Docstoc

MENDOCINO COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION

Document Sample
MENDOCINO COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Powered By Docstoc
					                               MENDOCINO COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION

MINUTES FOR THE MEETING HELD ON:                                April 30, 2009

LOCATION:                                                       Mendocino County Administration Center
                                                                501 Low Gap Road, Conference Room C
                                                                Ukiah, California

COMMISSIONERS PRESENT:                                          Little, Calvert, Nelson, Warner, Holtkamp, Hall, Ogle

COMMISSIONERS ABSENT:                                           None.

PLANNING & BLDG SVC STAFF PRESENT:                              Ignacio Gonzalez, Director
                                                                Patrick Ford, Planner III
                                                                Eric Norris, PMC Consultant
                                                                Pat Angell, PMC Consultant
                                                                Adrienne Thompson, Commission Services Supervisor


OTHER COUNTY DEPARTMENTS PRESENT:                               Ross Walker, Deputy County Counsel

1.   Roll Call.

     The meeting was called to order at 9:04 a.m.

2.   Determination of Legal Notice.

     Mr. Gonzalez advised the Commission that all items had been properly noticed.

3.   Director’s Report and Miscellaneous.

     Mr. Gonzalez noted the short gap between Planning Commission meetings and stated he would have a
     formal Director’s Report at the next meeting.

4.   Regular Calendar.

     4a.    DISCUSSION AND COMMENTS ON THE GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND EIR (Continued from
            April 2, April 16 and April 23, 2009)

            PROJECT TITLE: Final Draft General Plan Update and Final Environmental Impact Report.
            PROJECT LOCATION: Unincorporated areas of Mendocino County, California, excluding areas in the Coastal Zone,
            incorporated cities, the Ukiah Valley Area Plan and the Brooktrails Specific Plan.

            PROJECT APPLICANT: COUNTY OF MENDOCINO
            PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The General Plan Update and EIR propose the following changes in Land Use Designation
            Acreages:

            Two additional land use designations have been added through the proposed General Plan Update process.

            1.    The Tribal Lands (T) designation is intended to be applied to lands owned by a Federally Recognized Tribe (FRT) or
                  Tribally Sponsored Organization (TSO) only when a tribe requests the designation. This designation provides for flexibility
                  in the range of land uses permitted, while requiring detailed planning and environmental analysis prior to development.
                  The detailed planning process would be accomplished through a specific plan or other type of comprehensive plan that
                  addresses land use, infrastructure, and other topics negotiated between the tribe and the County for the proper planning
                  of the land in question. The following land use categories may be applied to the Tribal Lands designation through the
                  detailed planning process: I – Industrial; C – Commercial; RC – Rural Community; SR – Suburban Residential; RR –
MENDOCINO COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION                                                                                       APRIL 30, 2009
MINUTES                                                                                                                     PAGE 2 OF 26


               Rural Residential; RMR – Remote Residential; AG – Agricultural Lands; FL –Forest Lands; RMR – Remote Resource
               Lands; PL – Public Lands; OS – Open Space; and PS – Public Services.

          2.   The Mixed Use (MU) designation would allow two- to three-story mixed-use developments with commercial uses
               encouraged at street level. Uses would be encouraged to be mixed vertically (stacked or linearly) on the site. This
               designation is intended for the core of the Community Planning Areas (i.e., Anderson Valley, Covelo, the unincorporated
               area around the city of Fort Bragg, Hopland, Laytonville, Potter Valley, Redwood Valley, and the unincorporated area
               around the city of Willits) to focus growth in the urban areas to protect existing agricultural resources in the outlying areas
               and along important transportation corridors near city boundaries, provided those areas have water and sewer service (or
               the equivalent). In addition, this designation is also intended to provide for pedestrian and transit-capable urban
               development. Preference shall be given to those projects providing affordable housing consistent with policies of the
               County’s Housing Element, as well as infill development.



                                                Existing            Proposed
                Land Use Designation     General Plan Acres General Plan Acres                                   Change
                Agriculture 40 ac                46,367              48,030                                      +1,663
                Commercial                          279                 280                                          +1
                Forest Land                    855,666              855,481                                       -185
                Industrial                        1,083               1,079                                          -4
                Open Space                        3,404               3,404                                           0
                Public Lands                   368,172              367,884                                       -288
                Public Service                    1,711               1,711                                           0
                Range Land                     701,721              699,975                                      -1,746
                Remote Residential 20 ac         40,765              40,993                                       +228
                Remote Residential 40 ac         53,084              53,216                                       +132
                Rural Community                   2,865               2,876                                        +11
                Rural Residential 10 ac          10,721              10,814                                        +93
                Rural Residential 1 ac            4,510               4,508                                          -2
                Rural Residential 2 ac            2,793               2,823                                        +30
                Rural Residential 5 ac            8,371               8,350                                         -21
                Suburban Residential              2,305               2,393                                        +88
                Suburban Residential PD              34                  34                                           0
                Total                        2,103,851            2,103,851
                Note: Acreages are rounded to the nearest whole number

          Mr. Gonzalez discussed the purpose of the meeting and noted the continuation of the discussion
          regarding the General Plan Update and EIR. He noted that the EIR Consultant, Pat Angell, was only
          available until noon and asked if the Commission would like to comment on the EIR first while Mr.
          Angell was available.

          Commissioner Calvert commented that she was not sure if she should vote on the EIR since she had
          a land use application included in the document. She thought it would be wiser to recuse herself and
          err on the side of caution, than to vote on the EIR.

          Ross Walker, County Counsel, noted he was sitting in for Terry Gross, who was unable to attend the
          special meeting of the Planning Commission, and stated he was unsure if it would be a conflict of
          interests for Commissioner Calvert to remain in her seat on the Commission.

          Eric Norris commented that it was not uncommon for a member of the Planning Commission to own
          property included in an EIR and stated the Commission’s decision would only be a recommendation
          to the Board of Supervisors. He asked Mr. Angell’s opinion on the matter.

          Pat Angell, EIR Consultant with PMC, was not familiar with the issue and commented that the
          Commission could make a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors for adoption of the General
          Plan while recommending denial of some of the map changes without hesitation
MENDOCINO COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION                                                               APRIL 30, 2009
MINUTES                                                                                             PAGE 3 OF 26



          Mr. Norris stated that since the Commission did not need Commissioner Calvert for a quorum, it
          would be safer if she chose to recuse herself for the EIR portion of the meeting.

          [Commissioner Calvert recused herself and took a seat as a member of the public.]

          Mr. Norris moved into discussion of the EIR and noted that Mr. Angell was available to answer any
          questions. He noted the Commission was not taking final action on the General Plan Update and EIR
          and would only be making a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors.

          Commissioner Hall commented on the order of the meeting and thought it would be difficult to discuss
          the adequacy of the EIR since the Commission had not finished the General Plan changes.

          Mr. Angell commented on the changes made to date and stated it would be difficult for the
          Commission to propose any changes that would affect the EIR analysis.

          Commissioner Hall noted there had been several policy and definition changes and asked how that
          would impact the EIR.

          Mr. Angell commented that a project evolved during the environmental review process and the only
          issue would arise if a new impact was revealed that had not been reviewed in the analysis or an
          existing impact was severely increased in severity. He noted all other changes would have less than
          significant impact.

          Mr. Norris noted Commissioner Hall’s interest in the definition of development, if that definition did or
          did not include agriculture, and the various policies using the term development. He stated that the
          way the document was written assumes the current regulatory practices in Mendocino County and
          noted agricultural practices do not require a permit. He stated, in a nutshell, development as written
          in the plan does not include agriculture and to write a definition of development to include agriculture
          would change Mr. Angell’s analysis of the EIR.

          Commissioner Hall commented on the analyses assumption that agriculture was not included in
          development and felt proper mitigation and protection of the environment were not addressed in the
          document. He was concerned that there appeared to be an exempting from the protection of the
          General Plan for agricultural practices and that the public had assumed that agriculture was included
          in the definition of development.

          Commissioner Little argued that other members of the public had assumed that development was not
          included in development and felt there was substantial protection associated with agricultural
          practices. He stated there was no exemption associated with agriculture from the endangered
          species act, streams and water courses, etc.

          Commissioner Hall agreed there were State regulations, but not County regulations.

          Commissioner Little felt it was unnecessary to add another level of protection to agriculture in the
          General Plan, which would only complicate the industry with no added benefit.

          Commissioner Hall commented on discussions from creation of the defunct grading ordinance and
          felt the rangeland conversion to intensive agriculture, at a minimum, should be regulated by the
          County.

