Many surprised by failure of anti-sprawl Measure I in Modesto

There were reasons to predict that a farmland preservation ballot measure would sail to victory in Modesto.

Previous sewer-extension votes in Modesto went against large annexation proposals, and Stanislaus County voters approved the original Stamp Out Sprawl initiative with a 68 percent “yes” vote in 2008.

But Measure I on the Nov. 3 ballot failed, falling short by 215 votes.

That surprised some city office seekers who talked with plenty of Measure I supporters as they knocked on doors to meet voters. Measure I’s failure left supporters and opponents to ponder what tipped the balance against the anti-sprawl initiative.

Kristi Ah You, who won the City Council seat in District 3, said she saw as many “Yes on I” signs on college-area lawns as her own campaign signs. When she talked with residents, it was the first question they asked and they wanted to know her opinion on Measure I, she said.

“Even though I voted ‘no,’ I felt like it was going to pass,” she said Friday. “I was surprised by the outcome.”

Councilman Dave Lopez, who finished third in the mayor’s race, expected the anti-sprawl measure to win easily after he started knocking on doors. “It seemed like Measure I was going to pass by a huge margin,” Lopez said. “There was a move against Measure I that started pretty late. I think that got some folks to show up at the polls.”

Measure I proposed a growth limit on three sides of the city and would have required a public vote on approving development outside the boundary line.

The Modesto Chamber of Commerce led a group that opposed the ballot measure, including city public safety unions and development interests, filing a statement of organization for the “No on Measure I” committee Sept. 24, just six weeks before Election Day.

The committee’s disclosures show it spent $32,500 on the campaign, urging a “no” vote in mailers that warned of stunted economic growth and higher taxes for city residents.

Former Councilman Denny Jackman’s Stamp Out Sprawl campaign reported spending half that much.

On Friday, Jackman said he filed a voter complaint charging the city with violating the state Election Code by omitting language of the Measure I initiative in sample ballots. Jackman said he sent the complaint to the secretary of state and emailed copies to Mayor Garrad Marsh and council members.

“The voters only could review the city’s summary that was biased against the measure,” Jackman’s email said. He said the complaint asks the state to nullify the vote on Measure I.

Marsh did not return phone messages regarding Jackman’s complaint or the outcome of the anti-sprawl measure. Reached Friday evening, the city attorney said he had not seen Jackman’s complaint and would comment after reviewing it.

George Petrulakis, a Modesto land-use attorney who opposed the measure, said he tries not to draw big conclusions from close elections. He said he believes the coalition was able to raise concerns about Modesto’s economic future if the measure had been approved.

“I think the takeaway for people is that no one faction should dictate Modesto’s future when you are trying to decide on economic development,” the attorney said. “Developers should not have the final say, but neither should a strident anti-growth activist.”

Measure I’s supporters included city residents who sympathized with Wood Colony residents, who came out strong at City Council meetings in early 2014 to oppose a general plan update that proposed large business parks west of the city.

Wood Colony resident Steve Goldstein said homeowners in the rural area supported the anti-sprawl initiative by distributing signs, walking precincts to put the issue on the ballot and spreading the word on social media.

Residents of the county unincorporated area could not vote on the city ballot issue.

“We are really in shock,” Goldstein said. “With everything we did, we felt tremendous support from the local community. Maybe we fell asleep at the wheel. Maybe we were too confident and did not do enough.”

Other local leaders were cognizant of public sentiment toward Wood Colony and against large-scale sprawl. Last month, Ceres officials were reluctant to protest loudly after Jackman – for whatever reason – included a piece of Ceres within the proposed urban area for Modesto.

With more than 22,000 voters divided over the growth-control issue, the debate could be a factor in the mayoral runoff set for early February.

Ted Brandvold, who faces Marsh in the runoff, shared a written statement when asked to comment on the result for Measure I. “It is a shame our citizens had to deal with such a decisive issue, especially since it was unnecessary,” Brandvold wrote. “We must work together both to save agricultural land and provide prosperity for the citizens of Modesto.”

Without an artificial boundary to limit development, people are likely to watch for any proposals to emerge in Wood Colony or on the north side of Kiernan Avenue, north of the city.

City Planning Manager Patrick Kelly said no current proposals have been brought to the city. The City Council scaled back study areas for industrial parks west of the city after the Wood Colony protest. Development in Wood Colony would require an application to the Local Agency Formation Commission for a “sphere of influence” change, he said.

Goldstein said there is talk of a retail commercial project in the so-called Dakota Avenue triangle west of Highway 99. He suggested the owner of about 211 acres is eager to develop the area.

Petrulakis said Wood Colony is not very conducive to urban development because of the large number of ranchettes, which would need to be cobbled together for significant projects.

Ah You, who soon will join the council, said: “I am not in favor of development on prime farmland. I won’t be a person who thinks that is necessary.”

Lopez, who has reached the term limit for council members, said, “I can’t imagine that conversation would start anytime soon.”

This story was originally published November 13, 2015 at 7:07 PM with the headline "Many surprised by failure of anti-sprawl Measure I in Modesto."