There’s going to be a big turnover in the Planning Commission due to expired terms as well as the conservative turn of the Board of Supervisors last fall. And some of the people who have slammed the county for the extraordinary length of the process are ironically calling upon the county to slow it down even more until they have their commissioners of preference in place.
With the loss of these commissioners, a couple of whom have been on for over a decade, and the losses of Bonnie Neely and Jill Duffy, a great deal of institutional knowledge will be absent from the process.
28 comments
Comments feed for this article
December 27, 2010 at 11:31 am
tra
The bottom line is that, even with the unavoidable delays caused by new commissioners and supervisors, it looks like the GPU will be completed and voted upon during 2011 or 2012, with Bass, Lovelace, Clendenan, Smith and Sundberg being the final decision-makers. It will be interesting to see how this all plays out.
December 27, 2010 at 11:44 am
Eric Kirk
I’m wondering if even that timeline is optimistic now.
December 27, 2010 at 1:04 pm
tra
Last year it was the proponents of an Option-A-style GPU who were pushing for the plan to be completed and voted on before the end of 2010, with the idea being that a Neeley/Lovelace/Clendenan majority could deliver the needed votes. Meawhile, those opposed to this outcome argued that the process should not be hurried.
But now, with Neeley gone, the landscape has certainly shifted, though it is not entirely clear how it’s all going to play out in the end. It will be interesting to see if the Option A crowd now becomes the faction that favors delay (in order to drag it out in the hopes of changing the balance of power on the Board of Supes in their favor in a future election). But barring any untimely deaths or unexpected resignations, that possibility seems pretty far off in the future. Clendenan and Lovelace are up for re-election first, and those races would be, at best, a holding action for the Option A crowd. And there is at least some risk that Lovelace or Clendenan might lose their seats, leaving the Option A crowd with even even fewer allies on the Board of Supes.
Meanwhile, unless Jimmy Smith decides not to run, he’ll probably win re-election, which means that those favoring an Option-A-style GPU would have to delay things for at least 4 more years if they hope to change to the make-up of the final decision-making body (the Board of Supes) in their favor. That’s a long time to wait and a highly uncertain outcome at the end of that wait. And in the meantime, development continues under the rules in the existing General Plan. So the delay option doesn’t look very promising for Option A fans.
Aside from delaying for the next four years, it looks to me like the Option A faction is in a position where there are only a few remaining paths to pursue: (1) participate in trying to come up with a compromise plan that is more to their liking than the status quo, even if it falls well short of their Option-A-style ideals, or, (2) stand fast to their demands for robust Option-A-style restrictions, vote against any GPU that doesn’t meet their demands, and let the voters judge those decisions in future Supes elections. Perhaps there’s another path that I’m not thinking of?
December 27, 2010 at 2:35 pm
Schwingerkönig
I think it’s time to stop thinking of the GPU as a multiple choice test. Leet’s throw out the A-D false choices and start over. The current process has helped to fuel unneccessary division of the community. Starting fresh without pre-determined outcomes will go a long way to healing the wounds.
Once Girard “takes a job outsite the County” (after his next performance review) it will be easier to change the “tone at the top”.
December 27, 2010 at 3:26 pm
Eric Kirk
Well, most of the the developers would certainly love that solution.
December 27, 2010 at 4:22 pm
tra
There is no need to “throw out the A-D choices” since the Board of Supervisors doesn’t have to (and won’t) choose any one of them in its entirety — both the Planning Commission and the Board of Supes are free to pick and choose the parts they want from each. That doesn’t mean that achieving a consensus on the final plan — or even a majority — will be an easy task. But I doubt that “starting from scratch” would make it any easier.
But I suspect that Eric is right that there are plenty of developers who would just as soon see the current General Plan stay in effect as long as possible, whether that means dragging out the current process or starting from scratch. That’s the conundrum facing supporters of an Option A-style GPU: The status quo is not at all to their liking, but it seems unlikely that they can muster the votes on the Board of Supes to pass a GPU that IS to their liking. So they are between a rock and a hard place.
But, losing elections is one of the risks of overreaching. And in my opinion the attempt to radically reduce the rights of small TPZ owners was a classic case of overreach. I don’t know how much of an issue it was in the 4th district (which is mostly urban/suburban), but I suspect that it may have made a significant difference in the 5th.