          Commissioner Little commented that the General Plan would not prohibit the County from adopting a
          grading ordinance if the Board of Supervisors chose to do adopt one.

          Commissioner Hall stated his concern was not just in the definition of development, but also in the
          use of the language such as in, RM-1.

          Chairman Nelson asked if the discussion would change the outcome of the EIR.
MENDOCINO COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION                                                             APRIL 30, 2009
MINUTES                                                                                           PAGE 4 OF 26


          Mr. Angell assured the Commission that the discussion would not change the EIR.

          Chairman Nelson noted that if the Commission recommended certification to the Board and then
          some discussion fundamentally changed the EIR, the Board could vote to correct the document prior
          to adoption of the General Plan.

          Mr. Angell noted that depending on the circumstances, the Board might want supplemental
          information included in the EIR; an extreme circumstance would require the draft EIR to be reissued
          to analyze the new impact with additional review/comment period and public hearings.

          Mr. Norris commented that the conclusions reached in the EIR did not assume that agriculture was
          part of the policy. He stated to define development to not include agriculture would be consistent with
          the impacts of the General Plan.

          Chairman Nelson clarified that if the Commission included agriculture in the definition of development,
          the General Plan would become more restrictive.

          Mr. Norris agreed and stated the Commission could only provide more mitigation; their changes could
          not lessen any mitigation included in the General Plan.

          Mr. Angell noted the Commission could add more policies to clarify agriculture, if they preferred and
          stated that the EIR did consider the overall impacts of agriculture.

          Commissioner Warner commented that if the Commission recommended changes on the action
          items from “shall” to “should”, that would affect the EIR.

          Mr. Angell stated that depending on the action item, it would affect the EIR.

          Chairman Nelson asked if any member of the public would like to comment.

          Daniel Myers, representing the Sierra Club, commented on the discussion of agriculture as
          extremely serious, noting the prevalence of ag lands within the county. He felt that the definition of
          development in the General Plan included agriculture and to exclude ag from development would be
          a massive oversight on the part of the County. He disagreed with the order of the meeting and stated
          the General Plan should be discussed first and the EIR last.

          Bena Kalinsky also felt the General Plan should be discussed prior to the EIR.

          Kathy Bailey commented on the distinction that the General Plan did not include agriculture, which
          she felt was contrary to public belief. She thought the broad interpretation of the previous existing
          plan should not overshadow the update with what should and should not be included in the polices.

          Commissioner Holtkamp agreed with Commissioner Hall that, while the State might have regulations
          for water use in agriculture, the County did not regulate what was a cumulative, significant and
          unavoidable impact. She felt there should not be any type of exemption from regulations of
          resources.

          Chairman Nelson commented that the EIR consultant was only available for the morning and noted
          the Commission could review the EIR and save the action for the afternoon, in case any question
          came up prior to Mr. Angell’s departure.

          Mr. Norris stated he was prepared to discuss the definition of development if the Commission
          preferred.

          Chairman Nelson commented that since the discussion of development would not change the EIR, he
          would prefer to save the discussion for the afternoon.

          Commissioner Ogle commented that she would like the references to mule deer and fallow deer
          changed in the EIR to black tailed deer and white deer.
MENDOCINO COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION                                                                APRIL 30, 2009
MINUTES                                                                                              PAGE 5 OF 26



          Chairman Nelson noted typos on page 4.2-14, page 4.8-13, Hopland was missing from the list of
          areas of flood concern, and page 4.8-15 that Point Arena had lost their pier during a tsunami.

          Commissioner Hall noted a correction on page 3.032 that agricultural water usage was not monitored
          and stated that water was monitored.

          Mr. Angell commented that the statement was intended for ground water use and that no agency
          reported on ground water usage.

          Chairman Nelson asked if any member of the public would like to comment on the EIR.

          Karen Calvert noted an issue with the map on page 4.2-1, which indicates most of the County as
          grazing land, page 4.0-9 errata “… Douglas fir is second to redwoods in economic importance….
          insect and rot resistant” she stated that in order for Doug fir to be rot and insect resistant in exterior
          application, it must be treated. Secondly that the commercial value of Doug fir has been zero with the
          downturn of the building industry.

          Peter Bradford stated there would be significant impact to agriculture if it was included in the
          definition of development.

          Daniel Myers further discussed RM-14 and the lack of reason for its removal from the General Plan.

          Mr. Norris commented that during the April 16, 2009 Planning Commission meeting, the Commission
          had voted to re-insert RM-14 with the addition of agricultural ponds, into the General Plan.

          Kathy Bailey commented on page 4.4-6, a legend for critical habitat in Mendocino County, which
          was missing the Navarro River systems and Coho Salmon.

          Mr. Angell noted the information on the table was acquired from the critical habitat definition used by
          the US Fish & Wildlife Services and noted the table on page 4.4-5 illustrates more sensitive habitat
          versus the critical habitat on page 4.4-6.

          Barbara Goodell asked if staff could explain how agriculture was considered in the EIR.

          Mr. Angell noted agriculture was addressed in the sense of continued use, such as sensitive habitat
          and that the County could lose habitat by a property owner’s neglect during agricultural operations;
          climate change and how cattle can affect the climate by producing methane; that some types of
          agriculture provide habitat and movement to wildlife while other types of agriculture constrict wildlife.

          Peter Bradford asked if the EIR considered the potential for agricultural operations to become
          unviable due to restrictions and regulations and if that potential economic loss had been figured into
          the impacts.

          Mr. Angell noted the discussion and analysis of impacts on page 4.2, but stated that economic loss
          was not addressed under CEQA; however the loss due to conversion of ag to urban was addressed.

          Mr. Norris added that if the question was did the plan look at how adding new regulations would affect
          agriculture; the answer was that the General Plan does not add regulations.

          Commissioner Little noted the reference to conversion of ag to urban and asked at what level a policy
          change in the County would impact the amount of acres in the County dedicated to agriculture.

          Mr. Angell clarified that the EIR did not look at possible increased regulations, but a conversion
          because of land use changes and the potential loss of ag land to the expansion of urban or rural
          boundary area increases. Ultimately, he felt it would depend on how the policy was written.

          Mr. Norris clarified the questions further as the farming activity and noted that such a change was not
          examined in the EIR.
MENDOCINO COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION                                                                APRIL 30, 2009
MINUTES                                                                                              PAGE 6 OF 26



          Mr. Bradford stated that the potential economic impact associated with further regulations was
          substantial and should be mitigated through the EIR or the document was useless.

          Commissioner Hall commented that he thought the impact would arise during the rezone of parcels
          for development and did not think regulations would adversely impact agriculture.

          Mr. Bradford discussed the possibility of developing ag land through Certificates of Compliance,
          which would not require a rezoning to develop.

          Mr. Norris stated the appropriate time to finalize the discussion would be when the Commission
          proceeded with the definition of development.

          Bena Kalinsky commented that agriculture was a broad category and should be broken down in the
          General Plan into agriculture as food, as a resource, as agri-business, etc. to make better definitions
          that would better suit Mendocino County.

          Chairman Nelson closed the public discussion and noted the Commission would move on to the
          General Plan.

          Commission Calvert returned to her seat on the Commission.

          [Break 10:17 am-10:30 am]

          Commissioner Ogle commented on page 3 of the Anderson Valley Community Specific Plan and
          thought a sentence should be added that, “The Mendocino County Fairgrounds is also located in
          Boonville.” Also on page 6.05, she noted the “problematic aspect of the drug trade” is only mentioned
          in Anderson Valley but should be included in every community specific plan or deleted, since it was a
          problem in Mendocino County.

          Commissioner Calvert thought the sentence should be deleted from the Anderson Valley portion of
          the plan and inserted somewhere else in the General Plan document.

          Commissioner Ogle continued on page 6.06, Goal CPAV 7 and added “provide” to the beginning of
          the sentence, page 6.08 CPAV 10 add “Establish and expand commercial use suitable to meet the
          needs of residents and visitors”, page 6.0-34 she stated the location was incorrect and deleted
          “Powerhouse Road” and added “A downtown area located along the main street encompasses
          commercial operation, a school, a post office, health clinic and other uses”. She also felt it should be
          mention that the “Pottery Valley Irrigation District (PVID) serves agricultural water to properties within
          the district” after the sentence ending valley floor. On page 6.0-35 CPPV 2.1, she clarified that a
          central park was already being established and noted the paragraph should be moved to page 34 and
          read “A central park on the south side of Main Street across from Eel River Road is currently being
          developed by the community to invite travelers to stop/rest and visit the town and provide a central
          gathering point for community festivals and activities.” On page 6.0-36, CPPV.3, “Investigate
          underground power lines on the “south” side of Potter Valley.”

