6-20-2025
|
|
|
|
||
|
||
6-20-2025
|
||
| RAYMOND HALL Director |
 COUNTY OF MENDOCINO PLANNING AND BUILDING SERVICES |
Telephone: (707) 463-4281 FAX: (707) 463-5709 Email: pbs@co.mendocino.ca.us |
PLANNING COMMISSIONMINUTES |
| LOCATION: | Mendocino County Administration Center, Board
of Supervisors Chambers, 501 Low Gap Road, Ukiah, California |
| COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: | McCowen, Barth, Nelson, Calvert, Little,
Berry, Lipmanson |
| COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: | None |
| PLANNING & BLDG SVC STAFF PRESENT: | Debra White, Administrative Assistant Raymond Hall, Director Pamela Townsend, Planner II |
| OTHER COUNTY DEPARTMENTS PRESENT: |
Frank Zotter, Deputy County Counsel |
| 1. Roll Call. The meeting was called to order at 9:05 a.m. Commissioner Nelson arrived during presentation of the Director’s Report. 2. Determination of Legal Notice. Mr. Hall advised the Commission that all items have been properly noticed. 3. Approval of Minutes. Upon motion by Commissioner Berry, seconded by Commissioner Calvert and unanimously carried (6-0; Nelson absent), IT IS ORDERED that the Minutes of June 1, 2000 are approved with the following corrections:
4. Director’s Report and Miscellaneous. Mr. Hall reviewed the written Director’s Report submitted into the record. In response to Commissioner Berry, Mr. Hall advised that the Board of Supervisors would be discussing funding for the UVAP during the budget sessions. In response to Commissioner Little, Mr. Hall discussed the State’s web site which contains the County General Plan. Staff briefly discussed the availability of the County General Plan and Zoning Ordinances on web sites. 5. Regular Calendar. 5A. MS 18-99 - SANDERS - Northwest of Laytonville Request: Minor Subdivision of a 28.19+- acre parcel to create one parcel containing 14+- acres and a remainder parcel containing 14+- acres. Mr. Hall reviewed the staff report and an addendum to the report. In response to Chairman McCowen, Mr. Hall explained that a 60 foot easement is required for the subdivision and the existing easement is only 40 feet wide, therefore, the applicant is creating a new easement and access road. Mr. Lee Sanders, representing the application, confirmed that he is creating a new 60 foot easement based on a requirement of the staff. The public hearing was declared open and subsequently closed when no one came forward to address the Commission. In response to Commissioner Little, Mr. Hall explained that staff is recommending that the applicant be required to pay the Fish and Game fees because the proposed subdivision will result in increased densities whereas the next application on the agenda (#MS 1-2000) will not result in increased density based on the prohibition of second residential units. Commissioner Little commented that he does not find that the development of an additional residence would create an impact to fish and wildlife, therefore, he supported deletion of the requirement that the applicant pay the Fish and Game fee. He commented that the parcels around this site are relatively small. Commissioner Calvert concurred with Commissioner Little and pointed out that the development could actually enhance wildlife habitat by adding water and landscaping. In response to Commissioner Lipmanson, Mr. Hall discussed the history of fish and game fees and explained that the legislation requires that the Commission find that there will be no impact to fish and wildlife. He explained that the Planning Commission has been fairly consistent in application of the fish and game fees for subdivisions which will result in increased densities. He noted that the Commission has in some cases been more strict in its interpretation of the legislation requiring the fee than other jurisdictions. Commissioner Lipmanson requested that staff provide additional information regarding the impact to fish and wildlife for future applications. Commissioner Barth commented that she also objects to the fish and game fee, however, pointed out that the Commission has consistently required the fee for subdivisions which will result in increased development on a parcel. If both parcels already contained a residence, then she would have no objection to waiving the fee. She pointed out that this project will result in increased densities and use of a road in an urban area. Chairman McCowen concurred with Commissioner Barth but stated if other jurisdictions do not consistently apply the fees, then it is unfair to local citizens. Commissioner Berry supported waiving the fish and game fee. In response to Chairman McCowen, Mr. Frank Zotter discussed the requirement for fish and game fees explaining that the legislation presumes that all development will impact fish and wildlife. It places a burden on the County to show that there will be no impact. He explained that the Department of Fish and Game can place a lien on property for the fee if the County waives the fee and they find that it should have been required. He explained that he prepared a detailed opinion regarding the fees for the Commission in the past and offered to re-circulate the opinion. He explained that the court found that this is a regulatory fee and does not have to be proportional to the development. Commissioner Nelson commented that Fish and Game did not comment on this application, therefore, there is no cost to them to process the application. The fees appear to be a punishment. He stated that he sees no grounds for charging the fee in this case. Mr. Zotter explained that the fee is a regulatory fee and is not a fee for services. In response to Chairman McCowen, Mr. Zotter explained that there is nothing in the law that allows Fish and Game to charge the County for the fee when it is waived. They could, however, file a law suit to require that the County follow their interpretation of the law. Fish and Game could also place liens on individuals properties for the fee. Commissioner Little pointed out that the existing road runs through the property and is the primary access for the entire area. The existing habitat is not conducive to wildlife. Construction of a house will not cause a significant change in the quality of the habitat. Commissioner Lipmanson commented that staff needs to provide additional information regarding wildlife populations and the potential impact from a proposed development. He stated that he objects to the funds being placed within Fish and Game’s general fund as opposed to allocating the funds for development of wildlife habitat which would compensate for development. Mr. Hall explained that staff does not want to be placed in the position of defending a statute which was adopted for the Department of Fish and Game. Staff does not want to be placed in the position of guessing the impacts to fish and wildlife when Fish and Game will not respond to the project referrals. Chairman McCowen pointed out that Fish and Game has been mandated to carry out many tasks which were not related to their original mission. The legislature has chosen this mechanism to fund Fish and Game and the legislature has failed to repeal this unfair and cumbersome method of funding the department. Upon motion by Commissioner Little, seconded by Commissioner Calvert and carried by the following roll call vote, IT IS ORDERED that the Planning Commission adopts a Negative Declaration and approves #MS 18-99 making the following findings and subject to the following conditions of approval: Environmental Findings: The Planning Commission finds that the environmental impacts identified for the project can be adequately mitigated through the conditions of approval or features of the project design so that no significant adverse environmental impacts will result from this project, therefore, a Negative Declaration is adopted. Department of Fish & Game Finding: The Planning Commission has evaluated the Initial Study and other information pertinent to the potential environmental impacts of this project and finds that, due to the surrounding land uses, the existing road which bisects the property and the present condition of the property, the project will not have any adverse impact upon wildlife or the habitat upon which wildlife depends and, therefore, the Commission has rebutted the presumption set forth in subdivision (d) of Section 753.5 and the project is not subject to the Fish and Game fees. General Plan Findings: Pursuant to Section 66473.5 of the California Government Code, the Planning Commission finds the proposed subdivision, together with the provisions for its design and improvement is consistent with the applicable goals and policies of the General Plan. Project Findings: The proposed minor subdivision complies generally with all requirements of the Subdivision Map Act and of the Mendocino County Code, specifically with respect to area, improvement and design, flood and water drainage control, appropriate improved public roads, sanitary disposal facilities, water supply availability and environmental protection. STANDARD CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: For a Subdivision which has been approved according to the Mendocino County Code, the following "Conditions of Approval" shall be completed prior to filing Unilateral Agreement.
