Some Cathey’s Valley residents who vehemently oppose the adoption of the Cathey’s Valley Community Plan (CVCP) believe their community is being singled out, discriminated and will be forced to comply with punitive requirements under the proposed plan because of the environmental impact requirements listed.

Actually, those regulations at some point, will be applicable to the entire county. What some residents may not know is that the legal representatives of the Fortner Family Trust and Timothy Miller threatened to sue Mariposa County if adequate review of those climate change issues was left out of the of the environmental review of the proposed CVCP. Those threats of litigation are a matter of public record from planning commission recordings.

The Mariposa County Board of Supervisors originally planned to adopt a Negative Declaration to address those environmental issues that are requirements under Assembly Bill 32 (AB32), which was passed and approved in 2006. But the threats of a lawsuit forced them to include what are rules and restrictions to address greenhouse gas (GHG) levels.

When you throw Senate Bill 97 (SB97), plus guidelines established by the attorney general (AG), it all become a contorted, convoluted legislative mishmash that even the most astute planner struggles with. It’s no wonder that residents are confused about regulatory language that is so difficult to understand.

AB 32 was drafted to address GHG levels, making it state law that municipalities and counties establish policies to reduce GHG to 1990 levels. The establishment of specific regulations to implement AB32 are up to the California Air Resources Board (ARB), which must take action by Jan. 1, 2011.

Since each area of the state is different, and therefore each area’s 1990 GHG levels would vary, each jurisdiction is left up to its own devices as to which regulations to adopt, but it is mandatory that GHG are addressed in every general plan in the state. In 2007, along came SB97 That act amended the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) “to clearly establish that Greenhouse Gas emissions are appropriate subjects for CEQA analysis.”

Next came guidelines from the AG’s office so that counties can come into compliance with state law created by AB32 and SB97, since the ARB hasn’t yet instituted the AB32 restrictions.

Still following?

In the summer of 2009, Mariposa County is threatened with a lawsuit if the environmental analysis didn’t do a more thorough job in evaluating climate change impacts results from the proposed CVCP.

Since each jurisdiction (or county) can select requirements outlined in the AG’s guidelines, Mariposa County planners picked those they believe will be the most applicable to CVCP, in compliance with the requirements of state law. The updated environmental analysis (the Draft EIR) of the CVCP could thus find no significant impacts resulting from climate change.

Currently, the requirements of AB-32 and SB97 are only applied to discretionary project permits that come before the planning commission or board of supervisors. Those projects include minor or major land divisions, or subdivisions, general plan amendments, adoption of area plans, and conditional use permits, all which require CEQA analysis.

However, there are two different types of project permits: discretionary and ministerial.

As it now stands, anyone in the county, including those that would be affected by the adoption of the CVCP, can obtain a permit to construct a garage, add a bedroom, or erect a barn, as long as the set backs and restrictions outlined in the Revised General Plan, adopted in 2006, and the Zoning Ordinance are met. The permits for those types of projects are defined as ministerial because they don’t go before the planning commission, board of supervisors, or require CEQA analysis.

In any case, the requirements of AB32, when regulations are enacted by ARB, will require Mariposa County to amend its general plan, and that is in the near future.

There have been two attempts by Republican legislators to repeal AB32, but both of those measures have met defeat in the state legislature. Another measure was introduced to block the implementation of AB32 until California’s unemployment rate fell to five percent or lower. That was also defeated.

In this state, litigation often defines law or provides further interpretation of the law (particularly environmental law) and the courts are already addressing the issues in other areas of the state, so the final requirements of these legislative measures are yet to surface, and so is their full effect on all of Mariposa County.