⚠️ Aviso de traducción: Este contenido ha sido traducido automáticamente. El texto original en inglés es la versión oficial. La traducción puede contener errores.
⚠️ Este contenido ha sido traducido automáticamente. El texto original en inglés es la versión oficial. La traducción puede contener errores.
Note: Missing finding numbers detected: F18, F19
Findings and Recommendations 18 findings
F1
State and Federal mandates are issued periodically and incorporated in General Plan updates as fast as feasible. The Housing Element is governed by mandate of the State Department of Housing and Community Development. New, or modified requirements are issued frequently, asking for an almost annual update of this element. Main thrust is the availability of affordable housing.
No recommendations for this finding
F2
The three additional elements included in General Plan ’89 were found to be valid and useful for the County. They will be continued under General Plan 2020.
No recommendations for this finding
F3
The General Plan is viewed more as a policy document, a guideline, for the Elements covered by it. There are few, if any, measurable goals or standards. An evaluation of the General Plan performance is, therefore, more subjective than based on tangible data.
No recommendations for this finding
F4
The work plan and budget developed by staff for the update and development of General Plan 2020 was adequate in scope and fiscally sound. It was approved as submitted by the Board of Supervisors.
No recommendations for this finding
F5
The logic and phasing of the update process follow a sensible path and incorporate all possible resources at the disposal of the County. Especially the use of a Citizens’ Advisory Committee to solicit public input is commendable.
No recommendations for this finding
F6
Timelines and milestones are reasonable and generally met. Since timing is well beyond the General Plan 1989 expiration, and finalization of General Plan 2020 will not happen before the end of 2006, the update process and time schedule should be reviewed.
No recommendations for this finding
F7
The opportunity for input by the general public is provided and publicized through mailings, the press, and word of mouth. Representatives of interest groups and citizens groups attend most of the meetings, both pursuing a special amendment rather than a general policy.
No recommendations for this finding
F8
About 35,000 property owners potentially affected by changes in the General Plan 2020 were invited to a public hearing on the Draft EIR. The notice did not identify why a property could be affected, causing an overflow crowd to show up for the hearing at a venue with limited occupancy. Many citizens were turned away, prompting a very negative reaction in the press. (See Sonoma West Times and News, Volume 117, No. 20)
Related Recommendations (2)
R7
Improve public notices about meetings on the General Plan to specifically state the topic and only invite affected property owners to avoid overcrowding.
R8
Evaluate pre-meeting feedback to hearing notices (e-mails, phone calls, personal visits) and provide meeting facilities to safely accommodate participants. Required Responses to Findings Chairman, Board of Supervisors
F9
Sonoma County has failed to meet mandated housing requirements since 1992. Repeated attempts to satisfy State requirements were not successful, resulting in a zoning moratorium. The County anticipates succeeding in meeting State Housing mandates with General Plan 2020.
No recommendations for this finding
F10
Land Use policies for County land bordering property in a City’s area of influence occasionally create controversy. Every effort is made by both authorities to minimize undue inconvenience to the property owner. There is no formal approach, though, to address these issues.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4
Negotiate with affected Cities and Municipalities to establish and implement a formal process to coordinate mutually relevant issues such as traffic, zoning of adjacent properties, etc.
F11
Resolution of General Plan conflicts in adjacent jurisdictions is handled on a case-by- case basis and is usually resolved successfully. There is no formal approach to address these issues.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4
Negotiate with affected Cities and Municipalities to establish and implement a formal process to coordinate mutually relevant issues such as traffic, zoning of adjacent properties, etc.
F12
The 15 members of the Citizens’ Advisory Committee are serving as volunteers without compensation or mileage reimbursement. In the case of the CAC 2020, members served for almost 70 months and conducted/attended over 40 meetings in different locations.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5
Include a mileage consideration for all General Plan-related Committee members in future General Plan-related budget requests.