          Commissioner Holtkamp had a question on the land use designations, page 3.077 and noted the
          language under industrial land use on page 3.085 “This classification is intended to protect these
          lands from the pressures of residential and commercial development” and thought a similar protection
          should be added to preserve working lands such as forestland, agricultural land and rangeland.

          Commissioner Calvert agreed with protecting resource lands, but hoped the intent could not be
          construed to protect lands entirely from residential use and force a farmer off his land.

          Mr. Norris commented that the Commission could strike “residential” and add “to protect“, to read “this
          classification is intended to protect these lands from the pressures of development and preserve them
          for future use” and add to forest, agriculture and rangelands.
MENDOCINO COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION                                                             APRIL 30, 2009
MINUTES                                                                                           PAGE 7 OF 26


          Commissioner Calvert noted there was no Remote Resource Land in Mendocino County and thought
          the classification could be deleted, as long as it would not dramatically affect the document.

          The Commission agreed to add “This classification is intended to protect these lands from the
          pressures of development and preserve them for future use” to forest, agriculture and rangelands.

          Commissioner Calvert noted there were no findings listed at the beginning of each category and
          asked if that was an issue or nonissue for the General Plan Update.

          Mr. Norris stated that findings were no longer required for the General Plan.

          Commissioner Calvert discussed page 1.01, the introduction, and thought the fourth paragraph (and
          footnote) should be deleted since the accuracy of the statement could not be verified and removal
          would not jeopardize the intent of the document. She also asked on page 1.0-7, regarding renewable
          energy, what the meaning of wind, sun and thermal was and thought wind, solar and hydro made
          more sense.

          Mr. Norris stated the sentence could be changed to wind, solar, hydro and geothermal for clarity.

          Commissioner Calvert commented on the previous page and noted the categories should be
          consistent by either adding element or deleting element from Resource Element, Development, etc.,
          on page 1.0-9, she stated it should be clear which area is referenced, i.e. the Fort Bragg area and
          Willits area, on page 2.0-3, she was confused by the terms “inclusive county” and “built environment”
          and thought they should be deleted.

          Mr. Norris commented that the terminology was supplied by the Health and Human Service Agency,
          but he could modify the sentence to add active county.

          The Commission discussed whether the sentence should be modified or deleted from the plan and
          decided to delete the last sentence on page 2.0-3 containing inclusive county and built environment.

          Commissioner Calvert commented on the second principle regarding access to fresh produce and felt
          the sentence should be deleted from the plan, ending the paragraph after communities.

          The Commission discussed the sentence further and decided to end the sentence after “amenities”
          on page 2.0-3 under the second principal.

          Commissioner Calvert stated on page 2.0-5, principle 2.3B, she was confused by “and functions”.

          Mr. Norris stated the Commission could strike and functions or modify the sentence to read “their”
          functions.

          The Commission preferred “their functions”.

          Commissioner Calvert discussed page 2.0-6, 2.3E regional blueprint planning efforts, and stated
          there should be public meetings.

          Patrick Ford discussed the effort conducted by the Council of Governments, State and Federal, to
          identify lands that were or were not suited for development and to develop a map matrix. He
          commented that when it was ready the plan would be brought forward in public meetings between
          2009-2010.

          Commissioner Calvert noted the statement “work to incorporate the results” and commented that she
          was worried by the lack of public meetings and asked if it should read “consider incorporating results”

          Mr. Ford stated there was no obligation to add the document into the General Plan, however the
          development map matrix would be an additional tool that could be used for planning documents.
MENDOCINO COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION                                                               APRIL 30, 2009
MINUTES                                                                                             PAGE 8 OF 26


          Mr. Norris discussed the typical outcome of blueprint projects and noted the large region included in
          the study.

          Commissioner Calvert was more comfortable with “consider”. She discussed page 3.05, and was
          concerned with the land use terms that had been changed to include “history” and felt the figures
          should be based on soil types, location, etc. and the word “history” deleted.

          Commissioner Little stated the terminology should be consistent with the definitions from the Forest
          Practice Act.

          Mr. Norris stated staff would check consistency with the act and delete history if necessary.

          Commissioner Calvert moved on to page 3.0-37 and discussed connectivity in DE-95.1, to add to the
          first line, “unless needed to improve emergency access”, or “unless needed to improve circulation or
          emergency access” to improve internal consistency.

          Commissioner Ogle asked if Commissioner Calvert would prefer to delete that part of sentence and
          add a period after bridges.

          Mr. Norris clarified that the Commission would like to delete the rest of the sentence after bridges.

          Chairman Nelson commented that he would like to add a “DE” to provide an incentive program for
          farmers such as, “provide incentive programs to farmers to create affordable housing for the workers
          on their farm”.

          Commissioner Warner added at the end of page in the last paragraph after livability, “and to reduce
          vehicle emissions”.

          Commissioner Calvert discussed page 3.0-44, and noted the map of fire districts and asked if a
          similar map could be added that shows the location of hazardous sites.

          Mr. Ford noted that the hazardous areas had been mapped as part of the UVAP, but had not been
          completed for the General Plan.

          Mr. Norris noted the State had a list of toxic sites, which could be added to a map, but he did not
          recommend adding the specific locations to the General Plan.

          Commissioner Calvert discussed page 3.0-65, DE-5, and felt a protection should be added for land
          uses such as “a county in which new residential uses are discouraged from locating in existing noisy
          areas”.

          Commissioner Holtkamp asked if the intent was to build buffers around industrial areas so residential
          uses would not encroach upon existing uses.

          Commissioner Calvert stated her intent was to reduce the ability for new residential uses to move into
          an area and complain about an existing industrial use.

          Commissioner Little offered “A county in which existing residential and other sensitive uses are
          protected from excessive noise. “

          Kathy Borst, Anderson Valley resident, stated she agrees with the Anderson Valley Plan and noted
          the balance of goals. She was concerned with the water supply, the flow in the Navarro River, flow
          degradation and the balance needed for agriculture. She discussed drought possibilities and noted it
          was unwise to continue to develop without knowing the available water limit and stated further
          regulations should be added to preserve the existing water supply.

          The Commission returned to the discussion of Commissioner Calvert’s suggested goal.
MENDOCINO COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION                                                             APRIL 30, 2009
MINUTES                                                                                           PAGE 9 OF 26


          Mr. Norris suggested …”and in which noise-intensive uses are protected from encroachment by
          residential and other noise-sensitive uses.”

          The commission agreed on “and in which noise-intensive uses are protected from encroachment by
          residential and other noise-sensitive uses.”

          Commissioner Calvert noted on DE-8, that she preferred the bullet that had been deleted versus the
          new language and would like to replace the original language.

          The Commission agreed that they preferred the deleted language for DE-8.

          Commissioner Calvert continued on page 3.067, DE-23, and changed ensure to promote.

          Commissioner Holtkamp offered to encourage.

          The Commission agreed with “To encourage access to affordable broadband internet service for all
          residents of the County. “

          Commissioner Calvert noted page 3.068, DE-29, and offered “A healthy population which has access
          to health care” and felt the rest of the sentence should be deleted, on page 3.071, under mixed use,
          she felt there were internal problems with the designation and suburban residential.

          Mr. Ford noted the complication was that the zoning designation had not been created for mixed use.
          He discussed the multi step effort to create mixed use and the need for the designation in the General
          Plan Update and UVAP.

          [Commissioner Little excused himself from the meeting at 11:45 am, but stated he would return after
          lunch]

          The Commission and staff further discussed the difference between mixed use as a land use
          designation and mixed use in the zoning code. The Commission thought it might be clearer to add a
          multiple use category versus the double mixed use terminology.

          Mr. Ford noted there would specific numbers, such as MU2, MU3, etc. with defined heights and
          allowances.

          Jack Cox discussed his property located in the Brush Street Triangle and commented that he thought
          mixed use could be used broadly and was not restricted to R2, R3, etc.

          Mr. Ford noted the Brush Street Triangle was part of an area specific plan and noted the mixed use
          category was restricted to those parcels in the area plan from August 21, 2007. He stated it was
          difficult to speculate what would occur on the 90 acres, that an independent EIR would be necessary
          to interpret development, and created a designation that was not applicable anywhere else in the
          County.

          Kristy Charles, Anderson Valley resident and Director of the Wine Growers Association, discussed
          tourism in Anderson Valley and the County as a whole and asked if 2-2C, “encourage tourism in
          areas with adequate access, infrastructure and services” would restrict tourism in Anderson Valley.
          She noted the lack of water and sewer districts in Anderson Valley as well as deficiencies in
          infrastructure and asked that a specific reference to tourism be placed back in the Anderson Valley
          Community Plan.

