Saturday, Mar. 01, 2008

Backers of Measure E want Stanislaus County to make it applicable to Salida Now

More than two-thirds of Stanislaus County's voters approved Measure E on Feb. 5, a resounding victory for supporters of the initiative that prohibits housing developments in unincorporated areas without a public vote.

Now, its proponents want to make Measure E retroactive and allow the public to vote on the controversial Salida Now plan, which the county Board of Supervisors adopted in the summer.

In a letter hand delivered to the county Friday, Measure E co-author Denny Jackman says language in the initiative states it applies to general plan amendments and rezonings approved after April 17, 2006, when signatures for the initiative were turned in.

A memo to supervisors by Assistant County Counsel John Doering written Friday afternoon says the wording and intent in Measure E is not clear, and the issue may have to be resolved in court.

That's consistent with previous county actions that appear to thwart Measure E. Supervisors ordered an optional study of the initiative after the petitions were turned in, which caused the measure to miss the November 2006 ballot.

Then the supervisors approved their own alternative to compete with Measure E on the ballot. Supervisors said Measure E amounted to "ballot box planning."

After Measure E qualified for the ballot, an initiative petition was circulated to put the Salida Now plan, a development that includes 5,000 housing units, a business park and commercial areas, to a public vote.

But instead of approving the initiative for the ballot, the five supervisors adopted the plan Aug. 7.

"They did everything in their power to counter what we were doing," Jackman said Friday. He added that the letter is not meant to rub Measure E's win in the supervisors' faces. It is to clarify the situation for the public, he said.

"Absent voter approval, the Salida Now initiative is not consistent with the County General Plan's land use element, meaning that the county cannot approve subdivision maps or other entitlements for the project," Jackman's letter says.

The letter was written on behalf of Stamp Out Sprawl, the Yes on E Committee and several others, including Modesto City Councilman Garrad Marsh, who co-authored Measure E.

Jackman said the letter was a result of a recent meeting Measure E proponents had with a lawyer.

"Whatever E says is law. We interpret it to say that any action since April 17, 2006, that's contrary to that law is not valid," Jackman said. "It's not a threat. We want them to recognize their responsibility to clarify this to the public."

Doering's memo to the supervisors concludes Measure E does not affect Salida Now.

Laws normally go into effect after the date of passage, he wrote, and retroactive language must be "so clear, strong and imperative that no other meaning can be given to them."

The retroactive language in Measure E is subject to interpretation, according to the memo. "The courts may have to make a final determination on the issue," Doering wrote.

Jackman said the language was clear and the public vote, 67 percent approval, indicates a strong desire to address growth in the county.

"If the county goes into this with a different interpretation, that's their choice," Jackman said. He added he was reluctant to take the issue to court.

"Personally, I've had enough of this 'us versus them' stuff. I'm willing to talk with them," he said.

Bee staff writer Tim Moran can be reached at tmoran@modbee.com or 578-2349.