|
|
|
|
|
Marina
2020 Vision |
|
|
Ken Gray June 2, 2000 Mayor and Council Members, City of Marina Re: Marina Urban Growth Boundary Initiative and Update of the Marina General Plan Dear Mayor Perrine and Members of the Marina City Council: As you know, Marina 2020 Vision has submitted an initiative petition to the City Clerk, containing the signatures of 1625 Marina voters. Our petition asks the City Council either to enact the Marina Urban Growth Boundary Initiative as presented in the petition, or to place the initiative on the next City ballot, for a vote of the people. We expect that the City Clerk's review of the petition will find that we have submitted more than enough valid signatures to qualify the initiative under state law requirements. This letter is to discuss the relationship of our initiative petition to the Marina General Plan Update, now in progress, and to make a specific request of the Council. Presuming that our initiative petition does qualify for the ballot, and that the City Council does not choose to enact the initiative measure directly, then we ask the Council to suspend any further consideration of the General Plan Update until after the voters have had a chance to give their opinion, by their vote on the Marina Urban Growth Boundary Initiative. As you will recall, Marina 2020 Vision circulated an "advisory" petition, prior to the official initiation of the current General Plan Update. Our request at that time--and the request of the more than 600 Marina residents who signed our advisory petition--was that the Environmental Impact Report for the proposed General Plan Update analyze an Urban Growth Boundary alternative, and compare the environmental and other effects of that Urban Growth Boundary alternative to the effects of what the Council is calling its "preferred" alternative. The "preferred alternative" is largely consistent with the Armstrong Ranch development proposal submitted to the City by the Gibson-Speno Company, a Silicon Valley developer. The City Council refused to include an analysis of an Urban Growth Boundary alternative in its environmental review process, which is why Marina 2020 Vision circulated our official initiative petition. Our intent is to let the people of Marina decide themselves what they want the future of their City to be. Because the Council was unwilling even to consider alternatives other than the developer's "preferred alternative," we felt we had no choice but to utilize the initiative process. This process, as established in the California State Constitution, is intended to protect the right of the people to have governmental decisions reflect their views--and not just the views of elected officials. We note, incidentally, that it is ironic that the Council may now spend up to $10,000 of the taxpayers' money to study the environmental and other effects of our Urban Growth Boundary initiative. Had the Council responded positively to the "advisory" petition presented to the Council, with over 600 signatures of Marina residents on that petition, they would have done that sort of study as part of the EIR process, "up front," and at virtually no additional cost, and without any need for the citizens of Marina to use the initiative process. As indicated above, we have used the initiative process because we think it is appropriate for the people of Marina to decide for themselves what they want the future of their City to be. We hope the Council will agree that it is fair, reasonable, and responsible for the citizens to have the opportunity to decide directly on the key issue of whether or not the City should now be expanding into the 2000 plus acres of open land to the North of the City, or whether the City should focus its future growth on filling in the existing City, and rejuvenating and revitalizing it--and most especially whether Marina should focus its new growth into the areas of the former Fort Ord that are now included within the City limits. Whatever your personal views, the effect of our successful initiative petition will be to put this question directly before the voters. Since the voters will get to make this important choice directly, we urge you to suspend any further processing of the current General Plan Update until after the voters have made their decision, one way or another. That way, the General Plan ultimately adopted will truly reflect the will of the people of the City of Marina. To continue to move forward on a General Plan alternative that may be "preferred" by the City Council and the developer, but that may not be what the people of Marina want, will result in a waste of the taxpayers' money, untold hours of work by both the Council and the Planning Commission, the possible need to redo the General Plan almost immediately after its adoption by the Council, and a confusion about the basic land use policies that will govern the future growth of Marina. We believe that it does not make sense for the Council to disregard the obvious truth--which is that the people want to decide for themselves, directly, what shape the future growth of the City should take. Please let the people make their choice, and then implement it--and not attempt to preempt the people's choice by continuing to work on a "preferred alternative" that may well not be what the voters of Marina really want. We think that the voters of Marina want to focus future growth within the existing City limits, and to restore and revitalize the Fort Ord lands before expanding out into areas to the North. The Council clearly believes the opposite. We may be wrong about what the people of Marina want, or the Council may be wrong--the people will decide. Again, please let the people decide, and suspend any further processing of the proposed General Plan Update until after they have made their decision. Sincerely, cc: Members, Marina Planning Commission |
Home | About LandWatch | Issues & Actions | LandWatch News
Citzen Resources | Membership | Publications | Calendar |
Archives | Search | Links | Contact Us
Site Design and Management by Jeffrey Reynolds
all materials ©1999 Landwatch