          Commissioner Calvert commented that it was a valid point concerning Anderson Valley because of
          the lack of access.

          Chairman Nelson commented on the importance of tourism to the wine industry and wine clubs and
          thought it would be blow to the economy of the County to say in this “General” document that tourism
          is not encouraged.
MENDOCINO COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION                                                              APRIL 30, 2009
MINUTES                                                                                           PAGE 10 OF 26


          Commissioner Calvert suggested deleting “infrastructure and services” to read “encourage tourism in
          areas with adequate access …”

          Mr. Norris stated that the key word was “adequate”, which was up for interpretation. He thought the
          vagueness of the term would be enough to protect Mendocino County tourism.

          Ms. Charles stated she would prefer a mention of tourism placed back in the Anderson Valley
          Community Plan regardless of the interpretation of adequate.

          The Commission discussed the various meanings of tourism, from tasting rooms to State Parks and
          how adequate services could be defined. They also discussed the Anderson Valley policies that had
          been removed and asked Ms. Charles for her input regarding reinstatement of policy language.

          Ms. Charles noted a preference to restoring the original language of CPAV-7, or CPAV-9.

          The Commission discussed the language changes on CPAV-7 and CPAV-9 and preferred the
          language in CPAV-9.

          Ms. Charles commented on the definition of development and stated that if the definition was revised
          to include agriculture, the definition should be specifically tailored to the item in the plan.

          [Lunch 12:20 pm- 1:17 pm]

          Mr. Norris asked the Commission’s preference regarding the new language to the intent section of the
          plan and asked if they would like to remove “from the pressures of development” so the statement
          would read, “This classification is intended to protect these lands and preserve them for future use as
          designated”.

          Commissioner Calvert noted she would like to keep the development language.

          Mr. Norris noted he would keep the language “This classification is intended to protect these lands
          from the pressures of development and preserve them for future use as designated”.

          Chairman Nelson asked if the Commission had any suggestions for the Anderson Valley policies.

          Commissioner Ogle commented on CPAV-9 and offered, “Support Anderson Valley in developing a
          plan to coordinate and enhance all efforts including agriculture and tourism to expand the Anderson
          Valley economy.”

          Barbara Goodell suggested removing the “all” before efforts.

          Kathy Bailey agreed all should be removed.

          The Commission agreed to delete “all” from the statement so that CPAV-9 would read, “Support
          Anderson Valley in developing a plan to coordinate and enhance efforts including agriculture and
          tourism to expand the Anderson Valley economy.”

          Commissioner Calvert continued on page 3.072 and asked if there was any reason to leave open
          space under industrial and commercial.

          Mr. Norris stated the designation could be saved in case a property was parceled off.

          Commissioner Calvert stated she wanted to prevent properties from being parceled off and was
          concerned with split zoning.

          Mr. Ford could not think of an instance in which an industrial parcel was zoned open space in
          Mendocino County and did see any reason to keep the designation.

          The Commission agreed to delete open space from industrial and commercial on page 3.072.
MENDOCINO COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION                                                            APRIL 30, 2009
MINUTES                                                                                         PAGE 11 OF 26



          Commissioner Calvert continued on page 3.073, DE-7, and was concerned with the language of
          “local community preference” and suggested deleting that section of the sentence.

          Commissioner Hall clarified that “lower densities” would remain in the sentence.

          Commissioner Calvert continued with, “The presence of various constraints may result in larger
          minimum parcel sizes established…” on page 3.074, figure 3.14, she noted the odd pockets of
          zoning that need proper labels, such as the cities of Branscomb and Leggett. On page 3.079 she
          noted some clean up work with rural community and mixed use; page 3.081 she noted the lack of a
          minimum parcel size within a water and sewer district and asked if that would be filled in later.

          Mr. Ford noted the lack of a minimum parcel size was consistent with commercial and industrial use,
          however the zoning district would supply specify design guidelines upon development.

          Commissioner Calvert continued on page 3.085 and commented that there were no Remote
          Resource Lands and asked if the designation could be removed, or should be kept for future use.

          Mr. Ford stated he would check the maps and let the Commission know later in the meeting.

          Commissioner Calvert discussed “clustering” in DE-24, and asked if the reference was clustering of
          houses or parcels. She felt the topic warranted additional discussion to clarify wording.

          Commissioner Little noted the potential for Certificates of Compliance and stated in those instances
          where development was inevitable, clustering the parcels might have less impact on resources as a
          whole.

          Mr. Norris noted the action item was to “amend codes” as implementation and stated the Commission
          could decide later how the policy would work.

          Commissioner Calvert continued on page 3.091, DE-33, and thought the policy was not necessary.

          Mr. Norris agreed that it would not be harmful to delete DE-33.

          Commissioner Calvert commented on DE-34 that she would prefer to list the Development Code
          rather than refer to a section of the code.

          Mr. Norris suggested deleting the entire reference to a section of the development code and end the
          sentence with development code because once the section number was changed, the document
          would be incorrect.

          Commissioner Calvert continued on the same page to add to the last bullet “in appropriate zoning
          designations”, on page 3.094, DE-59, she noted fishing and logging were seasonal and cyclic and
          suggested deleting the end of the sentence leaving, “promote a diversified industrial sector”. On the
          next page, DE-70, she asked how a community action plan was different from a community plan.

          Commissioner Holtkamp commented that a community action plan was a specific USDA project that
          applies planning dollars to rural communities and thought the reference would allow the County to
          apply for grant funds.

          Mr. Norris noted the comment came from MCOG and stated that Laytonville and Gualala have
          completed such a plan.

          Commissioner Holtkamp thought MCOG might be interested because the grant funds were typically
          applied to infrastructure. She also had a question on DE-54, as to who would decide what an
          adequate supply of land was and what the planning horizon would be.

          Commissioner Calvert suggested adding a period after “industrial uses” and deleting the end of the
          sentence.
MENDOCINO COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION                                                            APRIL 30, 2009
MINUTES                                                                                         PAGE 12 OF 26



          Mr. Ford concluded that there were no remote resource land designations in Mendocino County and
          the category could be deleted.

          Mr. Norris commented that the entire Remote Resource Lands category on page 3.085, DE-19 could
          be removed.

          Commissioner Calvert continued on page 3.095, DE-71, and was concerned with the “historical
          values” reference. She commented that there were both good and bad aspects of history and she
          was unsure of the intent suggested.

          The Commission discussed removing “historical” from DE-71.

          Mr. Norris commented that DE-69 was sufficient and thought the Commission could delete DE-71.

          Commissioner Calvert continued on the next page, DE-78, and stated it was almost the same as DE-
          72 and asked if DE-78 could be deleted.

          Commissioner Holtkamp commented the downtown development plan could be for grant funding.

          Commissioner Calvert asked if the two could be combined to preserve the potential for grant funding.

          Mr. Norris stated he could make DE-78 an action item under DE-72.

          Commissioner Calvert discussed DE-77 and commented that she was unsure if it was always
          desirable to improve structures in need of repair versus demolish.

          Commissioner Little commented that the policy should encourage individual to improve existing
          structures versus building new structures and suggested replacing improve as alternative with
          encourage to improve.

          Chairman Nelson suggested “encourage improvement to exiting structures” and to delete the rest of
          the sentence.

          The Commission agreed to end the sentence after encourage improvement to exiting structures and
          delete the remaining portion of the statement.

          Commissioner Calvert discussed DE-80.1, the second bullet, and thought it should be deleted
          entirely, page 3.097, DE-83, delete require and replace with “encourage” and asked if there was a
          way to make the policy less subjective.

          Mr. Norris stated the Commission could strike “and scenic qualities of the area” and “visually
          interesting” from DE-84.

          Commissioner Calvert continued on page 3.098, DE-95, and stated she was concerned with requiring
          connections within and between existing uses which could create connections through resource
          areas and felt it might be growth inducing.

          Chairman Nelson offered between adjacent new and existing uses.

          Commissioner Holtkamp asked what the definition of connectivity was for the specific policy, a paved
          road, bike trail, EVA, etc.

          Mr. Norris commented that connectivity could be a pathway, not just a paved road and could be
          pedestrian walkways. He noted the Commission could add pedestrian connectivity for clarity.

          Commissioner Calvert added where appropriate.

