Local Government: County General Plan: GPA 424

Supervisors deny General Plan amendment that threatened agriculture

Focus shifts to a separate rewrite of the General Plan

Conflict and controversy surrounding a Farm Bureau-opposed measure apparently came to an end on June 15, 1999, when the Riverside County Board of Supervisors voted 3-1 to deny General Plan Amendment 424.

Supervisor Bob Buster was the lone "no" vote.

The recommendation by county staff to close the door on GPA 424 came after a long convoluted process and just over a year since supervisors were originally at the brink on June 2, 1998, of denying GPA 424.

The county also apparently discharged its obligations under a settlement in the lawsuit by the Sierra Club and Audubon Society that precipitated GPA 424. Under the terms of that settlement, the county developed and processed GPA 424, incorporating an assortment of planning principles advocated by the environmental organizations, and offered the amendment for public hearing and eventual decision by county supervisors. The court approved settlement could only mandate a fair legislative process but not a legislative decision by supervisors to approve the measure, which in the end they rejected.

At the same time supervisors rejected the environmentalists' land use proposals, they were starting a process to rewrite the county general plan, seeking citizens to serve on a General Plan Advisory Committee to guide future land use rules throughout the county.

Farm Bureau expects environmentalists to propose that the County General Plan include the same land use concepts that were in GPA 424.

Denial of GPA 424 concluded a long series of hearings and meetings.

The Board of Supervisors had been believed to be prepared June 2, 1998, to deny the package of environmentalist-demanded changes to the county’s General Plan — until the BIA announced an agreement with the environmentalists to continue discussions on the measure, a change of direction that came as a surprise to Farm Bureau.

Farm Bureau participated in discussions with the Sierra Club, Audubon Society and BIA to seek a compromise proposal, but the direction gradually shifted to a rewrite of the County General Plan separate from GPA 424 and the lawsuit.

Farm Bureau was opposed to many of the concepts that environmentalists have put into GPA 424, such as preservation of rock outcroppings, poles and other sites where birds may roost, protection of “viewsheds,” and large-lot zoning. Farm Bureau previously said it could not accept enough of the environmental restrictions to satisfy the Sierra Club and Audubon Society.

The outcome of the general plan process will impact property owners throughout Riverside County for years to come.

The county agreed to consider GPA 424 as a settlement of a lawsuit by the Sierra Club and Audubon Society challenging the 1984 General Plan. The county was expected to adopt 60% of the environmental concepts in GPA 424 (according to a point system) in order to settle the lawsuit.

The Planning Commission had already seen the futility of this process when, in December 1997, they unanimously recommended denial of GPA 424.

With the support of BIA, Farm Bureau and others, supervisors agreed to start a separate rewrite of the General Plan. Farm Bureau’s view is that the pending lawsuit would poison any rewrite and criticized this process as legislation by litigation.

The 1984 lawsuit by the Sierra Club and Audubon Society charged the county's then-new General Plan was inadequate and unspecific. Since the lawsuit was filed, the General Plan has been amended more than 400 times, various wildlife and habitat conservation plans and numerous specific plans have been adopted. Farm Bureau’s view is that the General Plan which was attacked in the lawsuit no longer exists, any possible inadequacies in that 1983 General Plan have long since been remedied, and the lawsuit should be dismissed.

Riverside County Farm Bureau opposed GPA 424, Farm Bureau directors decided in April 1998.

Environmentalists’ general plan proposal was rejected by the Planning Commission December 3, 1997, leaving a final decision to the Riverside County Board of Supervisors.

Commissioners voted unanimously to deny GPA 424 after learning that an extension of a lawsuit settlement deadline had not been granted in writing. A coalition of local organizations including Farm Bureau, BIA, Property Owners and others testified that without the extension, the Planning Commission would not have adequate time to hear public testimony on the amendment. The extension was later granted, giving the county until October 1998 to satisfy the environmental groups.

Planning Commissioners again washed their hands of GPA 424 in a January 14, 1998, workshop which was intended to consider the scope of revisions to the General Plan. In effect, they concluded there was no possible compromise between the two sides of the issue.

The Coalition had advocated a rewrite of the General Plan to allow all interested parties to bring their ideas forward, in an open, public process. Riverside County’s Board of Supervisors authorized the Planning Department to begin a process of rewriting portions of the General Plan. The question that remains to be decided is whether this rewrite will cover all of the plan or just certain portions.

Previously, the Board of Supervisors voted to ask lawsuit plaintiffs to extend their settlement deadline so they can notify at least 750 individual property owners and get more testimony from the public.

