March 19, 2021 — The Planning Commission came up short at its regular meeting yesterday, with only three of the seven commissioners available for an application to extend a cell phone tower that generated about twenty letters of opposition. Without a quorum, though, the item was automatically permissible, due to federal law about the length of time allowed to review the application. A proposal for a campsite in Hopland was roundly rejected.
The Commission is meeting again today to discuss the widely unpopular Phase III cannabis ordinance, which, if it passes, would result in each grow being subject to site-specific review as part of a discretionary permit process.
And the days of ‘line-jumping’ to get a vaccine could be coming to a close. Earlier this week, 246 inmates at the Mendocino County Jail were offered the Johnson & Johnson vaccine, which requires only one shot. Fewer than half of them accepted it, for a total of 111, according to Lt. John Bednar, a spokesman for the jail. There’s no formal arrangement with public health at this time to vaccinate more inmates as they come in.
Yesterday, a perfect storm of absences converged on the Planning Commission as it took up the question of whether or not to allow Crown Castle, the owner of an AT&T cell tower in Laytonville, to increase the height of the tower by 20 feet. Last month, the Board of Supervisors approved an ordinance to reduce the number of commissioners from seven to five, eliminating the agricultural seat held by Greg Nelson and the timber seat held by Randy Jacobzoon. But that ordinance doesn’t go into effect until next week, which means that four commissioners must be present to constitute a quorum. Jacobzoon was absent, the second district seat is still vacant, and two of the commissioners recused themselves due to a conflict of interest and prior work on the project.
Letters opposing the height expansion cited a range of concerns, from the tower not fulfilling the needs of people who don’t use AT&T to those who felt it would pose a hazard to the children attending the nearby Spy Rock School.
The item had been carried over from last month, but Deputy County Counsel Matthew Kiedrowski explained that time had run out. “And any extensions of that are available only with the written consent of the applicant,” he concluded.
The applicant, through an attorney, respectfully declined the invitation to continue the matter.
Later in the afternoon, the five commissioners present chose unanimously to reject an application by a company called Getaway House to turn a remote parcel off of Old Toll Road in Hopland into a campground designed to attract people from the Bay Area looking to relax in a natural setting.
The proposed project included 45 RV campers on gravel pads, plus a lodge and a residence for an on-site manager. A hundred seventy oak trees were slated for removal, which would have necessitated replanting trees elsewhere and a ten-year monitoring period to ensure their survival.The applicant, Stephen Maulden, said he was preparing to buy the parcel from Brutocao Vineyards and was willing to dedicate part of it to a conservation easement. The area is a known wildlife corridor, connecting populations that roam as far as the Mayacamas Mountains. The 90-acre site is zoned Rangeland, where some forms of recreational use are allowable with a major use permit. But the water source is on a neighboring parcel, and the Farm Bureau worried that the proposed use would make it difficult for the property to be returned to agricultural purposes.
Commissioner Alison Pernell countered that a fence would hamper the movement of wildlife.
Only one of the thirty letters that came in supported the project, and that was from people in Washington state attesting to the company’s ability to be good neighbors. But Wendel Nicolaus, a neighboring vineyard owner, hired a lawyer, a biologist and a fire protection engineer to speak about the inadequacies of the application, including fire danger, the lack of a traffic study, and a tiny one-lane bridge that would make it difficult to escape the area in the event of a fire.
Jones summed up some of her reasons for not approving the project:
“I understand why you were attracted to this site, it’s high up, it has beautiful views, it’s in an amazing natural setting,” she conceded. “But unfortunately those are also the characteristics that lead it to be difficult to approve.”