The Valley Springs Community Plan – Redux

Here We Go Again

Top Priority: A picture of the Valley Springs Community Plan after a thirteen-year update

On the evening of October 16, at the Veterans Hall in Valley Springs, District One Supervisor Tofanelli and District Five Supervisor Ben Stopper hosted a public meeting to consider, yet again, an updated community plan for Valley Springs. This was prior to the adoption on November 12 of the Calaveras County General Plan Update (GPU) which has no Valley Springs Community Plan (VSCP). Leaving the VSCP out of the General Plan was a forgone conclusion based upon the July 2019 GPU hearings and the historical record.

It was mostly Tofanelli’s show at the Vet’s Hall. Stopper was there to represent that sliver, as he says, of the GPU Valley Springs Planning Area that is in his district (I live in that sliver). Tofanelli has been the supervisor representing Valley Springs for six of the last ten years.  He served one term beginning in 2009, was defeated by Cliff Edson and was then re-elected in 2017. He intends to run for re-election in 2020. 

At the October 16 VSCP meeting, Supervisor Merita Callaway of District Three was in the audience. About a dozen folks, including Callaway, showed up. Not quite the hundreds of people who packed the Valley Springs Elementary School multi-purpose room during the Calaveras Council of Governments (CCOG) community plan update in 2009 and 2010, but, hey, it’s a start.

The CCOG led a VSCP update project with the benefit of a generous budget, professional planners, significant public participation, and a process that mirrored the GPU. The CCOG project resulted in an updated plan for Valley Springs, completed in October 2010, which was consistent with the Calaveras County General Plan and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). However, another community plan was written by the impromptu Valley Springs Citizens Committee under the tutelage of Supervisor Tofanelli. Their final draft was completed in February 2011.

Instead of working with the CCOG project partners, which included the county’s own Planning Department, Tofanelli fostered a competing community plan which contributed to the controversy that had arisen in the course of the CCOG project. Yet, neither the CCOG plan nor the Committee plan was adopted by the Board of Supervisors in spite of the fact that Valley Springs had been designated a planning priority by the board in 2007.

The 1975 VSCP and existing plans for other communities were rescinded on November 12 with adoption of the GPU. The only explanation offered for not including the existing VSCP, the CCOG plan, the Committee plan, or any other plan for Valley Springs in the GPU came from Supervisor Stopper who said that community planning in Valley Springs was too controversial. Nevertheless, the board once again declared Valley Springs a planning priority and promised that community plans for Valley Springs and Copperopolis would be among the first amendments to the new and improved General Plan.

CCOG and the County Usually Work Together

The CCOG is the Regional Transportation Planning Agency (RTPA) for Calaveras County. According to its website, “The Council is composed of seven members – two County Supervisors, two Council Members from the City of Angels, and three members selected from the public at large.” CCOG recognizes, “Grants are an invaluable source of funding for transportation and community planning projects. Calaveras Council of Governments devotes significant amounts of time and energy to applying for and managing grant money as it becomes available.” Tofanelli is currently the Council chair (the current CCOG director and staff were not involved in the Valley Springs Community Plan project).

CCOG was the primary applicant for the $204,648 Caltrans Community Based Transportation Planning grant that funded the 2009-2010 VSCP update project. CCOG also provided $51,162 in matching funds. In a March 11, 2009, email from interim Planning Director Brent Harrington to then CCOG Director Tim McSorley, while acknowledging challenges affecting the project, Harrington said, “[W]e are encouraged that there may be a means to develop a new VSCP thru your grant.” Tofanelli was copied on the email. Of course, Caltrans was very interested in Valley Springs, because there are distinct advantages for them in having a well-planned community at the intersection of two state highways, 12 and 26.