Supervisors also decided to consider the amendment strictly on its policy merits and stop talking about the need to settle the lawsuit. This means officials will ignore a provision in the settlement agreement that says the lawsuit will end if supervisors adopt at least 60% of the changes proposed by the environmental organizations. Farm Bureau continues to believe the pending lawsuit must inevitably be a silent participant at any discussion of the General Plan and must be settled, either in or out of court, before the county can rewrite its General Plan.

Supervisors also directed that secret negotiations that led to the settlement be disclosed to the Planning Commission — and to the public. Commissioners complained that they couldn’t get information about why the county agreed to the settlement because it was done in closed session. This disclosure discussion has not been held, and the Planning Commission denial of GPA 424 may preclude further public disclosure about the settlement.

The threat of a countywide building moratorium still hangs over the process. A Sierra Club attorney indicated that the environmentalists are ready to ask for a court-ordered moratorium if they don’t like the outcome of the general plan amendment. BIA believes a moratorium is possible, but Farm Bureau argues that, after 15 years of negotiations, there's no valid reason for a court to order an emergency halt to development activity.

The lawsuit settlement called for the General Plan to be rewritten to incorporate a variety of failed environmental concepts and land use restrictions as a result of the lawsuit, said Farm Bureau Executive Manager Bob Perkins.

The Planning Commission previously came close to recommending denial, at a July 2, 1997, hearing, when Commissioner John Petty made the motion to reject GPA 424 and, for a time, it looked like he was going to get the two additional votes to pass his motion. After hearing Building Industry Association President Bill Warkentin ask the commission to continue processing the amendment, Petty withdrew his motion.
Riverside County Farm Bureau had testified earlier that it opposed the amendment and recommended denial.

The amendment proposes numerous changes to the county’s General Plan which were requested by the Sierra Club and Audubon Society as settlement of a lawsuit filed by the two groups in 1984 to challenge the then-new plan. Farm Bureau has opposed the amendment, arguing that it would incorporate environmental and growth control concepts that have repeatedly been rejected by voters and elected officials. A Farm Bureau attorney said many of the amendment’s elements are beyond the authority of county government.

Farm Bureau directors agreed to:

- Request that the Board of Supervisors file a motion to dismiss the lawsuit;

- Recommend that the Board of Supervisors reconsider the settlement agreement; and,

- Object to the development of the amendment as not being a democratic process.

Endangered Species Committee Chairman Cindy Domenigoni called the settlement a “subversion of process” and said it should have been developed in public. She said property owner interests believe that the hundreds of amendments adopted since the lawsuit was filed, the species and habitat conservation efforts that have been undertaken, and numerous local land use plans have more than remedied any problems addressed in the lawsuit. She said Farm Bureau believes the court would find reason to dismiss the lawsuit if asked. The county accepted a settlement plan in 1995 that obligates it to propose, hold hearings on, and take action on GPA 424. If the county accepts at least 60% of the changes proposed by the environmental groups, according to a point system, the lawsuit is ended.

Perkins said the amendment consists of concepts that have already been rejected by local government and voters and that are unacceptable to land owners. He cited proposals such as viewshed preservation and buffer zones.

Domenigoni said her Farm Bureau Endangered Species Committee is studying the amendment and how to counter it.

Farm Bureau representatives said meetings with Planning Department and other county representatives, the Sierra Club, Building Industry Association and Property Owners Association produced two disturbing thoughts:

- County representatives frequently decided that they were already meeting the requirements of new language proposed in GPA 424 and that the new language would have no effect. If the language has no effect, Farm Bureau said, why not leave it out of the General Plan?

(Much of the language relates to laws and regulations from other levels of government, such as the Endangered Species Act, Farm Bureau said. Adding these to the General Plan would continue their impacts at the local level even if federal and state laws change.)

- County representatives didn’t seem to grasp the philosophical meaning of some word changes proposed by the environmental groups, such as inserting the statement, “...the wildlife resources in California have an inherent value in and of themselves.” Farm Bureau Director of Natural Resources Dennis Hollingsworth explained that this view, a primary principle of “Earth First!”, is different from the common view that wildlife has value to people. Farm Bureau said this represents a significant change which it opposes.

(The precise wording of a government document can be the source of future lawsuits, Farm Bureau said. When wording is questioned, the intent of the wording’s originators may be considered. In this case, the originators are the Sierra Club and Audubon Society. The precise wording matters.) BIA and Farm Bureau have taken different approaches to GPA 424.

BIA sees this as an opportunity to make some changes in the General Plan which they want. They’re willing to negotiate the environmental groups’ demands.

Farm Bureau opposes adoption of any of the environmental groups’ demands and believes negotiation will open the door to adopting unacceptable changes.