Sacrificing rivers for growth

I've walked along the Mokelumne River's Electra Run many times. It's a beautiful spot year-round. It's also the part of the Mokelumne used most by local residents. They come there to fish, picnic, and pan for gold. They come to teach their kids about rivers.

They are people of all ages, from all walks of life. What they have in common is a love of nature, and especially of rivers.

It's no secret that I love rivers and advocate for the Mokelumne. And it's no secret that I support keeping the portions of the Mokelumne that are still a river flowing for future generations. Because of that, I support National Wild and Scenic River designation for the Mokelumne. It's simply the only way to keep our river a river.

I've been distressed by some of the discussion in recent Amador County general plan hearings. There are people in our county who want to sacrifice our rivers on the altar of unlimited growth. They are willing to destroy the Electra run, and the other special river places in our county, to grow more subdivisions and fuel more gridlock. And they don't understand that conservation and efficiency is the cheapest source of additional water supply.

The general plan is about the future -- what we want our county to be. I, for one, want it to be a place where people can enjoy and learn about rivers just like they can today.

The general plan is far from done. But those of you who care about the Mokelumne need to speak up now.

There are two good ways to show your support for keeping the Mokelumne a river. One is to sign on to support National Wild and Scenic River designation for the Mokelumne.

The other is to let the Amador County Board of Supervisors know what you think. Call or write and tell them what the river means to you. If you use the river, tell them how. If you come here from somewhere else and spend money while you're here, let them know that as well.

To some folks and officials in Amador County, the river is simply an abstract source of water. To many of us, it is a powerful force of nature, a source of pleasure, challenge, inspiration or rejuvenation -- and it's up to us to keep it that way.

Planning is more than theory

We took a salmon-watching trip on the Yuba River yesterday. To get there, we drove north through Amador, El Dorado, Placer and Nevada counties before heading west to Parks Bar, where the salmon spawn. It's a long trip.

The route's full of lessons relevant to the update of our county general plan, the "constitution" for future growth and development.

Amador still has a good number of working ranches along the northbound route. There are some ranches in southern El Dorado, but fewer and fewer as you head north.

Instead, as you drive through our neighboring foothill counties, you see suburban ranchettes that have chopped up the wildlife habitat, subdivisions in forests just waiting to burn, and ugly commercial strip development that looks like Anywhere, USA (hmm ... sorta like Martell). Highway 49 even turns into a freeway outside Grass Valley.

It's a vision of what our future will be if we don't take another course today. And it's a great reminder that land use planning is not an empty theoretical exercise. Planning actually determines what happens on the landscape, shapes communities, and directly affects everyone who lives in or visits a place.

Good planning can help working ranches stay in business, minimize commercial sprawl, and protect wildlife habitat, rivers and streams. It can focus development in towns so we don't need to expand our roads to freeways that no one can afford. It can minimize loss of life and property to wildland fire (and associated costs). And if it's clear on what's allowed where, it's more likely to attract economic investment (investors like certainty).

How can we make sure good planning happens here? For one thing, we need to convince our county's elected and appointed officials that planning actually matters. It's not about reviewing each project application as it comes along and deferring the hard decisions until then -- it's really about creating a clear plan.

Right now, the supervisors and planning commissioners are focused on this question as they review each part of the plan: "Will this limit property rights?"

Property rights matter, but they shouldn't be the only consideration. The officials should also be asking, "Will this keep our county a beautiful, safe, sustainable, and healthy place to live, work, visit and retire?"

In recent general plan hearings, some of the folks on the dais have seemed willing to sacrifice our community character and natural environment on the altar of property rights, without considering where that may lead.

I've seen where it leads. I was there just yesterday. And I don't think it's where most Amador County residents want to go.

It's time to get involved, folks

The supervisors and planning commissioners need to hear from those of you whose primary interest is not developing or subdividing your property. You deserve an equal say in our county's future. Tell them what matters to you and why, and remind them that they represent you, too.

Give your supervisor a call at 223-6470 or get involved in the general plan update hearings. For more information and meeting dates, see Amador County's general plan update website and the Foothill Conservancy's Amador County general plan update page.