December 27, 2010 at 5:05 pm
Eric Kirk
I don’t think it was even on the radar in the 4th District. It may have made a difference in the 5th, although I think electing the first Native American county supervisor in California history was on the minds of some voters who don’t care about the GPU and who normally vote progressively. It was extremely close otherwise.
In any case, it does appear that we are headed for a free-for-all come the next wave of development.
December 27, 2010 at 5:18 pm
Dave Kirby
I served on the commission with Jeff and Mary. The end of an era. Jeff is the fairest guy I ever met. Mary is probably responsible for a lot of the landscaping that we take for granted. I wish them the best.
December 27, 2010 at 8:22 pm
Anonymous
“But I suspect that Eric is right that there are plenty of developers who would just as soon see the current General Plan stay in effect as long as possible,”
Probably true but have you looked around recently? There isn’t ANY development going on. With a little bit of common sense and compromise a middle of the road plan with needed protections for watersheds, sedimentation, and over development could be put in place before the economy rebounds enough to encourage new development.
“But, losing elections is one of the risks of overreaching. And in my opinion the attempt to radically reduce the rights of small TPZ owners was a classic case of overreach.”
Finally the light bulb goes on somewhere. If the far left had just been reasonable in their goals they could have achieved the overwhelming majority of what they wanted. Certainly they could have obtained an industrial timber zoning that would have ended development on timber company land which is around 80% of TPZ land. Now they will be lucky to get half of their goals and may well end up with nothing if they don’t pocket their ego’s and start trying to build some bridges. Further, now there a bunch of cocky rednecks that have discovered that they can win who will be much tougher to negotiate with than when they were perennial losers.
The moderate and conservative wins this year are due entirely to the elitism and pomposity of the supposed progressives whose misguided attempt to shoot the moon has crashed and burned. The extremists have single handedly created an opposing political will and infrastructure where none previously existed simply by being unreasonable and overreaching. Now there are two choices, they can reject what happened by convincing themselves that their loss was caused by a simple failure to raise sufficient funds and craft a marketable and articulate message or they can acknowledge the reality that the public simply does not want the full measure of what they were selling. Some of it, you bet, but not the whole enchilada.
All in all, a colossal fuck up, which can only be made worse, or better, dependant on whether we can nurture a mutual willingness to come together, mend some fences and find a middle ground or more likely put our heads down and butt each other until only one is standing. Do not think for a moment that our new but tenuous quasi-majority has not realized that in a scant eighteen months there is another round and that they need only one of the three seats available to slam the door and that two of those up for reelection were impaneled by minorities and all with only nominal or divided opposition. They have proven the capacity to raise the money, build the organization, and develop the candidates. Remember only one of three, look around, realistically how confident do you feel? Moreover, is that where any of us should really want to go?
Under any circumstances compromise is not a bad thing, in the current situation one would think it the obvious choice. As I see it there is only a very small window of time for progress before the respective camps commit themselves to another battle where the environment and public good are again the causalities. Today’s political realities unfortunately make it difficult if not impossible to stop the momentum of a campaign once it begins.
December 27, 2010 at 8:25 pm
Bolithio
My experience with the last board and commission is one of underground regulation and inconstancy. You go into the planning department and say what you want to do. They tell you what to do. You do it. Then, the story some how always changes. “Oh, well I spoke with “Management” and they have decided that you need to do this now in addition.” Ahhh you never said that before, and that not even the law…plus that will cost 10s of thousands of dollars!! Why do I have to do that? “Ahh We will have to get back to you”. Wait, wait wait, Email, call wait, hey can I get an answer please? ….
For certain projects, like TPZ development, or trying to get previously accepted patent parcels recognized, their has been serious obstruction from the planning commission and the Board. For people who are trying to live their dreams (unlike many of the board members and commissioners who already have their slice of heaven) this is unbelievably frustrating. The planners should not be attempting to implement policy that they feel should be the policy. There are laws, regulations, and current policies. When they change, thats fine. But until then, hopefully the new commission and Board will captain a consistent ship. Honer the existing agreements with the public. If I come in and seek some type of permit, tell me everything I need to do … from day one … and don’t change your “conditions” half way through the project without some real hard legal justification.
