Document alpinecountyca_gov_doc_9cbdacf1b1

ALPINE COUNTY GENERAL PLAN REVISED: FEBRUARY 2009 Page 1 of 264 ---PAGE BREAK--- ALPINE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Adopted May 18, 1999 Resolution No. 99-29 Herman Zellmer, Chairman - District 2 Don Jardine - District 1 Kathy Rakow - District 3 Tom Ward - District 4 Chris Gansberg - District 5 Former Member: Eric Jung, District 4 ALPINE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Recommended January 28, 1999 Mark Silverstone, Chairman Bill Morgan, Vice Chairman Nick Hartzell Robert McGuire Chris Gemmill Former Members: Russell Rawson Robert Rudden COUNTY STAFF MEMBERS Brian Peters, Planning Director Leonard Turnbeaugh, Transportation Director Kathy Ashurst, Administrative Assistant Former Staff: Dick Bobertz, Planning Director Val Wiens, Administrative Assistant Page 2 of 264 ---PAGE BREAK--- TABLE OF CONTENTS 5 THE SETTING 6 THE GENERAL 8 10 11 I. CONSERVATION ELEMENT 14 A. 15 B. 17 C. 17 D. WETLANDS 21 E. PLANT 23 F. AGRICULTURE 23 G. 24 H. ANIMAL LIFE 25 I. 27 J. 30 K. AESTHETICS 32 II. SAFETY 35 A. 36 B. SEISMIC 43 C. UNSTABLE SLOPES 44 D. 45 E. 47 F. HAZARDOUS 50 III. LAND USE ELEMENT 52 A. COMMUNITY CHARACTER 53 B. GROWTH 59 C. LAND USE MAP 61 D. PUBLIC SERVICES AND 73 E. PUBLIC FINANCE 84 F. 86 IV. CIRCULATION ELEMENT/REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION 105 A. INTRODUCTION 113 B. NEEDS ASSESSMENT 126 C. POLICY 143 D. ACTION 155 E. FINANCIAL 167 F. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW 170 Page 3 of 264 ---PAGE BREAK--- V. HOUSING ELEMENT 171 A. INTRODUCTION 172 B. HOUSING 173 C. RESOURCES AND CONSTRAINTS 185 D. REVIEW AND 203 E. HOUSING 207 VI. ECONOMIC 216 VII. 219 SUMMARY TABLE OF GOALS, POLICIES, OBJECTIVES and IMPLEMENTATION Page 4 of 264 ---PAGE BREAK--- ALPINE COUNTY GENERAL PLAN INTRODUCTION Page 5 of 264 ---PAGE BREAK--- INTRODUCTION Alpine County comprises 723 square miles of land situated along the crest of the Sierra Nevada mountains in east-central California. The County's topography is characterized by high rugged peaks and ridges, deep canyons, mountain meadows, and numerous streams and lakes. The County is located 15 miles south of Lake Tahoe and is bounded to the east by Douglas County, Nevada. It is crossed generally east to west by State Highways 4 and 88, and north to south by State Highway 89. It is estimated that ninety five percent of Alpine County's land area is government owned and administered by the U.S. Forest Service or Bureau of Land Management. Alpine County remains the smallest County in California with a permanent population of 1100 and with only an eleven percent growth between 1980 and 1990 based on the 1990 Census data. Most of the population lives near or in the communities of Markleeville, Woodfords, Bear Valley, or Kirkwood. Alpine County's first General Plan was adopted in 1964. New elements were added in 1969, 1970, 1973, and 1974. In 1981 the legal adequacy of the existing plan was determined to be questionable and the Board of Supervisors directed that the plan be revised. In a separate action, the Board, which serves as the County's Local Transportation Commission, directed that the 1982 Alpine County Regional Transportation Plan Update (RTP) be included as part of the total planning project. Early public input to the 1981 General Plan Project stressed the importance of developing a plan which would "balance" environmental and social concerns. The General Plan has thus been founded upon four primary planning criteria 1. Environmental constraints. 2. Economic growth. 3. Orderly development in specified areas, and 4. Public service costs. The General Plan identifies hazards that offer the greatest threat to the health, safety, and welfare of people in Alpine County. Measures are specified to minimize propagation of each of the hazards in future development. The Plan draws upon research presented in the Plan's Data Base and Appendices to promote wise use of the County's varied and plentiful resources. The Plan also encourages provision of adequate public services, maintenance of a balanced County budget, and maintenance of a comprehensive planning process including continuous use of the General Plan as a guideline for growth. As required by State law, the Plan contains a Land Use Map which designates the desired location, type, density and intensity of land uses County-wide. The Plan's Circulation Element serves as the County's Mandated Regional Transportation Plan and is updated biennially. This edition of the Plan is a 1997 update of the 1981 plan. It has been prepared to update statistics and information and to reflect changes in State Law and County Ordinances. This plan also contains the 1996 Regional Transportation Plan/Circulation Element Update. THE SETTING History Before the arrival of Euro-American settlers, Alpine County was the home of a Native American Page 6 of 264 ---PAGE BREAK--- people of whom the Washoe are the latest arrivals. Frontiersmen including Jedediah Smith, Captain Joseph Walker, Kit Carson and Captain John C. Fremont, visited what is now Alpine County between 1827 and 1844. Present day Woodfords became the first settlement in the region with the establishment of Brannon Springs in 1851. With the discovery of gold and silver in the late 1850's and early 1860's the territory experienced a boom period during which towns sprang up and populations swelled Alpine County became the forty-sixth County in the State of California on March 16, 1864. It was formed out of El Dorado, Amador, Calaveras, Tuolumne and Mono Counties and named for its majestic alp-like scenery. In 1864 total County population was estimated to be more than 11,000. The County seat was Silver Mountain City, one of several early mining towns that no longer stand today. In 1875, when the County Seat was moved to Markleeville, the population had declined to approximately 1200. In addition to mining, lumbering was an important industry in Alpine County during the 1860's and 1870's. Lumber was needed for the construction of towns, ranch structures, and flumes built in the area. Demand was also high for cord wood necessary to drive steam engines, to provide mine timbers, and to serve other purposes. The demonetization of silver in 1873 put an end to the silver "boom" in Alpine County and thereafter County population decreased. By 1910 the County population was less than 250. Between 1920 and 1940 it increased to 320, and then decreased back to approximately 290 by 1950. During this period the population was distributed between the towns of Markleeville, Woodfords, Paynesville and a number of other highway stops. The County sustained a small number of active cattle and sheep ranches plus limited mining and timber activity. With improvement of roads, the increase in California's population, and State-wide increases in income and leisure time, Alpine County's popularity as a recreational area began to grow. The 1970 Census recorded County population at 484. By 1980 the population had grown to 1097. The increase is primarily a result of growth in the Washoe Community on the County’s eastern slope; and Bear Valley and Kirkwood on the County’s western slope. Population Characteristics of the County's 1990 population were as follows: Median age was 35 years. Approximately 25% of the population was less than 18 years of age. The ethnic make-up of the 1990 population included 772 whites (69.4 percent) and 341 non-whites, (30.6 percent). The largest ethnic minority was American Indian, 257 or (23.1 percent) of the total population. Because the 1990 Census was conducted during April, 1990, it is anticipated that a number of seasonal residents were included in the County total. Though the total may therefore be considered high when figuring permanent residents, it does little to reflect the actual influx of seasonal residents or visitors to the County which has been estimated to exceed two million per year. The Department of Finance estimated a 1990 housing vacancy rate of 62.7 percent. At least 68% of these are seasonally occupied second homes or resort condominium units. Page 7 of 264 ---PAGE BREAK--- Socio-Economic Environment Alpine County is divided by the crest of the Sierra Nevada into east and west slope geographic regions. Markleeville, Woodfords and other east slope communities tend to identify culturally and economically with Gardnerville, Carson City and other urban centers located in the State of Nevada. Kirkwood is positioned to access both Nevada Communities and South Lake Tahoe. Bear Valley residents tend to utilize lower west slope communities in California for similar socioeconomic purposes. The Sierra crest becomes a most significant boundary between east and west Alpine County during winter months when State Highway 4 connecting Bear Valley with Markleeville is closed, resulting in 3-4 hours travel time between the communities in good weather. Recreation and tourism clearly stand as a mainstay of the economy. The County's agriculture, timber, and mining resources have and will continue to provide valuable contributions. Setting aside the incomes of seasonal residents, the per capita income of persons living in Alpine County is well below the state average and it fluctuates seasonally due to reliance on recreation and tourism. Limited population and dependence upon urban centers outside the County causes a significant drain of dollars generated in the local economy. This leakage hinders attempts to expand local business activity. The local government faces fiscal difficulties associated with a limited ability to generate property tax revenue which results in heightened sensitivity to limitations on public services and facilities. THE GENERAL PLAN A general plan can be considered a local government's "constitution" for growth and development. In addition to background information, general plans typically contain goals, policies, objectives, and implementation measures designed to guide growth and development within the jurisdiction. One of the required maps of a general plan is the land use map, which represents the County's intentions regarding future growth. All elements within a general plan must be consistent with one another and all local land use zoning designations must be made to conform with the general plan. Decisions regarding private developments for which County permits are necessary and those involving County Public Works Projects must be found in conformance with the general plan before approval can be granted. Counties must also review their capital improvement programs and land transactions for conformance. Under the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Federal Agencies are directed to coordinate preparation of their land use plans and regulations with local governments and their general plans. State Law requires that a general plan must address seven subjects: land use, circulation, housing, conservation, open space, noise, and safety. The law allows a County to vary the format and degree of specificity that is used in addressing each of the required subjects, depending on local circumstances. The Alpine County General Plan is organized in six elements which incorporate the seven State mandated subjects. Page 8 of 264 ---PAGE BREAK--- 1. Conservation 2. Safety 3. Land Use 4. Circulation 5. Housing 6. Economic Development Conservation The Conservation Element promotes wise use of the County's valuable mineral, timber, agricultural, water and energy resources. It recognizes local water, animal life, open space, historic and other resources as valuable to recreation and tourism. It considers the County's nearly pristine air, water, sound, and scenic beauty as a resource valued by County residents as well as visitors from other parts of the world. Policies and guidelines are set forth to protect such resources from degradation and incompatible land uses. The Plan also encourages the management, production, and processing of natural resources found in the County in a responsible manner for the economic benefits that could be derived for the local economy. Safety The Safety Element calls for all future development to be properly located and designed to prevent threat to the health, safety and welfare of people in Alpine County due to fire, earthquake, unstable slopes of earth or snow, flood, noise, or hazardous materials. Policies are established to promote fire prevention and to build fire protection into all new development. The Plan also requires that maps and/or deeds subdividing lands in areas identified as subject to flash flood or seismic activity must contain written warnings informing future land owners that such hazards exist. Future developments will need to investigate and address the potential for landslide or avalanche. The General Plan's Land Use Section and Land Use Map establish standards to protect future development from flood, stream bank erosion and other factors. Land Use The Alpine County General Plan sets forth objectives for the provision of specific public services or facilities that will be needed to aid the County's orderly growth and development. It lists policies and actions that are necessary to help finance public services and facilities especially during the present period of declining revenues. A special section is provided to help implement and maintain an effective and comprehensive planning process. The Plan's Land Use Map designates areas of the County in which certain types of development would be best located. Descriptions and mapping of each land use designation are presented in the Land Use Element. Circulation The long-range Transportation Plan addresses periodic improvements of State highways and bridge reconstruction. The need for maintenance and reconstruction of existing County roads will generally supersede the need for new roads. Funding County road maintenance is a growing issue that will need to be resolved. New developments