          Mr. Norris stated the Commission could delete DE-96 and modify DE-84.
MENDOCINO COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION                                                          APRIL 30, 2009
MINUTES                                                                                       PAGE 13 OF 26



          Commissioner Calvert continued on page 3.0100, DE-101 #1 and suggested to require that “new”
          sources do not create unacceptable noise, DE-102 #1 no “New” use, and thought that DE-103 # 1
          was the same as DE-102 #3. She thought it would flow better if all of DE-103 was moved under DE-
          102.

          Mr. Norris agreed that DE-103 #1 and DE-102 #3 were the same and stated that DE-103 #1 should
          be deleted and the remainder of the policies moved under DE-102.

          Commissioner Calvert continued on page 3.0112, DE-155 and felt it was not consistent to discourage
          new roads.

          Commissioner Hall commented he had a similar question regarding connectivity, noise and safety.

          Commissioner Holtkamp noted in Mendocino County, it would not be appropriate for people to travel
          through the neighborhoods.

          Commissioner Ogle disagreed and thought alternative access should be encouraged to minimize
          congestion.

          Commissioner Hall agreed that less congestion was a good thing for cars, but thought it might make
          pedestrian and bicycle access less viable.

          Chairman Nelson suggested deleting DE-155, which the Commission agreed to.

          Commissioner Calvert noted the provision to require showers on page 3.0118 and stated the
          requirement should be deleted from DE-163.1.

          The commission deleted DE-163.1.

          Commissioner Calvert continued on page 3.0121, DE-181 and asked if the physical impacts were
          available.

          Mr. Norris stated he did not have the cost information.

          Chairman Nelson suggested changing the language from work with other entities to “effectively fund”
          to “effectively manage”.

          The Commission agreed to “effectively manage”.

          Kathy Bailey discussed DE-184 and asked if the intent was proposing 50 single family units or 50
          residential units, noting there was a substantial difference.

          The Commission discussed deleting “single family”.

          Mr. Norris commented that a 50 unit residential development would only produce a half acre park and
          would be expensive to maintain.

          The Commission discussed the practicality of increasing the threshold of the development to produce
          a larger park and the use of the Quimby Act.

          Mr. Norris commented that the Commission could delete DE-184.

          Commissioner Calvert continued on page 3.0123, DE-190 and stated the policy was not as strong as
          the original forestry policy language and suggested, “Thorough research and consideration shall be
          given before Mendocino County supports any further state or federal acquisition of private lands
          within the County.”
MENDOCINO COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION                                                             APRIL 30, 2009
MINUTES                                                                                          PAGE 14 OF 26


          Chairman Nelson asked if the Commission would like to replace DE-190 with the language submitted
          by Commissioner Calvert.

          Commissioner Little suggested adding public or non profit acquisition to read, “thorough research and
          consideration shall be given before Mendocino County supports any further public or nonprofit
          acquisition of private lands within the county.”

          Larry Milliard discussed the potential tax implications of the suggested language to the residents of
          Mendocino County.

          The Commission agreed on “Thorough research and consideration shall be given before Mendocino
          County supports any further public or nonprofit acquisition of private lands within the county” to
          replace DE-190.

          Commissioner Calvert had a question on DE-196.

          Mr. Norris reviewed the previously agreed upon changes to DE-196 from the April 16, 2009 Planning
          Commission meeting and suggested, “Where specifically noted, development shall be defined to
          include only the following: residential, commercial and office uses. “ as a new policy for development.
          He stated if the definition was not referenced, development would have a broader meaning that could
          include farming, etc.

          Commissioner Holtkamp stated she was not concerned with the definition of development; she was
          concerned with restricting water to those who could prove availability of water and did not want any
          exemptions in the language.

          Commissioner Hall noted there was a vast middle ground of ongoing agricultural operations,
          conversion of rangeland, riparian zone, etc. and thought language should be added to make sure the
          restriction applied to any agricultural development.

          Commissioner Little stated there was nothing to preclude the County from implementing an ordinance
          that regulates activity without defining agriculture as development.

          Commissioner Hall stated that if the Commission decided to leave the definition of development as is,
          without clearly defining whether agriculture was included or excluded, there were several polices
          within the General Plan that would need modifications to ensure proper mitigation.

          Commissioner Holtkamp suggested changing DE-196 from development to new water uses.

          Commissioner Little did not object to the language but stated it would not address the issue of
          development.

          Daniel Myers discussed DE-195 and DE-196 as examples of a way to exclude agriculture from
          development. He stated if development was not spelled out as residential, industrial and commercial,
          by default it would include agriculture.

          Commissioner Little stated he would prefer to identify the policies where agriculture was included in
          development due to the unintended consequences that might arise from lumping agriculture within
          development.

          Mr. Norris commented that the Commission had deleted residential, commercial and industrial from
          DE-196.

          Commissioner Holtkamp noted the language was in the water policy section of the plan and stated it
          was unnecessary to define development.

          Commissioner Hall noted that the Commission had added RM-14 back into the General Plan and
          asked why DE-196 was necessary.
MENDOCINO COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION                                                             APRIL 30, 2009
MINUTES                                                                                          PAGE 15 OF 26


          Chairman Nelson suggested continuing the water discussion under the resource management
          section.

          [Commissioner Little excused himself from the meeting, but stated he would return later.]

          [Break 3:05 pm – 3:16 pm]

          Chairman Nelson asked Mr. Norris what the Commission’s options were.

          Mr. Norris referenced page 3.0108, DE-125, and noted the policy would cover the same issues as
          DE-196, but with the difference of discretionary development, which farming was not. He stated the
          Commission could delete DE-196 and be covered by DE-125 with the option to delete discretionary
          from DE-125.

          Commissioner Holtkamp stated she would prefer new users versus development.

          Commissioner Calvert stated she would rather keep the term development in DE-125 and add
          additional policies for new water users. She agreed to delete DE-196.

          Commissioner Hall was concerned that a discretionary permit would miss new houses, which was the
          bulk of the development in Mendocino County.

          Chairman Nelson suggested leave both DE-196 and DE-125 in the General Plan exactly as they were
          written.

          Mr. Norris noted the change the Commission had made to DE-196, to remove residential, commercial
          and industrial.

          Commissioner Calvert suggested deleting DE-196 and keeping DE-125.

          Commissioner Hall did not like the term discretionary in DE-125.

          Commissioner Holtkamp stated the Commission could add more polices later to apply to discretionary
          permits.

          Peter Bradford felt it was extremely onerous to suggest that agriculture provide a letter from the
          State to demonstrate proof of license and noted the years it could take to receive a letter of
          authorization from the State. He stated it was not internally consistent for the County to require a
          permit when the State was the legal permitting authority.

          Commissioner Holtkamp suggested “new water uses shall be supported by…” and delete the bullet
          underneath.

          Mr. Norris read the language, “New water users shall be supported by a water supply adequate to
          serve the long term needs of the intended density, intensity and use.”

          Commissioner Calvert discussed the Farm Bureau letter regarding DE-197, which suggested
          “Land uses and development should minimize impacts on drinking water supplies.”

          Mr. Norris modified the language to “Land use plans and development shall not negatively affect the
          quality or quantity of drinking water supplies.”

          Peter Bradford, for the Farm Bureau, stated the standard of DE-197 was unattainable.

          Mr. Norris suggested new language that, “Land use plans and development shall minimize the
          impacts to the quality or quantity of drinking water supplies.”

          Commissioner Calvert continued on page 3.0128, DE-217.1 to delete “consider amending” and say to
          “amend the zoning code”, on page 3.0130, she suggested a new policy “Subdivisions or new
MENDOCINO COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION                                                                APRIL 30, 2009
MINUTES                                                                                             PAGE 16 OF 26


          discretionary projects outside a fire district shall not be allowed” and stated that existing tourist uses
          outside a fire district should also be phased out upon change of ownership. She cited Shambhala
          Ranch as an example.

          Mr. Ford clarified that if an individual had a ten acre property zoned RR5, the parcel could not be
          subdivided.

          Commissioner Calvert stated she did not see a reason for development outside of a fire district,
          regardless of the zoning.

          Chairman Nelson commented that a property could pay a fire district to include them.

          Mr. Norris suggested adding until the property is annexed to a fire district, so that “Subdivisions or
          new discretionary projects outside a fire district shall not be approved until the property is annexed to
          a fire district”.

          Commissioner Calvert discussed adding language that “existing tourist uses located outside a fire
          district shall be phased out with change of ownership.”

          Mr. Norris commented that a use permit was tied to the land and not the property owner, which could
          be a concern.

          Mr. Walker discussed the “takings analysis”.

          Commissioner Calvert suggested leaving the issue to staff and counsel to find doable language if
          possible.

          Mr. Norris noted he would insert (CalFire) on DE-226.3.