December 27, 2010 at 11:30 pm
Eric Kirk
Probably true but have you looked around recently? There isn’t ANY development going on.
There never is, before there is.
Certainly they could have obtained an industrial timber zoning that would have ended development on timber company land which is around 80% of TPZ land.
Maybe not without being slammed with an equal protections suit. It may very well be all or nothing.
The moderate and conservative wins this year are due entirely to the elitism and pomposity of the supposed progressives whose misguided attempt to shoot the moon has crashed and burned.
And a lot of money from certain interests.
December 27, 2010 at 11:40 pm
mresquan
What gets me is that the political leanings of the developer friendly sect have them disliking Bay Area politics,yet that is exactly what they will get if their developments are allowed to go through.Now certainly I don’t want to see even the potential for large population expansion here,but surely wouldn’t mind the socially liberal advances that would come with that.
December 28, 2010 at 12:06 am
Eric Kirk
Happened in my childhood hometown. But the price is too high.
December 28, 2010 at 5:35 am
Anonymous
“There never is, before there is.”
Good gosh man, consider reading the rest of the sentence or is your intention to simply distort the point?
“Maybe not without being slammed with an equal protections suit. It may very well be all or nothing.”
Same comment as above. Anyway it’s too late. Due to this precise kind of arrogance even the remote chance is off the table. The comment referred to opportunities lost.
“And a lot of money from certain interests”
Yup. This point was clearly made and acknowledged in the original post. If you thought they were able to raise money with a dismal losing record imagine what will happen with a winning one.
How well has this kind of closed minded snarkyness worked out for you so far? Is the win all or die trying attitude so utterly ingrained that compromise is a dirty word and real negotiation impossible? Winning sides rarely want to talk cuz, well, they won and generally perceive that they don’t have to. Seems to me that there are hands being reached across the table who are getting slapped again and again.
You can’t always get what you want….
December 28, 2010 at 7:32 am
Ernie's Place
“Happened in my childhood hometown. But the price is too high.”
Yeah, you wouldn’t believe what happened to my home town while we weren’t paying attention. We were FAR too welcoming. Now let me ask you the question. —What’a ya got against newcomers???—
December 28, 2010 at 7:53 am
Steak n Eggs
Soon-to-be commissioners are not going to be “in the dark” as some are suggesting. Newly appointed Supes will appoint knowledgeable commissioners. Its not that complicated really.
Bolithio is correct, the Planning Division is acting as a political body. The planners flip-flop and stonewall projects that are in conflict with the proposed Option A. Many know this is occurring but nothing is being done.
I really hope the new Supes will shift the balance of power such that the existing laws are followed unitl the GPU is approved. I truly believe we have some very sharp/smart planners, but their application of discretion is really over the top. I hope the new Board can make some personnel changes to get the public’s trust back.
December 28, 2010 at 10:54 am
Eric Kirk
“There never is, before there is.”
Good gosh man, consider reading the rest of the sentence or is your intention to simply distort the point?
The point is that in every area in the Bay Area I lived as a child and young adult, you could have made the same argument. The development had been minimal. The Santa Rosa sprawl happened over the course of maybe 15 years, and it went from a mostly rural county to semi-urban with mega-suburban sprawl. After the 1950s construction, you could practically count the number of homes built with your fingers, then in the early 80s several condo projects slammed them at once, not only fundamentally altering the character of the community in terms of traffic and loss of open space, but increasing the pressure on the infrastructure system since the developers had worked out sweetheart deals in which they didn’t have to pay to pump water up the hills to supply their subdivisions.
That it hasn’t happened, doesn’t mean it won’t happen. And everybody and his grandmother wants to live on the coast of California and the pressure to develop is going to be relentless. And don’t think the rural areas are going to be immune. There used to be affordable rural properties in Marin and Sonoma and southern Mendocino. That’s history.
“Maybe not without being slammed with an equal protections suit. It may very well be all or nothing.”
Same comment as above. Anyway it’s too late. Due to this precise kind of arrogance even the remote chance is off the table. The comment referred to opportunities lost.
The large land holders were threatening just that back with the moratorium, and county counsel concluded that it was a serious risk. Obviously, your expertise exceeds theirs.
“And a lot of money from certain interests”
Yup. This point was clearly made and acknowledged in the original post. If you thought they were able to raise money with a dismal losing record imagine what will happen with a winning one.