will be required to construct roads to County standards and Page 9 of 264 ---PAGE BREAK--- new provisions (road districts) may be required to fund their long-term maintenance. Efforts will be made to stimulate recreation and tourism thereby increasing already high percentages of out-of- county traffic. Actions may be necessary to generate additional County revenues for road maintenance and other public services necessitated by recreational visitors. The County will continue toward implementation of the County Airport Master Plan. Private aviation working facilities should include construction of new heli-pads at Bear Valley and Kirkwood. Bicycle and pedestrian facilities should be considered where reasonable in all new development as a means of improving local travel as well as adding to the County's recreational attractiveness. The County will continue to enforce parking requirements and may upgrade regulations to attenuate existing or anticipated parking problems. County circulation policies will encourage efficient use consistent with the preservation of General Plan goals and policies. Pipe and utility lines should be minimized by measures such as combining lines to the fewest possible corridors and minimizing extensions to new areas consistent with the County's land use policies. The County is opposed to any trans-sierra utility corridors through Alpine County. In general, the short-range Transportation Plan consists of the County's highest priority improvement projects and those goals and policies which address the most current and important issues. Housing The purpose of the Alpine County Housing Element is to stimulate the private sector and facilitate the supply and quality of housing available to Alpine County residents. The Housing Element is designed to inform citizens and decision-makers in the County about population and housing and provide a sound basis for future planning decisions to meet identified housing needs and objectives within local means. Economic Development The Economic Development Element establishes the response of Alpine County to economic conditions which result from the lack of revenue and job generating industrial and commercial development in the County. ORGANIZATION The Document The General Plan is organized in four parts: 1. Introduction 2. General Plan Elements 3. Definitions 4. Summary of Goals, Policies, Objectives and Implementation Measures A Data base, Environmental Impact Report and Technical Appendices that support the General Plan are available in the Alpine County Planning Department. Page 10 of 264 ---PAGE BREAK--- All general plan elements contain discussions of various planning related issues based upon information collected for the data base. Each discussion of issues is followed by a list of goals, objectives, policies and implementation measures which are intended to help resolve the issues. A goal is the end toward which effort is directed. It is general and timeless, but theoretically attainable. A policy is a course of action that guides present and future decisions. An objective is more precise and is capable of both attainment and measurement. Actions or implementation measures suggest or define the steps necessary to accomplish objectives and name the agencies or persons that would be responsible. The Circulation and Housing Elements vary from the format used in other elements in order to satisfy the State's particular requirements for Regional Transportation Plans, and Housing Elements. During preparation of the Data Base and Appendices, research was focused on seven special planning areas which, due to factors such as terrain and private ownership, were considered most likely to receive development pressure. Various categories of information regarding the County and its inhabitants were applied to base maps for each of the seven planning areas. These maps are displayed in the Appendices. Transparent overlays of the maps were used in drafting the General Plan's County-Wide Land Use Map. AMENDMENT A general plan amendment is required in order to change any text or map in the General Plan. State Law permits up to four General Plan Amendments per mandatory element per calendar year (Government Code 65358b). The most common type of General Plan Amendment is to the Plan's Land Use Map. In addition the County may determine that it is occasionally necessary to revise portions of the text to reflect changes in circumstances or philosophy. State Government Code 65400b requires the Planning Department to report annually to the Board of Supervisors on the status of the plan and progress in its implementation. The Process The County's process for amending the General Plan is specified in Section 18.84 of the Alpine County Codes (Zoning Ordinance) as summarized below. 1. Amendments to the General Plan may be initiated by application of petition of one or more landowners, resolution of intention of the Board of Supervisors or resolution of intention by the Planning Commission. Applications initiated by the public must accompany include fees set forth in the County Fee Ordinance. 2. Applications are reviewed by the County Planner and if accepted as complete for processing are scheduled for a public hearing before the Planning Commission. Public notice of the hearing is provided in accordance with State Law. 3. Prior to the Public Hearing the Planning Department prepares a staff report to Page 11 of 264 ---PAGE BREAK--- the Planning Commission describing the proposed amendment, any environmental or other impacts that may result, and comments from other departments or affected governmental agencies. 4. The Planning Commission holds the Public Hearing, makes the required findings of fact and decides upon a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors. 5. The Board of Supervisors holds a Public Hearing and either adopts or denies the proposed amendment. Review for Consistency In order to be an effective policy guide a General Plan must be internally consistent. State Government Code 65300.5 requires that the General Plan be integrated and internally consistent, both among the elements and within the elements. Any amendments to the text or map must be supported by findings that clearly state that the amendment conforms with the General Plan. The following is a guideline for Planning Staff, the Planning Commission, and the Board of Supervisors to follow in determining General Plan consistency. 1. Consistency among the Elements. Compare the proposed element to be amended with other elements in the plan. For example: a. Land use designations in the land use element should not conflict with planned land uses in the open space, circulation, or conservation elements; b. Projected traffic impacts from proposed land use designations in the land use element should be planned for in the circulation element; c. Allowed uses in a land use designation should be consistent with noise standards specified in the noise element for that same land use designation; d. Proposed amendments to Goals and Policies in an element must be consistent with Goals and Policies of the other elements in the Plan; and e. Assumptions, projections, standards and statistics used in a proposed element amendment should be consistent with those used in other elements of the Plan. 2. Consistency within an Element. Compare the proposed amendment with other data, analyses, goals, policies and implementation measures within the same element. 3. Text and Diagram Consistency. Compare existing or proposed maps and Page 12 of 264 ---PAGE BREAK--- diagrams with existing or proposed text and policies. For example: a. Land use designations given to an area on the Land Use Map should be consistent with text describing and policies related to features of that area; and b. Proposed land use designations for a specific area on the map should not conflict with proposed roads or highways on the circulation map. Findings of Fact Any decision on the General Plan Amendment must be supported by findings of fact. These findings are the rationale for making a decision to adopt an amendment. Section 18.84.030 of the Alpine County Zoning Ordinance requires that the Planning Commission make the following findings when considering an amendment for recommendation to the Board of Supervisors. 1. The proposed amendment is in conformance with the County General Plan; 2. The proposed amendment is in harmony with the zoning code and other County Ordinances; and 3. The amendment is not detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals and general welfare of the County of Alpine or its people. Page 13 of 264 ---PAGE BREAK--- ALPINE COUNTY GENERAL PLAN I. CONSERVATION ELEMENT REVISIONS TO THIS SECTION: SECTION K, AESTHETICS BOARD OF SUPERVISORS RESOLUTION NO. 2003-38, JULY 17, 2003 Page 14 of 264 ---PAGE BREAK--- I. CONSERVATION ELEMENT The Conservation Element meets State requirements for Open Space, Conservation, and Scenic Highways Elements. The element specifically addresses County and region-wide issues in the following categories: A. Earth (soils and minerals) B. Air C. Water D. Wetlands E. Plant Life F. Agriculture G. Forests H. Animal Life I. Energy J. Culture K. Aesthetics A. EARTH Soils Available reports that describe soils characteristics such as general composition, percolation rate, permeability, depth to bed-rock, drainage, and erosion potential were used to plan for the appropriate location, type, density, and intensity of development shown on the Land Use Map. (See Data Base Sections 1.3 and 3.43.). Soils characteristics can vary significantly from site-to- site or within one project site. The reports used for the General Plan and the Land Use Map itself should not preclude the requirement for site specific soils investigations when considering future projects. The County presently utilizes Chapter 70 of the Uniform Building Code (UBC) to regulate grading and thus control erosion and other effects related to soils and development. Under the UBC, excavations less than two feet deep or fills less than three feet deep generally do not require a grading permit from the County. The UBC does not control the amount of area that one may clear of vegetation or grade within the limits just defined. In some counties the lack of stricter controls have led hopeful developers to clear large areas to bare soil before obtaining any other approval for development. Such actions can generate both on-site and off-site effects upon water quality, view sheds, wildlife and other resources. ELEMENT I - SECTION A G. P. GOAL NO. 1 CONSERVE SOIL AND RELATED RESOURCES POLICY NO. 1 Require soils and geologic reports for all land development projects. Page 15 of 264 ---PAGE BREAK--- OBJECTIVE NO. 1 Adopt a comprehensive erosion control and grading ordinance. IMPLEMENTATION MEASURE: Such an ordinance should require County approval for significant grading or vegetation removal operations. It should contain standards for on and off-site erosion control including re-seeding. Minerals Mineral deposits of economically significant size represent less than 1 percent of the earth's crust. These deposits should be protected in land use decisions and, in return, mine operators should conduct operations that minimize negative effects on surroundings and reclaim lands when operations are completed so that they may serve beneficial uses. (See Data Base Section 7.41.) Existing mines and quarry sites in Alpine County are identified on the Land Use Map. Known or suspected mineral deposits, primarily sand and gravel, have been identified by the California Division of Mines and Geology and are shown in Appendix J of the Data Base for the Alpine County General Plan. The deposits have been protected by appropriate land use designations and buffers on the Land Use Map. The California Surface Mining Reclamation Act of 1975 (SMARA) requires the State Geologist to classify mineral areas in the State and the State Board of Mining and Geology to designate mineral deposits of regional or Statewide significance. The mineral deposits thus far identified by the California Division of Mines and Geology do not represent completion of the State's responsibilities under the Act. Additional deposits which have not yet been identified may therefore exist. For this reason, broad areas within the historic Monitor, Mogul, and Webster mining districts are given a land use designation which provides the areas protection from incompatible land uses yet allows mineral extraction and associated development. Large portions of the Silver King, Silver Mountain and Raymond Mining Districts are now located in wilderness areas. Pursuant to the Wilderness Act of 1984, any mining claims located in wilderness areas which were made prior to December 31, 1983, are allowed to be "utilized, explored, drilled, leased, etc. (See Land Use Map.) ELEMENT I - SECTION A G. P. GOAL NO. 2 PROTECT THE MINERAL RESOURCES OF ALPINE COUNTY AND PROMOTE THEIR WISE USE POLICY NO. 2a Existing mines and mineral deposits shall be protected from encroachment by incompatible land uses in accordance with California Public Resources Code 2710 et seq. (Surface Mining and Reclamation Act). Page 16 of 264 ---PAGE BREAK--- POLICY NO. 2b Maintain open space buffer zones around existing or possible future mining sites to prevent encroachment and help mitigate noise, dust, vibration, and visual impacts and protect public safety. POLICY NO. 2c All costs and responsibilities for controlling off-site effects generated by mining and associated operations should be attenuated by mine operators and developers to the satisfaction of the County. POLICY NO. 2d All surface mined lands should be reclaimed following completion of surface mining operations to a usable condition which is readily adaptable to alternative land uses. B. AIR The potential exists in areas of Alpine County for air pollution that could be hazardous to the natural environment and human health. Pollution