Morgan Hill – The fate of a controversial effort to restrict development on county land could hinge on a vote next week, when county supervisors decide if they should explore potential economic and legal costs before a ballot initiative reaches voters in November.
The initiative put forth by People for Land and Nature, an environmental consortium based in Palo Alto, seeks to uproot county regulations allowing as many as eight homes on every 160 acres of hillsides or ranchland. The proposed ballot measure asks voters to instead cap hillside development at four homes per 160 acres, and to restrict ranchland development to just one home on the same amount of space.
The PLAN petition drive to get the measure on the November ballot received 58,000 signatures – nearly double the amount required.
While county officials cannot block such initiatives from reaching voters, they have traditionally analyzed the economic and legal impacts such petition-backed measures pose for the county.
The Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors will vote Tuesday on the need for impact reports as part of the latest ballot measure. But those voting on the matter, as well as advocates on both sides of the debate, say the decision is far from a sure thing. A detailed analysis of the matter could prove the deciding factor in November, and a majority of supervisors have yet to say publicly if they will demand the reports.
“I have talked to most of the board of supervisor’s offices this week, and I feel there are some board offices wavering on whether they should ask for the economic analysis and the legal analysis,” said Jenny Derry, executive director of the Santa Clara Farm Bureau and a member of the Alliance for Housing and the Environment, a group of farmers, Realtors and other opponents of the measure.
“The legal analysis could be as important if not more so than the economic,” she said, “because it will show the points where the land use initiative conflicts with the current General Plan – and those (areas) could be the subject of many lawsuits against the county. If that happens, the county will be paying a lot money and legal fees to defend themselves. I would think that the supervisors would be very interested in seeing the impact reports.”
Supervisors Don Gage and Pete McHugh said they would vote in favor of requiring the reports. Supervisors Blanca Alvarado, Jim Beall and Liz Kniss did not return calls for comment Friday.
Gage’s district contains more than half of all the county’s unincorporated areas that would be governed by the proposed regulations. South County contains the vast majority of the county’s roughly 500 farms that would be affected by the initiative.
The measure does not seek to change regulations allowing one home for every 40 acres of farmland, but it calls for all agriculture-related buildings, including worker housing, to lie as close as possible to a three-acre area set aside for buildings. It also caps the footprint of new buildings at 2 percent of the parcel’s size or 20,000 square feet, whichever is less.
“(The measure) has a significant effect on my area and I need to understand the impacts,” Gage said.
“I think that the environmental community doesn’t want a report,” Gage added. “If a report comes out saying it’s going to cost millions of dollars to administer the program, that gives the people who oppose this ammunition.”
PLAN campaign coordinator Pete Drekmeier would not say whether he opposes or supports the reports, nor would he say if he or any other backers working with his group have lobbied against them. He denied, however, that the initiative would increase county costs.
“We think that the initiative will save the county money,” Drekmeier said.
“Essentially, to provide infrastructure and services in remote areas is very expensive, so the economics are in our favor.”
He also argued the initiative would free up county staff time by clearly laying out what is and is not allowed on county lands.
If approved, the financial and legal impact reports would cover a wide range of subjects, including its impact on land use, the availability and location of housing and the ability of the county’s ability to meet its regional housing needs.
Derry said that in recent years, a number of counties have issued impact reports in response to ballot initiatives, including the counties of Napa, San Diego, San Luis Obispo and Sonoma. Most recently, Monterey and San
Benito counties required impact reports as part of similar land-use initiatives. Voters approved the greater restrictions on county land in Monterey County, but defeated the measure in San Benito County.
The 30-day window allowed for impact reports could not prevent the land-use initiative from appearing on the November ballot.