How well has this kind of closed minded snarkyness worked out for you so far? Is the win all or die trying attitude so utterly ingrained that compromise is a dirty word and real negotiation impossible? Winning sides rarely want to talk cuz, well, they won and generally perceive that they don’t have to. Seems to me that there are hands being reached across the table who are getting slapped again and again.
You can’t always get what you want….
Certainly not when people who have chained themselves to trees all of the sudden throw in their lot with developers when regs might impact them personally. The developer candidates, win or lose, have never had a hard time raising money. But they do have a winning hand in a local environmentalism that wants regs to apply to everyone else, but not themselves.
I do have to say that I have met a few of the HumCPR supporters who at least admit that they have begun to rethink their views on environmentalism and property rights, and maybe at this point in their lives they no longer support tree hugging. One has even come around to support the dredging of Humboldt Bay based upon extensive conversations with his new allies. Maybe environmentalism and libertarian-leaning hippies were never a very good match to begin with. I can respect that. It’s those who continue to insist on cognitive dissonance who are particularly annoying. But that’s their right as well. The rest of us simply have to take into account the local realignment.
I do also acknowledge that there’s hypocrisy working in the other direction. In talking about the McKee case I run into plenty of conservatives up north who sound like Earthfirsters when talking about the need to regulate hippie homesteading. And there has definitely been a conservative backlash in Eureka, where Gallegos lost by about 10 percentage points.
December 28, 2010 at 11:03 am
Eric Kirk
“Happened in my childhood hometown. But the price is too high.”
Yeah, you wouldn’t believe what happened to my home town while we weren’t paying attention. We were FAR too welcoming. Now let me ask you the question. —What’a ya got against newcomers???—
Nothing Ernie. If they showed up buck naked and lived in tents I’d be fine. It’s the pressure towards sprawl, more malls, and the traffic, need for revenues for additional infrastructure, etc. All the stuff we moved here to avoid.
December 28, 2010 at 12:05 pm
Ernie's Place
Well Eric, I’m more welcoming than I might lead people to believe, but it seems that some people brought the very thing that they were trying to escape with them. (Present company excepted, of course)
December 28, 2010 at 12:43 pm
Eric Kirk
I sure hope not.
December 28, 2010 at 3:09 pm
Anonymous
“The point is that in every area in the Bay Area I lived as a child and young adult, you could have made the same argument.”
Nope, that’s your point not mine. Mine is that you have to play the hand your dealt and make the best of it. Refusing to compromise and taking an all or nothing approach hasn’t worked out too well so far. Most progress is made in small increments but I suppose it’s your choice.
“….Obviously, your expertise exceeds theirs.”
As apparently does yours. I bow to your superior intellect. See we can all do snarky. Did it get you anywhere? Open minded communication might just be worth a try.
I’m sorry your childhood haunts got paved and I can understand why that memory creates a certain mindset. My childhood memories have more to do with belts and beatings, shit happens and we do the best we can with what we have. Still seems kinda counterproductive to be unwilling to negotiate the best you can now. You don’t have to like today’s reality and it might be easier to believe an illusion where the world is as perfect as you want it to be but reality is what it is.
“And flowers never bend with the rainfall?”
On the other hand I realize there is no point to beating my head against a wall. Onward soldiers, onward. Paradise awaits! If you get there first save a virgin or two for me will ya?
December 28, 2010 at 3:49 pm
tra
O.K., I realize that this is an oversimplification, but in general I think we can list the five members of the incoming Board of Supervisors along a continuum ranging from Lovelace on the strongly pro-Option A side to Bass who seem likely to be squarely on the side of Option C (or even D, the status quo).
So, going in order from more restrictive of development to least resrtictive of new development, that would be Lovelace, Clendenan, Smith, Sundberg, and Bass.
It’s hard to see how a GPU acceptable to Lovelace would also be acceptable to Bass. So it seems very unlikely that we’ll see a GPU passed with unanimous support from the Board.
But I can imagine a scenario where Clendenan, Smith and Sundberg might be able to hammer out a compromise acceptable to the three of them, probably something along the lines of the original Option B, with some elements taken from A and C.
