The Planada Deal, an update
One of the things that emerged from farm labor conflicts in the 1960s was the need for more permanent farmworker housing. The town of Planada became a target for efforts to achieve that goal and much work was done by many good people through the years to make it possible for farmworkers to own homes in Planada.
This was all well and good until the arrival of UC Merced not far away from Planada. UC Merced excited the profit motives of developers, who dreamed of simply attaching a chain between two large tracklayers and knocking the whole town down to rebuild it as a yuppie village on the way to Yosemite because Planada had a sewer system, at least a sewer system of sorts, and sewer systems are the Holy Grail of developers. And a Yosemite vista!
This month, Merced County Superior Court will probably decide whether or not Jesus Colmenero Rivera molested five high school students. While that dispute rages in court, what is beyond dispute is that Colmenero, a Planada native, was a respected, effective community organizer of opposition to developers bent on destroying Planada, the farmworker village, to recreate it as an upscale new town. It is also indisputable that developers and their political frontpersons like former Merced County Supervisor Gloria Cortez-Keene, now a realtor with a rap sheet, and individuals in law enforcement destroyed his career as a teacher and caused him permanent physical injury. Two of those individuals are now being sued in federal court for extorting a land parcel out of a prisoner in the county jail. Nor in dispute are the bizarre lengths to which the county District Attorney has gone to force Colmenero to cop a plea rather than argue his case before a jury. It is also indisputable that the 5th Court of Appeals of California decided the case brought by environmental groups backed by more than 150 citizens of Planada for the developers and against the people despite one justice's forceful dissenting opinion. Colmenero was arrested shortly after this case was filed in trial court in Merced County.
UC Merced will of course deny any involvement with Planada, any influence, any connection with the place. Yet, UC Merced filed a brief with the state Supreme Court to attempt to get out of paying $200 million in off-site impacts in eastern Merced County. UC will give it the old college try as often as necessary to deny its impacts on eastern Merced County.
Pity poor Planada, so far from justice and so close to UC Merced.
Below, find a fact sheet on the famous Planada sewer, which is what the whole Planada Deal is all about.
Badlands Journal editorial board
----------------------
BACKGROUND
As early as 2002, developers have been working hand in glove with the Planada Community Service District (PCSD) to double sewer capacity for the area. This was done in concert with the development of the Planada Community Plan (PCP). The PCP is the guiding policy document for growth in Planada and had not been updated since 1982. The PCP was challenged by members of the community in 2003 because it was amended outside of a public process. The PCP and a review of PCSD minutes indicate attendance by developers in coordination with a former County Supervisor and the PCSD board.
In 2004, the Merced County District Attorney filed suit against the Planada Community Services District. The district was found to be in violation of state and federal law, sanctioned and fined by the State Water Resources Control Board. The PCSD was required to address these charges and to become legally compliant regarding the manner and form in which it disposed of sewage.
THE MEANING OF
LEGALLY COMPLIANT:
The PCSD was enjoined to develop a legally compliant discharge system. The PCSD was not required to double the capacity; nor was it mandated to change the manner and form of its discharge system. In fact, the State Water Resources Control Board has informed the PCSD that they cannot use grant money to offset the fine for expansion costs.
The Current Wastewater Treatment and Expansion Plan
The PCSD, along with developer interests, inappropriately and illegally combined the need to become compliant with a plan to double capacity. This is a public sewer and it should involve a high level of public participation. How many Planada residents were/are aware that this plan is in place? Instead, the PCSD moved quickly to adopt a negative declaration for a new treatment plan and to expand the sewer. Land was purchased and/or optioned for sewer ponds. County, state, federal agencies and community members objected and an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was produced (EIR’s typically require a higher standard of environmental review). The final EIR was certified by the PCSD on August 21st. The EIR is being legally challenged on the following grounds:
1) The PCSD cannot legally rely on population assumptions from the Planada Community Plan
2) The PCSD did not meaningfully analyze other treatment alternatives which many view as environmentally superior to the method chosen
3) Significant and potentially significant environmental impacts – including those identified by agencies on this matter -- were ignored and/or deferred
WHO IS THIS FOR?
Outside developers with no connections or interest to or in the community have exploited Planada’s socio-economic and demographic profile to leverage these funds in support of developer driven growth. Federal and state monies have been leveraged to:
· Spend over $9 million for a environmentally flawed sewer that is not legally required, but will subsidize new development; the vast majority of which will be unaffordable to current residents
· Pay for a marginal EIR that does not begin to address serious environmental concerns
· Purchase new lands for migrant housing that is an area that makes no sense for safety purposes and then subsidize the new project by providing hookups that will support growth in prime ag lands north of 140
With the important exception of the Casa Del Sol Apartment Complex, development thus far in Planada has translated into 2 housing developments. Two more major residential housing developments are expected to be unveiled this year. At the peak of the housing boom, houses in these developments started $225,000, while the median income in Planada is approximately $24, 300 per year (2000 US Census data).
In 2003, the Merced County Housing Authority, purchased land near the current Sewer District Maintenance Facility was also outside the PCSD area. This land purchase took place prior to a public process. The Housing Authority proposed demolishing and moving Felix Torres residents from their current location to the new land that was outside the PCSD service area. Despite significant opposition from farmers, farm workers, and other community members, the Felix Torres site was demolished. In a complicated land deal, the Merced County Housing Authority bought land it didn’t need, sold it to Pacific Holt, who in turn, closed the deal by swapping land for a new site for the Felix Torres camp in a previously undeveloped section of prime farmland north of 140. This same land was sold by Pacific Holt to a key Merced County Planning Department official who purchased the same parcel for approximately one-half its value.
