In our Education role, we present unbiased, nonpartisan information
to facilitate informed and active participation in government.
Responses to League Questionnaire by Candidates for Supervisorial Districts 4 and 5
The League of Women Voters Monterey Peninsula submitted eleven questions to all candidates running for Monterey County Supervisorial District 4 and District 5. The responses follow. No responses were provided by Ila Mettee-McCutchon, District 4 candidate.
Note: This voter education effort does NOT imply that the League endorses any candidate for office.
District 4 – Responses from Jane Parker
1. The draft 2008 County General Plan (GPU5) includes policies that would limit growth to existing lots of record in most of North Monterey County, the Greater Salinas Area and parts of the Highway 68 Corridor. What is your position on these policies?
Jane Parker: The Compromise General Plan (GPU5) contains policies focusing growth into populated areas with existing infrastructure, and restricting it in other areas of the county, as noted in your question. These are the fundamental building blocks of responsible growth. I support them and pledge to implement and protect them as Supervisor.
2. What is your position on city-centered growth?
Jane Parker: City-centered growth is a component of responsible growth policy. Focusing growth in cities decreases the cost of developing infrastructure and public services, such as water, sewer, schools, libraries, roads. It also favors the design of walkable communities, mixed use downtowns and housing which integrates households of various income levels.
3. The 1982 County General Plan and Zoning Ordinance (Title 21) prohibit conversion of uncultivated slopes of 25% or greater to agricultural crops. The draft 2008 County General Plan would allow conversion with a permit. What is your position on this issue?
Jane Parker: I do not support cultivation on slopes of 25% or greater which can cause erosion and damage to the watershed. If not rectified through the EIR process, I will work to restore the 1982 policies and include them in the adopted General Plan.
4. The 1982 County General Plan includes a policy prohibiting subdivision of most productive agricultural land to non-agricultural purposes. This policy is also included in the draft 2008 County General Plan. What is you position on this provision?
Jane Parker: Prohibition of prime agricultural lands’ subdivision for non-agricultural uses is a fundamental protection of Monterey County’s largest industry – an important economic positive to the county budget. This policy also protects against sprawl development which is a negative from the standpoints of economics, health, and the environment.
5. What is your position on current County requirements regarding provisions of affordable housing? Under what circumstances, if any, should an applicant be able to have affordable housing requirements reduced or removed once the project has been approved?
Jane Parker: I favor higher percentages for very low – workforce income levels if feasible, and greater commitment to long-term protection. The Rogge Road decision sets bad precedent. The solution to this problem should have provided assurance this would NOT set a precedent for future developers seeking to reduce their affordable housing commitments.
6. Do you see a need for increased public participation in county government? If so, what are your ideas?
Jane Parker: County government needs increased participation and could: (1) Seek input earlier in decision-making processes. (2) Have more evening meetings. (3) Hold more “study sessions” to allow more two-way communication. (4) Require noticed/written follow-up on written communications from the public, so citizens know the status of government response to their concerns.
7. Do you see a need for greater openness and transparency in
the workings of County government. If so, what are your
ideas?
County government should seek greater openness and transparency in government
by: (1) ensuring fast and full responses to information requests, (2) reducing
the use of closed session meetings, and (3) creating an environment that encourages
county employees to be objective in their analysis and to make recommendations
in the public interest.
8. What are your ideas for addressing water issues on the Monterey Peninsula?
Jane Parker: Recent discussions seem to reflect true multi-agency interest in investing in incremental, do-able projects, rather than relying on a silver bullet. These include: treatment of waste and storm water; recharging aquifers and using them for storage; diversion and storage of river water at terminus; complemented by small de-sal plant(s).
9. Is campaign finance reform needed for candidates running for County offices? If so, what components should be a part of it? (1) donation limits (how much?, who can donate?); (2) recusal from vote which would benefit individual if official received campaign donation from that individual; (3) better transparency (e.g. stricter disclosure, disclosure on internet, etc.); (4) public funding.