AYES: Nelson, Barth, Berry, Lipmanson, Calvert, Little, McCowen Mr. Hall briefly discussed the Fish and Game fee noting that the fee is very close to the same amount charged for the Department of Planning and Building Services to process an application through the public hearing process as well as perform necessary monitoring of conditions. 5B. MS 1-2000 - HELLER/WILLIAMS - Southwest of Ukiah Request: Minor Subdivision to create two parcels of 10.8+- and 16.4+- acres. Mr. Hall reviewed the staff report and submitted a modified site map which reflects a boundary line adjustment. He stated that any approval of this division is not an endorsement of the leach field easement noted on the tentative map for parcels to the south. The proposed easement will be considered at the time the development to the south is considered. He also clarified, regarding compliance with fire safe standards, that the applicant will be required to meet driveway standards rather than road standards. Mr. Joe Scherf, representing the application, stated that he agrees with the staff report, however, does not feel Special Condition Number 1 is necessary. In order for the applicant to develop a second residence on the property, a secondary leach field will be necessary and there is inadequate room on the parcel to develop such a system. He explained that a leach field would have to be developed on slopes less than 30 percent. Using the tentative map, he described the subject property. Mr. Hall explained that staff has developed alternative language for Special Condition 1 should the Commission support the prohibition on second units. The public hearing was declared open and subsequently closed when no one came forward to address the Commission. Mr. Scott Miller, Division of Environmental Health, requested that Condition Number 7
be corrected to read; "…Health’s "Land Division Requirements"
(DEH Form Number 26.09) identifying replacement area for existing on-site sewage
disposal systems which exists on proposed parcel 1. Should the Commission support imposition of the prohibition of second units, Mr. Hall recommended that Special Condition Number 1 be revised to read; "Prior to recordation of the final parcel map, the applicant as landowner shall execute and record a deed restriction binding to each newly created parcel, in a form and content acceptable to the Director of Planning and Building Services and County Counsel which shall provide that secondary residential units are prohibited on said parcel(s) in perpetuity. The document shall run with the land, bind all successors and assignees, and shall be recorded free of all prior liens and encumbrances, except for tax liens." In response to Commissioner Calvert, Mr. Hall explained that staff supports a prohibition of second units based on a concern with slopes and cuts and fills necessary to develop an acceptable sewage disposal system on the property. Upon motion by Commissioner Lipmanson, seconded by Commissioner Berry and carried by the following roll call vote, IT IS ORDERED that the Planning Commission adopts a Negative Declaration and approves #MS 1-2000 making the following findings and subject to the following conditions of approval: Environmental Findings: The Planning Commission finds that no significant environmental impacts have been identified for the project, therefore, a Negative Declaration is adopted. Department of Fish & Game Finding: The Planning Commission has evaluated the Initial Study and other information pertinent to the potential environmental impacts of this project and finds that, based upon the existing development on the subject parcel and surrounding parcels, the project will not have any adverse impact upon wildlife or the habitat upon which wildlife depends and, therefore, the Commission has rebutted the presumption set forth in subdivision (d) of Section 753.5. General Plan Findings: Pursuant to Section 66473.5 of the California Government Code, the Planning Commission finds the proposed subdivision, together with the provisions for its design and improvement is consistent with the applicable goals and policies of the General Plan. Exception Findings: The Planning Commission grants the request for an exception to Mendocino County Code Section 17-52 (F) finding that the lot configuration is warranted due to topography or other physical condition. Project Findings: The Planning Commission, making the environmental and General Plan findings above, approves #MS 1-2000, subject to the following conditions of approval, further finding pursuant to California Government Code Section 66445(e), that division and development of the property in the manner set forth on the approved or conditionally approved tentative map will not unreasonably interfere with the free and complete exercise of the public entity or public utility right-of-way or easement. STANDARD CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: For a Subdivision which has been approved according to the Mendocino County Code, the following "Conditions of Approval" shall be completed prior to filing a Parcel Map.