The grant project partners included the CCOG; the Calaveras Community Development Department, now the separate Planning and Building Departments; the Local Government Commission, a national non-profit organization dedicated to helping local governments and their constituents build livable, resource-efficient communities; and MyValleySprings.com (MVS), a local non-profit organization whose mission is “to promote responsible growth and development through public participation in community planning in order to preserve the quality of rural life in the greater Valley Springs area.” MVS had been working on creating public interest in a new community plan since its creation in 2005.

In spite of the incredible level of expertise of those involved in the CCOG community plan project, on June 1, 2010, the Board of Supervisors approved a motion made by Supervisor Tofanelli to insert the Citizens Committee map into the updated General Plan as the preferred land use map and to make the map from the CCOG plan an alternative. Historically, in regard to community plans the supervisors always defer to the supervisor in whose district the community is located. So it is notable that Supervisor Callaway was the lone dissenting vote. Ironically, the current Valley Springs Planning Area map in the county’s GPU is not Tofanelli’s preferred map, but apparently he didn’t object when he was re-elected.

The Blended Plan is Pulled from the Planning Commission Agenda

At the October 16 Vet’s Hall meeting, Tofanelli handed out a 15-page rough draft from September 2016 that blended text from both the CCOG and Committee plans. This rough draft was the basis for the 4-page draft blended plan recommended by Planning Department staff that nearly made it onto the Planning Commission agenda in January 2017, but it was pulled from the agenda at the behest of Supervisor Tofanelli.

There must have been some serious miscommunication between Tofanelli and Planning Director Peter Maurer back in late 2016. It seems unlikely that Maurer would have put the draft blended plan on the Planning Commission agenda in January 2017 if he didn’t think Tofanelli supported the idea. It only takes three supervisors to fire Maurer.

According to the staff report on the pulled agenda item dated January 26, 2017, “Members of the citizens’ group, MyValleySprings.com that supported the CCOG plan met with then Supervisor-Elect Tofanelli and staff, and presented a combined or merged draft plan in December, 2016. Staff reviewed the combined document and refined the text and policies into the proposed draft presented herein (Attachment 1).”

In response to an email inquiry, MyValleySprings.com Secretary Colleen Platt wrote, “Planning Director Maurer met with two MyValleySprings.com members and District 1 Supervisor-elect Gary Tofanelli at the Planning Department in November 2016, to review a possible first draft ‘blended’ Valley Springs Community Plan. Supervisor-elect Tofanelli was previously given a copy of this draft, was informed and invited to the November meeting at Planning, attended, and gave input on the draft plan at that meeting.” What seems clear from both sources is that a meeting took place prior to the January 2017 Planning Commission meeting, and Supervisor Tofanelli was an active participant. Why did he pull the blended plan from the agenda?

It’s Time to Comment

The big announcement at the recent Vet’s Hall meeting was that the public can now comment on the VSCP by visiting the Calaveras County Planning Department webpage, select “Projects” at the top of the page and click on “Special Planning Projects” in the drop-down menu which will take you to the “Valley Springs Proposed Community Plan.” There is a link to provide comments, presumably after you have read the CCOG plan, the Citizens Committee plan, the September 2016 draft blended plan, and the January 2017 staff recommended draft blended plan. You can also view the current map of the GPU Valley Springs Planning Area.

The CCOG plan is about 120 pages, the Committee Plan is around 70 pages, the first blended draft is 15 pages and the second blended draft is 4 pages for a total of approximately 209 pages. The plans seem to have gotten progressively shorter. After you have read everything, then you get to compare and contrast the multiple plans and their respective goals, policies, and implementation measures. To be thorough you will also need to reference the Community Planning Element in the General Plan. You’ll need to get busy, because as they adopted the updated General Plan on November 12, the supervisors agreed to amend the plan in six months to add community plans for both Valley Springs and Copperopolis—an ambitious timeline.