potential is especially high where large concentrations of wood-burning stoves and conditions of temperature inversion may exist. The County, in cooperation with the Great Basin Unified Air Pollution Control District, controls pollution The State Air Resources Board has measured the County’s attainment of the State ambient air quality standards for most air pollutants. The entire Great Basin Unified Air Pollution Control District was classified as non-attainment of State standard for suspended particle matter. None of the test sites used to determine this classification were located in Alpine County. Alpine County is considered in attainment of Federal Standards for this pollutant. (See Data Base Section 2.2) ELEMENT I - SECTION B G. P. GOAL NO. 3 MEET OR EXCEED FEDERAL AND STATE AIR QUALITY REGULATIONS POLICY NO. 3 The County should continue to consult with the Great Basin Unified Air Pollution Control District regarding any proposed project which has the potential to adversely affect ambient air quality. C. WATER Surface Water Surface waters in the eastern slope of Alpine County have been adjudicated. Rights to quantities of water are established and a rotation schedule is practiced by water users during late summer Page 17 of 264 ---PAGE BREAK--- ad fall months. Users with low priority water rights have difficulty meeting needs during this period in drought years. A decree by the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada binds existing water rights and practices on the Eastern Slope. The Truckee-Carson Pyramid Lake Water Settlement Act of 1990 provided federal confirmation of water rights declared in the decree. The adjudication specifies that segments of the Carson River East Fork in California and the Carson River West Fork above Woodfords are governed by California riparian law. Supervision upon these segments by the region’s Water Master is limited. Under California riparian law, land owners adjacent to either of the stream segments are entitled to use water that is available. The potential, therefore, exists for future land developments to draw surface water from supplies which are already inadequate for established down stream uses. (See Data Base Section 3.2) ELEMENT I - SECTION C G. P. GOAL NO. 4 MAINTAIN ADEQUATE SUPPLIES OF SURFACE WATER IN ALPINE COUNTY FOR ALL CURRENT AND FORESEEABLE NEEDS POLICY NO. 4a Alpine County should remain opposed to any reduction in quantities of surface water presently administered to users in the County for in county uses under the final decree issued by the District Court for the District of Nevada involving the United States of America versus Alpine Land and Reservoir Company (1980) unless or until reasonable alternatives for supply of water for County’s agricultural needs are secured. POLICY NO. 4b Development on lands draining to the Carson River should not significantly diminish the present supply of surface water to any tributary or channel of said river segments. POLICY NO. 4c Analysis of run-off from new land developments should consider individual or cumulative increase flows of existing stream or river channels and down stream users. POLICY NO. 4d Acquire and maintain water rights to protect the County’s interest and future needs. Groundwater Quantity Based upon an analysis of the data researched and presented in Data Base Section 3.3 and Appendix A, it is estimated that the most reliable supplies of groundwater in Alpine County may be found in recent alluvial deposits (stream and river deposits indicated by map unit symbol Qal in Appendix A. Lake deposits, glacial deposits, volcanic bedrock, and granite bedrock generally represent areas with increasingly unreliable quantities of groundwater. (See chart, Appendix A- Page 18 of 264 ---PAGE BREAK--- 1) The Carson River West Fork alluvial fan which underlies the vicinity of Woodfords, Paynesville, and Fredericksburg is estimated to contain approximately 100,000 acre feet of groundwater. Water available to recharge this groundwater supply is estimated to be less than 16,000 acre feet per year. Assuming withdrawal rates equal to 230 gallons per day per permanent residence and 58 gallons per day per seasonal residence (Data Base Section 3.26) approximately 12 million gallons or 38 acre feet of groundwater are taken from the alluvial fan each year. The ratio of withdrawn by Alpine County water users to available recharge may be as high as 1:400 (excluding consideration of the fact that some withdrawn water is replaced). Water supplies in the entire Carson Valley are estimated by the State of Nevada to be 32,000 acre feet per year. Appropriations are 37,000 acre feet per year. It is reported that not all appropriations are used in a given year and therefore appropriations are nearly equal to supply. (See Data Base 3.31) Areas important to groundwater recharge include coarse sand near stream deposits along mountain fronts and stream and river channels (Data Base Section 3.3). Groundwater supplies serving Bear Valley and Kirkwood developments are discussed in the Specific Plans for those areas. ELEMENT I - SECTION C G. P. GOAL NO. 5 MAINTAIN ADEQUATE SUPPLIES OF GROUNDWATER IN ALPINE COUNTY FOR ALL CURRENT AND FORESEEABLE NEEDS POLICY NO. 5a Groundwater withdrawals should not exceed or significantly draw- down groundwater supplies. POLICY NO. 5b Alpine County should oppose any significant reduction in quantities in groundwater in the County due to extractions by wells that serve areas outside of the County. POLICY NO. 5c Coverage of land that would reduce infiltration from run-off or surface water should be minimized in areas important for groundwater recharge including coarse (gravelly) deposits along mountain fronts and stream or river channels. POLICY NO. 5d No parcel should be created or development approved that may involve structures intended for human occupancy unless an acceptable means of water supply has been established. Surface Water Quality Page 19 of 264 ---PAGE BREAK--- Under State Law the primary responsibility for insuring maintenance of water quality lies with Regional Water Quality Control Boards. By waiver, Alpine County is allowed to approve developments involving less than 6 dwelling units without higher approval from the appropriate Regional Water Quality Control Board. Existing County Ordinances set certain standards and requirements for maintaining surface and groundwater quality in addition to those requirements set forth by the Water Quality Control Boards. (See Date Base Section 3.41). Regional Water Quality Control Board objectives and available historic water quality records are reproduced in Appendix F. (See Data Base Sections 3.42, 3.44, and 3.45). Siltation and sedimentation are the result of erosion. Any development involved in earth disturbance, particularly some forestry practices, can result in erosion and degrade surface water quality by siltation. A certain amount of erosion occurs as a result of natural processes. Erosion is further addressed in the Soils Section of this element. Surface or hard rock mining operation can degrade surface water quality through increased siltation or the release of natural or induced adverse chemical substances. Each has been historically documented in Alpine County. (See Data Base Section 3.42) Agricultural waste can also affect the quality of surface waters especially where high concentrations of livestock are tended near surface or ground water supplies. (See Data Base Section 3.45) ELEMENT I - SECTION C G. P. GOAL NO. 6 IMPROVE AND MAINTAIN THE QUALITY OF ALPINE COUNTY’S SURFACE WATER RESOURCES IN COOPERATION WITH THE LAHONTAN AND CENTRAL VALLEY REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARDS Ground Water Quality Groundwater contamination can be a primary consideration when planning residential developments that are intended to utilize individual sewage disposal systems. Data Base Section 3.14 describes the possibilities for contamination of groundwater supplies by individual sewage disposal systems. Primary concerns include: 1. Soils that do not adequately percolate or that are too close to groundwater supplies; 2. Too many septic systems too close together; 3. Improper septic system maintenance. In Alpine County additional septic tank filtration limitations may exist in areas underlain by fractured granite bedrock or containing perched water tables. (See Data Base Section 3.43) The Soil Conservation Service has described all of Alpine County as containing severe septic system filtration limitations. More detail regarding soil capabilities is provided in soils reports Page 20 of 264 ---PAGE BREAK--- which have been incorporated into the Data Base by reference and which are available for review at the Alpine County Planning Department. Soils capability data was a determinant in establishing appropriate land uses, parcel sizes, and densities indicated on the Land Use Map. County Ordinance 365-77 controls the construction of sewage disposal systems in Alpine County. County Ordinance 364-76 regulates the construction modification repair, and abandonment of wells in the County. Both Ordinances are intended to prevent groundwater contamination and protect the health, safety, and welfare of the County’s population. County Ordinance 365-77 does not preclude the establishment of alternatives to conventional individual sewage disposal systems “in selected areas if they are individually designed and received by the Health Department”. ELEMENT I - SECTION C G. P. GOAL NO. 7 MAINTAIN SAFE, CLEAN GROUNDWATER SUPPLIES THAT ARE ADEQUATE FOR ALL CURRENT AND FORESEEABLE BENEFICIAL USES POLICY NO. 7a The County should notify, inform, and provide adequate time for response to the appropriate Regional Water Quality Control Board regarding all projects for which County approval is necessary except those for which waiver provisions have been granted. POLICY NO. 7b No parcel should be created or development approved that may involve structures intended for human occupancy unless an acceptable means of sewage disposal has been proven available. POLICY NO. 7c Residential development utilizing individual sewage disposal systems should not be allowed to accumulate in a given area such concentrations that they collectively pose a threat to groundwater quality. D. WETLANDS Wetlands in Alpine County include rivers, streams, lakes, ponds, wet meadows, and other areas with riparian and aquatic habitat. Due to their sensitive nature and ecological significance wetlands are protected by Federal Law. Federal Law regulates and State and Federal Agencies provide policies for development in wetlands. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency define wetlands as “those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands generally include “swamps, marshes, bogs and similar areas”. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) defines wetlands as “lands Page 21 of 264 ---PAGE BREAK--- transitional between terrestrial and aquatic systems where the water table is usually at or near the surface or the land is covered by shallow water” and have “one or more of the following attributes”: 1. At least periodically, the land supports predominately hydrophytes; 2. The substrate is predominantly undrained hydric soil; and 3. The substrate is non-soil and is saturated with water or covered by shallow water sometime the growing season of each year. Section 404 of the Clean Water Act requires that prior to depositing dredged or fill materials into “waters of the United States including wetlands” a permit must be obtained from the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers. When reviewing permit applications the Corp follows EPA guidelines, also provided under Section 404. Projects requiring permits are submitted to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and California Department of Fish and Game for advisory review. All projects which could potentially impact wetlands are also reviewed by the Department of Fish and Game through the CEQA process. Fish and Game Commission policies for wetlands, which are used by the Department when reviewing projects, are shown in Appendix P. ELEMENT I - SECTION D G. P. GOAL NO. 8 PRESERVE AND PROTECT WETLAND AREAS POLICY NO. 8 Minimize development in or conversion of wetlands. IMPLEMENTATION MEASURE: Require the submittal of a detailed wetland delineation, preformed by a qualified biologist, for development projects proposed in or near suspected wetland areas. IMPLEMENTATION MEASURE: Require proponents of development projects in wetland areas to mitigate impacts on wetlands such that, at minimum, there will be no net loss of either wetland habitat values or acreage. IMPLEMENTATION MEASURE: Require U.S Army Corps review prior to County approval of projects impacting wetlands. IMPLEMENTATION MEASURE: No use that would involve significant vegetation removal or earth disturbance should be allowed in stream environment designated areas. Due to the generalized standard used to delineate stream environments, variances in the above standards should be allowed where it can be proven projects will not generate unmitigable significant adverse Page 22 of 264 ---PAGE BREAK--- effects upon the following features: groundwater recharge, surface water quality, aquatic or riparian habitat, wet lands, archaeological sites, aesthetics, and cliff or stream bank erosion. The County may approve projects that would impact designated stream environment areas where it is found that negative effects upon any of the listed parameters are outweighed by public need or concern. However, variance provisions should not apply to streams presently serving or intended to serve as habitat for threatened trout species. The County may require developers to dedicate land or easements to and along streams that support fisheries for the protection of stream environments or their public use. E. PLANT LIFE Threatened Rare of Endangered Plants No Federal or