SPECIAL CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
AYES: Calvert, Nelson, Barth, Little, Berry, Lipmanson, McCowen 5C. U 37-99 - REAL GOODS TRADING COMPANY - In Hopland Request: Major Use Permit for a seasonal campground with 18 individual and one group tent sites, 18-space parking lot, portable bath facilities, and a lift station sewage disposal system. Mr. Hall reviewed the staff report. In response to Commissioner Berry, Mr. Hall discussed camping and long term occupancy. He noted that staff could develop a condition which prohibits long term occupancy of the camping area. In response to Commissioner Calvert, Mr. Hall stated that staff does not have specific information regarding the cause of vehicular accidents in this area. He stated that he believes the speed limit on Highway 101 in front of this site is 35 miles per hour. Commissioner Calvert voiced concerns that the applicant and/or campers could file complaints against the adjacent agriculture, mill or railroad operations based on noise impacts. She recommended that language be developed to notify the applicants of the potential for excessive noise from these adjacent uses and their right to continue operations. Commissioner Lipmanson commented that he assumes the campground is being developed to provide space for people who cannot afford a motel in Ukiah while attending the institute since this is not an ideal site for a campground. He suggested amending condition B-1 to read; "No material shall be placed into or where it may pass into any stream or watercourse" and delete the statement "in quantities which would be deleterious to fish, wildlife or other beneficial uses." Mr. Hall had no objection to the requested change noting that the Department of Fish and Game have their own regulations regarding what materials may or may not be placed within a stream or watercourse. Chairman McCowen commented that he objects to the development of 18 fire rings voicing concerns with the types of material which frequently are placed within campfire rings. Mr. Jeff Lahl, representing the application, stated that they would withdraw the request for 18 fire rings in favor of one central fire ring. He felt that reduction of the fire rings would reduce maintenance requirements as well as reduce the potential for fire danger. He stated that they agree with the staff report. He stated that the project will benefit the Hopland community by providing a place for people to stay. He stated, however, that the main purpose is to provide a place for institute participants to stay which will enable them to expand their educational program. In response to Chairman McCowen, Mr. Lahl explained that it is their intent to provide camping facilities for the intern program. The standard intern program is three months and they would expect the interns to stay at the campground for a three month period. In response to Commissioner Barth, Mr. Lahl stated that they do not have the design details refined, however, they would insure that any trash receptacles are secured and weather proof. Commissioner Barth recommended that Condition B-2 be modified to read; "…disposed of properly in weatherproof waste receptacles…" In response to Commissioner Calvert, Mr. Lahl stated that most accidents are caused by cars being rear ended when turning into their facility. The Commission discussed at length, traffic hazards, potential fire hazards and air pollution from use of fire rings, pedestrian and bicycle access to and from Hopland, potential to reduce vehicular traffic to and from the site with on-site camping and future plans by Caltrans to improve the Highway at this location. The public hearing was declared open. Josh Isenburg commented that flashing lights, more signage and a reduction in the speed limit could be instituted by Caltrans to reduce potential traffic hazards in the area which would be a less expensive alternative to a left turn lane. He explained that there is a four foot area between the bridge railing and the fog line and he feels comfortable walking across the bridge, however, if vehicles are parked on either side of the bridge, it makes it more difficult. Commissioner Lipmanson suggested that Real Goods encourage people to walk rather than drive into Hopland. Mr. Isenberg also suggested that a biofilter could be installed to reduce contamination entering the creek. The public hearing was declared closed. Commissioner Calvert requested that staff develop condition language to recognize the applicant’s agreement to eliminate the individual fire rings. RECESS: 10:40 – 10:53 a.m. Chairman McCowen commented that he is glad that the applicants are willing to reduce the fire rings, however, he preferred that no fire rings be allowed. He voiced concerns that trash and other materials are commonly placed in fire rings which creates air and water pollution problems which can be bad for the environment. He also pointed out that the campground will be utilized during the summer when fire danger is at its peak. He also voiced concerns with access to the creek and possible erosion problems. He noted that there is no effective way to monitor the project to insure that access is restricted until the appropriate soil stabilization measures are approved and implemented. Also, he voiced concerns that there may not be adequate monitoring after the measures are implemented to insure that there is no impact. Mr. Hall pointed out that there is a fence along the creek to eliminate access. Commissioner Little stated that the 1600 permit process through the Department of Fish and Game can require monitoring and monitoring has been required of other projects. Commissioner Lipmanson pointed out that Condition A-3 places some responsibility on the Department of Planning and Building Services to determine when human access is permitted. Commissioner Berry stated that he has difficulty supporting the project. In a normal campground, individuals only stay for one to two weeks, however, this project proposes that individuals stay on a more permanent basis. He also noted that there appears to be no maximum occupancy limit. He voiced concerns that the campground will not be compatible with the adjacent agricultural operation. He noted that Hopland is trying to improve its overall ambiance and a long term campground does not fit with the development in Hopland. Commissioner Lipmanson stated that the project provides a purposeful effort to provide affordable places for people to stay. He also noted that there is a fair amount of visual screening of the project. He also commented that this is not a pristine area given the adjacent railroad, sawmill and highway. Chairman McCowen concurred that there is a lot of screening of the site and it is unlikely that anyone driving along the highway would notice the campground particularly once the rest of the screening is in place. He felt that it is important to reduce the possible environmental impacts to the creek, eliminate fire rings and address impacts to the agricultural operation. Mr. Hall explained that the Commission has the option of limiting the term of occupancy for the campground. He offered several options for the Commission’s considering including limiting the term of occupancy to 14 days or 30 days and providing an exception for the intern camping area. In response to Chairman McCowen, Mr. Hall stated that the site plan identifies that the maximum occupancy of the intern camp will be 10 people. Commissioner Calvert