August 15, 2019 — corrected date regarding next BoS action on GPU – we regret the error.
The map and text of the General Plan Update appear all but settled after the Calaveras Board of Supervisors, after two grueling all-day sessions, directed the Planning Director to have the whole thing ready for review in August, where it seems likely to pass without difficulty.
Although grueling, the two sessions were largely devoid of drama as the Board, under the urging of Chairman Garamendi (D2), plowed through the text, asking for and getting informal “consensus” (which means polling the Board on a specific change in the text, and three votes wins) on any point that either a Supervisor or the public wanted to discuss in more detail. If it hadn’t been for Supervisor Mill’s consistent questioning and suggestions for changes, it might have even gone faster.
Left in the dust were the suggestions and changes to the text that have been consistently urged on the Board by the Calaveras Planning Coalition. Also left hanging were the concerns of the Republican Party, who thought changes to the GPU made by the post-2018 election version of the Planning Commission were an affront to property rights, too mindful of “unproven” global warming, and insufficiently lenient to developers.
Politically, the GPU has both pluses and minuses for the D1, D2, and D4 Supervisors who may, or may not, face challenges in next March’s election.
All of them will likely take refuge in the time-honored, and logically dubious, conclusion that since the GPU was criticized from “both sides,” they “must be doing something right.” Supervisor Garamendi already has made this point.
For D2 Supervisor Garamendi, adoption of the current Plan will be a clear plus. Not only can Garamendi say that under his Chairmanship the 13-year project finally got done, for his district especially the Plan has a lot going for it. For those hundreds of D2 residents who participated in public meetings and discussion leading to the drafting and adoption of several D2 Community Plans, they will be gratified to learn that their Plans are largely included in General Plan Update.
During the discussion of the Community Plan element of the GPU, Garamendi graciously, and tellingly, credited the work of the “previous two Supervisors” (Wilensky and Wright) for the inclusion of the D2 Plans.
Garamendi was already a prohibitive favorite to win re-election, and with still no talk of an opponent, the General Plan Update will do nothing to change that.
For D4 Supervisor Mills, adoption of the Plan should be politically neutral to a slight plus. Mills objected to a good deal of the language of the Plan and often offered specific changes and suggestions, only to see most of his appeals failing to win “consensus.” However, chances are this won’t hurt him much, inasmuch as the majority of the votes in his District reside in Angels Camp, an incorporated City that has its own General Plan and makes its own land-use decisions.
He may have some exposure to those who believe that Copperopolis, in the western portion of Mill’s District, should have a Community Plan, since that is where a significant part of the County’s development interest (if not the real estate market) is. Commercially overbuilt for the anticipated demand for single family homes in the area, Copperopolis is still mired in the aftermath of the housing bubble of 2008.
There have been numerous attempts to craft a Copperopolis Community Plan since at least 1996, and after all that effort exactly nothing was adopted in the General Plan for that community. Mills may have a ready answer for that (and everything else), but it remains an issue where he could be on defense.
Nevertheless, Mills still has no announced opposition, and the General Plan Update isn’t likely, by itself, to spark sufficient outrage to produce a challenger.
In District One the political ramifications are potentially far more significant, because D1 Supervisor Gary Tofanelli, serving his second but not consecutive term, has a unique history with the GPU, and the Valley Springs Community Plan in particular.
So rich is this history it begs a separate and more in-depth look at how the Supervisor has exercised his leadership role.
We don’t know why a Valley Springs Community Plan is not included in the Community Plans Element of the General Plan Update, but we are confident that the Supervisor will eventually find the need to answer why not. After all, Garamendi got his plans included, why not Tofanelli? Although not certain, any potential answer could have an impact on the election for District One Supervisor.
That is, if there IS an election for District One Supervisor next year. As in the other two Districts, there are no obvious, or even covert, challengers to Mr. Tofanelli, at least at this point
Magpie
the Skull Survey 