State listed rare on endangered plants have yet been identified within Alpine County. The approximate location of species that have been classified as endangered or rare by the California native Plant Society, are shown on the Land Use Map. These species, illustrated on the land use map, are to be evaluated in the future for possible inclusion to the State’s List of Rare and Endangered Plants. State Law requires that rare or endangered plants are not to be disturbed without giving the California Department of Fish and Game a reasonable period of time within which to remove or otherwise protect them. ELEMENT I - SECTION E G. P. GOAL NO. 9 PROTECT AND INCREASE THE POPULATIONS OF THREATENED, RARE, OR ENDANGERED PLANT SPECIES POLICY NO. 9 Areas containing or suspected of containing rare, endangered, or threatened plants should not be disturbed without providing the California Department of Fish and game a reasonable period of time within which to investigate, remove, or otherwise protect them. F. AGRICULTURE Due to climate and other factors, agriculture in Alpine County is limited primarily to cattle production and some sheep production. While agriculture in the County is not considered a significant income producer in terms of employment or County revenues, it has been a steady component of the local economy for over 100 years. Under U.S. Forest Service Multiple Use Practices much additional range is provided. (See Data Base Sections 7.3 and 11.12). The County’s best agricultural soils are rated Capability Class III (when irrigated) on a scale in which the best agricultural lands would be Class I and the worst Class VIII. The value f the County’s Page 23 of 264 ---PAGE BREAK--- agricultural lands should not be underestimated because, through time, urban development may continue to remove from production more valuable agricultural lands in other areas potentially increasing the use and value of more marginal agricultural lands. The County’s agricultural lands are also aesthetically important to the County. Cattle ranching practice in Alpine County involves the seasonal transportation of livestock between summer range at high elevations and winter pasture at lower elevations, mountain meadows, and lower elevation irrigated agricultural lands. Open space zoning has been applied to these areas on the Land Use Map. ELEMENT I - SECTION F G. P. GOAL NO. 10 PRESERVE AND PROTECT AGRICULTURAL PRACTICES IN ALPINE COUNTY OBJECTIVE NO. 10 Establish tax incentives or other means of preservation of Agriculture in Alpine County. IMPLEMENTATION MEASURE: Implement state enabling legislation, “The Williamson Act”, to provide prime agricultural land owners with the option of reduced taxes to preserve agricultural uses through ten-year contracts with the County. The eligible area to be identified in an implementing ordinance should include all areas of 15% or less slope which are designated Open Space (OS) and zoned Agricultural (AG)> ELEMENT I - SECTION F G. P. GOAL NO. 11 Encourage clustering of development proposed for agricultural lands to minimize loss of productive lands to agriculturally uneconomical parcel sizes. G. FORESTS The location of commercial timber resources are identified in Data Base Section 7.2 and Appendix J. Most known or suspected commercial timber lands are given open space designation on the Land Use Map. They are thereby afforded general protection from incompatible land uses. In 1976 the State Legislature enacted the Forest Taxation Reform Act to provide tax incentives in an effort to promote forest resource management. Local governments were given the responsibility of putting the Act into effect by placing existing or potential commercial timber land into timber preserve zones (TPZ’s). The County’s Zoning Ordinance contains provisions for TPZ. IN accordance with County Ordinance and State Law, land owners can apply to have Page 24 of 264 ---PAGE BREAK--- forested lands zoned TPZ if the lands meet certain specified requirements. Significant tax savings can be realized by land owners who apply and qualify for TPZ zoning. Between 1985 and 1989 approximately $1,490,000 worth of timber was cut in Alpine County. In addition to benefits associated with increased business, the County received direct benefits from timber production in the form of yield taxes and Forest Receipt Act payments. (See Data Base Section 11.11) ELEMENT I - SECTION G G. P. GOAL NO. 12 PROMOTE WISE FOREST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES AND FIRE PROTECTION ON ALL EXISTING OR POTENTIAL COMMERCIAL TIMBER LANDS POLICY NO. 12 Property owners should be encouraged to apply for timber preserve zoning and thereby granted an opportunity for property taxation base upon timber yield. OBJECTIVE NO. 12 Work with the California Department of Forestry toward the adoption and implementation of special timber harvest management practices for east slope timber resources. IMPLEMENTATION MEASURE: It is the policy of the State Board of Forestry that counties try to improve existing State rules covering timber harvest practices rather than adopt their own. Alpine County is part of the Southern Forest for forest practice purposes as specified in Section 909 of the California Administrative Code, Section 952 et seq. specifies forest practice rules which apply to the entire Southern Forest District. Special rules could be added which address conditions that are unique to the Sierra Nevada east slope including fire danger (refer to Safety Element – Fire). H. ANIMAL LIFE Sensitive, Threatened, Rare, or Endangered Sensitive, threatened, rare, and endangered wildlife species found in Alpine County are listed in Data Base Section 5.1. Federal and State Law prohibit the importation. Taking, possession, or sale of any listed rare or endangered Wildlife species. The Federal Bald Eagle Protection Act extends additional protection to bald eagles and golden eagles which are known to inhabit or migrate through the County. Key to protecting rare or endangered wildlife species is in preserving the habitats in which they exist. All available recorded sightings of rare or endangered species are noted in Data Base Section 5 and Appendix H. Each location is given open space or wilderness designation on the Page 25 of 264 ---PAGE BREAK--- General Plan Land Use Map. ELEMENT I - SECTION H G. P. GOAL NO. 13 PROTECT THE CRITICAL HABITAT OF ALL FEDERAL OR STATE LISTED SENSITIVE, THREATENED, RARE, OR ENDANGERED WILDLIFE POLICY NO. 13 The County should provide the California Department of Fish and Game notice of all development that may encroach upon the critical habitat of sensitive, threatened, rare or endangered species with reasonable time for the Department to respond with recommendations for project alternatives and mitigation measures. Deer Critical and important deer summer and winter ranges are discussed in Data Base Section 5.21 and shown in Appendix H. Deer herds use highlands in Alpine County for summer range and fawning. Wet meadows, shrub communities, and riparian habitat are important aspects for deer summer range. In fall and spring the herds use habitual corridors to move between summer ranges and important winter habitats found in lower elevations. Bitterbrush (Purshia), which is found within the sagebrush and pinion/juniper environments of the County’s east slope, provides a nutritious winter food source. The Carson River Interstate herd and Walker herd utilize both summer and winter range on the County’s eastern slope. The Salt Springs and Railroad Flat herds utilize areas of the west slope for summer range. Deer populations are important to the County’s recreation industry. The California Department of Fish and game estimated that each year 5000 deer hunters visit Alpine County. Urbanization within critical winter range is responsible for part of the decline of deer populations within the Carson River herd. Reports indicate that populations within the Railroad Flat and Salt Springs herds may have declined somewhat with establishment of the Bear Valley and Kirkwood developments. California Department of Fish and Game recommendations for minimum parcel size and cluster development in critical and important deer habitats have been incorporated into the Land Use Map. ELEMENT I - SECTION H G. P. GOAL NO. 14 PROTECT IMPORTANT DEER HABITATS AND MIGRATION ROUTES TO THE GREATEST EXTENT FEASIBLE POLICY NO. 14a The County should provide the California Department of Fish and Game with notice of all development projects located within known or suspected critical summer or winter range or deer migration corridors with reasonable time for the Department to Page 26 of 264 ---PAGE BREAK--- respond with recommendations for project alternatives and mitigation measures. POLICY NO. 14b The County should encourage cluster development to protect wildlife habitats and migration routes by placing them in permanent open space in conjunction with approved cluster development. Fisheries Two species of trout found in Alpine County, the Lahontan Cutthroat Trout, and the Paiute Cutthroat trout are included on the Federal List of Threatened Species. Their status and current extent are presented in Data Base Section 5.4 and Appendix H. The California Department of Fish and Game intends to stock a number of new stream segments in Alpine County with these trout species. Streams which are either presently serving or intended to serve as fisheries fro the threatened trout are offered protection by stream environment designation on the General Plan Land Use Map. ELEMENT I - SECTION H G. P. GOAL NO. 15 PROTECT AND ENHANCE FISHERIES INCLUDING THE EXISTING AND PROPOSED HABITATS FOR THREATENED PAIUTE AND LAHONTAN CUTTHROAT TROUT POLICY NO. 15a Protect the aquatic habitat along the East Fork of the Carson River to maintain the fishery in the designated Wild Trout Management Area upstream from Wolf Creek. POLICY NO. 15b Cooperate with the Department of Fish and Game in implementing their East Fork of the Carson River Wild Trout Management Plan. POLICY NO. 15c The County should acquire easements to and along rivers, streams, and lakes which provide viable fish habitat wherever feasible and appropriate to maintain fishing access. POLICY NO. 15d Cooperate with other agencies in the development of an overall drainage management plan for the East and West Forks of the Carson River and their tributaries. POLICY NO. 15e Support acquisition of water rights at Heenan Lake, Red Lake, Caples Lake, Twin Lake, and Meadow Lake Hydro System. Oppose the transfer of water rights or diversion of water within Alpine County that would adversely impact fisheries and recreational uses. Page 27 of 264 ---PAGE BREAK--- I. ENERGY Conservation Energy costs and supplies are an important nation-wide issue. Utility companies utilize fossil fuels to generate most power which is sold to Alpine County citizens. Much of the fuel used in this County is imported from foreign countries who have organized themselves to control the price and availability of oil exports. Accomplishing energy conservation among existing or potential users is the first logical step in reversing the energy problem. ELEMENT I - SECTION I G. P. GOAL NO. 16 ACHIEVE MAXIMUM LEVELS OF ENERGY CONSERVATION THROUGH PROPER CONSTRUCTION, DESIGN, AND PLACEMENT OF ALL NEW DEVELOPMENTS POLICY NO. 16a All new public, private facilities and residences should be designed to meet requirements of Title 24 of the State Energy Code. POLICY NO. 16b In approving development permits the County should set requirements and/or make recommendations wherever possible that would improve energy conservation and save long-term costs. POLICY NO. 16c New residential development should be located in close proximity to services, facilities and commerce. New residential development which creates significant demand for public facilities and services should be located adjacent to areas where the necessary services and facilities are available; or in locations where such services can easily be extended and where necessary facilities are easily accessed. An exception to this policy shall be allowed for residential development not exceeding 1 unit per 20 acres gross density that is located within the OS Open Space designation of this plan. Energy Resources Energy resources identified in Alpine County include hydro (falling water), solar, geothermal, bio-mass (forest, agriculture and municipal water conversion), wood, and wind resources. Alpine County’s steep slopes and rushing water provide an opportunity for the development of hydro power resources. Several existing reservoirs on the County’s west slope comprise part of hydro electric power generation systems established up and down the west slope rivers. (See Page 28 of 264 ---PAGE BREAK--- Data Base Section 3.24) Before electricity became a relatively inexpensive commodity, a number of County residents used falling water to generate power for private use. Federal Law currently provides that power which is generated by small private or commercial facilities may be sold back to utility companies at a fair rate. (Public Utilities Regulatory Policies Act) State Policy currently supports small hydro projects where facilities such as dams and canals already exist. Small hydro development also provides possibilities for funding locally owned public facilities and services. Data Base Section 10.44-b documents that Alpine County contains a solar resource adequate for use by individual residences and establishments despite the County’s often cold and cloudy climate. Information presented in Data Base Section 10/44-c suggests that the Corridor Planning Area may be underlain by geothermal resources similar to those being developed in Lassen and other counties for direct heating purposes. Wind resources are identified in Data Base Appendix J. ELEMENT I - SECTION I G. P. GOAL NO. 17 DEVELOP ENERGY RESOURCES INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO SOLAR, WIND, GEOTHERMAL, AND