Sent: Tuesday, January 28, 2003 11:56 PM
Subject: Recap of Today's public hearing, by George Bachich
NVLSA members:
Over 80% of the speakers at today's public hearing were opposed to the ordinance, and as usual, the audience was heavily weighted against it.
Diane Dillon was absent. However, three of the Supervisors may be listening to someone other than those of us that speak up at the hearings, as they still seem determined to pass a Stream Setback Ordinance.
Public input continued until around 4:00 pm, when the public hearing was closed and the Supervisors questioned staff about some of the objections that had arisen during the hearing, after which they openly deliberated among themselves about some of the changes they would like to see made to the ordinance. Supervisors Mark Luce and Bill Dodd came the closest to our position with their proposed modifications.
Mark Luce said he would not support an ordinance that does not cap (at 10% of the parcel area) that portion of any parcel that is encumbered by setback. Since he was unable to get any other Supervisor to support his proposed modification, I expect him to vote no on the ordinance.
Bill Dodd proposed essentially the same plan we earlier circulated, which boils down to applying the SSO only to agriculture, and applying the STEWARD program to all others. He also proposes to reduce the class 1 stream agricultural setback to 100 feet on flat ground, with gradual increases to 150 feet in steeper terrain. In addition, he proposes a 2-year sunset clause in the ordinance to ensure that the Supervisors retain their option to lighten up the requirements later without triggering a CEQA violation. Although staff apparently objects to the idea of totally exempting all residential uses from the ordinance by specifically applying the 1991 rules and stream definitions to residential projects, Dodd insisted that he would not support an ordinance that did not have a "pure residential exemption".
Mike Rippey said he would be open to Dodd's idea if there were no "serious implications" of exempting class 3 streams for residential purposes. He wanted staff to report back on what these "implications" might be, but could not get his motion passed. We must infer that if Rippey decides that there are undesirable implications, he will vote to gut the residential exemption by applying the new stream definitions. This would effectively bring residential projects along the approximately 3,000 miles of new class 3 streams back under the ordinance.
Brad Wagenknecht said he can live with Bill Dodd's proposal, but he made it pretty clear that he would support a stronger ordinance also, if one were offered. Since three Supervisors must approve any ordinance in order to pass it even if only three or four supervisors are present at a meeting (this was stated by County Counsel), and since Diane Dillon is absent and Mark Luce is going to vote no, the only way the other three can see to get together is to agree on Dodd's proposal. If they don't, Dodd will vote no, and there will be no ordinance. Therefore, as long as Diane Dillon is absent, Bill Dodd appears to be calling the shots, and even has the power to quash the ordinance, if he chooses.
However, Diane Dillon may receive her FPPC ruling prior to the next hearing, which is scheduled for March 11 at 2:00 pm in the Supervisors' regular meeting room. If the ruling is favorable and if she chooses to participate, Rippey and Wagenknecht could look to her for a third vote to over-ride Dodd's "pure residential exemption," or any other requirement he may make. If so, the Stream Setback Ordinance will end up being a thorn in nearly every county resident's side, instead of just those residential users near blue line streams and all those rural property owners wanting to plant a few vines.
Staff was finally instructed to research the following three points and report back to the Supervisors March 11:
1. Ordinance wording to implement Dodd's proposal (called "Option 3: Full Residential Exemption From New Regulations" on the Attachment 2 - Residential Options handout, which is available at the Planning Department). This still requires residential setbacks of 35 feet varying to150 feet from "streams", depending on the slope of the land. Under this Option 3 exemption, however, "streams" has a special definition for residences, supposedly identical to the definition in the 1991 Ordinance, that is, "blue-line" watercourses and other watercourses over 4-feet deep from top of bank, as well as other "watercourses listed in Resolution 91-61".
The important thing here is that some newly defined class 2 streams and most newly defined class 3 streams will not be considered "streams" for residential purposes under Option 3. Ironically, however, for 4 feet deep class 3 streams, the 1991 Ordinance's 35' to 150' residential setbacks are much greater than the SSO's required 25' vineyard setbacks from those same streams. Although these larger residential setbacks have apparently been on the books since 1991, planning staff has apparently not been aware of them, as I do not believe they have been enforced. They will be enforced now, though, so Dodd's "residential exemption" will help some people and hurt others.
2. Ordinance wording to reduce class 1 stream "limited development zones" (those portions of the setback farther out from the stream than the "no new development zones") to 100 feet varying to 150 feet, depending on slope of the terrain. (Remember, this provision would not apply to residences under Dodd's proposal.)
3. The implications of the sunset clause, and recommendations for ensuring that the Supervisors don't find themselves in "a CEQA quagmire" if they ever want to change the ordinance.
In summary, Mark Luce opposes the Stream setback Ordinance as currently written, and has no support from other board members to change it. Bill Dodd opposes the ordinance as currently written, but apparently has sufficient support to pass the changes he wants. Both Mike Rippey and Brad Wagenknecht would support a more stringent ordinance, but will take what Bill Dodd offers in order to get at least some restrictions. Diane Dillon is the wild card in the deck, but as long as she stays out of the game, Bill Dodd can kill the ordinance if he wants. Your fate is in his hands.