gpupdatejune09

The MENDOCINO COUNTRY Independent
Web posted June 24, 2009

Bulletin: SUPES ELIMINATE DEFINITIONS OF FUNDAMENTAL PLANNING CONCEPTS July 7, 2009

    According to Mike A'Dair reporting in the Willits News, Supervisors deleted four definitions of fundamental planning concepts from the county's General Plan Update, presumably on June 22.
    Among the definitions deleted were definitions of "sustainable," "conservation," "preservation" and "development."
    The definitions had been prepared by Planning Team staff and consultants from PMC, the firm assisting the Planning Team with drafting the GPU.

    • The Planning Team had defined 'conservation' as "the preservation, protection or restoration of something [as in conservation of biological resources] or the prevention of the wasteful use of a resource [as in conservation of mineral or water resources]."

    • "Development" was defined as "construction and operation of residential, commercial, industrial or similar public and private buildings and facilities. Development does not include the growing of crops or livestock, the management of rangeland, the management or harvesting of timber, or uses defined in the general plan or the county Zoning Code as being accessory to these uses."

    • "Preservation" was defined as "active maintenance and protection of something [for instance, historic preservation or environmental preservation]."

    • "Sustainable" was defined as "able to be maintained at a certain rate or level over the long term, especially for future generations."

    Supervisor David Colfax criticized the definition of development, telling consultant Chris Davenfeldt it was improper to define a word by stating what it is not. Colfax suggested the
definition be struck from the list.
    Another board member recommended deleting all the definitions, which were struck from the general plan by general agreement.
    Peter Bradford, a former president of the Mendocino County Farm Bureau who has paid close attention to the process of creating an update to the general plan, told the board he would prefer supervisors take out every use of the word "sustainable" from the update. But board Chairman John Pinches said supervisors were going to leave the word "sustainable" in the plan, the board was just taking out the definition.
    Pinches requested a policy affecting the area surrounding Willits be struck from the update. That policy (CP-W-4) stated "the county shall seek to retain residential densities in the area surrounding Willits at levels in place in 2007 and will encourage future growth to occur in the city limits." The rest of the board agreed to strike to policy from the GPU
    With the deletion of the definitions and refining of policies, the draft General Plan Update was complete. It will be brought before the board on August 17 for adoption.

COUNTY GENERAL PLAN ALL BUT DONE
June 24

Tweaking around the Edges as Outright Rejection "off the table."
-- Ag Ponds or Tasting Rooms is major concern for some AV Residents

by Richard Johnson
    Under the existing General Plan written under court order some 20 years ago, the forests have been tumbled down, the streams have been silted up so there's no more salmon season, and development, legal and illegal has created erosion, loss of habitat, sprawl and strip malls here and there in both urban and rural areas.
    The proposed new "update" which is actually a vast revision of that plan omits or weakens many restrictions and requirements on development that is to come.
    The formal public comment period has closed on this plan which will supposedly guide development in the unincorporated county FOR THE NEXT 20 YEARS.
    It was prepared by a Davis consulting firm the planning director used to work for, and is based on the unbridled frontier assumptions of 40 years ago when there was still timber, fish, etc.
    At this point, there is no organized public demand to kill the document and start again with citizen advisory boards as the Voters Union advocates.
    And there is little desire on the board to even comprehensively understand the document. There are specific concerns which may be addressed by tweaking about the edges
    . Daniel Meyer of the Sierra Club wanted a grading ordinance, but there are three supervisors on the board who voted to kill the grading ordinance in 2007.
    He has given up on that, but insists that new water users must show a right to water before being given a building permit.
    On June 22, The Board resumed its consideration of the Draft General Plan Update and Final Environmental Impact Report which was continued from May 18.
    The Board reviewed recent changes recommended by the Planning Commission. Most of the debate in the late afternoon centered on agricultural interests' demand that it not be regulated.
    The Farm Bureau, the Vintners Association, and Wine Grape Commission and the Cattlemen's Association held that several specific development related policies should not apply to agriculture, and the term "development" should be defined as commercial, industrial and residential, but not agricultural.