SMALL HYDRO WITHOUT SACRIFICE TO AESTHETICS OR THE EXISTING NATURAL OR SOCIOECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT. POLICY NO. 17a Small scale hydro electric power generation facilities should be developed where dams, canals, or pipelines exist or are constructed providing any losses of water to present beneficial uses can be determined insignificant. POLICY NO. 17b Existing and proposed special service districts should consider power generation using locally available hydro, wind, or other resources among the services and facilities they would intend to provide. POLICY NO. 17c All new lots or parcels intended to contain structures for human occupancy should be designed to allow for and protect maximum utilization of available solar and wind resources. POLICY NO. 17d The investigation and development of geothermal resources on Alpine County’s eastern slope should be encouraged. POLICY NO. 17e Opportunities for generating electricity using wasted heat from future industrial, commercial, or manufacturing processes (co- generation) should be considered where feasible and appropriate. Page 29 of 264 ---PAGE BREAK--- POLICY NO. 17f Trans-Sierra utility corridors including power lines, pipelines and other utility transmission facilities that do not provide direct benefits to Alpine County and its residents should not be allowed in Alpine County. In no event shall new overhead transmission and utility lines be permitted. Where the County does not have jurisdiction to prohibit such facilities, they should be discouraged to the greatest degree possible. J. CULTURE The term culture can mean many things. The term is used here to mean both physical and manifestations of human activity and (following present Federal law) areas having special cultural-geographic values. Physical manifestations of human actions are things such as archaeological sites, trail routes, and historic buildings. Cultural-geographic values may not be as easy to define, but as used here, means areas or places which have special meaning to some group(s). Traditional cultural properties (as defined in Federal doctrine), Native American religious locations (as discussed in the American Indian Religious Freedom Act), and burial grounds (Native American and others) are examples of areas having special cultural-geographic values. Alpine County, California, has a uniquely rich historic and prehistoric heritage. The County lies within the traditional Washoe aboriginal lands: the mountains and valleys of Alpine County have provided subsistence and spiritual sustenance to the Washoe millennia. Euro-American travel through the County and its later settlement are equally of interest and importance to the people of Alpine County, for the County’s identity is closely related to these historic events. By July 1992, 292 archaeological sites had been located and recorded within Alpine County. Most of the known sited are reportedly located along riparian corridors where the native population was known to be concentrated. Data Base Section 6.1 contains the name and address of the appointed regional officer in charge of official archaeological records. Most archaeological sites in the County are afforded protection under provisions of the General Plan’s stream environment land use designation. Data Base Section 6.2 summarizes the history of early settlement in Alpine County. Historic roads, towns, and mining districts are shown in Appendix I-2. Few historic settlements or structures are standing today. Several historic buildings have been moved from early sites to Markleeville. One of these is the Alpine Hotel which stands as a landmark in the center of town. Official County and State Historical Landmarks are listed in Appendix I-1. Most of the County’s historic town sites and trails are provided protection by open space land use designation on the General Plan’s Land Use Map. Prehistoric and historic resources are valuable to the people of Alpine County in may different ways: recreation opportunities, community identity, aesthetic beauty, spiritual importance, and historic interest. Prehistoric, historic, and contemporary cultural resources areas of Page 30 of 264 ---PAGE BREAK--- spiritual importance to the Washoe) could be located anywhere within the County. No comprehensive inventory of cultural resource sites within Alpine County exists. A wide variety of land uses occur within the County, many of which have the potential to harm cultural resources. So, there may always exist the possibility of unwittingly destroying a cultural resource of value to the people of Alpine County because it was undiscovered prior to its destruction. Regulatory oversight of cultural resources is in part provided by Federal laws that apply to Federal permits and Federal Agency actions such as those of the U.S. Forest Service. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) regulates cultural resource effects for some other land use projects within the County. Since it is impractical for the County to create a complete, professional, cultural resource inventory, cooperating and coordinating with Federal agencies, especially the U.S. Forest Service, State agencies, such as the California Division of Forestry, tribal organizations, such as the Washoe tribe, as well as other local groups, such as historical societies, is clearly beneficial to preservation of the County’s cultural heritage. This section of the General Plan is intended to promote preservation and enhancement of cultural resources within Alpine County in two general ways. First, development of guidelines fro identification and protection of cultural resources associated with specific land use actions. Second, promotion of proactive cultural resource management by stating the County’s commitment to assisting its citizens in applying standards, codes, and incentives to restore, maintain, or conserve cultural resource properties. ELEMENT I - SECTION J G. P. GOAL NO. 18 PRESERVE AND PROMOTE THE ARCHAEOLOGY AND HISTORY OF ALPINE COUNTY POLICY NO. 18a The County should cooperate with the Washoe and the MiWok Tribes to develop policies for the identification and protection of significant archeological sites. POLICY NO. 18b The County should provide notice and necessary information to the Regional Officer governing archaeologic sites of any development project that may have the potential to affect an archaeological site. The officer should be allowed reasonable time to determine whether the project involves an archaeological site and respond with project alternatives and/or mitigation measures which would lessen or mitigate any identified negative effects. POLICY NO. 18c The proponents or applicants for development projects in areas known or suspect of containing historic artifacts should be required to protect any historic sites and/or artifacts that may be found. Page 31 of 264 ---PAGE BREAK--- POLICY NO. 18d The County should assist the public in locating and obtaining grants for low interest loans for the preservation and enhancement of historic buildings. POLICY NO. 18e The County should promote proactive planning to avoid cultural resource impacts and promote historic preservation through appropriate standards, incentives and easements. K. AESTHETICS (AS AMENDED ON JULY 17, 2003 PER BOARD OF SUPERVISORS RESOLUTION NO. 2003-38) Alpine County’s Scenic Resources can without dispute be considered among the most beautiful in the world. Due to this resource, the County has a need and responsibility to consider aesthetics when planning. Because development in the past has been limited, the County has a better opportunity to plan for aesthetics than many other jurisdictions in the State. The County’s main industries, recreation and tourism, are tied directly to the county’s scenic resources. Protecting those resources is a strong economic incentive. Existing County Ordinances such as the Underground Utility Ordinance and the Scenic Highways Zoning Ordinance already represent an effort by the County to conserve visual resources. The County’s existing Scenic Highways Ordinance regulates land uses adjacent to established scenic highways. The General Plan encourages additional standards to insure protection of scenic highways and extend efforts to prevent or mitigate visual impacts to other areas in the County. In 1985 a planning agreement was established between Amador, Alpine and El Dorado Counties, the Federal Highway Administration, Caltrans, and El Dorado National Forest in an effort to maintain and enhance scenic qualities and safety along Highway 88. In order to preserve and enhance various characteristics, including scenic qualities, Highway 88 has been designated as a Federal Scenic Byway. Data Base Section 12.2 summarizes the inherent abilities of various plant communities in the County to provide or maintain natural beauty in the landscape. It is found that aquatic, riparian, meadow, and Alpine environments are among the most sensitive to visual impacts. Most visual impacts can be mitigated in riparian, mountain shrub, sagebrush and Pinion/Juniper environments. They are most easily mitigated in forest environments. The East Fork of the Carson River, from Hangman’s Bridge crossing of Highway 89 to the Nevada border, was designated as a Scenic River in 1989 by the State of California. Some of Alpine County’s developed areas contain unique and interesting historic structures. In some instances the architecture styles of new developments have conformed with and complimented the rural and historic flavor of the County. The County has implemented the Page 32 of 264 ---PAGE BREAK--- Design Review/Historic Combined Zone to protect and enhance the historic mining period architecture of Markleeville. Other elements of the General Plan point out the importance of improving and maintaining this attribute for the purpose of improving commerce as well as local pride and pleasure. ELEMENT I - SECTION K G. P. GOAL NO. 19 MAINTAIN AND IMPROVE EXISTING AESTHETIC RESOURCES IN ALPINE COUNTY POLICY NO. 19a Maintain scenic highway designation for Highways 4, 88 and 89. IMPLEMENTATION MEASURE: Highways 4, 88 and 89 are designated scenic routes on the Land Use map. The County’s scenic highway ordinance should be applied to these routes. POLICY NO. 19b Protect steep slopes from grading, vegetation removal, road construction or other developments or activities that may impact the viewshed from any designated scenic route. IMPLEMENTATION MEASURE: The County’s scenic highway ordinance should be revised to clearly define what is meant by protection including a definition of steep slopes and clear guidelines for protection. POLICY NO. 19c Protect open areas, ridges, peaks and other skyline features from structures that may impact the viewshed from any designated County or State scenic route. IMPLEMENTATION MEASURE: The County’s scenic highway ordinance should be revised to clearly define what is meant by protection including definitions of open areas, ridges, peaks and other skyline features, and clear guidelines for protection. POLICY NO. 19d Regulations and guidelines for protection of any designated scenic highway routes shall not, by themselves, result in the prohibition of construction of a single family home on any parcel within the County, or the prohibition of any use which is listed as permitted within the various zoning districts that are defined in the County’s zoning ordinance. POLICY NO. 19e Continue to maintain a design review committee to review and make recommendations upon building permits and development plans in the town of Markleeville. Page 33 of 264 ---PAGE BREAK--- POLICY NO. 19f Protect nighttime views by minimizing outside lighting. POLICY NO. 19g Encourage voluntary application of the scenic highway corridor design requirements contained in the County Zoning Ordinance throughout all areas in the County. Page 34 of 264 ---PAGE BREAK--- ALPINE COUNTY GENERAL PLAN II. SAFETY ELEMENT REVISIONS TO THIS SECTION: SECTION A, FIRE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS RESOLUTION NO. R2007-02, JANUARY 16, 2007 Page 35 of 264 ---PAGE BREAK--- II. SAFETY ELEMENT The Safety Element meets State requirements for general plan safety and seismic safety and noise. The Element addresses hazards that are known to have potential for causing injury to people or damage to property in the County. The element addresses issues in the following categories: A. Fire B. Seismic Ground Movement C. Unstable Slopes/Avalanche D. Flood E. Noise F. Hazardous Materials SAFETY ELEMENT A. FIRE (AS AMENDED ON JANUARY 16, 2007 PER BOARD OF SUPERVISORS RESOLUTION NO. 2007-02) Wildland Fire Wildland fire protection on private lands in California outside of local fire district jurisdictions is typically provided by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (commonly referred to as “CDF”). The CDF does not maintain a physical presence (fire station or fire fighting equipment) in Alpine County. As a result, the CDF responsibility for fire protection has been delegated to federal agencies (U.S. Forest Service “USFS” and Bureau of Land Management “BLM”) by virtue of an intergovernmental agreement referred to as the “Five Party Agreement.” The goal of this agreement is to efficiently allocate fire suppression resources among federal jurisdiction areas and private lands. The Sierra Front Interagency Fire Dispatch Center is currently located at the Minden Tahoe Regional Airport in Douglas County Nevada, approximately 18 miles north of Woodfords. This facility has the capability to dispatch wildland fire suppression resources (equipment and manpower) from the Nevada Division of Forestry, BLM, USFS and Bureau of Indian Affairs. Aerial attack resources are also based at this location. Seasonal wildland fire fighting crews have also been stationed at USFS facilities located in Markleeville, west of Kirkwood at the USFS Lumberyard facility in Amador County and west of Bear