Everyone should count

I've lived in Amador County for 29 years, nearly all of my adult life. I have wonderful friends and colleagues here. Some are members of families who have lived here for generations. Many of them are not (in fact, I would guess that most people who live here are not from the old families).

My friends and colleagues take care of people when they're aging, sick and dying. They teach in our schools. They own businesses that employ local people and contribute to our economy. They create art and music that enriches our lives. They run local nonprofit groups. They spend money in local stores. They raise livestock and grow food. They design and build homes. They save lives and property by responding to fire and medical emergencies. They raise large sums of money to help local cancer patients. They bring in retirement dollars that support local businesses and jobs.

They contribute in more ways than I can begin to list here. They are an essential part of our community even if they do not own large amounts of land or adhere to conservative political principles.

Last week, the county board of supervisors and planning commission met to discuss the updating of the county general plan. That general plan will shape our county for decades. It will affect how each one of us lives, every day, by determining how, where, and how much development occurs in the county, as well as where development doesn't occur.

The general plan will influence everything that makes up our quality of life: small town identity, air quality, roads and traffic, wildlife, scenic vistas, schools, economic health, rivers and forests, agriculture, and more.

Many of the speakers at the three days of general plan meetings had a clear message for those of us who are not major landowners:

You do not count. What you think does not matter. You are not "representative" of the community. If you are a "liberal," or worse yet, went to UC Berkeley, you are especially suspect. Regardless of the contributions you make, only we -- the multi-generation landowners and the developers and pro-development interests who are using us to their own ends -- really matter.

This was not unexpected. It's the boiling up of a simmering community conflict that is seldom openly discussed. That conflict came to the fore during the District 5 supervisor race two years ago. Local rancher Brian Oneto ran as the archetypal representative of the old-family, landowner power base and those who agree with a "let us do what we want with our land regardless of what it does to you" philosophy. Mel Welsh, a registered nurse with an impressive record of community service, ran on her record and a comprehensive platform.

Oneto succeeded in portraying Welsh as a Nancy Pelosi-loving, "San Francisco liberal" whose goals was to take away landowner property rights. The message was clear and explicit: "She is not one of us." It worked and Oneto won.

Many of the folks involved in that campaign are now part of the current effort to derail two years of community work on the general plan update.

Events like last week's hearings make me worry about our county's future. If we cannot learn to appreciate and acknowledge the contributions of all of our county's residents, how in the world can we begin to deal with the challenges we face, especially in these increasingly difficult economic times? And what will we do as our communities become more ethnically and culturally diverse?

The way I see it, we can't afford to reject anyone or any idea. We need to embrace our neighbors, acknowledge their contributions, and use all of our collective knowledge and experience to build a stronger, resilient, more capable community. To do anything less is beyond foolish.

No one has all of the answers. But if we work together, we'll come a lot closer to success than we will ever get by discounting the ideas and contributions of people with whom we disagree.

Developer protests

Since I've lived in Amador County for 29 years, I know quite a few local people. Some of them are realtors. Two of those folks sent me the e-mail below, which was sent out to every realtor in Amador County. I thought I ought to share it with you.

But first, a little context ... Amador County is updating its general plan, which the courts have called the "Constitution" of a county. General plan updates take time. Three to five years is the norm, and they can take longer.

Amador County is in no way dragging its feet on the plan update. In fact, as a survivor of last year's "General Plan Death March," during which the General Plan Advisory Committee was meeting twice a month, I can attest to the fact that much of the work was being pushed too fast without adequate discussion. The county planning staff made clear that things were being rushed because of pressure from developers. Apparently they were unhappy with the county having placed a moratorium on general plan and zoning changes while the plan update is underway.

That general plan and zoning change moratorium applies only if a landowner wants to change the current designated use of a piece of property -- for example, to change land zoned for agriculture into a subdivision. The county put the moratorium in place so that it could establish a stable environmental baseline for the general plan update. It was not an unreasonable thing to do -- and it was initiated by the county, not by any "special interests."

