3/2/14
In January, the Board of Supervisors sent the Conservation and Open Space Element of the draft General Plan back to the Planning Commission for review and recommendations, asking them to focus on a “short list” of 13 goals and policies that had not received unanimous support of the old commission.
The Planning Commission has mostly ignored the short list. Instead, they tried to reduce setbacks for streamside management, until after lots of public comment at the Feb. 27 meeting, when they reversed that straw vote. They eliminated the goal of a “countywide trail system that meets future recreational and non-motorized transportation demands,” and gutted language supporting and protecting conservation and open space lands through development review.
Watching recent Planning Commission meetings is downright spooky. The pro-development majority seems to have put Chapter 10 through a word processor, searching for all of those progressive, environmentalist, big government words, like “open space,” “streamside setback,” “development review,” “conservation,” and “trails.”
Then, they have crafted language removing the offending words from the goals and policies. It seems less like a “review” of the element, and more like aggressive advancement of a rigid agenda that essentially rewrites it. Their changes have invariably served the perceived interests of wealthy and powerful developers and real estate agents, who want less county oversight of projects.
In fact, they are acting against their own self interest by weakening these elements. Why are home values rising here? Why are people buying? It's because they want open space, unobstructed views, healthy streams and good trails. If this area gets developed like all the other formerly rural counties, it will no longer be a magnet for those seeking to escape urban and suburban areas. If open space standards are weakened, long-term developer and real estate profits will decline.
Language protecting streams and open space and supporting trails was included because hundreds of local residents, who participated in creating the original draft of the plan, want to protect our natural world from irresponsible development and provide residents with transportation and recreation opportunities that are essential to healthy communities.
Open space preservation not only makes our community more attractive; it is mandated by state law. However the commission tweaks the goals, planning review will continue to be legally required for projects where open space policies apply.
Commissioner Lee Ulansey worried that countywide trails might involve prescriptive easements or the seizing of private property, and even when staff clearly stated that none of that is likely, he led the majority in weakening the goal of a trail system.
The Planning Commission is charged with making the General Plan internally consistent. However, by removing the goal of a “countywide trail system” they have made it inconsistent with the Circulation Element, which “Support[s] efforts to establish and connect a regional trails system.” Consistency between elements is essential and helps to secure outside funding for trails.
As a building contractor, I have argued on behalf of clients before the Planning Commission, trying to get the commission to drop requirements to build the first sidewalk in their neighborhood, because planning called for sidewalks on their street, and the project was of sufficient scope to trigger the rule. I argued that it was absurd to build an isolated stretch of sidewalk, and that it was an unfair burden to require them to pay for it. I lost that argument. The project was put on hold. I was annoyed not to get the job.
In retrospect, it makes good sense, for the community as a whole, to have sidewalks in a residential neighborhood on a busy street, and the only way they will be built is to require those who wish to develop their property to do their share of the sidewalk building. For the long-term greater good it is okay to have requirements that may seem burdensome to contractors and landowners in the short-term.
Government, in general, limits some of our personal freedoms in order to support the greater good. We must register our cars, follow traffic rules, not pollute streams, vaccinate our kids, send them to school, not litter, and generally respect our fellow humans and our environment.
A majority, consisting of recently appointed commission members, have taken it upon themselves to weaken language that they consider to be a burden on developers or a threat to private property rights. They seem to lack respect for the community consensus supporting quality of life and environmental values, which was central to the creation of the draft plan.
The Board of Supervisors should save a lot of time and money by stopping the circus of Planning Commission re-review of the Open Space Element. Then, they can move forward to approve the draft General Plan Update that already exists. On Feb. 27, responding to public comment, the commission voted to ask the board to “review the work completed and give us further instructions.” That is a good start.
Dave Meserve is a former Arcata city councilman.