Valley in the Arnold area of Calaveras County. Early initial attack of wildland fire by ground and aerial attack resources is probably the most effective means of controlling the spread of wildland fire in the County. These resources, available locally and through the Sierra Front Interagency Fire Dispatch Center, are critical to wildland fire protection efforts in Alpine County. However, it is recognized that the first response to wildland fire protection on both private and public lands is often provided by the local fire department(s), many of whose members are trained and certified to fight wildland fires. Wildland fires within the “wildland urban interface” where development is interspersed with wild lands pose the greatest threat to lives and property. There have been three major wildfires in Alpine Page 36 of 264 ---PAGE BREAK--- County since 1981. In l984, the "Indian Creek Fire" burned approximately 6000 acres of forest in Alpine County (17,000 acres total) near Indian Creek on the East Slope. In 1986, a fire burned 2000-3000 acres of wildland plus 2 structures near Fredericksburg and in 1987 the "Acorn Fire" burned 6,000 acres and 26 structures near Woodfords. Fortunately none of these fires resulted in loss of life. Structural Fire Response to structural fires and other non wildland fires (vehicle fires, etc.) is the primary responsibility of local fire departments. There are four fire departments in Alpine County - Bear Valley, Kirkwood, Markleeville and Woodfords. Of these, only Bear Valley and Kirkwood have paid staff. All the departments rely heavily on volunteer fire fighters. Additionally, response may also be provided by fire departments in adjoining communities outside of Alpine County. These include the East Fork Fire Protection District located in Douglas County Nevada, the Lake Valley Fire Protection District located in the Myers area in El Dorado County and the Ebbetts Pass Fire Protection District located west of Bear Valley in Calaveras County. The Insurance Services Office of California provides ratings of the capabilities of local fire departments to respond and fight fires. These “ISO” ratings are reviewed periodically. The ratings are used by insurance companies to help determine rates for the fire protection component of homeowners insurance premiums. A lower ISO rating means a greater capability and thus, potentially lowers insurance premiums. The rating scale is 1-10 and may vary within a fire department’s response area. Areas within Alpine County have ratings between 4 and 9. Lower rated areas have good resources including a readily available water supply and relatively short response times. The Kirkwood area has an ISO rating of 4. Most of the Bear Valley area is rated 5. Areas rated 8 and 9 (eastern Alpine County) have significant deficiencies such as very limited or lack of water sources available for suppression and longer response times. Note to the reader: The text that follows refers in general to “Fire Safe Councils.” As used in this section, the Fire Safe Councils refers to the existing organizations and is intended to refer to any organization that would replace the councils or perform the same functions. ELEMENT II - SECTION A G.P. GOAL NO. 20: MINIMIZE THE THREAT TO LIVES AND PROPERTY POSED BY THE POSSIBILITY OF WILDLAND AND STRUCTURAL FIRES WITHIN THE WILDLAND URBAN INTERFACE IN THE COUNTY. 20A. FUELS REDUCTION Background: The National Fire Danger Rating System and the CDF Fire Hazard Severity Classification System are used to identify the level of wildland fire hazard in local areas. These ratings are generally based on vegetation type, terrain and local weather conditions. Most areas within Alpine County are classified as high or very high hazard for wildland fire. Fuels reduction is the most effective way of reducing hazards. The Alpine Fire Safe Council, Bear Valley Residents Incorporated, U.S. Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management have all either facilitated or Page 37 of 264 ---PAGE BREAK--- implemented fuels reduction projects within the County. OBJECTIVE NO. 20A: Reduce fuel loading to a low risk level within the wildland urban interface. IMPLEMENTATION MEASURE: 20a-1: The County shall coordinate with the Fire Safe councils to distribute informational materials for homeowners regarding wildland fire hazards, defensible space requirements and other measures that can done by homeowners to reduce wildland fire hazard and fuel loading on individual lots and within existing neighborhoods. These materials should be included in the building permit packet and made available to the general public at county libraries, other public offices within the County and on the County’s web site. IMPLEMENTATION MEASURE: 20a-2: The County shall work with the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection to assertively implement the defensible space requirements of Public Resources Code 4291. This includes implementation of the requirements for individual lots and a periodic inspection program to monitor compliance and correct deficiencies. IMPLEMENTATION MEASURE: 20a-3: The County and/or Fire Safe councils shall pursue public and private funding, where available, to assist private landowners in implementing fuels reduction and defensible space measures in order to achieve a low risk condition. IMPLEMENTATION MEASURE: 20a-4: The County shall require vegetation management plans for all new development that, at a minimum, include provisions for implementation and maintenance of fuels reduction and defensible space; and which meet the minimum clearance standards pursuant to Public Resources Code 4290 (14 CCR 1270). Consideration should be given to maintaining healthy vegetation, minimizing the potential spread of noxious weeds, habitat for wildlife and visual impacts in formulating these vegetation management plans. For purposes of this policy, new development includes parcel maps and subdivisions that create new lots or building sites, planned developments and conditional use permits that entitle new structures. Requirements for ongoing maintenance of vegetation management plans shall be addressed in conditions of approval and/or CC&Rs for the development. A mechanism for enforcement of the maintenance requirements shall also be implemented. IMPLEMENTATION MEASURE: 20a-5: The County shall work with public land management agencies to pursue fuel modification and reduction in addition to prescribed burning projects to reduce risks on Page 38 of 264 ---PAGE BREAK--- public lands in areas both within and surrounding existing communities. Priority areas for this type of project are identified in the Alpine Community Fire Plan. 20B. WATER SUPPLY Background: The availability of water supply for fire suppression varies among communities within Alpine County. Bear Valley and Kirkwood have developed water supply systems with hydrants capable of delivering substantial amounts of water for suppression. Water supplies are more limited or non existent on the east slope of the County. The Markleeville area and the Alpine Village subdivision in Woodfords have small water systems designed for domestic use only. Fire hydrants have been connected to the South Tahoe Public Utility District effluent disposal pipeline that extends through the Woodfords area. However, there are restrictions on the ability to use this water for fire suppression. Other water sources for wildland fire include rivers and lakes found in various locations throughout the County. Both the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) and CDF have adopted water supply standards for fire suppression. Additionally, Alpine County Code (Section 13.04) sets forth requirements for water systems in new subdivisions. Since this code section was adopted in 1981, only the Morrison Subdivision (AKA “Carson Ridge”) subdivision near Markleeville has been required to install a water system designed for fire suppression. Two other subdivisions in the Mesa Vista area approved in the 1990s were granted exemptions from the water system requirement. In summary, outside of Bear Valley, Kirkwood and the Morrison Subdivision, developed areas in the County do not have adequate water supplies for fire suppression. The Alpine Fire Safe Council has identified the need for water sources in the Mesa Vista and River Ranch areas. Most recently, the Council had a consultant complete the “Mesa Vista/River Ranch Scoping Study” that evaluates alternatives for providing water supplies for fire suppression in these areas. OBJECTIVE 20B: Improve water supplies for fire protection in developed areas within the wildland urban interface. IMPLEMENTATION MEASURE: 20b-1: The County shall work in conjunction with the Fire Safe councils, CDF, fire departments and other agencies with responsibility for fire protection to establish uniform minimum water supply standards for new development. The standards shall meet or exceed the requirements of Public Resources Code 4290. These standards shall be officially adopted by the County. Variances, waivers and/or exceptions to the minimum standards shall only be allowed when an alternative that can be documented to provide an equivalent or better level of protection is required. When compliance with the water supply standards specified in Public Resources Code 4290 is not possible, mitigation measures or alternatives shall be included to achieve fire safe goals as an exception in accordance with 14 CCR 1270.03. Page 39 of 264 ---PAGE BREAK--- IMPLEMENTATION MEASURE: 20b-2: The County shall encourage long range planning for improved water supplies for fire protection throughout the County. This planning process should involve the Fire Safe councils, local area residents, fire departments, CDF and other agencies with responsibility for fire protection. IMPLEMENTATION MEASURE: 20b-3: The County and/or Fire Safe councils shall pursue public and private funding to improve water supply for fire protection throughout the County. 20C. ACCESS REQUIREMENTS Background: Providing adequate and safe access to communities and developed areas is key to reducing the risk of injury or loss of life, and to facilitating access for fire suppression resources. Road design standards are addressed in the Alpine County Code, the “Alpine County Improvement Standards for Subdivisions, Parcel Maps and Site Improvements” adopted by a resolution of the Board of Supervisors, in regulations administered by CDF and in the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) standards. The Alpine County Public Works Department has recently initiated work on revising the County’s standards in an effort to clarify requirements and eliminate conflicts among the various standards. OBJECTIVE 20C: All new development in Alpine County shall be provided with adequate access for emergency response vehicles and an emergency egress route for evacuation. IMPLEMENTATION MEASURE: 20c-1: The County shall work in conjunction with the Fire Safe councils, CDF, fire departments and other agencies with responsibility for fire protection to establish uniform minimum access standards for new development. The access standards shall meet or exceed the requirements of Public Resources Code 4290, except as specifically provided in Item 20c-2, 20c-3 and 20c-4. These standards shall address driveways and roads and shall include minimum standards for the number of access points into and out of the development area, driving lane width, grade, curve and cul de sac radius, dead end roads, turn arounds, emergency access/escape routes, home addressing and signing. These standards shall be officially adopted by the County. Variances, waivers and/or exceptions to the minimum standards shall only be allowed when an alternative that can be documented to provide an equivalent or better level of protection is required. IMPLEMENTATION MEASURE: 20c-2: Where through roads or dual access to new development is not feasible or desirable due to significant environmental constraints or legal access rights, mitigation measures shall be required. Possible mitigation measures could include, but not be limited to, increased road Page 40 of 264 ---PAGE BREAK--- width, more frequent turn outs and/or turn around locations, increased water supply requirements for fire protection and sprinkler requirements for structures. IMPLEMENTATION MEASURE: 20c-3: The standards established through implementation of 20c-1 should include special consideration for land uses that customarily rely on remote locations and existing parcels in remote locations that do not have road access or are served by roads that may not meet minimum standards. Examples of these land uses that rely on remote locations include, but are not limited to, backcountry ski huts, pack stations, dispersed recreation sites and campgrounds. Some examples of existing parcels in remote locations with roads that do not meet minimum standards include, but are not limited to, private lands in the Poor Boy Road, Wolf Creek, Willow Creek, Forestdale Road, Blue Lakes and Leviathan Mine areas. IMPLEMENTATION MEASURE: 20c-4: When compliance with the access standards specified in Public Resources Code 4290 is not possible, mitigation measures or alternatives shall be included to achieve fire safe goals as an exception in accordance with 14 CCR 1270.03. 