I can’t wait for the next community plan meeting, which we are assured is coming after the first of the year. We’re also assured it will be much better publicized. Call me cynical, but if Valley Springs does get a community plan it will be the condensation of years and hundreds of thousands of dollars into a sad, pathetic little document that does not genuinely reflect the residents’ vision for Valley Springs. I am still struggling to grasp why the county’s number one planning priority since the GPU began in 2007 still has no community plan in spite of the fact that two community plans were completed in that time, and one of those plans was completed by a group of project partners led by the CCOG and which included the county Planning Department.

Why Valley Springs Has No Community Plan

Here is my best surmise as to why Valley Springs has no community plan:

1. Supervisor Tofanelli opposed the CCOG plan and undermined it by promoting a competing plan, and as the District One supervisor for six of the last ten years he has not been an effective advocate for a VSCP of any kind.
2. Local developers refused to participate in the CCOG-led plan and were openly hostile, because the Caltrans grant did not allow them to control the VSCP process. Likewise, developers did not join the Tofanelli Citizens Committee. They likely preferred no plan at all if the process was not developer driven as they had hoped in 2006 when the Friends of Valley Springs, LLC, a group of developers and landowners, was formed “to provide money to the county to hire a planner to work on the Valley Springs Community Plan and to process the town’s applications (Calaveras Enterprise, October 31, 2006).” In addition, developers lost interest in Valley Springs during the recession.
3. Even though the county Planning Department was a project partner, planning staff did not provide consistent support for the CCOG community plan project and did nothing to promote either the CCOG plan or the Committee plan for the community that had been designated by the Board of Supervisors in 2007 as the number one planning priority in the county. High staff turnover, no institutional memory, and a subsequent lack of continuity could have contributed to staff indifference, as well as no support from the District One supervisor.
4. Opponents of smart growth and sustainable development, which included members of the Tofanelli Citizens Committee, attacked the CCOG project and its objectives. There were accusations that the project partners were promoting Agenda 21, a sustainability initiative from the United Nations. One member of the Committee wrote a Minority Report. She even found the Committee’s community plan to be too progressive, as “fundamental human rights” had been “forfeited,” because “it is not the government’s role to provide affordable housing choices, public transportation or health care.”
5. The Tofanelli Citizens Committee insisted on maintaining the 1975 community boundaries which do not reflect the evolution of Valley Springs. Committee members would not accept subdivisions like Gold Creek and La Contenta as part of Valley Springs. (Note: both are now included in the GPU Valley Springs Planning Area.)
6. Last but not least, as District One supervisor for four years, Cliff Edson did nothing meaningful to create a VSCP.

Supervisor Tofanelli is already facing at least one opponent in 2020, and there may be more. He wants to go on the campaign trail and say he is working to get a community plan done for Valley Springs. I think he needs to be asked why we don’t already have one.

Muriel Zeller is a poet and free-lance writer. She is a member of the Calaveras Community Action Project (CAP) Governing Committee and the Calaveras Planning Coalition (CPC). CAP administers the CPC, which has been advocating for sustainable land use planning since 2006. She is a former member of the MyValleySprings.com Board of Directors and co-wrote the Caltrans grant application which successfully funded the CCOG Valley Springs Community Plan update project. Email her at murielzeller52@gmail.com.

The General Plan Update is Over, Hypothetically

by Muriel Zeller

The thoughts and opinions expressed are those of the writer, and do not necessarily reflect the views of this website, nor its other contributors.

Regarding the General Plan Update (GPU), Chairman of the Calaveras County Board of Supervisors Jack Garamendi said, “While this project, this document is not perfect, it is a major improvement over where we stand currently today.” A major improvement sounds pretty good, although I am still struggling to understand how a “dysfunctional chapter in our history,” as Garamendi characterized the thirteen year GPU process, could produce a “major improvement.” But I digress.

At the November 12 Board meeting, a resolution was adopted by a unanimous vote of our supervisors certifying the General Plan Update Environmental Impact Report (EIR), adopting the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Findings of Fact and the Statement of Overriding Considerations, adopting the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan, and adopting the Calaveras County General Plan. In other words, the long and winding road toward a new general plan has finally come to an end. Or has it?

