SANDPOINT — Scope and depth were two recurring themes at two public hearings this month when the Bonner County Planning Commission met to discuss updates to the county’s comprehensive land use plan.

Among the areas needing change are the recreation and special sites chapters, which several of the commissioners criticized as resembling more of a catalog about why Bonner County is a beautiful place to live, rather than a land use comprehensive plan chapter. These chapters listed all sorts of locations to visit and things to do, almost as if written to direct tourists rather than officials overseeing land use decisions.

At the first of the meetings, held Oct. 4, the commission reviewed the two chapters that were to be revised to better reflect the most recent goals, objectives, and policies. Commission Chair Alan Songstad volunteered to deal with the property rights chapter. Commissioner Debby Trinen chose recreation.

On Oct. 4, Songstad found that the current version of the property rights chapter reflected the commission’s draft of goals, objectives, and policies for that chapter. Other than referencing the Idaho Regulatory Takings Act and Idaho Code 67-65 which govern land use policy, Songstad made no revisions for the Oct. 18 meeting.

While few changes were made to the property rights chapter, that wasn’t the case for recreation. Trinen told fellow Planning Commission members that she needed to change the recreation component because it “read like an outdoor guide to Bonner County.”

She told them she opted to reduce the number of recreational locations, including in the comp plan, to the recreational areas mentioned in the sub area plans.

“This is a guide that should be handed out at the Chamber of Commerce,” Trinen said.

In addition, Trinen told the Planning Commission that the previous version was filled with outdated information about state regulations for fishing and hunting, and a long list of recreation areas. However, this information was determined irrelevant to the comp plan, which must address land use actions and regulations, according to Idaho’s Land Use Policies Act.

Trinen said she added an introduction to the component that underscored the importance to protect the ecological integrity of the area while also allowing for recreational activities.

“As the area’s population and visitation inevitably increases, there will be a greater need/pressure to identify areas for businesses to establish to service the community, as well as, protect access to recreational opportunities while development occurs,” Trinen wrote.

Trinen said she sought to promote “diverse recreational opportunities while preserving the area’s scenic character and ecological systems.” However, she also advocated for expanded development on water. “Water-based commerce along the shoreline should be encouraged, so long as its operations do not degrade adjacent property values, degrade water-quality,” she added on Oct. 4.

Nancy Gillum called into the Oct. 4 meeting to comment on recreation. She advocated for preparedness for climate change. She recommended the Planning Commission use the Idaho Climate Economic Impact Assessment, which was designed by University of Idaho researchers to help land use planners develop lasting and adequate policies given current climate trends. The assessment looks at a variety of factors for a given jurisdiction, including agriculture, recreation, health, infrastructure, and more, Gillum said. It was ultimately determined by the commission that Gillum’s comments would be more appropriate at the natural resources chapter’s public hearing, slated for November or December.

At the Oct. 18 meeting, Paul Sieracki of Priest River presented a comment regarding the special areas chapters. Also drafted at this meeting was the community design chapter as well.

Sieracki’s comment listed as many important ecological sites as he could think of, but first he provided some guiding principles for land use decisions. He asked them to add to “do no harm to the environment” with land use decisions and to “use the precautionary principle to preserve biological diversity,” or to err on the side of caution when environmental threats are unknown or the evidence is inconclusive.

Sieracki also brought up “environmental generational amnesia,” a process through which each successive generation becomes accustomed to less nature as the norm. He also asked the commission to use science for mapping and to include abrupt climate change mitigations.

While the commission members said they appreciated what he had to say, Songstad said Sieracki’s comments were better fit for the natural resources chapter.

Sieracki encouraged the promotion of “community permeability” which allows wildlife to freely cross property and property lines.

Commissioner Dave Frankenbach told the commission he believes the county should consider the current land uses, the availability of water and sewage services, the general topography of the area, general soil characteristics, waterways and wetlands, wildlife habitat, and existing or planned transportation services.

The other commissioners agreed and the language stayed.

Next was special areas and sites, which was reviewed by ex-Commissioner Wayne Benner, who stepped down for personal reasons. On Oct. 4, Benner said he did not change the content but he did change the structure, moving the index of special sites to the appendix, rather than leaving it in the chapter as is.

New Planning Commission member Michael Leita was tasked with reviewing the chapter to ensure it connects to the land use policy as well as to see if it could be made more concise.

The Planning Commission will meet again Nov. 1 at 4:30 p.m. to continue updating the comprehensive plan. The meeting will be in the County Administrative Building, 1500 U.S. 2 Sandpoint.