Citizens' Coalition Criticizes ``PLAN'' Initiative.

SANTA CLARA, Calif. -- A coalition of residents, businesses, farmers and ranchers criticized the so-called PLAN initiative, submitted today to the Santa Clara County Registrar of Voters by proponents of the initiative.

"This initiative contains hundreds of complex changes in our County General Plan, but was written behind closed doors, without public hearings or environmental review," said former County Planning Commissioner Rex Lindsay, speaking on behalf of The Alliance for Housing and the Environment, a citizens' group opposing the initiative. "Voters have no way of knowing all the impacts it could produce," he said.

Other organizations that have announced their opposition to the PLAN initiative include the Santa Clara County Farm Bureau, Santa Clara County Hillside Association, Santa Clara County Association of Realtors and the Silicon Valley Association of Realtors PAC.

"The initiative is inconsistent with the county's adopted process for revising the General Plan, and it would overturn years of work by citizens to reach consensus on Viewshed Protection, Riparian Corridor and Williamson Act reforms," said Lindsay.

"The initiative locks in regulations on future development in Santa Clara County forever, and prohibits any changes - even small ones like adding a granny flat to a single-family home - without an expensive countywide vote," he said.

"Despite its deceptive title, the initiative threatens the future of agriculture in Santa Clara County by restricting farmers' and ranchers' ability to construct on-site processing and storage facilities, constraining their ability to obtain financing to adjust to changing market conditions, and restricting their ability to pass their property on to adult children," said Jenny Derry, executive director of the Santa Clara County Farm Bureau. "With over 50% of the county's farms smaller than 10 acres, the very large minimum parcel sizes required by the initiative could make it impossible for small specialty farmers to get started, remain in business, or expand," she said.

"The initiative will result in the county's open space being cut up into a jigsaw puzzle of hundreds of disconnected private open space easements, but will provide no publicly-accessible open space," said Lindsay.

"By restricting development within cities' spheres of influence, the initiative could make it more difficult for cities to effectively plan for future growth and prevent sprawl, and it encourages premature annexations and development into adjacent cities where building densities are much higher, contradicting the initiative's stated goals of preserving open space and minimizing development," said Lindsay.

"By reducing county revenues from property taxes and impact fees, the initiative threatens funding for basic county services like the Sheriff and fire protection, and limits the county's ability to fund needed road and water improvements," said Lindsay. "The initiative invites lawsuits claiming violations of the State Constitution and a variety of State laws, subjecting county government and taxpayers to millions of dollars in potential damage claims and attorney's fees, and forces individual property owners to pursue expensive lawsuits just to secure legitimate uses of their property," he said.

"The initiative could make it impossible to site a waste disposal facility in the unincorporated area, forcing these sites into incorporated cities, and it could obstruct construction of wireless communications facilities on hillsides, undercutting the region's efforts to create seamless wireless networks," said Lindsay.

"The initiative could restrict a property owners' ability to clear native brush and create a defensible space around their homes in high-fire-danger areas, and it could prohibit a homeowner from building a home or landscaping a backyard within 150 feet of a creek or stream," said Lindsay.