The e-mail reminds me that local people often forget that Amador County is not isolated from the rest of the state, the country, and the world. In case they haven't noticed, housing is in a huge slump in much of California, including our region.

The economy is a mess. People are being thrown out of their homes at an alarming rate, in part because of unscrupulous lending practice like "NINA loans" -- mortgages written for people with no income and no assets. (I just heard on the radio that California has 9 out of 10 of the highest areas of foreclosure in the state.)

How could anyone think our local economy would not be affected by these larger forces?

As you read the message below, keep in mind that the author is a developer who is planning a project just outside Pine Grove.

Here's the e-mail ...

Amador Realtors:

Re: ECONOMIC STIMULUS concept #2 (General Plan Moritorium)

Just to expand on the subject of "Economic Stimulus", we currently have a moratorium affecting our economy here in our own County. It was intended to provide processing time for the revision and change of the General Plan. The moratorium effectively halts all development and construction on parcels that are not currently zoned in a manner that is compatible to a given desired and needed land use.

The moratorium results in significant negative economic consequences, irrespective of a given communitys need for a good project to come to fruition. If a parcel of land was not previously zoned in a manner that makes sense to current day needs, a great project will consequently be stuck in a rut while the property owner can only wait for the General Plan update process to grind its way through to the end. While it is a certain fact that our General Plan needed to be updated, it surely shouldnt take 3.5 years or more to complete the process. The moratorium wast passed and adopted on November 8, 2005 and was not supposed to last more than three years. Supervisor Richard Forster and Planning Director Susan Grijalva recently stated on TSPN on separate segments something to the effect that the moratorium will continue to the middle of next year. While Ms. Grijalva on the Lets Talk segment, said it could take as much as five years. There is currently nothing in place that puts any form of time limitation on the process.

I realize there are many people working diligently to complete the process. However, I believe there are some people with their own agenda to drag it out down a long agues path.

At last Tuesdays Board of Supervisors meeting we saw contractor and long term resident of Pine Grove Leroy Carlin show his abomination and outrage for the moratorium and how it has affected him and others. I find myself in this same situation with investors who are willing to invest in my own property along with the purchase of my listings, but only if and when the moratorium is over.

It is my belief that the moratorium in Amador County is causing a profound effect on our economy, even more so than the cost of permits and impact fees for the building of a home. I question why such a lengthy amount of time is being taken to update our General Plan? The process just should not take more than a couple of years especially given the current economic status. I remember that nearly three years ago, Supervisor Rich Escamilla voted against having the moratorium and he wanted to just review each project application on its own merits, while the General Plan was being revised in parallel.

Something needs to be done to streamline the remainder of the General Plan update process. I believe we need to call for a speedy end to the moratorium and get the Countys General Plan revised and in place. We need to go back to evaluating each proposed project application on it own merits. A timely end to the moratorium does not take any funds away from the County what-so-ever. In fact, it has already cost the County at least $750,000. Now, is a really bad time to have a moratorium and a timely end to it will promote economic stimulus while also saving the County money.

Sure would like to see standing room only again this Tuesday morn at about 9:20 AM at the Board of Supervisors Chambers, 810 Court Street, Jackson. We need to make our presence known and show our desire for prompt economic stimulus. Please show your support for the cause and bring yourself and a friend.

Below is a TSPN Press Release that shows that our brother and sister Realtors in Calaveras County are fed up with their sluggish economy caused in part by moratoriums and what is said to be an "unrelenting assault on property rights and personal freedoms".

Thats my two cents. Thanks for reading.

Marc Bowman

www.YourLandGuy.com

Marc@YourLandGuy.com

209-765-8539
TSPN Press Release

Controversy In Calaveras Supervisor Race

The constant battle between Hillary and Barack is not the only heated competition for election. Questions have been raised over the intentions of certain groups involved in the Calaveras County's District 2 Supervisors race. Incumbent Supervisor Steve Wilensky believes the Calaveras County Association of Realtors political action committee is trying to buy his district 2 seat after the committee donated $7,000 to opponent John Morse

Tell the County What You Think

Update, April 27: The results of the survey discussed below are now online.

