Organizations for Rural Quality (RQC/F)

Grass Valley Managed Growth Initiative

All supporting documents will be posted at www.ccatnc.org

Questions - Week Two

30 Years of Voter Approval for Land Use Amendments: a Lock-in or Citizens' Empowerment?

General plans plan for a future that is generally meant to be long-term.

Generally, this is because different aspects of a general plan need minimum or maximum time-frames to make planning useful and practical. For instance, “Sewer, water, and road systems are generally designed with a 30- to 50-year lifespan.” Indeed, the Grass Valley’s Capital Improvements Program looks 20 years ahead. Meanwhile, the “housing element, for example, specifically involves time increments of five years. Capital improvement planning is typically based upon a five or seven-year term.” [1]

As a result: “Most jurisdictions select 15 to 20 years as the long-term horizon for the general plan. The horizon does not mark an end point, but rather provides a general context in which to make shorter-term decisions.” Nevertheless, “[t]he local jurisdiction may choose a time horizon that serves its particular needs. Remember that planning is a continuous process; the general plan should be reviewed regularly, regardless of its horizon, and revised as new information becomes available and as community needs and values change.”[2]

While the “Managed Growth Initiative” does not change the General Plan, it adds the requirement that amendments to the Land Use Element, except in certain circumstances, be approved by a majority of Grass Valley’s voters.[3] Is this tantamount to “locking in” or “freezing” the Land Use Element, or the whole General Plan, for 30 years, as the City and other opponents have asserted?[4] No.

This initiative draws on similar measures adopted in Napa, Saratoga and Escondido, and which have served their communities and survived legal challenge. Related examples of requiring voter approval of land-use actions (some more rigorous than this initiative), which passed in 2000, include:

• The City of Clayton’s “Measure O”, which required voter approval if development involved 10 houses, 2 acres of open space or 1,000 square feet of commercial space;
• the City of Danville’s “Measure R”, requiring a popular vote for any development of at least 10 units;
• the City of Malibu’s “Measure P”, which required voter approval of commercial, industrial or mixed-use development of at least 25,000 square feet, projects that involve road expansion or construction, projects that require a variance or Conditional Use Permit, and projects denser than existing zoning;
• the City of Newport Beach’s “Measure S”, requiring a vote on most projects that require a general plan amendment;
• the City of Solana Beach’s “Measure T”, requiring voter approval to change general plan designations, except to reduce residential density.
  

Instead, “the Friends of Grass Valley’s initiative measure does not prohibit changes to the General Plan. Rather, the measure simply requires the City to engage in a democratic process that includes City voters before making such changes.” As with initiatives in other communities, this initiative’s effect “is to establish a democratic process for proposed changes to the General Plan Land Use Element and Map. Why should the City be allowed to approve so-called ‘creativity’ demanded by a developer that a majority of the voters of Grass Valley find to be contrary to their well-being and values?”[5]

[1] Governor’s Office of Research and Planning, General Plan Guidelines (2003), p.12

[2] Governor’s Office of Research and Planning, General Plan Guidelines (2003), p.12.

[3] Proposed Managed Growth Initiative for the City of Grass Valley, Section 12 (see www.ccatnc.org).

[4] Grass Valley United, paid advt. in The Union, April 28; Steve Enos, Proposed initiative would promote ‘endless fighting’, “Other Voices”, The Union, April 30; Mark Johnson, A vision for the future of Grass Valley, “Other Voices”, The Union, May 3; Planning staff’s Report on Potential Issues and Impacts of Proposed Land Use Initiative, to City Council, May 13.

[5] Keith Wagner, of Kenyon/Yeates LLP, for the FGV, Response to Factually and Legally Defective Report to City Council on May 13, 2008 Regarding the Friends of Grass Valley Initiative Measure, May 27, “Misrepresentation #2” & “Misrepresentation #6”.

Initiative Background (Link)

Next: Questions - Week Three (Link)