recommended that additional condition language be developed to limit the maximum occupancy of the campground. She suggested as an option that it be limited to 4 people to a campsite. She also supported adding language to put the applicants on notice that the adjacent agricultural and saw mill operations could generate nuisances for campers similar to the right to farm language. Commissioner Nelson commented that he shares the concern regarding potential impacts to adjacent agricultural operation and supported adding the right to farm language. He stated that he frequently drives by this site and does not believe the campground will have a significant visual impact. Chairman McCowen commented that Real Goods does a good job keeping the site clean and attractive other than the junk cars. The junk cars were to be screened by vegetation and, due to careful pruning, are visible in all of their rustic glory. In response to Commissioner Little, Mr. Hall explained that the site plan shows that the camping sites will be accessed by a foot path. Vehicular access would require a modification to the use permit. Brief discussion followed regarding Chairman McCowen’s recommendation that all fire rings be eliminated. Several Commissioners indicated that they would not have a concern with one communal fire ring. Several Commissioners indicated that they would support a 14 day limit on camping with the exception of the intern area. Also, several Commissioners supported a maximum occupancy limit for the campground to reduce potential traffic impacts from large gatherings. Commissioner Calvert suggested a maximum occupancy of 75 plus the 10 interns. Mr. Lahl indicated that a maximum occupancy of 85 would be acceptable. In response to Chairman McCowen, Mr. Lahl indicated that primarily trimmings from the property would be used in the fire ring and they would not be importing fire wood. The rings will be regularly maintained and will be primarily used for workshop groups and special occasions. Chairman McCowen suggested that language be added that the fire rings only be used for special events sponsored by the institute. Commissioner Lipmanson also suggested that signs be posted prohibiting trash burning. Commissioners Little and Nelson pointed out that a property owner could have a camp fire on their property and they felt that posting of signs is unnecessarily restrictive. In response to Commissioner Nelson, Mr. Lahl stated that there is a fence completely surrounding the property. Mr. Hall offered several alternatives to the conditions of approval to address comments/concerns raised by the Commission regarding the fire rings, occupancy and time limit on camping, and modified right to farm language to address both the adjacent agricultural operation as will as industrial uses. Mr. Lahl indicated that they are comfortable with a 14 day limit with the exception of the intern camping area. RECESS: 11:25 – 11:33 a.m. Mr. Hall offered additional condition language to address comments/concerns raised by Commissioners. Upon motion by Commissioner Lipmanson, seconded by Commissioner Calvert and carried by the following roll call vote, IT IS ORDERED that the Planning Commission adopts a Negative Declaration and approves #U 37-99 making the following findings and subject to the following conditions of approval: Environmental Findings: The Planning Commission finds that no significant environmental impacts would result from the proposed project which can not be adequately mitigated through the conditions of approval, therefore, a Negative Declaration is adopted. General Plan Consistency Finding: As discussed under pertinent sections of the staff report, the proposed project is consistent with applicable goals and policies of the General Plan as subject to the conditions of approval. Department of Fish and Game Findings: The Planning Commission has evaluated the Initial Study and other information pertinent to the potential environmental impacts of this project and finds that, based upon the existing development on the subject parcel and surrounding parcels, the project will not have any adverse impact upon wildlife or the habitat upon which wildlife depends and, therefore, the Commission has rebutted the presumption set forth in subdivision (d) of Section 753.5. Project Findings: The Planning Commission approves #U 37-99 subject to the following conditions of approval further finding:
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: A. Conditions which must be met prior to use and/or occupancy and for the duration of this permit:
B. Conditions which must be complied with for the duration of this permit:
AYES: Nelson, Barth, Little, Calvert, Lipmanson, McCowen 6. Matters from Staff. Staff reviewed the draft August 17 Planning Commission agenda and it was the consensus of the Commission to hold the meeting in Ukiah. Mr. Hall submitted a letter to the Commission from Rich Estabrook, Christopher Martin, David Drell, Ellen Drell and Ann Crowder requesting an opportunity to make a presentation to the Commission to request that the Commission request that the EIR for the Willits bypass address a 2-lane bypass as a project alternative. Discussion followed by staff and the Commission regarding the importance of having an EIR address all potential alternatives. The Commission agreed to place the issue on the August 17 agenda as a timed item for 1:00 p.m., however, given the length of Commission agendas and the need to place this issue on an agenda as soon as possible, the entire discussion will be limited to 30 minutes. Caltrans shall be invited to be present to provide input. Mr. Zotter submitted a draft Resolution honoring former Commissioner Diane Hering. Several amendments were suggested to Mr. Zotter. It was the consensus of the Commission to place the resolution on the Planning Commission’s July 20th agenda for consideration and adoption. RECESS: 12:01 – 1:33 p.m. (Tape 2 #2540) 5D. GP 20-98 - UKIAH VALLEY AREA PLAN - In Ukiah Element I – Introduction – Chapters I-1 (The Area Plan) and I-2 (The Vision) (Continued from June 15, 2000 meeting). Ms. Pamela Townsend reviewed the staff report dated July 6, 2000. She reviewed changes prepared to address direction of the Commission from the June 15 meeting. Ms. Townsend responded to questions from Commissioners regarding the proposed urban boundary. Several Commissioners indicated areas where they disagreed with staff regarding the urban boundaries. Areas of concern included the agricultural area north of Ukiah, the Pinoleville area north of Ukiah and the SR area south of Ukiah. Several Commissioners voiced concerns with protection of land presently developed with agricultural operations both north and south of Ukiah. It was the consensus of the Commission to support to concept of identifying an urban boundary, however, the Commission will wait until later in the public hearing process to finalize the actual boundaries of the urban area. It was the consensus of the Commission to adopt the following changes to Section 1.03 (Section I-1 - Page 3):
It was the consensus of the Commission to adopt the following changes to Section 2.01 and Section 2.02 (Section I-2, Page 1):
