CARMEL VALLEY INCORPORATION

Fighting For A Vote Carmel Valley incorporation supporters have their day in court. By Jessica Lyons Monterey Coast Weekly Carmel Valley incorporation proponents have long accused Local Agency Formation commissioners of stifling democracy. On Thursday, April 24, a Superior Court judge in the Monterey courthouse will rule whether LAFCO illegally stopped the incorporation process and blocked citizens’ right to vote on the issue. “We’re hoping Judge [Lydia] Villarreal gives us a slam-dunk victory,” says Glenn Robinson, a member of the citizens’ group, Carmel Valley Forum. “LAFCO ought to do the right thing and send this to the ballot.” Sending it to the ballot will allow Carmel Valley residents to vote whether they want Carmel Valley to be incorporated into its own municipality (currently it’s governed by county supervisors). In 2005, after years of meetings and comprehensive studies, LAFCO board members unanimously issued a finding that the proposed incorporation petition would not need a full-scale Environmental Impact Report. But in October 2006, a new LAFCO board voted 5-2 to require several new studies – including an EIR – be completed before the issue could be put on the ballot, and paid for by incorporation proponents. In March 2006, CFV filed a lawsuit. Days before the court hearing, Robinson says, one of the LAFCO commissioners who voted to require an EIR later admitted that the EIR was a convenient way to stop a public vote on the incorporation issue. “It was one of the four who voted for the EIR,” Robinson says. “He said it to a room full of proponents. He said, ‘C’mon folks, we all know that voting for the EIR was just a cover. It was something we all latched onto because we didn’t want this to go on for our own reasons. The EIR was the most appropriate excuse to stop this.’ ” Robinson says CVF won’t name the commissioner because of legal reasons. Other people who attended the meeting say Supervisor Lou Calcagno made the comments. When asked, Calcagno says, “I could have said it. I’m not so sure I did or I didn’t. I don’t want to go there because of the lawsuit. We had the right to do an EIR at any time. That’s LAFCO’s prerogative.” Five LAFCO board members voted to require an EIR: Calcagno, now-deceased supervisor Jerry Smith, Seaside Mayor Ralph Rubio, Gonzales City Councilman Matt Gourley and King City cemetery district representative Tom Perkins. Rubio and Perkins maintain that LAFCO acted correctly in requiring new studies before a public vote on the incorporation proposal. “We felt an EIR was an issue,” Perkins says. At the time of the 2006 LAFCO vote, Rubio, who didn’t sit on the 2005 commission, said he didn’t believe the studies to be accurate, including the fiscal analysis that said Carmel Valley would be financially feasible as a town. Two years later, Rubio says the same thing. “There’s no way you can flatline expenses and revenue in a city,” he says, “and the 10-year analysis assumed it would be a flatline. In my own budget, expenses seem to grow while revenue doesn’t. If the issue had gone to a vote, and somehow been successful, my view is that the city [of Carmel Valley] would be bankrupt already.”
Editorial: A definite maybe Published: February 2, 2007 TWO WEEKS ago, we printed a letter to the editor from LandWatch Monterey County’s president, Michael DeLapa, “correcting” our editorial of Jan. 12 — an editorial that compared LandWatch’s “Community General Plan Initiative” with a general plan passed by county supervisors last month. In DeLapa’s view, the editorial was wrong when it asserted that LandWatch’s version of a new general plan would allow “little or no growth” in the unincorporated parts of Monterey County. “The Community General Plan initiative allows for almost 11,000 additional building units in five community areas,” DeLapa stated. But let’s assume for a moment the LandWatch general plan is passed by voters next June and becomes law. Will LandWatch be in favor of pouring concrete, hammering nails and putting up sheetrock for any of those 11,000 units? DeLapa said the answer is a definite, “Maybe.” “LandWatch would support the creation of 10,500 new housing units ... provided they’re consistent with other sensible land use policies in the Community General Plan Initiative.” In other words, LandWatch’s board will support the creation of new housing under its general plan. Unless it decides to oppose it. In fact, using the group’s history as a guide, it seems likely that as soon as its general plan becomes law, LandWatch will resume fighting tooth and nail to prevent any housing — even the housing its own general plan specifically calls for — from actually being built. Just this week, a LandWatch lawsuit was tossed out by a California appeals court. The suit sought to block construction of just 28 housing units in North Monterey County. After losing in Superior Court, LandWatch wasn’t satisfied. Presumably the group thought stopping such a tiny project was worth a lot of expense and effort, and that’s why it took it to a higher court. Imagine the opposition LandWatch would mount to a project ten times larger. Not long ago, the owner of 73 lots in Spreckels asked the county for permission to build on