Just What Watsonville needs. . . a Real MOU
What the agreement means for Watsonville

Mayor Oscar Rios extoles the virtues of good education and begs the commission to allow Watsonville youth to have one.

By Peter Nichols
pnichols@tellingthetruth.com

WATSONVILLE _ After a 13 year effort to build a high school at Harkins Slough Rd, Assemblyman Fred Keeley came to town, negotiated for three months, created 10 pages of single spaced text _ the Memorandum of Understanding _ and won the approval of the Coastal Commission.

If it were a sporting event, he would have been hoisted onto the shoulders of the home team and carried out of that hotel meeting room to the sounds of Queen's ``We will rock you''.

In what may be his crowning achievement as a political leader, that agreement was cited by commissioners as a requirement for making the high school a possibility and praised by those who participated in its creation as an historic agreement uniting groups with conflicting interests.

The agreement was hammered-out in private, mostly secret negotiations between city, county and district officials, and with the participation of groups concerned about potential development of lands west of the city limits.

What is unclear at this point however, is what the agreement means to Watsonville. With it, the Coastal Commission has cleared the way for the city to convert what the commission considers prime agricultural land within the coastal zone to public school use.

So, the city gets a high school, but what else does it mean?

The primary provision of the agreement _ and the reason it was created _ makes it extremely difficult for the city to seek annexation of lands west of Highway 1. The city has long eyed those lands for desperately needed housing and had identified the Tai property _ approximately 640 acres located adjacent to the proposed school site _ within its general plan as a possible source for up to 1,400 homes.

Environmental groups have fought the city for years claiming that property was unsuitable for development because of its environmental sensitivity and value as a coastal resource.

The city was using the property's potential within the study area provisions of the general plan to satisfy its housing element requirements.

When asked how the city plans to make up for the loss of that potential, Development Director John Doughty said, ``I haven't got a clue.''

``We're looking at different projects that might accommodate greater density,'' he said as a way to partially make up for the loss.

According to Doughty detached housing typically provides up to 10 units per acre, while attached units could yield 15 to 18 units per acre.

Though the negotiations creating the agreement focused on the enforceability aspects, there has been speculation about the agreement's ability to stand up in court.

Though the city has indicated that it is a willing signer of the agreement, the effect of the MOU is to deny them the right to annex properties to the west _ except under certain conditions _ even though the Local Agency Formation Commission is the legally empowered entity established to rule on these matters.

As spelled out in the agreement annexation and development would be permitted where agriculture becomes infeasible. Beyond that, any efforts to annex and develop would require a super majority _ five of seven city council members or four of five county supervisors _ and another Local Coastal Program amendment.

According to Coastal Commission Executive Director Peter Douglas, the MOU is not a legally binding agreement at all.

``It's not enforceable in a court of law,'' he said. ``It is based on faith and trust.''

He added that the commission was relying on the efforts of Keeley to bring legislation to the state assembly to put some teeth into that agreement.

According to Keeley the legislation he proposes would allow any party to sue if the following two conditions exist: If the city and county have in place housing elements certified by the state, and if any party takes any step to repeal the super majority provisions of the memorandum. Even a letter suggesting such a repeal could trigger a law suit, he said.

It has been learned that the negotiations facilitated by Keeley included intense discussions involving the sale _ for public preservation _ of the Tai property. One person close to those discussions said the offer that was ``on the table was very good'' and there was some surprise that it was not accepted.

Keeley said that property has long been sought for preservation by environmental groups and those discussions were part of the secret negotiations that resulted in the MOU. He also said those discussions are on going.

He said the Santa Cruz County Land Trust was involved in those discussions and that he anticipated funding could be made available from recently passed Proposition 12. That proposition, which the Assemblyman sponsored, provides money for the acquisition of lands for public preservation.

The Memorandum of Understanding was the end result of negotiations initiated by Keeley to bring broader public support for the high school. Initially he met with groups favoring the school and three groups who initially opposed it. Later the factions were brought together for face-to-face sessions.

Though the Sierra Club eventually bowed out of the agreement, Wetlands Watch, an environmental group that favors protection of coastal resources west of Highway 1, stayed with the effort. Though they had previously opposed the site, they now support the high school and the MOU.

A group close to Keeley that seeks to preserve agriculture use of those lands, Community Alliance with Family Farmers (CAFF), supported the MOU and spoke at the Coastal Commission hearing. That group represents family and small farms throughout the state of California.

Ironically, in order to achieve their goal of preserving the farmland they covet west of Highway 1, CAFF had to support the conversion of land currently being farmed by Emigdio Martinez, a small family farmer growing strawberries who is not a member of the organization.

``I feel bad about that,'' said Ken Kimes, the group's representative in the negotiations. ``Perhaps the city or the school district should offer some help for him to reestablish his operation.''