Chapter II-1 – Open Space and Conservation Ms. Townsend reviewed the staff report dated July 6, 2000 pertaining to the Open Space and Conservation Chapter and summarized letters from Chris Brown (Air Quality), Lori Hubbart (California Native Plant Society), Suzanne and Tim Pletcher and Gregory Jirak. Ms. Townsend stated that she would provide Commissioners with copies of these letters. Chairman McCowen explained that the public hearing is open and will remain open throughout the entire hearing of the UVAP. He explained that the Commission is primarily considering the Open Space and Conservation Element of the UVAP today, however, comments on the entire plan may be given. He explained that members of the public should confine their remarks to the UVAP and not to the process. The Commission has previously considered the public hearing process and any new comments should be given to the Board of Supervisors. Mr. Jack Cox recommended that the General Plan be reviewed prior to considering the UVAP. Commissioner Berry responded that the Planning Commission previously made this recommendation to the Board of Supervisors and the Board of Supervisors directed that the Commission proceed with hearing the UVAP. He requested that Mr. Cox direct his comments regarding the appropriate process for updating the General Plan and hearing of the UVAP to the Board of Supervisors and restrict his comments today to the UVAP itself. Mr. Cox explained that a Board member made the comment that the UVAP could be used as a launching pad for the General Plan update. He voiced concerns with hearing the UVAP without clear direction on whether it will apply to areas outside the Ukiah Planning Area. Chairman McCowen explained that there has been discussion on whether the UVAP could be used as a prototype for a General Plan update. The Board of Supervisors gave the Commission no direction on whether it should be considered a prototype for the General Plan update. Chairman McCowen requested that Mr. Cox address his comments to the UVAP itself and not the process. In response to Mr. Cox, Chairman McCowen stated that any policies adopted as part of the UVAP must be consistent with the General Plan. Mr. Cox stated that the plan is not "people friendly." He also stated that it is a utopian plan. He objected to the requirements for providing open space and not being able to cut trees. He felt that agricultural operations in the valley are providing adequate open space. He stated that it is important that the County have a diverse economic base. He commented that the fisheries industry has disappeared and the timber industry has declined. The County has a good market relating to vineyards, however, voiced concerns that vineyards will not be as economically feasible once the thousands of acres of new vineyards come into production. Many property owners are developing residentially classified lands into vineyards, however, once the market for grapes decreases, they may decide that it makes more economic sense to develop the property for residential uses. He questioned whether it is the intent of the County to change the classifications for these properties from residential to agriculture. The County needs to retain residential property in order to provide for the needs of our future youth. Mr. Cox supported encouraging clean industry in the valley to broaden the economic base. Chairman McCowen asked Mr. Cox to be more specific in the areas of the plan which he feels are "people unfriendly." Chairman McCowen also commented that there is nothing in the Plan which provides that residentially classified lands will automatically be changed to agricultural classifications just because an agricultural operation has been developed on the property. In response to Mr. Cox, Mr. Hall explained that classifications should be placed on property based on the goals and policies adopted within the Plan. Commissioner Berry stated that he agrees that owners of residentially classified property need to be able to sustain the land until the ultimate development for residential use. In response to Commissioner Lipmanson, Mr. Cox stated that the plan discourages people from moving to the community and confirmed that he believes the plan "locks people out." Commissioner Nelson stated that people need to have an element of certainty in how they can develop their land. For instance, vineyard developers need to have the assurance that the property will be available for that use for 30 years in order for it to be economically viable. He stressed the need to conserve land for agricultural purposes. He commented that once property is developed for residential uses, it will not revert back to agricultural or open space use. He also voiced concerns that the plan address incompatibility issues noting that requiring that farmers provide a setback from residential uses, as was suggested by a speaker at the last public hearing, will ultimately put farmers out of business. Commissioner Berry stated that it is important that the Commission consider private property rights when adopting policies within the Plan. For instance, people who own property in the western hills should not be required to provide a back-drop for the city. Some use of their property needs to be allowed and a compromise must be reached since there is no indication that the owners of the property will be compensated for providing open space. Mr. Gary Ackerstrom commented that 1,000 houses projected for the Lovers Lane area is now classified as vineyard. He voiced concerns that elimination of housing in this area will have an impact on the County’s Housing Element. He stated that there are legal requirements of what a General Plan must contain and the UVAP needs to include that definition. He felt that a clear definition of the types of development allowed in Open Space needs to be provided. The definition may be undeveloped parks or it could include vineyards. He also suggested that language that does not directly relate to Open Space should be thrown out of the Plan. He felt that a clear definition of Open Space needs to be developed before proceeding. He commented that the first paragraph in Section 1.01 (Section II-1, Page 1) refers to the definition of Open Space in State law and the Plan should include this definition. Ms. Townsend responded that the Glossary contains the definition of Open Space. Ms. Townsend also explained that the Area Plan does not need to contain all of the Elements required of a General Plan. An Area Plan is an adjunct to a General Plan and can include whatever the County wants to include. The Area Plan will be used in conjunction with the General Plan. The Are Plan does need to be consistent with the General Plan. She also explained that the State only reviews the Noise and Housing Elements of a General Plan and will not be reviewing the Area Plan. The Area Plan will be used to guide development in the Ukiah Valley. Mr. Ackerstrom stated that Implementation Measure OC-5.2.1 (Section II-1, Page 7) is unclear and stated that the whole document is confusing. He questioned whether a vineyard is open space and asked that it be clarified what specific uses will be allowed within open space. He felt that residential development will provide more protection for valley oaks than development of vineyards. He stated that oaks and vineyards are not compatible. He stated that he has deer parading through his yard all the time. Chairman McCowen stated that there needs to be a balance between development and open space. Developers may be required to cluster housing in order to provide for an open space area within the development. Implementation Measure OC-5.2.1 provides for incentives for conserving habitat. Incentives could include density bonuses. He felt that