them. At a key public hearing, former LandWatch executive director Gary Patton launched an angry denunciation of the board of supervisors for approving the plan. LandWatch also took that one to court. Has there ever been a housing project LandWatch liked? There is nothing wrong with the group being against the construction of new housing in Monterey County. But it should not pretend otherwise. Its general plan may “allow” 11,000 new “building units” in parts of the county. But other language in the plan provides all the ammunition LandWatch or any other activist group would need to torpedo an application to build some of that housing. A vote for the LandWatch general plan is, in effect, a vote for no new development in the unincorporated parts of Monterey. A vote for the supervisors’ plan is a vote for a limited amount of new development. That is the difference.	General plans to compete on June ballot By KELLY NIX Published: January 5, 2007 AFTER AN entire day of listening to more than 40 speakers Wednesday, the Monterey County Board of Supervisors finally approved a new general plan, the county’s growth outline it’s worked on for more than seven years. But the long-awaited decision didn’t sit well with most. Supervisors also voted to place the newly enacted general plan on the June ballot, and went further by deciding to allow a competing, slow-growth initiative, sponsored by LandWatch Monterey County, to join it. They also vowed the county’s general plan would be translated into Spanish. “I think it’s a reasonable compromise,” said 1st District Supervisor Fernando Armenta. “Let the community tell us if they are interested in supporting this plan or not.” The meeting, which drew a big crowd, lasted about six hours. Whichever general plan ends up being adopted, it will not have any effect in cities or the county’s coastal areas, which have their own general plans. The main impact will be in Carmel Valley, the Salinas Valley and North Monterey County — all regions with plenty of ag land and lots of people looking for housing and jobs. Opponents of the supervisors’ general plan, including 5th District Supervisor Dave Potter — the lone dissenter in the vote to approve it — expressed concern supervisors might not be serious about putting their plan before the voters. What guarantee is there that the future board “can’t change their minds” about the election, Potter asked. In two weeks, former assemblyman Simon Salinas will replace 3rd District Supervisor Butch Lindley, whose term expires. Responding to Potter’s concerns, the board voted to require a unanimous vote before the election could be canceled, in effect giving Potter a veto. Repeal vs. approval Slow-growth groups praised the idea of having competing general plans on the June ballot so both could get a “fair shake” but criticized the supervisors’ decision to let their general plan go into effect in 30 days. That would put voters in the position of deciding whether to repeal the supervisors’ plan rather to approve it — a difference which seems trivial but could play a key role in election strategies by both sides. “There is a huge difference between making sure this general plan is subject to the approval of the citizens or subject to repeal,” said Chris Fitz, executive director of LandWatch Monterey County. Potter agreed. “You will have all sorts of confusion [on the ballot],” he said. Fitz and his allies said Thursday they would begin gathering thousands of signatures needed for a referendum, which would prevent the general plan from becoming law in 30 days and would make it subject to voter approval, instead of repeal, in June. The LandWatch-led initiative, formally titled, Amendment of the Monterey County General Plan, including the North County Land Use Plan, would prevent more development than the supervisors’ plan and would restrict growth in most rural areas of the county. Supporters of the county’s general plan weren’t completely satisfied with Thursday’s outcome, either. Many wanted approval of the document without having it go before voters. “Your constituents elected you to make the tough decisions,” Bob Perkins, executive director of the Monterey County Farm Bureau, told supervisors before their decision. “You must take responsibility for the plan by making your decision final.” Salinas Valley farmer Chris Bunn said although the supervisors’ plan isn’t perfect, it’s a representation of the democratic process. “Many farmers like myself aren’t excited by this plan,” he said. “But it’s something you developed and we were all participants in this process.” En Español The board also chose to have the initiative, the general plan and a portion of the environmental impact report translated into Spanish. The move will cost the county an estimated $80,000. “It’s a very large document,” Alana Knaster, chief assistant director of the county’s planning and building inspection department, said of the general plan. “I believe it would take several months to do that.” Included in the new general plan is an agricultural wine corridor, which would help draw small wineries. Monterey County has one winery for every 2,000 acres, compared to Napa, which has one for every 150 to 200 acres, according to industry experts.