Supervisor Garamendi warned that there are those who “will miss the eternal handwringing and debate” and others “who would fight to the end, threatening to bankrupt our county through litigation if they don’t get a hundred percent of what they want.” Wait, who would want to litigate a major improvement?

Garamendi did not specify who these nefarious folks are that would be threatening the county with bankruptcy, but let’s say, hypothetically of course, that I want to sue the county, even though I’m not really a handwringer. It’s no secret that I am not happy with the GPU, because, for example, community plans were rescinded without replacement and adequate mitigation for the loss of agricultural land was eliminated.

For my hypothetical lawsuit, I’m going to imagine that the GPU violates CEQA, because, in part, the plan presents legally required mitigation measures as optional, and it defers the implementation of legally required mitigation measures to some unspecified time that may never come. Mitigation measures are intended to avoid or substantially lessen significant effects on both the built and natural environments, which often means development will have to pay its own way by contributing, for example, to road construction, habitat conservation, or the preservation of agricultural land. So what are my options? How can I make sure the county follows the law?

Fortunately, I know the answer. As the California Natural Resources Agency explains, “CEQA is a self-executing statute. Public agencies are entrusted with compliance with CEQA and its provisions are enforced, as necessary, by the public through litigation and the threat thereof.” I really want to make sure you get the part where it says that the public is responsible for enforcement of the state’s environmental law “through litigation and the threat thereof.”

The explanation continues, “While the Resources Agency is charged with the adoption of CEQA Guidelines, and may often assist public agencies in the interpretation of CEQA, it is each public agency’s duty to determine what is and is not subject to CEQA.” So the county is obligated to make sure it is following the law. The explanation concludes, “As such, the Resources Agency does not review the facts and exercise of discretion by public agencies in individual situations. In sum, the Agency does not enforce CEQA, nor does it review for compliance with CEQA the many state and local agency actions which are subject to CEQA,” like the GPU.

This puts quite a burden on the public, people like me. In order to enforce CEQA and sue the county, I would have had to “review for compliance” the county’s actions in adopting the GPU since 2006, which means I would have to be farsighted, committed, and self-educated, which sounds like a lot of work, but let’s assume I did the work.  Let’s assume I participated actively and sincerely for 13 years to provide testimony in formal public hearings and in written public comments regarding the GPU and its EIR from the beginning of the process in January 2006 until its completion in November 2019.

Because of the many legal issues related to state planning law and CEQA, I would have needed to hire an attorney to help me with my lawsuit. I couldn’t afford Remy ׀ Moose ׀ Manley, the county’s outside counsel, but maybe I could afford one really dedicated attorney who understands land use and CEQA, a guy who lives in the area and who has dedicated his career to protecting the landscapes of the central Sierra Nevada region, a guy who would reduce his rate because he believes in my cause.

Let’s just suppose that I did the work, hired the attorney, and went to all the trouble and expense because I believe it’s my civic duty. Let’s even suppose that I’m considering a lawsuit not to bankrupt my county but to make it a better place. Let’s get crazy and suppose I care about safe roads, evacuation routes, fire and flood prevention, economic development, housing, adequate water, aesthetics, agricultural land, our rural character, and the natural environment, all of which are impacted by the GPU. Given all that, yes, I might be willing to sue the county to protect my family and my community if I thought they were threatened by an illegal general plan.

Typically, litigation is a last resort to ensure compliance with CEQA. If Supervisor Garamendi is genuinely concerned about bankrupting the county, he and the other supervisors should have listened when citizens expressed valid legal complaints regarding the GPU. County officials could have responded to the threat of litigation. Fixing a flawed general plan would have cost the county less money than a lawsuit which will result in the county fixing a flawed general plan, hypothetically.

Muriel Zeller is a member of the Calaveras Community Action Project (CAP) Governing Committee and the Calaveras Planning Coalition (CPC). CAP administers the CPC, which has been advocating for sustainable land use planning since 2006. You may contact her at murielzeller52@gmail.com.