F13
From the documents reviewed, the General Plan update process was officially launched in fall of 2001. The General Plan 2020 will not be ready for review by the Board of Supervisors before the end of 2006, two years after the expiration of General Plan 1989.
No recommendations for this finding
F14
The review process by the Citizens’ Advisory Committee was expected to take about one year but lasted almost five years.
No recommendations for this finding
F15
Staff informed the grand jury, that there is no documented “road map” for the General Plan update process. Staff is familiar with what needs to be done and proceeds accordingly.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1
Formalize and document the Sonoma County General Plan update process in an electronic or hard copy document or flow-chart, with easy access by the public.
F16
State mandate requires that the Housing Element status be reported on annually. A similar, periodic General Plan implementation status report to the Board of Supervisors and the public is not prepared.
Related Recommendations (2)
R3
Adopt the General Plan implementation tracking mechanism approved by the Citizens Advisory Committee in their August 19, 2004 meeting.
R6
Develop and implement a periodic General Plan update report for review by the Board of Supervisors.
F17
The active involvement and General Plan oversight function by members of the Board of Supervisors appears to be rather limited, dealing mostly with manpower and budget issues. The planning staffs address implementation and fulfillment issues. Conclusions Because of the enormous complexity of the General Plan update process only major process steps could be evaluated for their integrity, sequencing, and timing. Some major phases emerge in the General Plan review. They include among others: • Recognition of new State and Federal legislative requirements for some Plan Elements • Economic and ergonomic changes • An evaluation of the previous plan status • Development of an update work plan and budget • Presentation of plan and budget for review/approval by the Board of Supervisors • Development of revised plan Elements, in cooperation with the Citizens’ Advisory Board • Analyses of the environmental impact of revised policies • Planning Commission Review, and finally, • Presentation of the Plan 2020 to the Board of Supervisors. Each one of these major steps is well documented, backed up by relevant statistical data, and satisfactorily implemented. Because of the duration of this process over several years, it is not always easy to retain public interest and participation. Once final drafts of the Environmental Impact Report and the General Plan 2020 were presented in open hearings, public interest became reinvigorated as demonstrated on the occasion of the Planning Commission meetings in February and March of this year. It would be helpful for the public as well as other interested parties, if there were a general overview of all significant update phases and milestones. Such documents, in easy to understand format, would assist in anticipating relevant events and milestones of the update process. It would also serve as a guide for staff new to the process, should current staff be re- assigned or retire. Communication with the general public and with property owners affected by proposed changes has to be conducted in clear language and terms understood by laypersons. Public meetings must be identified as to subjects covered, and conducted in adequate facilities. Commendations The grand jury would like to thank all those who assisted in providing valuable information towards this report. PRMD management and staff were very cooperative, professional and skilled in their fields.
No recommendations for this finding
F20
F9. Sonoma County has failed to meet mandated housing requirements since 1992. Repeated attempts to satisfy State requirements were not successful, resulting in a zoning moratorium. The County anticipates succeeding in meeting State Housing mandates with General Plan 2020. F10. Land Use policies for County land bordering property in a City’s area of influence occasionally create controversy. Every effort is made by both authorities to minimize undue inconvenience to the property owner. There is no formal approach, though, to address these issues. F11. Resolution of General Plan conflicts in adjacent jurisdictions is handled on a case-by- case basis and is usually resolved successfully. There is no formal approach to address these issues. F12. The 15 members of the Citizens’ Advisory Committee are serving as volunteers without compensation or mileage reimbursement. In the case of the CAC 2020, members served for almost 70 months and conducted/attended over 40 meetings in different locations. F13. From the documents reviewed, the General Plan update process was officially launched in fall of 2001. The General Plan 2020 will not be ready for review by the Board of Supervisors before the end of 2006, two years after the expiration of General Plan 1989. F14. The review process by the Citizens’ Advisory Committee was expected to take about one year but lasted