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.