Supervisors Overturn Ban Ordinance

“Everybody listen up, because I’ve got nothing to say and I’m only going to say it once.” — Yogi Berra

San Andreas ~ The Calaveras County Board of Supervisors today voted three to two to adopt a new set of regulations allowing the commercial growing of marijuana.

The regulations, which also affect the growing of up to six marijuana plants for personal use, rescind the current “Ban Ordinance” adopted by the Board of Supervisors in 2018, which prohibited virtually all commercial marijuana activities.

With Supervisors Callaway, Garamendi, and Stopper voting for the changes, and Supervisors Mills and Tofanelli voting against, the move comes after lengthy hearings by both the Planning Commission and the Board. The change in policy direction is attributed to the results of the 2018 election wherein District 5 Supervisor Ben Stopper defeated Clyde Clapp in the November run-off. Clapp, along with Mills, had been a staunch opponent of overturning the Ban.

Tofanelli’s record on marijuana is more nuanced, as he has consistently indicated that while he may not be opposed to commercial regulations in general, specific parts of any draft regulations have always resulted in his voting “No.”

The Board majority was not persuaded by opponent’s arguments that adoption of the new regulations violated the California Environmental Quality Act, nor that since the current General Plan is legally inadequate any project adopted under it is also.

In the weeks to come, the Board of Supervisors will turn its attention to the other major milestone in Calaveras County politics, the General Plan Update, a project thirteen years in the making.

The Crystal Ball: The Top Stories in Calaveras County Politics for Will Be:

1.            Will the pending draft commercial and personal-use marijuana regulations fuel a recall election of Ben Stopper in D5, and possibly swing the County back the other way on this issue?  If so, when will the election take place?

2.            Will the D4 Supervisorial election be as close as it looks to be on paper?  Can Dennis Mills hold off the untested Amanda Folendorf?  Will marijuana regulations be the defining issue?  Will over-the-top anti-Mills fervor alienate swing voters?  Can Mills possibly restrain himself from responding in kind at least through the election?  How many candidates will wind up running– could the election be extended to November?

3.            Will the D1 Supervisorial election be a repeat of the 2016 election, except that this time Gary Tofanelli is the incumbent, and Cliff Edson and Sharon Romano are the challengers?  The politics of the situation suggests that neither Tofanelli nor Romano, nor Edson should he run, will want to make the potential new marijuana regulations the centerpiece of their campaigns.  Does this mean that the jaw-dropping absence of any Valley Springs Community Plan in the new General Plan will become the defining issue?  Well, probably not, but keeping homeless shelters away from … everywhere … could be.

4.            Jack Garamendi, the D2 incumbent, will face his first contested election, but he has everything going for him including an inexperienced challenger in Laree Lynn Garza.  Could the new marijuana regulations be an issue here as well, or will it be “roads” in District Two, as the challenger indicated? 

5.            So, speaking of roads, what about the County Budget, anyway?  Was writing off the (on-paper-anyway) millions in accounts receivable from the State related to the Butte Fire a good idea?  From a broader perspective, at the current level of services and personnel – especially in public safety – is the County a going concern?  Is County income meeting County expenses? 

6.            Are residential real estate values going up relative to other neighboring counties?  Why, or why not?

7.            As the next Board of Supervisors will re-draw the new boundaries of their own Districts after the next Census (should that occur without issues and on time), does it look like it will be necessary to make any significant changes to any District’s boundaries?

~ Magpie

State of Play as We Enter Election Season

All three Calaveras County Supervisors up for re-election have “pulled papers” and will be likely running for re-election.  And so far, all three incumbents will be facing at least one challenger next year.  We also can’t rule out a recall election in District 5, but then, there’s always a recall in District 5 so the question really boils down to the signatures – right now that would be 1457 qualified signatures – necessary to get a recall election on the ballot.