Thursday night will mark the last meeting of the Amador County General Plan Advisory Committee. I serve on that committee as Foothill Conservancy's alternate member. For 18 months, we've been discussing numerous issues that are critical to the future of our county.

Before we had a break this winter, I characterized the process as the "General Plan Death March." With some exceptions, it has seemed that keeping to the schedule and moving things along was more important to the county than coming up with a quality plan.

I've also been very frustrated by the lack of effort to secure meaningful public participation in the general plan update. Most recently, the county put out a survey on the draft land use elements of the general plan and posted it on the county website. It was anything but user friendly.

There's an alternative survey out now -- the Citizens' Survey on Amador County Growth and Development . It was posted online today. The survey is cosponsored by individuals, Valleyoaks Vineyards, West Point Publishing, Amador Community News, and Foothill Conservancy.

The survey will be available online for a limited amount of time. If you want to weigh in and you haven't been able to attend those Thursday night GPAC meetings, now's your chance.

The general plan will move to the planning commission and supervisors next.

General plan land use alternatives released

Update January 24: Because of the bad weather, the next General Plan Advisory Committee meeting will be held on Thursday February 21, not tonight.

At Thursday’s General Plan Advisory Committee meeting, the committee and the public will get a chance to look at and perhaps discuss the three land use alternatives (with one “bonus” development) proposed for our new general plan. (There will definitely be discussion at future meetings.)

The county Planning Department recently published three alternative land use maps for the general plan update. The maps come with a workbook that explains the proposed alternatives, land use classifications, and so forth. As the county moves forward with the plan update, it may choose one of these alternatives, combine features from them, or come up with something entirely new.

The workbook begins with assumptions about future population growth that drive the alternative and refers to two sources: the California Department of Finance and the Amador Water Agency.

The Department of Finance expects the county's population to grow to 54,788 by 2030, an increase of 55 percent from 2000, or about 1.8 percent per year. The workbook says that at this rate – and if development trends continue as they have since 2000 -- about 7,000 of the new residents would live in the county's unincorporated area.

The Amador Water Agency’s high growth rate estimate is about 2.9 percent per year. That's a far cry from the Department of Finance 1.8 percent – and results in a projected difference of more than 8,000 additional residents in the unincorporated area by 2030 (7,000+ vs. 15,000+).

The Department of Finance employs professional demographers and is considered the state’s “single official source of demographic data for state planning and budgeting.” The Amador Water Agency is a public utility with no documented track record in estimating population growth.

For the general plan land use element, the county and its consultants picked a growth rate between the AWA and DOF figures. Then they mapped the county to accommodate that growth.

The result? Each of the three alternatives allows for about 11,850 new residents in the unincorporated area of the county. The difference between the alternatives is where most of the growth would occur – in rural areas or town centers.

There’s a variation on one alternative that includes development of the Howard Ranch outside Ione – now being called by its historic name, Rancho Arroyo Seco. The projected population of that one “planned community”? More than 32,000 people – nearly as many people as live in our entire county today. You can see the map of that land here.

If any of this concerns you, it’s time to get involved. The next General Plan Advisory Committee meeting, open to the public, is at the County Administrative Center on Thursday night, January 24, at 6 p.m.

General plans are required and governed by state law. To see what the state says ought to be in the general plan, check out the state General Plan Guidelines.

Calaveras Supervisors move to limit sprawl

It used to be that land use planning in Calaveras County was anything but smart. The county has been one of the fastest-growing in the state, with no constraints on the conversion of ranches and oak woodlands to golf courses and subdivisions, complete with overtapped groundwater and leaky septic systems. But it looks like those days may be over.

A few weeks ago, the Calaveras Board of Supervisors held a visioning session to establish a policy framework for the county's general plan update. It was most promising, with all five supervisors -- even Libertarian Tom Tryon -- agreeing that new development should occur in existing communities rather than sprawling all over the countryside. They even talked about incorporating the Ahwahnee Principles or the Land Use and Development Principles adopted by several Calaveras communities.