almost five years. F15. Staff informed the grand jury, that there is no documented “road map” for the General Plan update process. Staff is familiar with what needs to be done and proceeds accordingly. F16. State mandate requires that the Housing Element status be reported on annually. A similar, periodic General Plan implementation status report to the Board of Supervisors and the public is not prepared. F17. The active involvement and General Plan oversight function by members of the Board of Supervisors appears to be rather limited, dealing mostly with manpower and budget issues. The planning staffs address implementation and fulfillment issues. Conclusions Because of the enormous complexity of the General Plan update process only major process steps could be evaluated for their integrity, sequencing, and timing. Some major phases emerge in the General Plan review. They include among others: • Recognition of new State and Federal legislative requirements for some Plan Elements • Economic and ergonomic changes • An evaluation of the previous plan status • Development of an update work plan and budget • Presentation of plan and budget for review/approval by the Board of Supervisors • Development of revised plan Elements, in cooperation with the Citizens’ Advisory Board • Analyses of the environmental impact of revised policies • Planning Commission Review, and finally, • Presentation of the Plan 2020 to the Board of Supervisors. Each one of these major steps is well documented, backed up by relevant statistical data, and satisfactorily implemented. Because of the duration of this process over several years, it is not always easy to retain public interest and participation. Once final drafts of the Environmental Impact Report and the General Plan 2020 were presented in open hearings, public interest became reinvigorated as demonstrated on the occasion of the Planning Commission meetings in February and March of this year. It would be helpful for the public as well as other interested parties, if there were a general overview of all significant update phases and milestones. Such documents, in easy to understand format, would assist in anticipating relevant events and milestones of the update process. It would also serve as a guide for staff new to the process, should current staff be re- assigned or retire. Communication with the general public and with property owners affected by proposed changes has to be conducted in clear language and terms understood by laypersons. Public meetings must be identified as to subjects covered, and conducted in adequate facilities.
No recommendations for this finding
Additional Recommendations 1
These recommendations are not explicitly linked to specific findings.
-
R2Create a link on the Sonoma County Home Page that leads the visitor directly to the General Plan site, avoiding the need to navigate through the PRMD home page
Conclusions 9
-
CL1 Page 9Recognition of new State and Federal legislative requirements for some Plan Elements
-
CL2 Page 9Economic and ergonomic changes
-
CL3 Page 9An evaluation of the previous plan status
-
CL4 Page 9Development of an update work plan and budget
-
CL5 Page 9Presentation of plan and budget for review/approval by the Board of Supervisors
-
CL6 Page 9Development of revised plan Elements, in cooperation with the Citizens’ Advisory Board
-
CL7 Page 9Analyses of the environmental impact of revised policies
-
CL8 Page 9Planning Commission Review, and finally,
-
CL9 Page 9Presentation of the Plan 2020 to the Board of Supervisors. Each one of these major steps is well documented, backed up by relevant statistical data, and satisfactorily implemented. Because of the duration of this process over several years, it is not always easy to retain public interest and participation. Once final drafts of the Environmental Impact Report and the General Plan 2020 were presented in open hearings, public interest became reinvigorated as demonstrated on the occasion of the Planning Commission meetings in February and March of this year. It would be helpful for the public as well as other interested parties, if there were a general overview of all significant update phases and milestones. Such documents, in easy to understand format, would assist in anticipating relevant events and milestones of the update process. It would also serve as a guide for staff new to the process, should current staff be re- assigned or retire. Communication with the general public and with property owners affected by proposed changes has to be conducted in clear language and terms understood by laypersons. Public meetings must be identified as to subjects covered, and conducted in adequate facilities.
Commendations 1
-
CM1 Page 9The grand jury would like to thank all those who assisted in providing valuable information towards this report. PRMD management and staff were very cooperative, professional and skilled in their fields.
No Responses Found 2
Government entities assigned to respond to this report. No response documents have been linked in our database.
County of Sonoma
Agency
Sonoma County Board of Supervisors
Elected County Office