It also seems possible that a comprmise that leans more in the direction of B+ / A- might garner a majority with Lovelace/Clendenan/Smith, or that a compromise that leans more in the direction of B- / C might pass with the support of Smith/Sundberg/Bass.
Any predictions?
December 28, 2010 at 5:11 pm
Eric Kirk
Sundberg is going to push for D or something close to it, and probably so is Bass. It all comes down to Smith, who isn’t as conservative as he used to be. But I think Bass is more likely to compromise than Sundberg. Just my impression through the grapevine.
December 28, 2010 at 5:43 pm
Anonymous
The whole alphabet soup thing is Girardian mumbo jumbo and generally bullshit. What used to be A is now in C, D really equals C and B is A etc. None of it matters until the ordinances are generated anyway. It is a total convoluted mess. Some elements are at odds with each other and others are totally unnecessary in the first place. This plan has generated not just a life of it’s own but an entire cottage industry dependent on it’s continued existance and growth. We are a rural county with a small population and we need a General Plan that fits us, not Los Angeles. We need to allow for responsible growth that fits with our independent mind set and environmental protection that is based on a Humboldt model not a Berkeley one. If we continue down the path we are on it may well be another thirteen years before it gets done. Simply, and without commentary on any “alternative”, we have bitten off more than we can chew and should spit it out before we choke on it.
December 31, 2010 at 9:48 am
1st Native American Supervisor
Eric, you had said this from above,
“It may have made a difference in the 5th, although I think electing the first Native American county supervisor in California history was on the minds of some voters who don’t care about the GPU and who normally vote progressively”
I thought it was sad and odd, if true about Sundberg, but something told me you were full of pooh again, so I checked and found, as always you are wrong. There have been other Native American California County Supervisors. Here is one example: Ervin Lent, 3rd District, Inyo County.
Maybe as a New Years resolution, you will do your homework before stating facts. I don’t even know why your untrue fact about Ryan was said at all?
December 31, 2010 at 11:41 am
Buck Naked
Eric said: “Nothing Ernie. If they showed up buck naked and lived in tents I’d be fine. It’s the pressure towards sprawl, more malls, and the traffic, need for revenues for additional infrastructure, etc. All the stuff we moved here to avoid”
If that is true Eric and this is why YOU moved here, then why do you think it is people down and around the Community Park moved here, so many many years before you. Now you want them to put up with change, sprawl, more noise, traffic, water usage and additional infrastructure, something they moved here to get away from, just like YOU.
Your line “need for revenues for additional infrastructure, etc.”. This all sounds so familiar, ” we don’t care for concerts, but we need the money they bring in”. Don’t worry about people showing up “buck naked and living in tents” because if you get your way, this is exactly what the Tooby Flat will become, another Black Oak Ranch.
May the wind always be in your face, may you find every nail on the road and may you always get what you wish for others! Happy New Year.
December 31, 2010 at 2:54 pm
publicparkadvocate
The Park Board is all about Urban Sprawl in my neighborhood. As it was pre -Park Board acquisition, about 40 or 50 houses would have been permitted on Tooby Flat at the most. That is assuming mostly 5 acre parcels of those 5-20. But the water would have been an issue.
As Tooby Flat is post PB acquisition, “about 3 to 5 acres” in multi-family housing could mean 150 units. Dazey has asked his piece of the parkland be zoned for 2 acre or 1 acre residential estates (15 to 30 units) in the GPU and no one can find out what Goldeen, the condominium guy is asking for his piece of parkland to be zoned for in the GPU. As it is, at least 6 units are possible there already.Since the whole area around and including the park is Housing Opportunity Zone in the General Plan Update (multifamily), thanks to developers and speculators (guess who?), our rural neighborhoods are being exploited for urban sprawl courtesy of the Park Board. The Park Board used donations from the public to put in that municipal size “agricultural well”, big enough to suck the river dry.
My park donation was solicited back in the beginning with the words, “You don’t want to see Tooby Flat developed, do you?”
NO.
December 31, 2010 at 3:16 pm
Anonymous
Yes, Eric, if you believe in the golden rule, don’t vote to turn the community park into a concert site. Open air, outdoor, amplified noise is a real curse to community health and harmony. It conflicts with wildlife, ag activities, walking, hiking, biking. The crowds and cars bring air pollution, dust, dui’s, disruption of normal life in town and normal use of the roads.