          Kathy Bailey commented that it would be useful for the burn day recording to be a totality of
          information from Air Quality and CalFire, she proposed a policy to “encourage the Air Quality
          Management District to coordinate with the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection
          (CalFire) when providing public information on whether it is a burn or non burn day”.

          The Commission agreed with the proposed policy language.

          Commissioner Calvert continued with DE-228 and thought the language should be changed “to shall
          be required to contribute to emergency services”.

          Commissioner Hall noted that “may” provides discretion for EMS providers to bill, if they choose.

          Mr. Gonzalez agreed that “may”, would be the appropriate choice so the decision would fall back on
          the individual district to charge or bill for a fee if they chose. He noted the Commission could put a
          condition on a permit during the discretionary process at any time.

          Commissioner Calvert suggested leaving DE-228 alone and moved onto DE-230 and asked what
          “new urbanism” referred to.

          Mr. Norris commented it was a return to the downtown mixed uses, smaller, compact developments,
          but was not sure it belonged in the policy.

          Chairman Nelson suggested deleting the phrase.

          Commissioner Calvert also commented on Eye on the Street.

          Mr. Walker discussed eye on the street and how crime rates where lowered by a visual of the streets.

          Chairman Nelson also suggested deleting Eye on the street.
MENDOCINO COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION                                                            APRIL 30, 2009
MINUTES                                                                                         PAGE 17 OF 26


          Mr. Gonzalez discussed the principles of new urbanism, how it would be helpful to law enforcement
          how it could provide for neighborhood watch programs and that during the implementation process,
          new urbanism would be added to the zoning code.

          Mr. Norris noted policy 235 would provide street design guidelines.

          Chairman Nelson suggested leaving new urbanism in the policy and moving on with the discussion.

          Mr. Norris amended the language to read “Develop crime prevention programs such as community
          watch programs, eye on the street and gang prevention.”

          Commissioner Calvert continued on page 3.0131 and suggested deleting the last three words, “at
          public places”, on page 3.0133, DE-241, she inserted Forestry in the fifth bullet.

          Commissioner Holtkamp noted she had an issue with the third bullet and felt public transit should be
          added.

          Commissioner Calvert suggested adding or public transit so that, “...are accessible by walking and
          bicycling or public transit, generally within…” She also asked what had occurred with policy DE-246
          and noted that rangelands and forest lands had been omitted from DE-247.

          Mr. Norris stated the Commission did not change DE-246.

          Chairman Nelson stated he had a note that they had added “on public roads only”.

          Mr. Norris stated he had a note that the Commission had changed DE-247 and deleted everything
          after zoning districts and added on a State or County maintained public road.

          Commissioner Calvert continued on page 4.05 and was concerned with historic and native fish
          habitats, noting that nonnative fish have been planted.

          Mr. Norris stated the Commission could delete historic in the sentence.

          Commissioner Calvert commented that she would like to add natural landslides after “the sources of
          the pollutants can very by the watershed…” on page 4.05, on page 4.0-6, she suggested deleting
          “some of which falls within the county” and add “Average” before annual rainfall in Mendocino County,
          remove the parenthesis and stated rainfall was not from brief intense storms.

          Chairman Nelson noted the Commission would delete “some of which falls within the County”, “brief
          intense” and adding average before annual rainfall.

          Kathy Bailey discussed the watershed map on 4.0-3 and asked if Anderson Creek and Rancheria
          Creek could be added since they were major streams in Anderson Valley; also that Mill Creek and
          Indian Creek were minor streams that did not need to be added.

          Commissioner Ogle asked if the area Potter Valley could be added to the map also.

          Chairman Nelson commented that Hopland was missing on page 4.0-7, above 4-3.

          Commissioner Calvert continued on page 4.0-8 and add, “shade cover from riparian vegetation has
          been reduced through current land and historical land uses, fire and flood”. She also asked that
          contamination due to illegal marijuana growing be acknowledged.

          Chairman Nelson suggested acknowledging both marijuana and drug labs.

          Commissioner Calvert continued on page 4.0-15 and stated she was not sure where the barren areas
          were, but thought the section should be split between barren and open dunes.
MENDOCINO COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION                                                              APRIL 30, 2009
MINUTES                                                                                           PAGE 18 OF 26


          Commissioner Ogle separated the sentence to read “barren areas occur in Mendocino County. Open
          dune areas are located primarily along the coast where shifting sand…”

          Chairman Nelson offered “inland” barren areas.

          Kathy Bailey discussed the figure on page 4.2 and commented that she was not sure there were any
          barren areas and noted the map illustrated all the areas as barren.

          Commissioner Calvert was not sure that pygmy was correct on the map and asked that the map
          either be repaired or removed.

          Mr. Norris stated he would check the map and noted the information was gathered from the California
          Veg Classification system, which might not have a classification for pygmy forest.

          Commissioner Ogle suggested deleting barren and continuing with “open dunes areas occur in
          coastal Mendocino County where shifting sand dunes prevent the establishment of vegetation…” and
          to delete the last sentence.

          The Commission agreed with the changes to barren and open dunes.

          Chairman Nelson commented he had an issue with the statement that agricultural areas have a low
          value for wildlife habitat and stated the sentence containing “low value for wildlife habitat” should be
          deleted.

          Commissioner Calvert discussed the definition of aquatic habitat and playas as a flat formed bottom
          of a desert basin, shallow lake or ancient desert.

          Commissioner Holtkamp believed the reference was to marine terraces.

          Commissioner Calvert suggested seasonal ponds, on marine terraces. On page 4.0-16 she noted
          that suburban habitat could be fabulous for wildlife and added turkeys after black tailed deer.
          Regarding air quality along the coast, she noted there was no reference from air quality to pollen or
          ocean spray as a pollutant and felt a statement should be added from Air Quality Management.

          Commissioner Ogle suggested adding under other sources “including pollen and salt spray”.

          Commissioner Calvert continued on page 4.0-22 rearranged the wording under pygmy soils to flip
          climate conditions and extreme soils. In the glossary section, she noted the statement that pygmy
          was “bog like” year round, which was not true and in need of correcting. On page 4.023 she stated
          there was no single definition of old growth and asked that “the presence of large old trees” be
          deleted. She further stated there was no justification to support the statement that redwoods in
          Mendocino County were less protected than other areas in California.

          [Commissioner Little returned at 4:45 pm]

          Commissioner Little commented that he also disagreed with the language, but was not sure what to
          change.

          Commissioner Calvert suggested deleting the language because it did not contribute to the old
          growth section and was not important.

          Commissioner Little asked if the Commission would like to includes that Mendocino County has
          highest percent of forests in protective status by conservation easement/entities that provide higher
          protection than other ownerships.

          The Commission agreed to strike the sentence.

          Commissioner Calvert discussed page 4.032, RM-10 and asked what food security referenced.
MENDOCINO COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION                                                             APRIL 30, 2009
MINUTES                                                                                          PAGE 19 OF 26


          Chairman Nelson commented that it would mean that Mendocino County was not dependent on an
          outside source for food in case of disaster or emergency.

          Commissioner Calvert suggested deleting forestry management on RM-11.

          Commissioner Little offered “to protect and enhance the management of… “ instead of deleting
          management, which Commission Calvert agreed with.

          Commissioner Calvert continued on page 4.034, RM-5 and asked how to promote and encourage
          improved channel elevation.

          Commissioner Little stated the improvement could be to raise or lower the channel depending on the
          improvement.

          Chairman Nelson thought the goal was to eliminate gravel extraction from rivers. He noted under
          action item RM-1-1 that the statement should be changed to insert “their associated” riparian habitat.

          Commissioner Calvert discussed RM-6.2 and asked what the water management initiative was.

          Mr. Norris stated the comment came from the City of Fort Bragg.

          Commissioner Warner was not sure of the meaning, but commented that the City of Fort Bragg had
          an annual water festival with informational programs and display’s of Best Management Practices for
          storm runoff, etc. and was a valuable program.

          Commission Calvert was fearful of the unknown, but assumed that Commissioner Warner was
          correct.

          Commissioner Calvert stated she was pleased with the grey water policies and would like to add a
          penalty for illegal water diversion for crops somewhere in RM-6.1.

          Daniel Myers agreed that the policy should address illegal diversions.

          Mr. Norris commented that the Commission could add illegal diversions.

          Peter Bradford thought the problem with RM-6.1 is that the policy would duplicate a State action that
          was already being done. He stated it was inconsistent to promote a duplicate regulatory action.

          Commissioner Little suggested “develop and implement in cooperation with the state to determine the
          supply and use of water in all the County’s water sheds. “

          Commissioner Hall added on to RM-1, “protect stream corridors and associated riparian habitat” and
          delete when development occurs.

