Editorial: County General Plan must find a balance among needs

The good news about the controversy swirling around the county¹s
General Plan update is that it has people paying attention.
Crowds of people have been attending the county Planning
Commission¹s hearings on the General Plan update, with particular
interest in a proposed requirement for 100-foot setbacks from
waterways, and a 200-foot setback from the Russian River. The
proposed setbacks and the heightened interest in the planning
process are good things.
We believe the proposed setbacks should be included in the
planning update because the General Plan should protect the
interests of not just property owners but the county¹s rich natural
resources as well. With the uproar over the proposed setbacks,
there may very well be a negotiated settlement on the extent of the
setbacks and the process by which they are applied, but the fact
that the discussion is taking place is a positive step.
It is important to keep in mind that the recent hearings (there
have been four) on the county General Plan are part of a long,
complicated process that started more than a year ago with citizens
advisory committees formulating proposed policies. The draft
policies were developed years before that.
The proposed policies are now making their way through a series
of hearings before the county Planning Commission, which will pass
along its recommendations to the county Board of Supervisors.
Supervisors will schedule their own public hearings and their
own debate on the merits of the many policies that make up the
updated General Plan. In other words, no matter what the Planning
Commission decides on the 100-foot creek setbacks, the debate is
far from over.
That is not to say that public input along the way is not
important, it is. It is critical that the policymakers hear from
their constituents as they ponder issues that will have an effect
on the county for many years to come.
But there is more to the General Plan update than stream
setbacks. The General Plan serves as the county¹s blueprint for
future development and future conservation. It contains 10
elements. In addition to the Water Resources Element, the other
elements include Land Use, Housing, Open Space, Agricultural
Resources, Resource Conservation, Public Safety, Circulation and
Transit, Air Transportation, Public Facilities and Services, and
Noise. Thousands of hours of staff time, planning commission
hearings and public comments have been contributed to the effort to
date. And it is likely there will be many more hours of debate
before the final document is approved.
The General Plan should meet the needs of all county residents
and must seek a balance between the self-interests of individuals
and the greater good of the county¹s environment and its long-term
future.
‹ Barry W. Dugan