the measure provides for a balance between competing interests. In response to Mr. Ackerstrom, Chairman McCowen explained that the Area Plan and General Plan have to be consistent. The Area Plan or the General Plan will have to be amended to eliminate any inconsistencies. Commissioner Lipmanson requested that speakers identify what their economic interests are when commenting on the Plan. He stated that he would be able to better understand the thinking if someone frankly states what their own personal interests are. Brief discussion followed regarding Commissioner Lipmanson’s request with Chairman McCowen and Commissioner Berry stating that an individual’s financial interest should not influence whether their argument is valid or not. Any member of the public is free to address the Commission on the contents of the Plan. Commissioner Berry felt that the request is inappropriate. He stated that this is a plan for the community and it makes no difference whether an individual has an economic or environmental interest. The decisions should be based on whether its a good plan for the community. Mr. Jim Ronco stated that he was born and raised one block from here. He quoted from the third paragraph of Section 1.01 (Section II-1, Page 1). He pointed out that the UVAP talks about new development supplying open space, restricting hillside development and restricting the removal of trees. Anything on a piece of property has an economic value whether its a house, a pond or a tree. The UVAP is not allowing use of the resources. Mr. Ronco read the Intent Section and listed the permitted and conditional uses in the Open Space District from the County Zoning Ordinance. He questioned whether agricultural operations will be allowed in open space. He explained that most agricultural properties also contain residences and outbuildings and, therefore, cannot qualify as open space. He also commented that a definition of grading needs to be provided as well as a definition of what excessive grading includes. He commented that agricultural operators need to be able to till their soils and, therefore, may not qualify for open space. He stated that the Plan takes the lands of others and completely controls the use of the property. RECESS: 3:02 - 3:13 p.m. Mr. Chris Brown, Air Quality Management District, submitted a written document into the record entitled "The Land Use - Air Quality Linkage – How Land Use and Transportation Affect Air Quality" 1997 Edition. He explained that his earlier comments to staff contains an error. He stated that the County is attainment for the Federal PM-10 standard and non-attainment for the State standard. He explained that there are many sources of PM-10. Some sources include road dust, rubber from automobile tires, combustion engines and agricultural operations. He explained that this is a difficult substance to regulate. He explained that there is no State PM2.5 standard. The PM2.5 standard has been adopted by the US EPA. This standard is subject to a US Supreme Court challenge. EPA is not enforcing the standard at this time. The County appears to be below the threshold for attainment. The District is presently monitoring for PM2.5 in the Ukiah and Fort Bragg area. He explained that the State may not adopt a standard for PM2.5 in that they appear to be satisfied with the Federal standard. Mr. Brown stated that the District finds Implementation Measure OC-22.2.2 (Section II-1, Page 27) to be acceptable at this time, however, if the County’s status changes, this measure may need to be revised. Regarding Implementation Measure OC-22.2.3, he stated that they have no objection to deletion of "all construction permits", however, noted that the District has their own standards for regulating dust suppression from development and grading. If their is a public nuisance, Air Quality will enforce their standards regardless of the language within the General Plan. He stated that he has no objection to staff’s recommendation to delete "fuel oil" in the implementation measures contained on Page PC-14 of the July 6, 2000 staff report. He stated that he has comments for several items within Table A on Pages PC-15 through PC-19 of the July 6, 2000 staff report. Regarding OC-18.1.1 (Page PC-18 of the 7/6/00 staff report), he stated that if air quality guidelines are needed, they should be established by the District. He stated that they have guidelines for industrial permits and guidelines for development projects. He commented that if they adopt a guideline, it becomes a standard for the entire County and not just the Ukiah Valley. They are presently trying to determine how they can write guidelines that apply to specific areas of the County since some areas have different problems than others. Regarding the estimated cost of $5,000 to $20,000, he explained that the Air Quality District doe not charge the County general fund for their services. They receive separate funding and the costs listed in the table for OC-18.1.1 should be deleted. Regarding OC-21.1.1 and OC-21.1.2 (Page PC-18 of the 7/6/00 staff report), Mr. Brown stated that the District feels there is no need to have air quality seminars. The District does continuing public education, however, does not feel seminars are an appropriate use of District time and resources. He recommended that seminars be deleted or modified. Regarding OC-23.1.5 (Page PC-19 of the 7/6/00 staff report), Mr. Brown stated that the District does not have a wood stove retrofit program. He explained that they are working with EPA to establish a program for wood stove retrofitting and wood chipping. He stated that there will be no cost to the County since it is related to air quality issues. Mr. Brown noted that the community college is exempt from local General Plans and recommended that staff contact them and incorporate their future plans for development into the UVAP. Mr. Brown also questioned whether changes to the UVAP will necessitate development of a new CEQA document. He commented that potentially allowing for more development outside of the City could cause increased air quality problems from dispersed development patterns. He explained that the District is participating in an ozone study. The District anticipates the county being within the ozone standards for the next 5 to 10 years. He explained that they are trying to determine if the ozone in the County is actually caused from pollution in northern Sonoma County which was just made a severe ozone non-attainment area. If the problem is caused by Santa Rosa, then restrictive measures will not have to be implemented. In response to Commissioner Nelson, Mr. Brown briefly discussed causes and sources of ozone. In response to Commissioner Barth, Mr. Brown explained, regarding Implementation Measure OC-21.1.3, that he anticipates working with chambers of commerce and employers. Education of employees may only include employers advising employees of MTA schedules. Also in response to Commissioner Barth, Mr. Brown explained that natural gas is primarily only available in the urban areas of the Ukiah Valley and Willits, although their may be some services in Laytonville. In response to Commissioner Berry, Mr. Brown discussed their program for stationary engines which includes agricultural engines. Mr. Brown also commented that General Motors are starting to develop natural gas vehicles. In response to Commissioner Lipmanson, Mr. Brown explained that any new stoves must meet EPA standards and be