Jane Parker: I favor spending limits (amounts and entities), required recusal from decisions involving campaign contributors, greater transparency and stricter disclosure. I supported the ballot measure to bring some of the public funding mechanisms that have succeeded at the state level in Arizona and Maine.
10. What efforts would you support to address highway safety, traffic congestion and maintenance of County roads which currently have deferred maintenance costs of $600million?
Jane Parker: I support regional traffic impact fees for developers, and a sales tax requiring significant funding levels for alternative transportation (especially bus rapid transit) and road maintenance. Tax funded road infrastructure projects should be prioritized to address needed safety improvements.
11. What additional sources of funding, if any, would you support to fund county government services?
Jane Parker: Besides state level changes such as reinstating the Vehicle Licensing Fee, reforming Proposition 13 as it relates to businesses, I would work locally to adjust budget priorities toward early investment rather than costly late-stage solutions and conduct regular management audits to identify potential areas for increasing revenue and creating efficiencies.
District 5 – Responses from Dave Potter and Don Ask
1. The draft 2008 County General Plan (GPU5) includes policies that would limit growth to existing lots of record in most of North Monterey County, the Greater Salinas Area and parts of the Highway 68 Corridor. What is your position on these policies?
Dave Potter: I strongly support these policies and worked to include them in GPU5.
Don Ask: I support property owners who wish to build their home on existing lots of record. I also believe that before any zoning is altered, a compelling case must be made in order for community members to agree.
2. What is your position on city-centered growth?
Dave Potter: I support city-centered growth and always have.
Don Ask: I promote responsible city-centered growth and encourage local communities to attentively plan for the future. In the Salinas Valley this issue becomes more challenging because cities are located in the center of the most productive agricultural land. When we think about smart growth, it is essential to protect our valuable farm property.
3. The 1982 County General Plan and Zoning Ordinance (Title 21) prohibit conversion of uncultivated slopes of 25% or greater to agricultural crops. The draft 2008 County General Plan would allow conversion with a permit. What is your position on this issue?
Dave Potter: Cultivation on slopes over 25% is inappropriate and can lead to serious erosion, especially with certain soil types.
Don Ask: The GPU is for 25 years. Twenty-five years ago I could not envision the agriculture industry bagging pre-mixed salad or that the wine industry in the county would grow like it has. Our industries, including hospitality, require the flexibility to adjust as market demands change. With strict permit procedures we can allow for any new technologies in controlling erosion and cultivation. A permit is fair to the agriculture industry and can be adjusted for new developments in erosion control and unforeseeable cultivation.
4. The 1982 County General Plan includes a policy prohibiting subdivision of most productive agricultural land to non-agricultural purposes. This policy is also included in the draft 2008 County General Plan. What is you position on this provision?
Dave Potter: I support the provision and worked to include it in GPU5 as well.
Don Ask: Developers should not purchase agriculture land with the intent of rezoning for non-agricultural purposes.
5. What is your position on current County requirements regarding provisions of affordable housing? Under what circumstances, if any, should an applicant be able to have affordable housing requirements reduced or removed once the project has been approved?
Dave Potter: Affordable housing is and should stay a high priority for Monterey County. I believe that the affordable element should be continued for the life of the project, not for a certain period of time. The mandated 15% should always be maintained.
Don Ask: Progressive changes can be made to allow current County requirements to evolve as community needs grow. However, to protect local citizens, changing requirements once a project has been approved should not happen without public notice and a review.
6. Do you see a need for increased public participation in county government? If so, what are your ideas?
Dave Potter: There is no such thing as too much public participation. Televised meetings and internet accessibility have made a significant improvement in public awareness of issues before the County. Specific comments via email to our office regarding thoughts and comments on past meetings would help.
Don Ask: Yes! The voice of the public must be heard in order for local government to operate effectively. The County can improve communication via the internet. Technology will allow sending a weekly e-mail agenda of the Supervisor meeting to the general public. Current legislation and ordinances mentioned on the agenda should also be accessible for all to review.
7. Do you see a need for greater openness and transparency in the workings of County government. If so, what are your ideas?