District One:  Incumbent Gary Tofanelli has pulled papers and is thus likely to run, as has Sharon Romano who ran for the office four years ago.  Former District One Supervisor Cliff Edson has not pulled papers, but he has been seen out and about a little more and thus remains on the suspect list.

District Two:      Incumbent Jack Garamendi has pulled his papers and is intending to run, and Laree Lynn Garza has also pulled papers.  According to a local news story, Garza is running because she is concerned about the state of District Two’s roads. 

District Four:      Incumbent Dennis Mills has also pulled papers and would appear to be running but his Facebook page has no announcement.  Rumored candidate Amanda Folendorf has put the rumors to rest by taking out papers.  The popular Angels Camp Mayor with the family name versus the wily and eloquent incumbent Supervisor could be a very interesting match-up.

District Five:       Signs advocating the recall of District Five Supervisor Ben Stopper, in office for about ten months, are evident at County meetings and in the District.  Whether the marijuana regulations issue in District 5 just burps into a tasty kerfuffle, or explodes like an atom bomb, remains the overriding issue in assessing the recall’s chances of getting on the ballot.

~ Magpie

Planning Commission Sends Marijuana Regulations to Board of Supervisors

After over fourteen hours of questions, discussions, and debate over three days, the Calaveras Planning Commission on September 18 voted 3 to 2 to send draft regulations regarding marijuana to the Board of Supervisors, who will make the final decisions on whether, and how, the County will regulate commercial and personal-use marijuana under existing State law.

In contrast to earlier sessions, only about a dozen people were in the audience when Commission Chair Michelle Plotnick cast the third and decisive vote on the Regulations, and in dramatic contrast to prior meetings held in previous years, the mood at the end was quiet, if not somber.

For those citizens who have steadfastly opposed the Regulations, or any regulations, the vote was an obvious disappointment, but for those who have equally steadfastly supported the Regulations, the mood was hardly celebratory.

This might be attributed to the strong performances by Commissioners Wooster and Fiorino in opposing the Regulations.

In classic “closing statement” style, Wooster delivered a strong, thirty-minute polemic listing three reasons why he was voting against the Regulations.  Wooster cited statements by the Sheriff, pending suits filed by marijuana growers against the County, and his belief that the County was required to commission a new Environmental Impact Report for the proposed Regulations under the California Environmental Quality Act.

First, Wooster reminded the Commission that in response to his questions the Sheriff told the Commission that under the proposed Regulations it was likely that more illegal grows would be attempted in Calaveras County – a process he called “hiding in plain sight.”  Along with more illegal grows, the Sheriff told the Commission that Regulations would likely result in more people emigrating to the County to work in the industry, and that some of these people would represent an undesirable element.

Wooster’s second point involved his belief that for budgetary reasons, the County would be wiser to wait and see the disposition of lawsuits brought against the County by former commercial marijuana growers before engaging in new Regulations.

Wooster’s third issue of the EIR involved whether the existing EIR, written years ago when the “project” (that is, adopting new Regulations) being evaluated involved imposing a ban, is legally sufficient to evaluate the new Regulations, which would replace the current Ban.  County Counsel’s opinion is that the current EIR, bolstered by a new Addendum, is sufficient.

While Wooster made it clear he disagreed with Counsel, the Stanford Law graduate also made it clear that his views did not constitute a legal opinion.

Commissioner Fiorino was also forceful in his remarks against the Regulations.

In the end, Commission Chair Plotnick stated the situation frankly, saying in effect that the Planning Commission was asked by the Supervisors to “weigh in” so that “if an Ordinance is adopted we (the PC) have at least given our best recommendation to the Board.”  

Noteworthy is that if the vote were different, that is if a majority of the Planning Commission had wound up voting against the draft Regulations (that they themselves took such pains to hammer out), the Regulations would still have gone to the Board of Supervisors for consideration.  As Supervisor Tofanelli recently reminded everyone during hearings confirming Commissioner Fiorino, nothing the Planning Commission recommends or advises is binding on the Board of Supervisors.