          Commissioner Calvert continued on page 4.035, the sixth bullet and asked if better language could
          be crafted.

          Commissioner Hall started with, “establish formation of ground water management areas by exiting
          water districts.”

          Mr. Norris suggested “promote the formation of…”

          Mr. Walker stated that it would be difficult to establish area outside of the Commission’s jurisdiction
          like the City of Willits and stated that promote was the better option.

          Chairman Nelson suggested, “…where the competition for the available groundwater resource is
          resulting in lowering water tables.”

          The Commission agreed on the suggested language from Chairman Nelson.
MENDOCINO COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION                                                             APRIL 30, 2009
MINUTES                                                                                          PAGE 20 OF 26



          Commissioner Holtkamp asked if the Commission would like an action item to encourage monitoring
          for groundwater recharge areas.

          Commissioner Hall suggested adding yield to RM-11, to support a detailed water supply study.

          Chairman Nelson suggested the County encourage the State to prepare a detailed water supply
          study.

          Daniel Myers stated that groundwater was not regulated by the State and it was up to county to set
          policy to regulate flow.

          Commissioner Little cautioned against obligating the County to perform an action without considering
          the financial impact.

          Pete Bradford thought the information was covered by the third bullet, “encourage the state to supply
          a study of groundwater”.

          Commissioner Warner felt the bullet should remain as written.

          Commissioner Hall noted he would prefer more active language.

          Commissioner Calvert noted that RM-14 was back in the Plan.

          Mr. Norris read the policy language with the change to include agricultural ponds and noted the
          number would change when re-inserted.

          Commissioner Calvert continued on page 4.039, RM-30, which referenced RM-71, and stated that
          special status or sensitive biotic could include everything in the County due to the vagueness.

          Commissioner Little suggested the species be defined to include “all species and habitat identified by
          the Department of Fish and Game, US Fish and Wildlife Services or the National Marine Fisheries.”

          Kathy Bailey offered an additional change to include “all species and habitat identified as such by
          the Department of Fish and Game, US Fish and Wildlife Services or the National Marine Fisheries”

          Peter Bradford discussed the letter he had submitted prior to the hearing and noted an issue with
          polices promoting corridors and stated they should be compatible with adjacent surrounding uses.
          He suggested adding “and maintain compatibility with surrounding and adjacent agricultural uses” to
          all policies promoting the preservation of corridors.

          Mr. Norris asked if Mr. Bradford could provide an example of how a wildlife corridor could endanger
          agriculture.

          Mr. Bradford discussed the possibility of placing a wildlife corridor on rangelands, which could
          exposed the domestic livestock to predators.

          Commissioner Hall noted the language in RM-29 stated “shall retain movement of corridors” and
          should not be an imposition to rangeland.

          Commissioner Little discussed RM-29 and commented that he did not see a problem, but offered “An
          individual development project shall retain corridors…” to burden the developer to provide corridors
          and not an adjacent landowner.

          Chairman Nelson asked the Commission if they perceived any negative impacts from adding the
          language to maintain compatibility of existing uses.

          Commissioner Hall was concerned with setting up a situation for punitive actions.
MENDOCINO COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION                                                             APRIL 30, 2009
MINUTES                                                                                          PAGE 21 OF 26


          Commissioner Warner asked if the language could be interpreted to mean that if a corridor was not
          compatible with the surrounding use, the existing use had precedence and the corridor would be
          removed.

          Chairman Nelson stated the Commission had agreed to add “maintain compatibility with surrounding
          and adjacent uses” in RM-29.

          Commissioner Calvert discussed page 4.041, RM-39.1 and asked if Air Quality had submitted a list of
          acceptable heat without the need for electricity.

          Mr. Gonzalez stated that staff had not received any feed back from Air Quality, but he would check for
          updates.

          Chairman Nelson noted there were EPA approved stoves that operate without electricity.

          Commissioner Ogle thought that “natural” gas should be deleted from the third sentence of RM-39.1.

          Commissioner Calvert continued on page 4.043, RM-50.1 and noted she was troubled by the
          language.

          Commissioner Little suggested striking the action item, which the Commission agreed to delete.

          Commissioner Calvert also felt reducing insect and rodent infestations should be deleted.

          Commissioner Hall felt the note to reader should be deleted from page 4.042.

          Commissioner Calvert continued on page 4.044, RM-52 and replaced the language with, “Encourage
          the installation of solar and other renewable energy systems”.

          Mr. Norris stated that the second part of the policy was important to Air Quality and asked if
          “adequately address year round needs” be included.

          Commissioner Calvert commented on RM-52.1, to change to “Amend the zoning code” and asked
          what distributed renewable energy meant in RM-45.

          Mr. Norris discussed the definition as little source spread around the County and noted the comma
          should be deleted.

          Commissioner Calvert continued on page 4.048, RM-66 and added, shall be restored to harmonize
          with the natural environment “when the reclamation plan is implemented”. On page 4.049, RM-78,
          she stated it was not feasible to encourage farmers to reduce fencing with livestock.

          Chairman Nelson suggested deleting the third bullet.

          Peter Bradford noted the Commission should add another bullet to maintain compatibility with
          adjacent uses.

          Commissioner Calvert noted the fourth bullet and asked what a “key species” was.

          Commissioner Holtkamp agreed that there should be a definition.

          Mr. Norris suggested sensitive species.

          Commissioner Hall noted that both RM-71 and RM-76 needed the additional language to maintain
          compatibly with adjacent uses.

          Commissioner Calvert had a word change on page 4.050, RM-82, and added discourage and
          invasive to “…discourage pest species and nonnative invasive species… “, RM-83, minimize
          vegetation removal, and asked if the statement could preclude development.
MENDOCINO COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION                                                             APRIL 30, 2009
MINUTES                                                                                          PAGE 22 OF 26



          Mr. Norris suggested “minimizing vegetation removal, minimizing disruption, minimizing introduction
          of water and nutrients…”

          Commissioner Calvert discussed the bottom of the page and was not sure there were any agricultural
          lands adjacent to pygmy, however she did not have any changes to RM-87, however she asked if the
          limiting rural residential development in RM-87.1, would apply to the existing zoning or the General
          Plan designation.

          Mr. Norris thought the wording could apply in both cases, including a subdivision request.

          Commissioner Warner asked if the policy would allow limiting second unit development.

          Mr. Norris discussed the history of the item to prevent domestic pets from damaging wildlife.     He
          stated the Commission could delete the first action item and be covered by the second.

          Commissioner Calvert suggested striking RM-87.1 and add livestock into RM-87.2, that depredation
          of “wildlife and livestock”.

          Commissioner Hall commented that Eel River should be deleted from RM-95 so to read, “support
          restoration of spawning in all salmon bearing streams and rivers”.

          Commissioner Calvert moved on to page 4.056, RM-117 after …importance of the infrastructure
          necessary to utilize timber as a product... she added “The county will also identify land uses which
          are supplemental, accessory and compatible with timber operations on forest lands and timber
          production within the zoning ordinance” and added “lands zoned TPZ” to RM-116.

          Commissioner Little suggested deleting RM-119 because it was a duplication of the Forest Practice
          Act.

          Commissioner Calvert continued on page 4.058, RM-133 and was concerned with the implications of
          a scenic highway on resource extractions, concrete, grading, development on ridgelines, etc. and
          stated she would prefer to delete RM-133 noting the County could still recommend adoption of a
          scenic highway to the state without the policy.

          The Commission deleted RM-133.

          Commissioner Calvert moved on to page 6.09, CPAV-22 and was concerned with “minimize fencing.”

          Kathy Bailey suggested adding “while maintaining control and protection of domestic animals” to the
          end of CPAV-22.

          Commissioner Calvert discussed page 6.025 in the community plan of Hopland and asked about the
          importance of incorporating development characteristics of “old Hopland”.

          Chairman Nelson was unsure of the reference, but did not have an issue with the policy.

          Commissioner Calvert discussed page 6.031, CPL-12 and the location of the commercial business in
          the downtown Laytonville.

          Commissioner Little suggested “Commercial business shall be permitted in the Laytonville Downtown
          areas as identified in the Downtown Action Plan.” He stated it would be wiser for the Commission to
          strike CPL-12 and noted on page 6.030, that the last bullet was already completed.

          Chairman Nelson discussed page 6.026, and add “require structures to be elevated”.

          Mr. Norris commented that the Commission had already added policy to address development in the
          flood plain and referenced page 3.0129, RM-205.
MENDOCINO COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION                                                             APRIL 30, 2009
MINUTES                                                                                          PAGE 23 OF 26


          Commissioner Little asked if billboards were included on page 6.030.