Dave Potter: Yes, less business done in closed session would help remove the cloud of secrecy and more open workshop/retreats by the Board would help the public better understand the intentions and agenda of the Board and administration.
Don Ask: Creating a more transparent government is one of my most significant goals as Supervisor. One idea to achieve this would be making simple quarterly budget reports easily available to the public. We would have addressed the major financial crises of the County Hospital much earlier if this straightforward reporting process were in place.
8. What are your ideas for addressing water issues on the Monterey Peninsula?
Dave Potter: I am proud of the efforts of MPWMD to date. We lead the state in conservation and creative water solutions. Solving Order 95-10 should be our primary focus, and to return Carmel River to full health. A mix of desalinization, aquifer storage and recovery, conservation, plus reclamation is the only deliverable solution.
Don Ask: Monterey County is facing a water crisis. I believe we must disband The Monterey Peninsula Regional Water Management District as the voters advised. Thirty years of unproductive bickering have left citizens underserved. Instead, we can use the existing Monterey County Water Resources Agency to implement a plan similar to the one proposed by Monterey Regional Plenary Oversight Group (REPROG).
9. Is campaign finance reform needed for candidates running for County offices? If so, what components should be a part of it? (1) donation limits (how much?, who can donate?); (2) recusal from vote which would benefit individual if official received campaign donation from that individual; (3)better transparency (e.g. stricter disclosure, disclosure on internet, etc.); (4) public funding
Dave Potter: Yes. (1) Limit personal contributions so that not only the rich can run. I would suggest limiting contributions to $250.00 (same as California Coastal Commission); (2) Use the same limits as the Coastal Commission for recusal (under current election law, Coastal Commissioners are prohibited from receiving any contribution in excess of $250 from a party, participant or their agents with a project before the Coastal Commission, within the 12 months preceding the decision, during proceedings, or for three months after the decision.); (3) Disclosures are adequate if people honestly disclose, but they need to be tracked, reported and enforced so that there are no errors; (4) I would support public funding at the Federal level, but don’t think it is necessary at the local level.
Don Ask: Public funding translates to a heavy tax increase or redirection of funds critically needed elsewhere. While I acknowledge that our current system is in need of an upgrade, I do not support using tax dollars to finance campaigns. As we have seen on the national level, for every effort to control campaign finance, a method to go around the new rules has always been found, with bigger loopholes and wider abuses. Instead, I would be open to innovated plans to curb abuse found in the system.
10. What efforts would you support to address highway safety, traffic congestion and maintenance of County roads which currently have deferred maintenance costs of $600 million?
Dave Potter: I have always supported development impact fees county-wide. To date only the 5th District and FORA have impact fees. It’s those fees that provided the funding for improvements on Carmel Valley Road, Highway 68 and the Climbing Lane on Highway 1.
Don Ask: I could support the TAMC plans if ensured changes would be implemented. As it stands now, the plan increases sales tax for 25 years with no way to stop the tax if TAMC becomes another big wasteful government agency. This is wrong. The plan must require measurable goals and a citizens oversight committee with the power of authority.
11. What additional sources of funding, if any, would you support to fund county government services?
Dave Potter: All fees charged for services should be updated to current costs to provide those services. For example, the parcel tax for ambulance service should be increased from the 20 year old $15/parcel to reflect current costs, which would eliminate or greatly reduce the amount of general fund subsidy that is currently needed to provide ambulance service in Monterey County. Unlike any of the other jurisdictions (local cities in Monterey County), the County does not have a business license fee. Over the last year, I have been working towards establishing a business license fee. Other sources of revenue would be a Transient Occupancy Tax (which goes straight to the County general fund), development impact fees to offset improvements to roads, public services and public safety, and a per carton ag fee for roads.
Don Ask: Voters must have the opportunity to approve any additional funding for a specific purpose and a definite period of time. The source of funding should vary according to the project. As budget problems loom with the Federal & State government, fewer funds will be coming into Monterey County. We need to slow our spending NOW to avoid painful cuts in the near future.
