Santa Clara County supervisors on Aug. 7 axed language from a
controversial land-use initiative’s introductory ballot statement,
arguing a phrase about requiring fire access to unincorporated
areas would be misleading to voters.
Morgan Hill – Santa Clara County supervisors on Aug. 7 axed language from a controversial land-use initiative’s introductory ballot statement, arguing a phrase about requiring fire access to unincorporated areas would be misleading to voters.
Section 9-b of the “Initiative for the Conservation and Preservation of Hillsides, Ranchlands, and Agricultural Lands” states: “There must be a safe and adequate ingress and egress for building occupants and for fire and other emergency vehicles,” which the county already requires through its normal development process.
Supervisor Don Gage said referencing fire safety in an initiative that seeks to limit development in rural areas would have been “very misleading.”
“It implies the county doesn’t require safe and adequate access, when in reality we do,” Gage said.
The initiative at the heart of the Aug. 7 board of supervisors meeting has already stirred up controversy in South County, where a number of landowners would face new building limits on their parcels. It seeks to limit the amount of housing development that can occur in rural and hillside areas of unincorporated Santa Clara County. Current zoning laws allow one residence for each 20 to 160 acres in hillside areas. If passed, the Santa Clara General Plan would be amended to allow one residence for each 40 to 160 acres in unincorporated hillside areas.
Landowner groups opposing the measure include the Santa Clara County Hillside Association and the Alliance for Housing and the Environment.
On June 20, the Santa Clara County Registrar of Voters certified the initiative after more than 56,000 county residents signed a petition asking for it to be placed on the November ballot. The board approved the petition in June and agreed to submit the initiative to voters. Palo Alto-based environmental group People For Land and Nature (PLAN) authored the ballot initiative and led the effort to gather signatures.
Gage, who opposes the initiative along with Supervisor Pete McHugh, introduced a motion at Monday’s meeting to at least edit the initiative’s introductory statement, which is intended to orient voters at the polls. McHugh wanted to go even farther, suggesting new language be added stating there are unknown legal and financial impacts to the county. McHugh and Gage voted in June to require an independent study of the initiative, but lost the vote 3-2.
“One thing that has troubled me throughout this process has been a lack of desire on the part of the proponents for details,” McHugh said at the meeting. “I don’t doubt that there are word limits, but it seems like some of the big impacts aren’t being addressed. I personally think that’s misleading.”
The will no longer include a reference to requiring fire access to unincorporated areas after Supervisor Don Gage moved to strike the language from the ballot’s introductory language.
Santa Clara County Farm Bureau Executive Director Jenny Derry supported removing the passage about fire safety from the ballot’s introductory language. “That is such a minor, minor point to anyone who has read the entire 28 pages of the initiative,” Derry said at Monday’s meeting. “It does not seem to deserve a space in the beginning sentence.”
Derry also asked supervisors to add language letting voters know exactly what the minimum acreage size for development would be if the initiative passes. “It is the crux of the initiative, and yet it’s not mentioned.”
Brian Schmidt of the Committee for Green Foothills said changing the ballot’s introduction wouldn’t satisfy everyone.
“People I respect, but who oppose the initiative, have a lot of ideas on how to change it, and basically turn this introduction into a full-length book,” Schmidt said from the podium. “That’s not something you can do. People are going to have to go and look at it in greater depth to learn all the specifics.”
Gage’s motion to tweak the ballot’s language ended up failing 2-2 after McHugh suggested removing another line reminding voters the initiative would amend the county’s general plan in a way only future voters, not supervisors, could repeal.
Supervisor James Beall made a friendly motion to remove the fire-safety line only, and the matter passed 3-1 with Supervisor Liz Kniss voting against it and Supervisor Blanco Alvarado absent.