20D. FIRE PROTECTION PLANNING AND CAPABILITY Background: Recent efforts in fire protection planning include the “Alpine County Community Fire Plan” prepared in 2004 under the direction of the Alpine Fire Safe Council, the “Eastern Alpine Fire Services Plan” prepared in 2005 by an ad hoc committee of the Alpine County Board of Supervisors and the Alpine Fire Safe Council, and the “Bear Valley Community Fire Plan to Reduce Wildfire Risk and Improve Forest Health” completed by the community in Bear Valley. Additionally, in 2005 the Alpine County Board of Supervisors adopted the “Alpine County Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan” that addresses a variety of hazards including wildland fire. Taken together, these plans outline strategies and priorities for reducing the risk of fire and improving fire protection capability. Additionally, each of the fire protection districts within the County undertakes planning for capital needs and other necessary resources. OBJECTIVE 20D: Obtain the best possible level of fire protection and emergency response services for all communities in Alpine County. IMPLEMENTATION MEASURE: 20d-1: The Board of Supervisors should continue to contribute stable funding from the County general fund at recent historical levels for fire protection and emergency services. IMPLEMENTATION MEASURE: 20d-2: The County shall support efforts by each fire department within the County to obtain lower Page 41 of 264 ---PAGE BREAK--- ISO ratings for structure fires within all fire protection areas. IMPLEMENTATION MEASURE: 20d-3: To the extent allowable by law, the County shall support efforts to implement the recommendations of the Eastern Alpine Fire Services Plan in a timely manner. Further, and also to the extent allowable by law, the County should consider providing funding for completing preliminary studies and other documentation necessary to place a measure on the ballot regarding Option 9 as described in the Eastern Alpine Fire Services Plan and endorsed by the Board of Supervisors. IMPLEMENTATION MEASURE: 20d-4: The County shall support efforts to utilize the Alpine County Airport as a base of operations for the Bureau of Land Management SEAT planes and associated fire suppression equipment. IMPLEMENTATION MEASURE: 20d-5: No new development shall be approved unless the County can make a finding that the development can be provided with adequate fire protection and emergency services. For purposes of this policy, new development includes parcel maps and subdivisions that create new lots or building sites, planned developments and conditional use permits that entitle new structures. IMPLEMENTATION MEASURE: 20d-6: To the extent possible by law, the County shall require all new parcel maps, subdivisions and planned developments to participate in any prospective or existing benefit assessment district or other similar organization or entity that will develop and improve water supply or other fire protection capabilities in the area where the new development is proposed. IMPLEMENTATION MEASURE: 20d-7: The County shall work in conjunction with the Fire Safe councils, CDF, fire departments, and other agencies with responsibility for public safety and fire protection to establish designated safe emergency evacuation routes and early warning systems. IMPLEMENTATION MEASURE: 20d-8: The Community Fire Plan should be completed, adopted and updated on a regular basis. IMPLEMENTATION MEASURE: 20d-9: The Alpine County Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan should be reviewed on a regular basis and updated if necessary as provided for in the plan. Page 42 of 264 ---PAGE BREAK--- IMPLEMENTATION MEASURE: 20d-10: The County shall support completion of a Master Fire Protection Plan to identify long term capital facility and operational needs for fire protection services in all areas of Alpine County. This plan should include minimum fire protection service standards based on NFPA (National Fire Protection Association) criteria. IMPLEMENTATION MEASURE: 20d-11: The County Board of Supervisors should evaluate available options and consider establishing the functions of a Fire Marshall within all areas of Alpine County. IMPLEMENTATION MEASURE: 20d-12: The County shall support the continued location of the Sierra Front Interagency Fire Dispatch Center and associated fire fighting resources at the Minden-Tahoe Regional Airport. IMPLEMENTATION MEASURE: 20d-13: The County shall designate a suitable site between Woodfords and the Nevada state line for a future fire station and related facilities such as water storage, so that all existing residences and lots that have road access entirely within Alpine County and that are between Woodfords and the Nevada State line will be within five miles of either the Woodfords fire station or the designated site. IMPLEMENTATION MEASURE: 20d-14: The County shall evaluate the current and future transportation system and identify opportunities to incorporate fire infrastructure elements such as turn outs, heliports and safety zones. IMPLEMENTATION MEASURE: 20d-15: The County shall incorporate or reference the most current fire hazard mapping from CDF for both the SRA (State Responsibility Area and (Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones) in Local Responsibility Areas if applicable. IMPLEMENTATION MEASURE: 20d-16: The County shall encourage the local fire protection agencies to conduct pre wildfire attack planning that includes consideration of structures, fuel breaks, back fire areas and staging areas that will support safe fire suppression. B. SEISMIC The seismic hazards of greatest potential in Alpine County include those associated with surface rupture, ground shaking, or ground failure. Surface rupture involves displacement along fault lines Page 43 of 264 ---PAGE BREAK--- and can result in direct damage to utilities, canals, pavement, foundations, and other improvements. The State Division of Mines and Geology has delineated "Special Study Zones" in Alpine County which encompass traces of active faults, as required by the Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Act of 1972. These zones are shown in Appendices R-8 and R-10. The Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Act requires that a geologic report be prepared for development projects proposed within the "Special Study Zones" and prohibits the location of most structures for human occupancy across the traces of active faults. Ground shaking associated with seismic activity is the source for more damage to life and property than any other geologic hazard. Earthquakes have been monitored at various locations on the County's eastern slope. The maximum expected earthquake intensity rating for the eastern slope indicates that quakes could occur that would damage foundations, masonry, underground piping, and reservoirs. Seismologists in Nevada feel that earthquake intensity ratings along the entire Sierra Nevada east slope area zone may be low. (See Data Base Section 13.21.) On the County's west slope seismic risk is somewhat less. Geologic reports done for two development in the Woodfords area indicated that these developments were in a Zone 4 area and that structural design for Zone 4 per the Uniform Building Code was required. In Alpine County, the most probable ground failures associated with seismic activity would be landslides or liquefaction. Landslides are addressed in the following section. Liquefaction is defined as a process by which water saturated granular soils transform from a solid to a liquid state because of a sudden shock or strain. The greatest possibility for liquefaction in the County occurs where structures may be placed upon inadequate soils or fill material. ELEMENT II - SECTION B G. P. GOAL NO. 21 INFORM RESIDENTS OF THE CORRIDOR AREA OF SEISMIC RISKS THAT ARE LOCATED IN THE AREA POLICY NO. 21a Any parcel map, or subdivision map, subdividing lands near the potentially active faults located along the eastern escarpment of the Sierra Nevada as shown on the Land Use Map shall contain a notation warning that said area may be subject to seismic activity. POLICY NO. 21b All new development proposed within or adjacent to a "Special Study Zone" as identified on the Official Map prepared by the State Mines and Geology and shown in Appendices R-8 through R-10 in the Alpine County General Plan, shall require a geologic report. Human occupied structures shall not be constructed across traces of active faults as identified in a required geologic report. C. UNSTABLE SLOPES The hazards associated with unstable slopes in Alpine County can be divided into two categories - landslides and avalanches. Landslides are defined to include rockslides, mudslides, and any other rapid down slope movement of earth material. Landslide potential can be considered significant Page 44 of 264 ---PAGE BREAK--- where slopes consisting of material with questionable strength or coherence tend to exceed 30 percent. Landslides can be either natural or construction induced and both have been documented in the County. (See Data Base Section 13.22.) Avalanche can be defined as the rapid down slope movement of snow or ice. Avalanche hazards are endemic to mountain country. A brief history of avalanche in Alpine County is provided in Data Base Section 13.4. The U.S. Forest Service offers that, as a rule of thumb, all treeless slopes, gullies, and bowls steeper than 30 percent where snow accumulates are possible avalanche areas. For safety sake, the rule must be recognized as a generalization. Like flooding, the likelihood of avalanche occurrence varies by season. Just as State guidelines require the County to address 100 year flood plains in its General Plan, the County should require future developers to study, address, and protect future developments on terrain that may be subject to avalanche occurrence. Areas in the County containing slopes that generally exceed 30 percent are shown in Appendix S. Slope and soils maps have influenced the location, density, and intensity of areas planned for development shown on the Land Use Map. ELEMENT II - SECTION C G. P. GOAL NO. 22 LOCATE AND DESIGN ALL NEW DEVELOPMENT TO PREVENT THREAT DUE TO LANDSLIDE OR AVALANCHE POLICY NO. 22a All developments intended for human use or occupation shall address potential hazards by natural or construction related landslides. POLICY NO. 22b All developments intended for human use or occupation shall address avalanche hazard assessment where the following conditions occur: treeless or sparsely vegetated slopes, gullies, and bowls steeper than 30 percent; and/or any history or evidence of avalanche occurrence susceptibility. D. FLOOD Two types of natural flood occurrence have the potential to inflict injury to persons or damage to property in Alpine County. These are: 1. Flash floods or summer dry-mantle floods. Alpine County has no history of flash flood occurrence. The U.S. Department of Agriculture has, however, documented flash floods in other areas along the eastern slope of the Sierra Nevada. Flash floods usually result from brief but locally intense convectional (thunder) showers. The downpour can combine with sediment and debris and form a rapidly moving wave that often leaves normal stream channels. (See Data Base Section 13.31.). 2. Wet-Mantel and rain-on-snow or frozen ground floods may occur during winter or spring months. More than 13 of these floods have been historically Page 45 of 264 ---PAGE BREAK--- documented as having affected the Carson River drainage in Alpine County (See Appendix Based upon flood recurrence interval estimates prepared for the Carson River West Fork, none of the historic flood occurrences appear to have contained flows that could be expected in a 100 year flood incident. Floods reported in 1950, 1955, and 1963 all qualified as 50 year floods. (See Data Base Section 13.1.). The 1950 flood caused evacuations and "engulfed the road and roared into residences and other buildings in the Woodfords-Markleeville area." The 1955 flood was reported to have created similar impacts. The 1963 flood was reportedly less severe than 1950 or 1955 floods. (See Appendix U of the Data Base). No flood since 1937 has had the dramatic effects that were reported with flood occurrences up to and including the flood of that year. The 1937 flood which may have been classified as only a 25 year occurrence, swept away bridges and buildings. The reason later floods, including the record-setting 100 year flood of 1997, caused less damage is probably due to improved construction and the location of less development in flood prone areas. Changes to the Carson River West Fork channel constructed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in 1962 may be partly responsible for lessening flood hazards at Woodfords. The Federal Insurance Administration has prepared flood hazard boundary maps which designate the entire County as Zone D. This means that there are areas within the County where flood hazards are possible, but have not yet been determined. State law requires that general plans "identify areas...which are subject to flooding". (Government Code Section 65302-a) The stream environment designation on the Land Use Map disallows developments in possible flood prone areas unless it can be proven that damages from a 100 year flood occurrence would be insignificant. Dam failures are a third type of flood hazard to areas located from dams and reservoirs. In Alpine County reservoirs with potential to inflict damage to persons or property include Heenan Lake, Indian Creek Reservoir, Bear Lake, Red Lake and Caples Lake. (See data Base Section 13.3) Flood hazard inundation maps and plans have been prepared for Heenan Lake, Bear Lake, and Caples Lake. Dam failure may be a potentially greater risk in east slope areas due to the higher possibility of significant earthquake shaking or ground displacement. County Ordinance Number 476-88 requires a development permit for all proposed construction and development in the County to include review of flood potential. The ordinance requires certain construction methods and standards be followed to minimize flood damage, or other for proposed projects or structures in flood-prone areas. ELEMENT II - SECTION D G. P. GOAL NO. 23 LOCATE AND DESIGN ALL NEW DEVELOPMENT TO PREVENT THREAT FROM FLOOD OCCURRENCE POLICY NO. 23a Subdivision Maps shall identify 100 year flood zones. Uses which Page 46 of 264 ---PAGE BREAK--- include overnight human occupancy, storage or processing of hazardous materials, or encroachments into