May 26, 2005
Monterey County Board of Supervisors
240 Church Street
East Wing- Room 226
Salinas CA 93901
Dear Members of the Board of Supervisors:
The Leagues of Women Voters of the Salinas Valley and the Monterey Peninsula are writing to raise serious questions about a Board decision made on May 17, 2005.
On that date, the Board of Supervisors approved (Calcagno and Potter dissenting) spending $325,000 of taxpayers' dollars to redesign the Rancho San Juan Specific Plan, specifically to do additional work to address traffic and water issues not adequately addressed during the former environmental review process. This expenditure was on the consent agenda and, therefore, would have been approved without any discussion had it not been pulled from the consent agenda by Supervisor Calcagno. The consultant contract that the Board authorized was not in the agenda packet or in the Clerk's file, and no members of the public had a chance to read it prior to the Board's action. Based on discussion at the Board meeting, board members had not seen it, either.
The Supervisors approved the Rancho San Juan Specific Plan and the accompanying HYH project in December 2004. The Board's action has generated five lawsuits challenging that approval. These lawsuits are based on the alleged failure of the Board to follow environmental laws. Furthermore, the County has spent at least $1.4 million on the project without any assurance that these funds will be reimbursed by the developer. Finally, the Board has set a referendum vote on the project for an election in November, because project opponents collected over 16,000 signatures to put this matter on the ballot.
Based on the Leagues' support of governmental procedures that assure open and responsible government, we have the following concerns:
- The purpose of the consent agenda is to handle routine actions that do not require any discussion. Expenditure of large sums of public funds for activities not previously approved should not be placed on the consent agenda.
- All documents related to agendized items should be available for public review and Board consideration when the agenda is published.
- The Board voted that the Rancho San Juan documentation was adequate to approve the project. Therefore, it is difficult to understand the purpose of spending additional public funds to address inadequacies of environmental documents for the Rancho San Juan project. .
- Normally, a project proponent pays for all of the design and special study work for a project. If the public is going to fund this work, it is appropriate that the rationale be discussed prior to such expenditure so that public redesign to make a project acceptable does not become the precedent. .
- "Redesigning" the project before voters have their say on Rancho San Juan violates the public process. .
- If it is the intent of the Board to remove the voters' right to vote on the Rancho San Juan referendum and to "redo" the project approval process, that decision should be made now to avoid a costly referendum campaign.
The Leagues specifically urge the Board either to suspend any "redesign work" under the contract until after the voters have acted on the referendum, or immediately to take action to rescind the past project approval, and to remove the referendum from the November ballot. Thank you for your consideration of these comments.
Sincerely,
Marilyn Maxner, President, LWV of the Monterey Peninsula
Anne Herendeen, President, LWV of the Salinas Valley
