Growth: Yes on E, no on L

last updated: January 20, 2008 03:20:44 AM

Two important measures on the Feb. 5 ballot involve land use in the unincorporated areas of Stanislaus County -- the 90 percent of the total acreage that lies outside the cities.

Measure L was put on the ballot by county supervisors to counter Measure E, a citizens' initiative to discourage residential growth outside cities. The challenge for voters is that the initiatives differ in scope and impact, so they're hard to compare. Here's how we see them:

About Measure E

Dubbed Stamp Out Sprawl by supporters, this proposal would require voter approval before the Board of Supervisors can OK large new housing developments on land zoned for agriculture or open space use.

Supervisors claim to agree with the principle of directing growth to cities, but there are enough examples of them acting to the contrary that their credibility is in doubt. The most obvious is Salida, which mushroomed in the 1980s and 1990s to nearly 13,000 residents. Last summer, supervisors cleared the way for 5,000 more homes -- which could add an additional 13,000 people.

Measure E is a general plan amendment that would affect only housing development in the county. It would not affect rezoning for commercial or industrial uses and it would not affect expansion of cities, where most of the population growth has occurred -- and should occur.

About Measure L

County supervisors so dislike Measure E that a few months ago, they asked staff to write a counterproposal. Measure L doesn't change anything immediately; it spells out a procedure for the county to prepare a new general plan -- the state-required blueprint for land use decisions. The irony is, the county needs a new general plan anyway. Measure L simply could advance the timetable. Its significant points:

Public input. By law, writing or updating a general plan requires public input, but Measure L would create a 15-member commission -- with three members appointed by each of the five supervisors -- to oversee the preparation. Once a new plan is drafted, it would go to the Board of Supervisors and then to the public for a vote. If the first proposal isn't passed, the board would offer a revise to voters. If that isn't approved, the board could adopt a new plan on its own. Normally, a new general plan does not go to voters.

Changing the new plan. Measure L states that county supervisors would have to hold two public hearings, not just one, before considering amendments to the new plan. The more significant change is that any future amendment would have to be approved by four of the five supervisors. Currently, only three affirmative votes are needed. The supermajority requirement essentially would transfer the power to the minority. We oppose it on principle, no matter what the arena.

Putting growth on temporary hold. For two years, while the new plan is being prepared, the county could not redesignate land from ag to residential use without voter approval. If the plan isn't done by then, there would be a moratorium on redesignation. Given the economy and the abundance of vacant houses, this isn't much of a carrot.

The bottom line for us: There's not that much substance to Measure L, and there's no reason the county couldn't adopt some of its better aspects without it. The deal breaker is the supermajority requirement for future amendments. We oppose Measure L.

Predicting the impact

Measure E is likely to have less impact than many anticipate -- positively and negatively.

First and foremost, because it doesn't apply to cities, it won't substantially curtail growth. Despite its nickname, Measure E will not stamp out sprawl.

• Comments
• Add Comment
• Disclaimer