certified. He noted that propane burns cleaner and is pretty cost effective. He also commented that pellet stoves are cleaner also. He indicated that the County may want to develop standards regarding re-use of older stoves. Mr. Brown discussed air quality impacts from roads developed in conjunction with minor subdivisions. He commented that they have no problem with one or two vehicles per day utilizing dirt roads, however, it becomes a concern when a dirt road services a larger number of residences or many small subdivisions are approved. Large construction sites can present short term problems if they do not properly water the site to reduce dust. Mr. Brown explained that the Department of Transportation is in the process of modifying their road standards and Air Quality is working with them as it relates to air quality issues. Ms. Nancy Roca submitted written comments into the record. She stated that she lives off McNab Ranch Road and served on the Ukiah Valley General Plan and Growth Management Program for nearly four years. She stated that she is disturbed by some of the comments which have been made such as the document being "people unfriendly." She stated that over 200 people were involved in the process. She stated that it is important for the Commission to remember that there were people involved in the planning process with different points of view. She requested that the Commission support the values contained within the Plan. The stated that these values guide in the development of the Valley. She stated that the Plan was developed as a group process. She also stated that private property rights do need to be balanced with the public concern. In response to Commissioner Calvert, Ms. Roca explained that McNab Ranch Road is outside the Area Plan boundaries south of Ukiah across from Retech. Ms. Phyllis Curtis stated that she was a member of the steering committee for four years. She stated that the committee included members representing a cross section of the community. There were originally 40 members and only 26 remaining at the end of the four years, balanced evenly between those who favored more development and those who favored less. She stated that they were told to write the plan in general terms and not specifics. She stated that one of the problems in California is that the infrastructure can not keep up with the development. She urged that the Commission consider infrastructure when approving development otherwise the County will end up looking like the Bay Area and the rest of California. Mr. Richard Winkler stated that he participated in the Growth Management Steering Committee. He stated that there was strong support for protecting and preserving agricultural land. He stated that there was a request to allow development of the property at the southeast corner of Gobbi Street and the freeway. The Committee was told that this land was worthless and could only be used for raising pigs. He noted that the property is now developed with a vineyard. Mr. Winkler submitted written comments into the record. Ms. Lori Hubbart, Native Plant Society, stated that she has heard that the UVAP may be utilized as a model for the General Plan and Coastal Element. She stated that the LCP does need to be updated. She stated that she appreciates the hard work that went into the development of the UVAP, however, the Plan is vague and lacking in specific objectives and assignment of responsibility. She stated that they could not support using the UVAP as the blue print for the rest of the County, particularly the coastal area. She stated that the natural habitat is given short shrift in the Plan. Ms. Hubbart submitted written comments into the record. In response to Commissioner Barth, Ms. Hubbart stated that it would be helpful to include a list of plants that people should use for landscaping and a list of invasive plants that should not be used. She stated that it would be helpful if the County adopted guidelines similar to those used in Australia where government agencies have to preserve natural habitat and eliminate noxious weeds. She stated that they have a list of plants for the coast and she stated that she would contact the San Hedrin Chapter for a list of plants for this area and submit it to the Commission. In response to Commissioner Lipmanson, Ms. Hubbart stated that she has reviewed the oak woodlands sections and feels that the sections do not go far enough. She stated that there is little oak woodland habitat remaining and what does remain needs to be preserved. She stated that the Plan needs more detail. She stated that other members are working on detailed information regarding the oak woodlands issue. Ms. Carre Brown, Mendocino County Farm Bureau, commented that there is a plan for oak woodland conservation being drafted by a committee of the Forest Council. She stated that it is important that the County coordinate with the efforts of this committee when considering the sections on oak woodlands. Ms. Brown stated that she also served on the steering committee and when the committee reviewed the open space and natural resource conservation section, emphasis was placed on visual aspects of the hills. Regarding Goal OC-1, Ms. Brown questioned who will pay for the cost of cataloging and inventorying natural resources. She stated that Goal OC-2 and Policy OC-2.1 encourage public participation in monitoring the open space and conservation element and implementation of the element. She voiced concerns that the implementation of the element will be constantly changing and she recommended that the language be much more specific. Regarding Goal OC-3, she questioned whether the plan is referring to urban or rural areas. She stated that it does not make sense to apply this to areas outside the city’s sphere of influence. Ms. Brown stated that there are inconsistencies in the Plan as it relates to hillside development. She stated that the Plan talks about developing a trail and circling the valley yet the Plan also talks about fire prevention. Regarding OC-4, she stated that we need to keep in mind the effect of the environmental restrictions that a habitat conservation plan could have on rural property because this plan will dictate where structures may be placed on property. She questioned the need for site and design standards for development in Calpella (OC-4.2.2). She also commented that some of these standards could impact the development of affordable housing. She stated that Implementation Measure OC-4.3.1 is too vague. She questioned whether people will be required to give a portion of their property for a trail as a condition of development or will they be assessed a development fee. She recommended that a full discussion occur on these issues and a decision on how they will be implemented. Ms. Brown stated that the urban tree canopy (Section II-1, Page 5) should only be applied to the urban area and not the rural area. Ms. Brown stated that reviewing construction and landscaping site plans to insure that trees are not unnecessarily removed (Implementation Measure OC-5.3.1 -- Section II-1, Page) is subjective and she questioned who would be making these decisions. She objected to Implementation Measure OC-7.1.1 requiring the development of native plant landscaping standards. Ms. Brown stated that the Plan refers to the Salmon and Steelhead Management Plan in the third paragraph in Section II-1, Page 8, which is presently being reviewed by the Mendocino County