What Happened at the Planning Commission Hearing

by Gene Herr

A large group turned out to comment, close to 200 is my guess, with between 50 and 60 people speaking. After the public hearing, around 5pm, there was a break to welcome Jesse Slotte home. The meeting resumed around 5:45.

Patrick Ford of the Planning Team staff introduced consultant Eric Norris to comment regarding the timelines for the whole General Plan process.

In July the consultants will send the revised Update "working draft" document to the Supervisors. There have been major changes in the working draft, incorporating what Supervisors approved at hearings throughout the last year.

Any approved revisions to the Anderson Valley Local Plan which go forward from these two hearings will be incorporated with the whole Update working draft document. When this is approved by the Supes (end of July?) it will become the "Review Draft."

The Land Use map changes have been completed and will be available with the General Plan "Review Draft" when the Supervisors turn it loose for public comment.

The Environmental Impact Report has been 95% completed and will also be available for public comment in "the summer." There was no clear statement of how the required legal review periods for the documents dovetail with the deadlines for discussion and adoption of the Update documents. (The Ukiah Valley Area Plan has been broken out as a separate element and is going forward simultaneously but has been put on a separate review and approval track. How these will relate to the overall approval date of the General Plan Update is not clear. They are both scheduled for final approval sometime at the end of October, or in November. The staff has expressed doubt that this is feasible.

It will be possible for the public to comment again on the Review Draft and on the Environmental Review Document and the Land Use Maps. It is not over until it is over, or until the fat lady sings or — see below on "Housing" — perhaps not even then.)

We had objections to many of the staff comments.

Mr. Ford said they had made no point-by-point review of the Introduction and would incorporate it or not per direction from the Commissioners when they send the whole Anderson Valley Local Area Plan on to the Supervisors in July.

The Alternative Plan had 47% of the content coded green which they consider to be redundant or limiting a special focus to our region which actually pertains to the whole County.

Norris suggested that he could provide a reference which would show how to "cross link" the green items with the rest of the General Plan to enable someone looking at the Anderson Valley Local Plan to see how those pertain to key issues of concern in Anderson Valley. The Commissioners said he should do that.

Ford said those items color-coded orange (15%) which are appropriate for inclusion in the Anderson Valley Local Plan may need "word-smithing" and will need another Planning Commission meeting (now set for July 3rd) to confirm. Additional comment on these will be considered.

Ford said the red-colored items (14%) did not meet criteria set by the Supes and the Planning Commission for inclusion. However some of these were discussed and some seem to be on the table for future discussion.

Blue Sections (24%) of the local plan fall in this "not applicable for inclusion" category. However some were discussed, and again parts of some seem to be included still.

Not all Commissioners spoke to all items. They will send email comments to staff for inclusion in discussion to be held on July 3rd.

Commission Chairman Jim Little said that the staff should proceed to do the cross-linking of key issues in green with the rest of the General Plan text. Much of the narrative in the introduction could apply equally to Laytonville, and is not unique to one region or another.

Commissioner Molly Warner said there are 16 of the orange items she wants included and will email them. She wants: to name the four communities of Yorkville, Boonville, Philo, Navarro; encourage the process for local town plans in these areas; include CSD sponsored pool and community center; include public restrooms and be specific about who funds and maintains; include and specify "small decentralized" sewer and water planning; include baseline studies for ground and surface water; include informational notice for water storage but refine what size triggers requirement for notice; cite Navarro River Restoration Plan by name; require County to disseminate habitat needs, and improve coordination for environmental remediation, with attention to existing dumps including accumulations of tires, expand discussion of wildlife corridors with specifics on how this should function, include sections on County Parks, and on bike lanes and Caltrans traffic calming measures.

Commissioner Greg Nelson said there should be discussion under the housing element to provide incentive for agricultural owner/employers to provide housing on their property for workers.

Karen Calvert said she is OK on town plan for Boonville but dubious on plan for Philo, Navarro, Yorkville. Says there is not enough "community" there to provide necessary input resources for plan development. (This view was supported by testimony from Matt Meyer representing the Yorkville Highlands Growers and Vintners, a group which he stated included some 70 members of that community, who he said were opposed to being included in the Anderson Valley Local Plan.) Calvert says the Community Center/Pool discussion should be with the CSD. She also wants a special incentive for owners of resource lands to develop housing next to community centers.

Commissioner Britt Bailey said she intends to provide specific comments by email. In general the cross-referencing of the green text is all right with her, although some need to be restated in the Anderson Valley text as well. She approves inclusion of most of the orange text with some edits. She asked why the local plan goal of a rural agrarian community should be red coded since it was an obvious community goal. Consultant Norris said they would rethink that. She also questioned whether the implementation measure to achieve community separation and traffic safety requiring tasting rooms in resource zoning to obtain a use permit (as is required in residential and rural community zoning) should be in a general plan document for a specific area. Norris said it could be included in the body of the plan for application County-wide. Fred Buonanno (Philo Ridge Vineyards) said as president of the County winegrowers' organization he would require the date confirmed in order to insure adequate participation if the Commission intended to discuss this County-wide application at the next meeting.

Chairman Little, in closing the discussion from the Commissioners, said he wanted the "rural agrarian" included. He added, "If the County can spend a million dollars to do a separate Ukiah Valley Area Plan it can spend some money to bring consensus in the Anderson Valley. Solutions start in communities, not in UKIAH!"

We asked why the consultant had blue-lined community concerns about housing, since it has figured as the major area of concern in public planning hearings since 2003. The answer is confusing. Parts of our draft which pertain to public water and sewer systems (which have direct bearing on affordable housing) may be included in the local plan. Parts which pertain to incentives for land owners to build specific types of housing by increasing densities near communities (and which also will have impacts on zoning and preservation of resource land and habitat protection) may possibly be included. However a discussion of Housing in Anderson Valley per se is proposed to be artificially shunted into a separate Housing Element (discussed separately, and on a state-mandated five-year update cycle). Mendocino has just completed that cycle and is being sued to implement it. This year, beginning in August, the review for the new Housing Element update cycle starts. How this will interface with the urgent housing needs of Anderson Valley is not clear.

What's next?

We have not sent the Commission the locally prepared draft contributions or the letters these contributors sent us as we were working on the Local Alternative Plan development. Only the letters sent to the March community meeting at the Apple Hall, together with the summary of the comments made at that meeting, have been passed on to the Commission. If we have incorporated previous suggestions and language in the Local Alternative Plan and anyone wishes those to be a part of the public record please send them again directly to the Commission.

If you sent a letter to the Commission for the June 5th meeting and it was too late to be put in the printed packet, please send it again to make sure it is included in the record for consideration at the July 3rd meeting.

If any part of these notes indicates to you that your particular interests may need additional definition or a stronger statement for inclusion in the local plan, please check the official minutes and if you are still concerned, write or plan to attend the next meeting.

The Planning Commission will meet again in Anderson Valley on July 3rd, place and time to be announced, to complete discussion on The Local Plan.

Thanks to all of you who have participated in this process.