The County General Plan must address a number of issues which will guide the County’s future physical development. The seven mandatory elements are land use, traffic circulation, housing, conservation, open space, noise, and safety.

The recent County General Plan update was a public process that lasted 5 years. A number of elements were extensively debated and voluminous information was submitted by members of the public, particularly over groundwater issues and traffic circulation.

Groundwater

Groundwater supplies in some instances are now known to be in overdraft. Contamination is another issue, and in other places saltwater intrusion from San Pablo Bay and the Pacific Ocean is moving inland.

I argued, with extensive documentation to back me up, that one of the goals of the General Plan was to make sure the storage basins were protected for sustainability. The information submitted was ignored in the final adoption.

Traffic

Traffic circulation in and around rural communities was another topic that received tremendous consideration.

Keeping in mind the bulk of yet-to-be-generated traffic would come from future expansions in the cities of Sonoma County, I developed and distributed a questionnaire in June of 2002 that captured the attitude of over 400 area residents that decided the following:

1. 93% of people surveyed supported leaving existing roadways as they are and wanted traffic diverters or turn restrictions placed in or outside the Penngrove Community to reduce out of the area commute traffic and congestion in Penngrove.
2. 93% of people surveyed did not support widening existing roads to 4 or more lanes to accommodate additional traffic (i.e. Petaluma Hill Road, Adobe Road, Old Redwood Highway, and Railroad Avenue).
3. 92% of people surveyed did not support cutting new roads in Penngrove through existing dairies, ranches, and established neighborhoods to accommodate more out of the area traffic.
4. 90% of people surveyed supported doing nothing with existing roadways and allowing traffic levels to reach gridlock conditions.

What fueled the controversy was Rohnert Park’s General Plan that called for building 4,500 new homes and 5 million square feet of commercial and industrial space.

Rohnert Park’s Draft Environmental Impact Report stated that by the end of their General Plan build-out regional traffic trips every 24 hours between Penngrove, Sonoma State University, and Cotati would increase by 70,000 vehicle trips. This hasn’t changed.

Penngrove and other rural communities cannot take these kinds of impacts.

Land Use

The Sonoma County General Plan serves as a guide on how land should be utilized efficiently, keeping in mind the natural restrictions of soil types, groundwater availability, and drainage.

Once again, this topic, under the heading of riparian corridors, received an enormous amount of public input.

The issue is erosion. How close to a river, stream, ephemeral stream, or drainage area can a road be built, orchards planted, crops, grapes or any other form of agriculture be established?

What happens when agriculture or development is already established closer than the recommendations in the County General Plan?

Our County Supervisors chose to take 90,000 acres out of production by establishing setbacks throughout the County. They used a “blanket” approach, but a more appropriate method would be to target only those problem areas that are known to be man-made.

The County’s action doesn’t make sense. By law the County General Plan can have up to four amendments a year. I have just identified three topics in the General Plan that need reconsideration.

Signed,

John E. King