Accordingly, predicting what happens next is perilous.  The Board is still scheduled to hold its first meeting on the Regulations on October 1.

Politically, the stakes are high for each Supervisor, but more so for some than for others.  Public support for regulating commercial marijuana is at best a 50-50 proposition, and in this regard the opinions and assurances that may or may not come from the Sheriff could be decisive.  No Supervisor wants to have to answer why he voted for anything the Sheriff says will make the County less safe.

~ Magpie

With a Setback Paddywhack, Give a Dog a Bone

At its August 22 meeting, the Calaveras Planning Commission reviewed the pending County Regulations regarding commercial, medicinal, and personal-use marijuana.  These draft regulations will replace the current regulations, which ban many types of marijuana-activities, including most non-medical commercial activities.

The draft regulations, prepared by the Planning Department at the request of the current Board of Supervisors, were questioned on many fronts, from marijuana growers who wanted specific sections amended, to persons opposed on moral grounds to any activities related to marijuana.

This was the first meeting at which newly appointed First District Commissioner Trent Fiorino, a clergyman who has publicly spoken out strongly against marijuana on moral grounds, could officially weigh in on the new regulations.  In addition, neither Fifth District Commissioner Brett Henderson nor Third District Commissioner Michelle Plotnick, both of whom came onto the Commission in 2019, had made their specific thoughts on the subject widely known. 

As the Commission went through the Draft page by page, it became apparent that Commissioners Wooster (District 4) and Fiorino were opposed to making any changes to the current regulations, while the majority, generally, favored new regulations allowing commercial activities.  However, nearly everyone had suggestions and questions.

The questions and suggestions came from both the public and the Commissioners themselves.

From the public, those opposed to marijuana on moral grounds questioned whether the County would be better off under the new regulations, claiming they would lead to increased violent crime and juvenile delinquency.  Those favoring regulations allowing commercial marijuana activities had questions about the formula for determining who was eligible to grow commercial marijuana, and other more specific issues.

Commissioners Wooster and Fiorino both made clear their moral objections to marijuana, but that did not prevent them from engaging in vigorous debate on the specific issues related to the regulations themselves.  However, on most specific issues, the majority prevailed, and their preference was made clear to the Planning Director.

However, late in the afternoon after a long day, one issue, a setback (the distance between growing marijuana plants and the property line), the majority could not find agreement.  The draft regulations, as written, call for a 75-foot setback for those growing no more than six plants for personal use.  District Two Commissioner Tim Laddish felt the distance was too short, but District Five Commissioner Henderson felt that 75 feet was sufficient.

Despite efforts by the Chair, they could not resolve their differences.  The Chair’s suggestion that the Commission adopt something with an understanding that the issue would be re-visited later did not elicit a response. Shortly thereafter the Commission adjourned; discussions regarding marijuana regulations are scheduled to resume Sept. 12.

Briefly Noted …

Update August 20:: Behold the mighty power of a Skull Survey Editorial (see below) …. we are now informed by the County Elections office that even though nobody votes in precincts anymore, the votes will still be counted and reported by precinct.
You’re welcome, Calaveras.

August 19

Item One …. In District One, family considerations are currently overriding political considerations for both the incumbent and the most likely challenger, leaving both potential campaigns in doubt … last day to file papers to run for Supervisor is December 6; if the incumbent does not file, the deadline is extended to December 11 … In District 4, some folks are mentioning Angels Camp City Councilmember Amanda Follendorf as a possible challenger to Supervisor Dennis Mills.  That is, if Mills runs, as he faces family considerations also.

Item Two … Is there a delay in bringing the GPU update to the Board of Supervisors for final passage?  We heard it would be brought back in August, but the item is not on the Agenda for the 20th; perhaps it will come up on the 27^th …  we hear in the press that it won’t be until September ….  So, just how ticked off is the Planning Coalition about being screwed out of their Community Plans?  For that matter, how about the Republicans, or some group of disgruntled landowners and developers? 