The crux of the Farm Bureau cause is that the General Plan not pose a barrier to farmers converting to different crops or husbandry, or digging new ponds to retain water for frost protection, crops and livestock. But the changes they sought would severely weaken water protections from commercial, industrial and residential uses as well.
    A letter they submitted to the board in the wake of compromise language approved by the planning commission urged the substitution of "should" rather than "shall" -- rendering the measure virtually toothless.
    A motion by supervisor Brown -- 20-year FB executive director-- to accept all the Farm Bureau recommended changes failed 2-3 with Supervisors Colfax, Smith and McCowen dissenting.
    In answer, several Anderson Valley women raised strong concerns that loosening of restrictions on water use would have the effect of exempting from review the conversion of rangelands to vineyards and tasting rooms.
    While the specific language adopted would seem to bar that, they noted the language adopted by the Planning Commission was the result of compromise over many meetings in Anderson Valley and required "new water uses should be supported by a water supply adequate to serve the long-term needs of the intended density, intensity and use."
    The Farm Bureau letter questioned whether this would "effectively stop any new agricultural opportunities in the county," the kind of histrionics this organization is famous for.
    On Development Element Policy DE-196, a 3-2 vote (Supervisors Smith and Colfax dissenting) reversed the most recent recommendation of the Planning Commission, that would have made the policy apply to "new water uses" (including agriculture), instead of having it apply only to residential, commercial or industrial development. The Board vote retained the language in the February draft General Plan Update.
    On Resource Management Element RM-1# the Board failed, on a 2-3 vote (Supervisors Colfax, Smith and McCowen dissenting) to delete a policy stating that "No new development, including agricultural ponds, shall be allowed unless a water supply acceptable to the County is available."
    On the same issue, the Board then voted 3-2 (Supervisors Colfax and Smith dissenting) to delete the policy, but to replace it with a pair of comparable policies from the current General Plan that require development, including land divisions and use permits, to show proof of water, but does not extend the policy to agricultural ponds, which are still required to obtain a building permit and show that they have applied to the state for a permit if they intend to fill the pond with water that is under state jurisdiction. (Groundwater is not under state jurisdiction).
    Diane Paget, one of the Anderson Valley presenters later wrote a letter printed in the Ukiah Daily Journal characterizing these votes as supporting the Farm Bureau position that development on agricultural land should be exempt from the county planning process.
    On RM- 96 the Board voted 5-0 require that water projects, including for agriculture, shall apply for all required permits.
    The GPU and Final EIR will come back to the Board for final approval on August 27

What is at Stake:
   The legally mandated and much delayed Update of its General Plan (GPU) is intended as a basic permit for all development and planning for 28 million acres of the county except the incorporated cities of Ukiah, Willits and Fort Bragg until 2028. It incorporates the Local Coastal Plan and the Ukiah Valley Area Plan. Also excepted will be the former Masonite site owned by Developers Diversified Realty as its General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan initiative is expected to easily pass. It also lacks a Housing Element which is on a legally mandated separate track.
    Such plans are subject to the California Environmental Quality Act and thus must have an Environmental Impact Report. The Plan EIR is a program EIR which allows expedited or limited review of individual projects subject to it.
      This is the first modification of the County's General Plan since 1981. The so-called Update has a different structure than the original plan it modifies, reorganizing some 10 elements into four general categories: planning principles, development, resources, housing and community specific policies for Mendocino Town, Brooktrails, and the UVAP. This was at the convenience of PMC consultants of Davis, CA but obscures the route by which changes were made and makes review difficult.
   Along with the Update, some 33 specific projects received early and expedited approval under the previous board. They were vetted by the Planning Team instead of planning and building staff and individually greenlighted by the BOS.
   The County of Mendocino supervisors and the planning commission held a workshop on the Final General Plan Update and its EIR on March 1. The Planning Commission held its own hearings on the Final General Plan Update on April 2 and April 16 taking public comment. In addition, the Planning Commission held four hearings in Anderson Valley where they heard concerns of rural residents about conversion to vineyards and tasting rooms, the impacts on traffic and water.
    That was also the occasion for a presentation spearheaded by former supervisor Norman deVall asking for medical marijuana production zones. The chances of that happening approach zero, as the most liberal member of the commission privately told this author she thought medical marijuana was a hoax and her neighbor is endangering her by attracting thieves.
    While it is grossly inadequate, and a number of organizations and individuals have called for it to be scrapped and a new process begun using local citizen advisory committees instead of outside planners, that's not likely to happen according to sources on the board who say the press of other business and general lack of funds makes that route unthinkable for the BOS at this time.
    The GPU and its EIR can be accessed at http://www.co.mendocino.ca.us/planningteam/gpu/mtg_fGPU.htm
   For more information, call 463-4281.

Numerous Scathing Responses
    The County planning team received over 120 responses to the Draft General Plan Update after public comment closed on November 18. The voluminous number of comments from public agencies, private entities and citizens indicates the many reasons the plan is inadequate and should be rejected. It is available as a 750 page pfd as a public service on our website www.mendocinocountry.com on the Voters Union family of pages. You are urged to skim through it to help develop your own thoughts and see the breathtaking range and technical depth of the opposition.
     Certification of the final EIR initiates a one year period during which the County can be sued to vacate the Plan, but any such action must be preceded by a Notice 60 days in advance. And the suit can only claim causes that were raised at or before the public hearing, including the comments on the Draft..
    The Draft Ukiah Valley Area Plan will come under consideration after the General Plan process is complete.
     The present GP was written in 1981 after a lawsuit successfully challenged the 1970's collection of County planning polices as inadequate. It reflects the frontier assumptions of 40 years ago when nature was something to dominate and convert to economic uses with little or no concern for consequences.