Frequently Asked Questions about the General Plans on the June 2007 Ballot

If you don't find the answers to your questions here, please submit your question to info@sv.ca.lwvnet.org or via our online form.

• The GPU4 people keep saying that the Initiative would prevent the ag industry from developing legitimate ag-related activities, such as packaging plants, packing sheds, etc., and that the kinds of restrictions in the Initiative would actually HURT ag. To what extent is this true?
• What happens if Measure A (the Initiative) and Measure D (Butterfly Village) are both approved by voters? Or conversely, if Measure D loses and Measure C (GPU4) wins? Will Butterfly Village / Rancho San Juan be built?
• I see you've included SLOPES as a category in your comparison, along with important issues such as housing, traffic, and infrastructure. What's the big deal about farming on slopes?
• Has anyone done a detailed rebuttal to the 2/21/06 legal analysis prepared for the Board of Supervisors? Alfred Diaz-Infante makes the statement that the Initiative will mean that the county will not be able to get approval for its Housing Element, which will result in the loss of millions of dollars in state money, etc. I have no idea where he gets that, except perhaps the 2/21/06 report, which indeed makes a very technical legal argument referring to the "adoption and amendment scheme" required by state law for Housing Elements.
• What does the Initiative (Community Plan) require a county-wide vote on? I hear everything from "very little" to "all land use issues".
• I read a letter from a Supervisor's plan (GPU4) supporter claiming that the Initiative is unfair because most of the land covered by the Initiative is not on the Peninsula or Big Sur. Why is this?
• I've heard claims that the Initiative does not allow farmers "flexibility" to carry on with their practices and to adapt to changing markets. Is this true?

The GPU4 people keep saying that the Initiative would prevent the ag industry from developing legitimate ag-related activities, such as packaging plants, packing sheds, etc., and that the kinds of restrictions in the Initiative would actually HURT ag. To what extent is this true?

The short answer: Construction that has been permissible under the 1982 General Plan, such as coolers, packing sheds, etc., would still be permissible under the Initiative, as long as it doesn't result in subdivision of land.

The phrasing from the Initiative: (26.1.3.1):

"...nothing in this General Plan shall be interpreted or applied so as to prohibit the construction of a single-family residential structure..or any other structure permitted by this General Plan and the applicable zoning ordinance, on a legal lot of record existing on the date that these amendments to the General Plan become effective."

This means that if the land is zoned for commercial or industrial uses, the Initiative would not prohibit construction for those uses on that land. (Please note that the entire Initiative is an amendment to the existing 1982 General Plan, and as such nothing in that existing plan is changed, including zoning, unless expressly amended by the Initiative. Whenever the Initiative refers to "this General Plan," it refers to the existing 1982 General Plan.)

What happens if Measure A (the Initiative) and Measure D (Butterfly Village) are both approved by voters? Or conversely, if Measure D loses and Measure C (GPU4) wins? Will Butterfly Village / Rancho San Juan be built?

If Measures C and D both win, then Butterfly Village and Rancho San Juan will proceed as planned. If Measure A wins and D loses, then Butterfly Village and Rancho San Juan will not be built. In the other cases, litigation will probably eventually decide the outcome.

I see you've included SLOPES as a category in your comparison, along with important issues such as housing, traffic, and infrastructure. What's the big deal about farming on slopes?

This is an important environmental issue. The existing 1982 General Plan has an absolute prohibition of conversion of steep slopes for cultivation. The League believes this reasonable limit should be maintained. The pressure to cultivate on steep slopes (over 25%) comes primarily from the grape-growing or viticulture industry. Each acre of grapevines requires an acre-foot to one and a half acre-feet of water. There is a great deal of soil erosion on such steep slopes that were previously covered by grassland or oak woodland. Besides the additional drawdown of water from the aquifer for irrigation, there is more water runoff and less recharging of the aquifer once the vegetation is removed. Additional impacts are on the water quality from erosion and from herbicides and pesticides. The areas in question form important wildlife corridors for many species. In addition, habitats for many native plants and animals, some of them rare, threatened, or endangered, will be destroyed.

Has anyone done a detailed rebuttal to the 2/21/06 legal analysis prepared for the Board of Supervisors? Alfred Diaz-Infante makes the statement that the Initiative will mean that the county will not be able to get approval for its Housing Element, which will result in the loss of millions of dollars in state money, etc. I have no idea where he gets that, except perhaps the 2/21/06 report, which indeed makes a very technical legal argument referring to the "adoption and amendment scheme" required by state law for Housing Elements.

We're not familiar with that report. But the Initiative has specific language that allows the Board of Supervisors to adopt any changes that are required to meet State Housing requirements as follows:

C. County Housing Obligations. (1) Nothing in this initiative measure shall be applied to preclude County compliance with housing obligations under State law. To the maximum extent feasible the County shall meet State housing obligations within the boundaries of the designated Community Areas (see Appendix A, Maps 1, 1a, 1b, 1c, 1d, and 1e). In providing required housing, the County shall proceed consistent with the Countywide General Land Use Policies and the policies of the Housing Element.

What does the Initiative (Community Plan) require a county-wide vote on? I hear everything from "very little" to "all land use issues".

No vote would be required for development inside the community areas or on legal lots of record, or for family members and farmworker housing on agricultural land. A vote would only be required if construction is proposed outside the community areas or to subdivide agricultural land.

I read a letter from a Supervisor's plan (GPU4) supporter claiming that the Initiative is unfair because most of the land covered by the Initiative is not on the Peninsula or Big Sur. Why is this?

There are 3 coastal areas that are excluded in both plans: Big Sur, coastal Carmel, and Del Monte Forest. Big Sur and Carmel's coastal area are under existing Coastal Plans and under the purview of the California Coastal Commission. Pebble Beach's final build-out was voted on by voters in the entire county in a ballot measure (Measure A) in June 2006. The cities, both on the Peninsula and in the Salinas Valley, are governed by their own General Plans, their own city councils, and their own city voters.

I've heard claims that the Initiative does not allow farmers "flexibility" to carry on with their practices and to adapt to changing markets. Is this true?

The League recognizes and supports the need for business flexibility. However, GPU4 reduces or eliminates environmental review for practices that are potentially harmful to the environment and which would require such review under the existing 1982 General Plan and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). On the other hand, the Initiative does not weaken or remove existing review under the 1982 Plan or CEQA.

Comments, suggestions, questions? Contact our webmaster. Last revised: March 23, 2008 12:32 PDT.

© Copyright League of Women Voters of Salinas Valley, California. All rights reserved.