Then last week, the supervisors lifted the year-old subdivision moratorium put in place at the beginning of the plan update. But they didn't return to the bad old days of virtually unfettered growth.

Instead, they unanimously adopted policies to shape new development. The policies aren't binding -- the board will still look at each subdivision proposal -- but the clear message is "if you want us to approve your project, this is what it needs to be." The resolution even suggests to staff that they bring noncompliant applications to the board for an early decision rather than putting everyone through the time and expense of California Environmental Quality Act review.

The policies are intended to focus development in existing communities and limit sprawl. They express a clear preference for projects that

• Create new parcels only in areas where public water and sewer are available (except for single parcels and parcels over 40 acres)
  
• Protect onsite open space and habitat
  
• Provide roads built to county standards
  
• Promote affordable housing

And in the resolution language adopting the policies, the supervisors made clear they expect similar policies to be part of their general plan:

WHEREAS, during the October 23, 2007 workshop, the Board unanimously stated that the General Plan update, and in particular the Land Use Element of the General Plan, should include goals, policies and implementation measures regarding criteria for future development within the unincorporated area of Calaveras County that limits the use of groundwater and onsite septic systems to serve that development and should instead encourage high density development served by public surface water and public sewer with preservation of onsite open space as well as other associated infrastructure to serve the development such as roads built to county road standards;

Meanwhile, despite a moratorium on general plan and zoning changes, every month new well-and septic-dependent parcels are being created in rural Amador County, many in high fire zones. How smart is that?

Open letter to Raheem Hosseini re his global warming editorial

Today's Amador Ledger Dispatch includes a fine editorial by Raheem Hosseini on the county supervisors' recent rejection of the Cool Counties initiative and his disappointment at the lack of public outcry. I started to write Raheem an e-mail in response, but decided to publish the content here, instead . . .

Hi, Raheem:

Just so you know, it's not that local enviros like me don't understand the implications of global warming or think the county shouldn't get on board. We just try to be judicious regarding which battles to fight, where, when, and how.

Public hearings on issues of this type are opportunities for demagoguery and seldom lead to anything very positive or productive. And chiding the supervisors after the fact isn't productive at all, at least not from where I sit.

At the risk of sounding like the older person I am fast becoming, I have to say that I was much quicker to jump to a fight when I was 25 than I am now. It's not that I don't have as many opinions, or that they are any less strong, but I have a different perspective on how to get things done.

For example, I'd rather slog through countless hours of review and edits and discussion of county general plan goals and policies that can reduce local GHG generation for the next 20 years (as I have been doing over the last six weeks) than spend just one hour in a hearing that will have little impact in the long run --- especially if it means listening to people who know nothing about the issue go on and on about it.

Of course, since the Ledger isn't covering the General Plan Advisory Committee meetings, you don't know about all the work that's going into those goals and policies -- or the conflicts playing out between people who want the plan to actually do something and those who are trying to make it as toothless as possible.

So from my perspective, expending a lot of energy on the Cool Counties resolution didn't fall under the category of time well spent. That may disappoint you -- it's obvious you wanted more from local enviros on the issue than we gave you this time -- but please consider that sometimes a lack of outcry may just mean that the would-be outcryers (sp?) are out working their fingers off making real change rather than jumping at opportunities to beat their heads against a wall.

That never works and you just end up with a headache.

Thanks for being out there using your bully pulpit to advantage. Loved the redacted W-2 reference.

Best,
Katherine

A bit about property rights

The question of property rights comes up at nearly every meeting of the Amador County General Plan Advisory Committee. As you might imagine, the discussion is highly subjective.

Because of that, I recently suggested that the county counsel come speak to the committee and the public about what property rights are and aren't, and what can legally be done through the general plan and zoning. Maybe we'll see that happen before too long.

Meanwhile, I remembered having read a really good paper on the issue. Donald Rypkema, who calls himself a "crass, unrepentant, real estate capitalist Republican type," spoke on the matter a few years back at the National Building Museum. Rypkema's lecture, "Property Rights and Public Values," gives some historical context, addresses the "takings" issue, and discusses many of the misconceptions people have about property rights.

It's well worth a read.