won” the election. As to Rancho San Juan, the largest development project ever proposed in Monterey County, it’s clear that the citizen opponents “won” and the developer and the Board of Supervisors “lost.” The overwhelming “no” vote on Measure D resulted in the second successful referendum of the Rancho San Juan project.

As to the General Plan debate, neither side “won.” The voters rejected Measure A, the Community General Plan Initiative. They also rejected the Board’s version of the General Plan (GPU4), by voting “no” on Measure C, which was a referendum measure placed on the ballot by citizen action.

Today, in a closed “litigation” session (which is where the Board does most of its important business, it seems), the Board of Supervisors will discuss whether or not to claim that the Board actually “won” the election, despite the successful referendum of GPU4.

Measure B, an advisory measure placed on the ballot by the Board itself, asked the question, “Should GPU4 be repealed?” County Counsel has said that by their “no” vote on Measure B, the voters not only indicated that they didn’t want to “repeal” GPU4, they affirmatively approved it. This basically says that the official referendum vote against GPU4 has no validity, and that that vote can be ignored.

For KUSP, this is Gary Patton.

More Information

Official county analysis of the measures on the June 5th ballot – http://montereycountyelections.us/
a_measures.htm

Preliminary election results
http://montereycountyelections.us/
Election%20Result.htm

On Tuesday, June 5th, Monterey County held a special election focused on land use policy.

Measure A was the “Community General Plan Initiative.” It failed, with 56% of the voters voting “no.” Measure B was placed on the ballot by the Board of Supervisors, asking if GPU4 should be “repealed.” That measure also failed, with 53% of the voters voting “no.” Measure C was a referendum measure, placed on the ballot by citizen action. A “yes” vote was a vote to support the Board of Supervisor’s General Plan. A “no” vote was a vote against the Supervisors’ General Plan. 55% of the voters voted “no.”

Those are the facts about the Monterey County election. Here is an opinion. The supporters of the “Community General Plan” should acknowledge that their proposal was disapproved. Similarly, the Board of Supervisors should admit that their General Plan was disapproved. Both “sides” can declare “victory,” by noting that the plans they opposed were rejected. A new round of citizen work through the normal governmental process could then take place, to adopt an updated General Plan.

If the Board claims that the successful referendum of GPU4 can be ignored, they will precipitate more litigation, and more sentiment that the Board will do just about anything to avoid being told what to do by the people they supposedly represent.

For KUSP, this is Gary Patton.

More Information

Official county analysis of the measures on the June 5th ballot
http://montereycountyelections.us/
a_measures.htm

Preliminary election results
http://montereycountyelections.us/
Election%20Result.htm

Since I’m up in Sacramento during the week, I frequently find myself reading the Sacramento Bee. This is truly a worthwhile newspaper to put on your list if you’re interested in government and politics.

On Saturday, June 2nd, the Bee ran an editorial that addressed a Santa Cruz County issue, and that gave me a kind of “home town” shiver of delight. “Big Basin could – and should – grow larger” was the headline.

In case you haven’t heard, the Peninsula Open Space Trust and the Sempervirens Fund have recently purchased the historic Little Basin property near Boulder Creek. The property is about 535 acres in size, and is studded with redwood trees. In a joint arrangement, the two nonprofit land trusts have acquired the property for $4 million from the Hewlett-Packard Company, which had previously used the land for private employee recreation.

So why does that local “good news” appear in an editorial in the Sacramento Bee? It appears there because state action is necessary to include this property in Big Basin State Park. POST and the Sempervirens Fund stepped in to protect the property, and to secure it for long-term conservation, but they don’t want to manage it directly. The State Parks Department should do that. Governor Schwarzenegger has previously expressed some reservations about increasing the size of State Parks. If you agree with the Sacramento Bee, you should let the Governor know your views.

For KUSP, this is Gary Patton.

More Information

Sacramento Bee Website
http://www.sacbee.com/

Sacramento Bee Editorial on Big Basin
http://www.sacbee.com/editorials/
story/202755.html

Sempervirens Fund
http://www.sempervirens.org/

Peninsula Open Space Trust (POST)
http://www.openspacetrust.org/

POST press release on Little Basin purchase
http://www.openspacetrust.org/
pressrelease07-06.htm

A Santa Cruz institution that has helped generations of local residents better understand the natural environment in which they live is the Santa Cruz Museum of Natural History, currently located at 1305 East Cliff Drive in Santa Cruz (and hopefully soon to relocate to the Depot Park area, near the Santa Cruz main beach). A visit to the Museum’s website shows lots of activities and exhibits aimed at kids. But there are programs here for the older set, too!

From June 16th to July 1st, the Museum will present a show by local photographer Maggie MacDonald, entitled “Resident Wilds: An Expose of Neary Lagoon.” A Members Only Preview will be held on Friday June 15th from 7:00 to 9:00 p.m., and if you’re not already a member, this might be a good excuse to join!

What I particularly appreciate about this show is its celebration of how we can, if we choose to do so, build and develop our communities in a way that will make them compatible with the “wild,” non-human species that we ordinarily just push out and displace as we grow. Through Maggie MacDonald’s breath-taking images, you will learn about Neary Lagoon’s complex ecosystem, located immediately adjacent to a densely populated urban development, and gain insights into the resources and respite it provides to wildlife and people alike.

For KUSP, this is Gary Patton.

More Information

Santa Cruz Museum of Natural History Website
http://www.santacruzmuseums.org/

The latest Museum newsletter, describing the show
http://www.santacruzmuseums.org/whatsnew/
newsletter/SCMNH-NL_Apr07_Webrev.pdf