Fish and Game Commission for an update. The last sentence of the third paragraph in Section II-1, Page 9, refers to performance zoning and she questioned what this means. She questioned the intent of Implementation Measure OC-8.2.1 and she requested clarification. Regarding Implementation Measure OC-8.5.1, she stated that the City is presently developing the stream and creek restoration master plan and she questioned whether the county is participating in this effort. Regarding Section 1.05 (Section II-1, Page 12), Ms. Brown felt that there should be a discussion regarding the Endangered Species Act and the listing of the steelhead and salmon, non-point sources in the TMDL process for impaired waterways, potential loss of diversion waters and raising of the dam. Ms. Brown requested clarification of Implementation Measure OC-12.2.3 regarding parking lot design and felt it should be more specific to include information regarding disposal of the contaminated water after it is contained. She recommended that the Commission include a discussion of the water diversion at the Potter Valley Powerhouse and raising of the dam under Policy OC-13.2. Regarding Goal OC-14, Ms. Brown noted that there is a new Russian River Flood Control Ordinance for metering and charging and suggested a reference be added in this section. Regarding the right-to-farm regulations in Section II-1, Page 17, Ms. Brown commented that the County has a right to farm ordinance. The City has promised to develop a similar ordinance since 1988. She recommended that the County encourage the City to develop their right to farm ordinance. She noted that there are agricultural operations in the County immediately adjacent to residential and commercial development in the City separated by a road. It is important that the County work with the City to develop a right to farm ordinance because residents in the City do not presently receive notification of the adjacent agricultural operation. Ms. Brown briefly discussed a new Farm Lands Security Act which targets prime agricultural land. She recommended that a discussion regarding this new Act be included in Section II-1, Page 17. In response to Commissioner Nelson, Ms. Brown stated that the Board of Supervisors does need to take action on this Act in order to implement it and obtain funds. She questioned why the County has not taken action on this Act since it has been funded since July, 1999. She noted that these funds can go into the general fund and be used any way that the County chooses. Ms. Brown discussed the viability of public transportation in the rural areas of the County. She discussed the Mendocino Transit Authority and the difficulty in using public transportation given the present schedule for busses. She stated that most individuals prefer to drive their own vehicles since most times the bus schedules do not coincide with their needs. Ms. Brown objected to Implementation Measure OC-21.1.3 dictating personal lifestyle choices. The Commission needs to consider the availability of alternative heating sources in the rural areas of the Valley. Ms. Brown commented that Implementation Measures OC-23.1.2 through OC-23.1.5 may not be viable for rural areas of the Valley. She objected to (c) in Implementation Measure OC-23.1.4 which appears to require an audit of a persons utility bill. In response to Commissioner Barth, Ms. Brown stated that it makes sense to have a county-wide policy regarding preservation of oak woodlands. She noted that a committee is presently developing an oak woodlands conservation program and it may be more appropriate to adopt those standards rather than separate standards for the Ukiah Valley. In response to Commissioner Calvert, Ms. Brown explained that the FERC process is the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission that has oversight on licensing of hydro facilities. She briefly discussed the water diversion project on the Eel River. Ms. Brown clarified, in response to Commissioner Lipmanson, that she has no objection to a list of plant species which constitute a threat to native plants, however, she objected to policies which specify whether an individual can plant a rose bush in their yard. She clarified that the language is too vague. RECESS: 4:34 – 4:44 p.m. Mr. Al Beltrami, representing the Mendocino Employers Council, submitted written comments into the record. Mr. Beltrami stated that they are concerned with the quality of life which brings people to this community. Affordable housing for employees is an important issue. As a personal issue, Mr. Beltrami stated that he is concerned with the development criteria for the western hills. He stated that they, in general, support the staff’s proposed modifications to the Open Space and Conservation Element. He urged that the Commission make sure that the UVAP and General Plan are consistent. One area of concern is providing adequate housing for workers. Mr. Beltrami recommended that Section 2.01 (Page PC-4 of 7/6/00 staff report) be further expanded to include more discussion of the County’s review process for the UVAP. He recommended that Implementation Measure OC-1.1.1 be modified to replace "Assist" with "Coordinate with". Mr. Beltrami recommended on Page 3, under Hillside Development, adding "voluntary" before "easements" in the second to the last line. He also recommended deletion of Paragraphs 3 and 4. He recommended that much of the narrative on Pages 5 and 6 be deleted finding that it is very subjective and open to question. Mr. Beltrami recommended changing "shall" to "should in Policies OC-5.2 and OC-5.3 on Page 7. He questioned whether Policy OC-14.1 on Page 16 means that agriculture should not be charged fees for water consumption, unlike other water users. He recommended that the air quality section, starting on Page 20 be updated to reflect current information and the Air Quality District’s comments this morning that they do not require funding from the County. He suggested that the Mendocino Transit Authority should be included as a responsible or involved agency in OC-21 as they will be a key player in public transit. Mr. Beltrami also suggested that Measure OC-23.1.5 be deleted. In response to Commissioner Lipmanson, Mr. Beltrami explained, regarding OC-14-1, that there is a proposal by the Russian River Flood Control District to charge agricultural users on a use basis. This policy may be in conflict with the District’s plans. Commissioner Nelson commented that the policy may still have value in minimizing cost increases for agricultural users. Commissioner Little requested that staff be prepared at the next meeting to explain why housing is not included as an element of the UVAP. He also requested that staff explain the state mandates relating to housing in the General Plan. Commissioner Lipmanson concurred with Commissioner Little’s request for additional information regarding housing requirements. It was the consensus of the Commission to continue discussion of the Open Space and Conservation Element of the UVAP to July 20th to begin immediately following the regular calendar in the hope that the Commission would be able to adhere to the original schedule. 7. Matters from Commission. There were no issues raised under Matters from Commission. 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 Berry, seconded by Commissioner Nelson, and unanimously carried (7-0), IT IS ORDERED that the Planning Commission hearing adjourned at 5:04 p.m.
|
|
|
|
|
|