Since 2004, migrant farm workers have been dispossessed of 85 units of housing in an area that was previously served by the PCSD. Why? The new site is now set to break ground in the Spring of 2008 at a revised cost of $17 million dollars (the project was set to cost $11 million when first proposed in 2003). Yes, $17 million dollars according to the Housing Authority representative who was present at the August 16, 2007, MAC meeting.
The cost of this project will be shouldered by taxpayers and Planada residents: Who stands to benefit the most?
WHAT DEVELOPERS GAIN:
Perception counts. Developers gain a brilliant marketing ploy for developing prime farm land north of 140.
In public documents, one business partner of Pacific Holt described their rationale for relocating Felix Torres as follows: “Pacific Holt Corporation wanted to put the Housing Authority North of Hwy. 140 for a lot of reasons, one being activity of development north of 140 and …to keep growth immediately in the Northern Highlands of the existing town of Planada… Our main objective in the whole purchase and exchange is to start activity for our future plans for subdividing the entire Kamanger and adjoining parcels.” The Kamanger property was the proposed site for the recently rejected Villages of Geneva, and the Golf Course Development of 2005; depending on the plan – this property could accommodate 4,000 new residences. Any proposed development on this land will require sewer and water hookups.
Farm worker housing is an ingenious way to anchor growth in an area zoned A-1 and create a whole host of safety issues related to relocating services and housing that lacks basic infrastructure – sidewalks, bike paths. In essence, a new set of safety needs are manufactured that can only be solved by MORE DEVELOPMENT on prime farmland.
Under the challenged Planada Community Plan, the zoning for the long-time Planada Village has been changed from residential to commercial. Are residents of the Village aware of this very significant land use change? Is the community at large aware? Who will gain from the substitution of farm worker housing for additional commercial space on the corner of 140 and Plainsburg, where current farm worker housing exists? With this change in zoning, can we expect this farm worker village to be demolished too?
WHAT FARM WORKERS LOST:
Farm workers not only lost housing, they lost a community that included established shade trees and gardens, soccer and baseball fields, and most importantly they lost their homes-- for three, going on four years. Where did those folks go? What will happen when to the Planada Village over time?
WHAT PLANADA LOST:
The opportunity to focus impact fees, tax dollars, federal, and state monies to improve the infrastructure within the Planada Community have been lost. We have more people, but who is stuck with the needs created by new development – development that has yet to pay its way.
A new school has had to be completed with donations and local bonds from a socio-economically challenged community. We must dig into our park/recreation funds to help provide school amenities. Why do we need to fill in the gaps to accommodate new infrastructure when there hasn’t been a meaningful attempt to upgrade the park, basketball courts, and the amenities within the town? Is it too much to ask developers to pay for new parks that are accessible and safe? Is it too much to ask for a increased county sheriff presence when our community doubled in size? Is it too much to ask for a library and operating costs to support this in years to come? Is it too much to ask for youth programs as opposed to building new school buildings on the outskirts of town?
Who should be the recipient of additional capacity? Whose interests are being served under the current arrangement?
PLANADA: YOU PAY
What has it cost the average Planadan?
Storm Water Drainage: This is a service that the community desperately needed, but again, the community paid for it. Local residents saw a one-time increase of $3,000 to pay for the loan for the project and had to pay approximately $135 dollars each year until the loan is paid.
Sewer and Water Fees: Despite pleas from over 100 signatories (typically – 250 voters in most elections in Planada), effective January 1, 2006, Planada residents were asked to absorb a 22% rate hike. Sewer hookups that once cost $2,600 would now cost $5,000; a bi-monthly bill for $100, would now become a monthly bill for $61. According to the State Water Control Board, Planada residents pay $23 for sewer, while the average Californian pays $20 per month. Can our socio-economically challenged community afford another hike in the near future?
Parks: Instead of additional parks or improvement on the existing Houlihan Park, the county has collected “in lieu” fees. However, those monies are destined for Cesar Chavez Academy. Why didn’t the school collect sufficient fees from the development community that was pressing for this? Instead the school board decided to tax the community to pay for infrastructure that was poorly planned and not so clearly needed.
Schools: Cesar Chavez Middle School currently serves approximately 200-300 students. Planada Elementary School serves approximately 500 students. Despite predictions to the contrary, ADA in Planada has not risen as expected.
Did Planada or does Planada need to put more money into capital investments like new schools or might the community be better served by strengthening the programs and the quality of teaching that is available in the current facilities? Our new school is missing some important basics: a cafeteria? lawn? ball courts and playing fields? trees? These services had to come after the fact three – ? years after the school has opened.
WHAT ABOUT AFFORDABLE HOUSING?
Planada will need an expanded waste-water system. Does it need to double? This decision should be best left to the community – not folks with an inside track to elected PCSD officials. If you didn’t know about this and would like to learn more, please contact:
Maureen McCorry
415 815-8872
mccorrym@aol.com
Planada deserves an environmentally sound and affordable sewer system which serves the needs of the community, not the speculative interests of developers.