The following is a Skull Survey Editorial:

So, our young but experienced County Clerk wants to abolish precinct voting in Calaveras County? 

We have just one request:  Since the technology is there to count and report the votes by precinct, we hope the County does so.  But will they bother?  After all, it might cost another 100 bucks, not including overtime and benefits.

If they don’t, if the votes are counted and reported in one lump sum and there is no possibility of obtaining results by precinct, it’s another step backwards from transparency and away from public confidence in free and fair elections.  Not to mention a pain in the neck for amateur political writers. 

We need to Keep Elections Great, and that doesn’t mean making it harder for people to figure out what the hell actually happened, and where, after the votes are (finally) counted.  

Magpie

Political Fallout of General Plan Update

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

Interview with Tom Infusino: What Happened to the Valley Springs Community Plan?

We are grateful to Tom Infusino, Facilitator of the Calaveras Planning Coalition and noted land use attorney, for taking the time to try and help Magpie understand this whole business behind the General Plan Update.

If you don’t have the faintest idea what a ‘General Plan Update’ is, that’s okay.  You’ll catch up soon enough.  If it sounds kinda familiar but you can’t quite put your finger on it you are excused for that, since the process started 13 years ago.  On the current Board of Supervisors, only Merita Callaway, re-elected to her 3rd District Seat last year after a 4 year hiatus, was around then.

But it really is a big deal.  It has everything to do with public safety, public health, and property values, the three Pillars of Policy that every candidate for Supervisor in this County ignores at their peril.

It is also possible that the General Plan Update, not commercial marijuana, winds up being the issue driving the three campaigns for Supervisor (if there are any, since nobody is actually running for anything yet).

So it has taken a very long time, and now there finally is a draft General Plan Update, and finally the Board of Supervisors is going to read it and decide if they like anything about it at all.  This process will start this coming Tuesday, July 30.

In District One, where Supervisor Tofanelli is in his second, but not consecutive, term, the issue of the Valley Springs Community Plan is the bright shiny object that sticks out for his potential re-election campaign.

That’s because it’s not in the General Plan Update.

San Andreas has at least some language in there from its Community Plan, but Valley Springs draws a blank.  Nothing.  It’s like it doesn’t exist.

So, in the course of our interview with Tom, we couldn’t resist asking him this:

(July 25, 2019)

Magpie:  Can you think of any good reason why the third, so-called (by me, anyway) “consensus” Valley Springs Community Plan was left out of the “Community Plans” element of the current draft of the GPU?

Infusino:  Well, the Valley Springs Community Plan has been ready for adoption since 2017.

It was a blending and editing of the texts of the two competing 2010 draft plans, to conform to the GPU community plan format.  The County Planning Department and Supervisor Tofanelli were part of that blending process.  The controversy over the land use map was solved by using the Planning Department’s General Plan Update land use map for the area.  In January of 2017, the Planning Director submitted the 2017 Valley Springs Community Plan to the Planning Commission with a recommendation for approval.

But Supervisor Tofanelli had the Planning Commission pull the item off their agenda, stating that he wanted to have at least one more public meeting to discuss the plan in his district before having the plan approved.

It has been 30 months since that time and Supervisor Tofanelli has yet to hold such a meeting.

Magpie:  Maybe they were busy?

Infusino:  Well, the Planning Commission has since cancelled six regular meetings for lack of agenda items.  They could have held any of those meetings in Valley Springs on the subject of the community plan.  But that didn’t happen.

Magpie:  I guess the Supervisor didn’t ask for it to be placed on the agenda?

Infusino:  All I can say is, in my opinion, repealing the existing Valley Springs Community Plan without replacement is unfair to the people of Valley Springs.  Calaveras County is better than this.