          Mr. Norris stated billboards were off site signs.

          Commissioner Calvert continued on page 6.042, CPW-4 and thought the policy contradicts the idea
          of centralizing development within water and sewer districts.

          Commissioner Little suggested “The County shall seek to maintain residential densities in the areas
          surrounding Willits and its immediate environments at levels in place in 2007”

          Mr. Walker discussed the availability of water and sewer connected to Brooktrails and the Willits
          water shed.

          Commissioner Calvert thought the policy would void developable areas with infrastructure.

          The Commission agreed to leave CPW-4 as written.

          Commissioner Warner commented that it would be helpful to have a map of the sphere of influence of
          community areas to see where policies apply.

          Commissioner Calvert noted the reference to pygmy on page G2 was not saturated year round.

          Commissioner Hall returned to the discussion of development and stated it was easier to leave the
          term undefined and add agriculture to those policies where it should be regulated.

          Commissioner Calvert agreed to proceed without defining development and stated that she assumed
          agriculture was not included in development, thus agriculture should be insert into those policies the
          Commission was concerned with.

          The Commission decided to evaluate and discuss the potential polices that should include agriculture.

          Daniel Myers stated the current General Plan did not have language to exempt agriculture from
          development and the update of the General Plan would be weak without a definition. He thought the
          Commission was working backwards.

          Anita Schrinter supported the Anderson Valley Plan and was concerned with protecting water
          resources. She felt agriculture should be included in the definition of development to protect the
          resources.

          Chairman Nelson stated the Commission could not change the definition without knowing the
          consequences.

          Kathy Bailey supported Chairman Nelson’s thought and asked if the assumed uses, such as
          wineries, would be exempt from the policy without including agriculture in the definition of
          development and asked what the definition of development was, if the term was not defined in the
          General Plan.

          Mr. Norris stated that, unless otherwise defined by policy, the definition of any term is the General
          Plan was that as listed in the dictionary. He proceeded to read two definitions of development, one
          from Webster’s Dictionary and the other from his laptop.

          The Commission proceeded to discuss the policies affected by development.

          Commissioner Hall began on page 4.039, RM-29, and added, conversion from rangeland to intensive
          agricultural… to read “individual development and conversion from rangeland to intensive agriculture
          projects shall retain…”
MENDOCINO COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION                                                              APRIL 30, 2009
MINUTES                                                                                           PAGE 24 OF 26


          Peter Bradford commented that the addition could cause problems for those individuals that do not
          have grapes and do not have intensive agriculture. He stated it would reduce the viability of
          agriculture.

          Commissioner Calvert discussed how agriculture had reinvented itself throughout history to keep the
          viability of the operation and hoped the restrictions would not force resource land owners out of
          business.

          Commissioner Hall stated that the point was to not be specific in the General Plan and to implement
          the policies later.

          Chairman Nelson asked if RM-29 could be more flexible.

          Commissioner Little noted that agriculture was not free from regulations and stated that small timber
          owners had lost every opportunity to be profitable and some protection for historic uses should be
          provided.

          Chairman Nelson piggy backed on statement Commissioner Little’s statement and discussed how
          agriculture has given back to the environment.

          Commissioner Hall offered to replace “shall”, or change a different policy.

          Commissioner Warner suggested changing RM-96 on page 4.052 to include agriculture in the first
          action item after development process.

          Commissioner Calvert felt it was already covered with the need for water, wells, etc.

          Commissioner Hall thought it made more sense to add damns and reservoir.

          The commission agreed to add reservoir to RM-96.

          Chairman Nelson stated RM-96 would not solve the corridor issue.

          Commissioner Hall suggested changing RM-29 from “shall” to “individual development and
          conversion from rangeland to intensive agriculture projects should retain…”

          The Commission agreed to change RM-29.

          Kathy Bailey suggested deleting development from RM-1.

          Commissioner Hall continued with RM-60 and suggested adding, “Development and conversion from
          rangeland to intensive agriculture…” and add conversion to RM-61.

          Chairman Nelson asked who would determine what was a stable slope, etc.

          Commissioner Hall suggested, “Discourage development and conversion from rangeland to intensive
          agriculture in areas of known landslides or slopes…susceptible to landsliding and where erosion
          would have potential to cause sedimentation in a streams or rivers. “

          Peter Bradford noted the consensus that agriculture is unregulated and stated there was numerous
          regulations on sedimentation. He stated that RM-33 was intended to avoid duplicate regulatory
          actions, but felt the Commission was duplicating regulations by adding agriculture to any of the
          polices.

          The Commission accepted RM-61 to read “Discourage development and conversion from rangeland
          to intensive agriculture in areas of known landslides or slopes…susceptible to landsliding and where
          erosion would have potential to cause sedimentation in a streams or rivers”.
MENDOCINO COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION                                                            APRIL 30, 2009
MINUTES                                                                                         PAGE 25 OF 26


          Commissioner Hall continued with RM-89, conserve and enhance streamside riparian vegetation
          through development design standards.

          Mr. Norris stated that RM-89 was dealing with design and standards for development and was not
          dealing with development itself.

          The Commission decided to disregard any changes to policy RM-89.

          Chairman Nelson discussed RM-1.1, to require adequate buffers, and suggested deleting “as
          development occurs”; on page 3.0-12, third paragraph, to insert “residential and urban uses will be
          restricted near agriculture lands to prevent incompatible situations created by the inherent noise of
          agricultural operations”; page 3.029, last paragraph, “These roads are a dangerous source of
          sedimentation in our rivers and streams”

          Commissioner Little suggested “Roads that are not properly maintained are a major source of
          sedimentation in our rivers and streams”.

          The Commission preferred the modified language.

          Commissioner Warner discussed page 6.17 and suggested for the footnote, “Current areas of
          residential development are Pudding Creek and Airport Road areas to the north along Highway 20 to
          the east and south of Fort Bragg out Simpson Lane.”

          Peter Bradford asked if the Commission would add his definition for sustainable agriculture to the
          glossary. “Sustainable agriculture: means an integrated system of plant and animal production
          practices having a site-specific application that will enhance the economic viability of agricultural
          operations and may over the long term:
                        •    Satisfy human food and fiber needs;
                        •    Enhance environmental quality and the natural resource base upon which the
                             agricultural economy depends;
                        •    Make the most efficient use of nonrenewable resources and on-farm resources
                             and integrate where appropriate, natural biological cycles and controls;
                        •    Enhance the quality of life for farmers and society as a whole.”

          The Commission agreed to add the definition of sustainable agriculture to the glossary of the General
          Plan.

          Daniel Myers asked what the Commission had decided for DE-196.

          Mr. Norris stated the Commission kept the policy, but deleted the bullet.

          Kathy Bailey asked if the map on page 6.011, CPAV-2, could be of better quality. She noted due ot
          its size, the map was essentially meaningless.

          Julia Kendrick Conway, Anderson Valley Wine Growers and Grape Commission, applauded the
          Commission and public for coming together to be problem solvers and felt the essential difference to
          address was that agriculture was viticulture.

          Upon motion by Commissioner Little, seconded by Commissioner Holtkamp and carried by the
          following roll call vote, IT IS ORDERED to recommend to the Board of Supervisors Certification of the
          Final Environmental Impact Report for the General Plan Update.

          AYES:    Little, Hall, Holtkamp, Ogle, Nelson, and Warner
          NOES:    None
          ABSTAIN: Calvert

          Upon motion by Commissioner Calvert, seconded by Commissioner Hall and carried by the following
          roll call vote, IT IS ORDERED to recommend to the Board of Supervisors Adoption of the General
MENDOCINO COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION                                                         APRIL 30, 2009
MINUTES                                                                                      PAGE 26 OF 26


           Plan Update, considering the changes, additions, deletions recommend by the Planning Commission
           during the April 16, 2009 and April 30, 2009 Planning Commission meetings.

           AYES:    Little, Calvert, Hall, Holtkamp, Ogle, Nelson, and Warner
           NOES:    None
           ABSTAIN: None

5.   Matters from Staff.

     There were no matters from staff.

6.   Matters from Commission.

     There were no matters from the Commission.

7.   Approval of Minutes.

     There were no minutes to approve.

8.   Matters from Public.

     No one was present from the public who indicated a desire to address the Commission.

9.   Adjournment.

     Upon motion by Commissioner Little, seconded by Commissioner Calvert, and unanimously carried (7-0), IT
     IS ORDERED that the Planning Commission hearing adjourned at 8:22 p.m.

				
DOCUMENT INFO