Dec 24, 2006 - Herald Article	PANEL PUTS OFF CARMEL VALLEY INCORPORATION Efforts to turn the rural community of Carmel Valley into an incorporated town were delayed when the Local Agency Formation Commission refused to allow a vote of Carmel Valley residents. The commission voted to deny the vote until promoters of incorporation finish a full-scale environmental study of the proposal. http://www.montereyherald.com/mld/montereyherald/news/16356491.htm Dec 24, 2006 - Herald Article
ARTICLES from http://www.carmelpinecone.com/061013-4.html Incorp meet should be in C.V., both sides say By CHRIS COUNTS Published: October 13, 2006 FOR THE past two years, incorporation activists Glenn Robinson and Bob Sinotte have found much to disagree about. But the two adversaries agree on one thing: Carmel Valley should host next week’s Local Agency Formation Commission hearing on incorporation. The public hearing — scheduled Wednesday, Oct. 18, at the Monterey County Government Center in Salinas — has been billed a showdown on the proposed incorporation of Carmel Valley. LAFCO’s staff already endorsed the proposal. If its commissioners approve the plan, they likely will set a date for a public election in June 2007, although legal challenges could lead to further delays. Sinotte, an outspoken critic of incorporation, said commissioners could better measure public support for the proposal if they scheduled next week’s hearing in Carmel Valley. “We’re really disappointed LAFCO officials aren’t coming to Carmel Valley,” Sinotte complained. “It would be appropriate for them to come here and listen to the community and not just to a few individuals. If they held the meeting at the middle school, a thousand people could attend.” According to Sinotte, only a small group of incorporation proponents are consistently willing or able to drive 30 minutes to Salinas for hearings in the board of supervisors chambers at the Monterey County Government Center. “There is a core of 30 people who go to every meeting,” he claimed. “The rest of us have lives to live. We don’t eat and sleep incorporation. The bottom line is that the vast majority of people in Carmel Valley do not support incorporation.” While Robinson disagreed with Sinotte’s assessment on the prospects of the incorporation proposal’s success, he, too, would like to see the hearing take place in the valley. “This is about Carmel Valley,” Robinson explained. “Instead of having 100 people drive to Salinas, why not have the LAFCO commissioners and staff carpool over the hill to Carmel Valley.” While a hearing in Carmel Valley might sound appealing to residents, it isn’t very practical, explained LAFCO executive officer Kate McKenna. “What we have found in controversial matters is that it is really important to have the proper recording facilities available,” McKenna said. “Salinas is the county seat, and the [government center] is the only facility available with the necessary audio and video technology. The county has a very high-tech system. We can do live video feeds. You can go to our website and listen to the meetings.” Regardless of where the meeting is held, Robinson believes LAFCO commissioners will ultimately endorse the incorporation proposal and schedule an election. “This is the most-studied incorporation proposal in a long time, if not ever,” Robinson said. “The town will have enough money to operate. It’s crunch time now. It’s time to let the voters decide. That is what democracy is all about.” LAFCO last week released a comprehensive executive director’s report on the incorporation proposal, recommending it be put before voters and turning a deaf ear to pleas from more than a dozen small communities and commercial property owners — especially at the mouth of the valley — that they be left out of the proposed city’s boundaries. The hearing will begin at 6 p.m. in the board of supervisors Chambers. If needed, the meeting will be continued to Thursday, Oct. 18, at 6 p.m.		ARTICLE from http://www.carmelpinecone.com/061013-2.html Town's boundaries include many who asked to be left out Mouth of the valley needed to help pay bills, LAFCO executive says By CHRIS COUNTS Published: October 13, 2006 MORE THAN 20 commercial property owners and residential neighborhoods that formally requested to be excluded from the proposed Town of Carmel Valley should be part of the incorporation anyway, according to a recommendation from the executive director of the commission responsible for approving new cities. Despite their sometimes vehement opposition to being part of a Town of Carmel Valley, Quail Lodge, Rancho Cañada, Tehama, Earthbound Farm, and the Crossroads, Barnyard and Carmel Rancho shopping centers should be included within the would-be town’s boundaries, according to a report by Local Agency Formation Commission executive officer Kate McKenna. LAFCO commissioners will consider McKenna’s recommendation at a public hearing Oct. 18. If they approve the incorporation proposal, an election will likely be scheduled in June 2007. Mouth of the valley businesses want out Attorney Derinda Messenger said it doesn’t make sense to include businesses located at the mouth of Carmel Valley in a town that would be based 10 miles east of Highway 1. “Economically and socially, the businesses are more a part of Carmel than Carmel Valley,” said Messenger, who works for Lombardo and Gilles, a law firm representing the Barnyard, Quail Lodge, Rancho Cañada and other businesses that could be affected by incorporation. “If they should become part of a city, they should be annexed to Carmel instead.” Messenger said her law firm will ask LAFCO commissioners to reconsider the town’s boundaries at the Oct. 18 hearing. According to McKenna’s report, which was released last week, excluding any major commercial property or hotel from the new town would have a “significant negative fiscal impact” on it. But she said that doesn’t mean the town’s proposed boundaries were drawn solely to enhance its financial feasibility, countering a charge leveled by incorporation opponents, because those boundaries roughly correspond to the extent of the long-standing Carmel Valley Master Plan area. Mouth of the valley residents sound off Cañada Woods, Carmel Knolls, Hacienda Carmel and Carmel Views residential neighborhoods, located near the mouth of Carmel Valley, should also be part of the town, according to McKenna’s plan. That doesn’t set well with some local residents. “We voted to opt out,” said Lawrence Samuels, vice president of the Brookdale Residents Association and an incorporation opponent. “Almost 80 percent of our residents are against incorporation.” Mel Steckler, a Carmel Knolls resident and an incorporation opponent, calls his neighbors “the cash cows of incorporation.” “We were the first neighborhood that requested to opt out of the town,” Steckler bemoaned. “We identify ourselves with the coastal area, not the inland valley. Carmel is where we live. Carmel is our identity. We are being robbed of our identity.” According to McKenna’s report, the five neighborhoods, if they were excluded, would qualify as “islands” or “corridors” in violation of guidelines in the Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000. McKenna’s report, also claims excluding more than 1,000 residential units would have a negative impact on the town’s finances.