the flood plain which could adversely affect the velocity, volume or direction of flood flows in a manner which could create threat to public health and safety shall be prohibited in those zones. POLICY NO. 23b No living quarters shall be allowed at ground level and commercial, industrial, and other human activities shall be controlled within areas possibly subject to flood inundation due to possible dam failure. POLICY NO. 23c Dam and irrigation ditch failure hazard assessments and emergency plans shall be prepared before any development which may subject persons or property to hazards associated with dam failure is approved. POLICY NO. 23d Any parcel map, or subdivision map subdividing lands near drainage in Alpine County, shall contain a notation warning that said area is possibly subject to flash flood occurrence. E. NOISE State Government Code Section 65302(f) requires that an adequate Noise Element "identify and appraise noise problems in the Community." The Noise Element shall: Recognize the guidelines adopted by the Office of Noise Control in the State Department of Health Services and shall analyze and quantify, to the extent practicable, as determined by the legislative body, current and projected noise levels for all of the following sources: A. Highways and freeways; B. Primary arterials and major local streets; C. Passenger and freight on-line railroad operations and ground rapid transit systems; D. Commercial, general aviation, heliport, helistop, and military airport operations, aircraft overflights, jet engine test stands, and all other ground facilities and maintenance functions related to airport operation; E. Local industrial plants, including, but not limited to, railroad classification yards; F. Other ground stationary noise sources identified by local agencies as contributing to the community noise environment. Noise contours shall be shown for all of these sources and stated in terms of community noise equivalent level (CNEL) or day-night average level (Ldn). The noise contours shall be prepared on the basis of noise monitoring or following generally accepted noise modeling techniques for the Page 47 of 264 ---PAGE BREAK--- various sources identified in paragraphs to inclusive. The noise contours shall be used as a guide for establishing a pattern of land uses in the land use element that minimizes the exposure of community residents to excessive noise. The noise element shall include implementation measures and possible solutions that address existing and foreseeable noise problems, if any. Due to the lack of sizeable industrial operations, the County's small population and topography, existing noise emissions in Alpine County are generally limited to transportation facilities and corridors. Recreation and tourism in the County create higher levels of noise at these facilities and corridors than would otherwise exist. The County airport presently receives very limited use and is located three miles from the nearest developed area. It is therefore not included as a significant noise producing transportation facility. Noise issues which may be of concern in the future include noise produced by new industry and increased traffic on State highways. The establishment of new industry is listed as one of the General Plans primary goals. Noise contours have been prepared for Alpine County by Brown-Buntin Associates which show existing and projected (2015) noise levels along County transportation corridors. Contour information is listed in Appendices O-1 through 0-2 and the location of these segments is shown in Appendices 0-3 through 0-12. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model (FHWA-RD-77-108) was used to develop the contours. Short-term traffic noise measurements were taken at various sites in the County (shown in Appendix 0-13) and were used in verifying the noise contours developed using the FHWA model. The measurement results are shown in Appendix 0-14. Section 12.1, Noise, in the data base discusses the noise contours and provides a community noise exposure inventory which shows noise levels in the more populated areas in the County. The State's Guidelines for the Preparation and Content of the Noise Element of the General Plan prepared by the California Department of Health Services, provides suggested criteria for evaluating land use compatibility. This criteria is shown in Appendix 0-15, and should be used in determining compatibility of new proposed projects with existing or planned land uses on surrounding sites. ELEMENT II - SECTION E G. P. GOAL NO. 24 REDUCE OR MINIMIZE THE NUMBER OF NUISANCES CREATED BY NOISE AFFECTING CITIZENS OF ALPINE COUNTY POLICY NO. 24a No development shall be allowed that would subject persons living in existing or planned residential areas to unhealthful noise levels. POLICY NO. 24b New development of noise-sensitive uses shall not be allowed where Page 48 of 264 ---PAGE BREAK--- the noise level due to non-transportation noise sources will exceed the noise level standards shown in the chart below, as measured immediately within the property line of the new development, unless effective noise mitigation measures have been incorporated into the development design to achieve the standards specified. Noise created by new proposed non-transportation noise sources shall be mitigated so as not to exceed the noise level standards as measured immediately at the property line of lands designated for noise- sensitive uses. Noise sensitive uses include hospitals, clinics, schools, libraries or residences. This policy shall not apply to noise sources associated with agricultural operations on lands zoned for agricultural uses, residential units established in conjunction with industrial or commercial uses or snow-making in ski resort areas. NOISE LEVEL PERFORMANCE STANDARDS FOR NOISE SENSITIVE USES AFFECTED BY NON-TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS Noise Level Daytime Nighttime Descriptor (7 a.m to 10 p.m.) (10 p.m. to 7 a.m.) Hourly Leq, 50 45 Maximum level, dB 70 65 POLICY NO. 24c The Planning Commission may allow noise level standards to be exceeded for temporary activities. POLICY NO. 24d New development of noise-sensitive land uses will not be permitted in areas exposed to existing or projected levels of noise from transportation noise sources which exceed the levels specified in the following chart, unless the project design includes effective mitigation measures to reduce noise in outdoor activity areas and interior spaces to the levels specified. Page 49 of 264 ---PAGE BREAK--- MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE NOISE EXPOSURE TRANSPORTATION NOISE SOURCES Land Outdoor Activity Areas 1 Interior Spaces Use Ldn /CNEL, dB Ldn / CNEL, dB Leq, dB2 Residential 603 45 Transient Lodging 603 45 Hospitals, Nursing Homes 603 45 Theaters, Auditoriums, Music Halls 35 Churches, Meeting Halls 603 40 Office Buildings 603 45 Schools, Libraries, Museums 45 Playgrounds, Neighborhood Parks 70 1 Where the location of outdoor activity areas is unknown, the exterior noise level standard shall be applied to the property line of the receiving land use. 2 As determined for a typical worst-case hour during periods of use. 3 Where it is not possible to reduce noise in outdoor activity areas to 60 dB Ldn / CNEL or less using a practical application of the best available noise reduction measures, an exterior noise level of up to 65 dB Ldn / CNEL may be allowed provided that available exterior noise level reduction measures have been implemented and interior noise levels are in compliance with this table. Noise created by new transportation noise sources, including roadway improvement projects, shall be mitigated so as not to exceed the levels specified as follows, at outdoor activity areas or interior spaces of existing noise-sensitive land uses. F. HAZARDOUS MATERIALS There are no large generators of hazardous waste in the County and no procedures of hazardous materials. The majority of waster generated in the County is from households, small businesses, ski areas, and Caltrans, U.S. Forest Service and County vehicle maintenance stations. The Alpine County Hazardous Waste Management Plan adopted in 1988 identified four potential sites in the County for hazardous waste storage and transfer facilities, 1) the Mud Lake Road Area, 2) the County Maintenance Yard, 3) The County Airport, and 4) Harvey Reservoir and nearby private lands. Leviathan Mine, a State Substance Cleanup Bond Site, is the only known contaminated site in the County. ELEMENT II - SECTION F G. P. GOAL NO. 25 PROTECT CITIZENS AND PROPERTY FROM DAMAGE BY HAZARDOUS MATERIALS INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO HARMFUL CHEMICALS, RADIATION LEVELS, GASES, EXPLOSIVES AND Page 50 of 264 ---PAGE BREAK--- HAZARDOUS WASTE POLICY NO. 25a Ensure the hazardous waste materials used in business and industry are properly handled and that information on their handling and use is available to fire and police protection agencies. IMPLEMENTATION MEASURE: Continue to enforce hazardous materials provisions in the County Zoning Code. POLICY NO. 25b Ensure the hazardous waste generated in the County is properly planned for, handled, treated and disposed of. IMPLEMENTATION MEASURE: Enact provisions of the implementation plan provided in the Alpine County Hazardous Waste Management Plan. IMPLEMENTATION MEASURE: Comply with the California Integrated Waste Management Act which directs counties to prepare an Integrated Waste Management Plan consisting of the following elements: A. Source Reduction & Recycling B. Household hazardous Waste C. Nondisposal Facility D. Siting E. Summary Plan POLICY NO. 25c Ensure that Alpine County does not become a corridor for transporting hazardous materials, including nuclear waste. IMPLEMENTATION MEASURE: The Alpine County Board of Supervisors should consider adopting a resolution to establish a hazardous material and nuclear waste transport free County. Page 51 of 264 ---PAGE BREAK--- ALPINE COUNTY GENERAL PLAN III. LAND USE ELEMENT REVISIONS TO THIS SECTION: ENTIRE ELEMENT BOARD OF SUPERVISORS RESOLUTION NO. R2009-06, FEBRUARY 3, 2009 Page 52 of 264 ---PAGE BREAK--- III. LAND USE ELEMENT Introduction In addition to State mandated requisites, the Land Use Element has been prepared to respond to local needs identified through the data collection and public review process. The element identifies a "balanced" plan that shows where and how the County can grow and prosper, but still conserves its varied resources and amenities. The Land Use Element contains the following sections: A. Community Character B. Growth Management C. Land Use Map Designations D. Public Services and Facilities E. Public Finance F. Planning A. COMMUNITY CHARACTER The Community Character section of the Alpine County General Plan defines the essential values and characteristics of our community that we all agree should be sustained over time as population growth and changes in land use occur. Further, the description of community character in this section is intended to provide definition and direction for the following policies: POLICY NO. 25.5a New development shall be compatible with, and shall not have a significant adverse effect upon existing community character as defined in the community character section of General Plan. POLICY NO. 25.5b The rate of new development shall be controlled in order to achieve the following community objectives: OBJECTIVE NO. 25.5a Obtain development that is compatible with, and does not have a significant adverse effect upon existing community character as defined in the community character section of General Plan. OBJECTIVE NO. 25.5b Maintain adequate levels of public services within the community as future growth and development occur. IMPLEMENTATION MEASURE 25.5a: Adopt an ordinance which regulates the rate of new development on the east side of the County. Alpine County is first and foremost a rural place and residents want it to stay that way. In a community survey conducted by the Alpine County Planning Department in the fall of 2005, respondents were asked to rate a number of community values or characteristics. The highest rated items generally relate to the County’s natural setting and environment - scenic beauty and views, natural environment and wide open spaces. The County’s rural/small town character, uniqueness (not like everyplace else), nearby public lands, outdoor recreation opportunities, being a good place to raise a family, and the presence of agricultural lands and working ranches were also rated highly. All of these items are part of the definition of a rural place or rural Page 53 of 264 ---PAGE BREAK--- community. Preserving and retaining a rural community while still allowing for growth and economic opportunity is one of the most significant challenges facing the community. A practical way to organize a discussion of community character is to recognize that it consists of the following components: • Landscape & Natural Setting • Physical Design of the Built Environment • Socio-Economic Factors • Human Components Landscape & Natural Setting Alpine County sits astride the Pacific crest and is approximately 96 percent public land. Elevation ranges from just under 5000 feet above sea level where the West Fork Carson River leaves the County northeast of Woodfords to 11,462 feet above sea level on Sonora Peak at the southern tip of the County near Sonora Pass. The eastern side of the County sits on the edge of the Great Basin along the eastern Sierra front. This area is characterized by valley, meadow, foothill and canyon areas of the eastern Sierra. To the west toward the Pacific crest, the landscape changes to the mountains and high meadows within the Sierra Nevada. Further west, the County extends to the Pacific crest and high elevations along the western slope of the Sierras. The high elevations along the western slope of the Sierras receive significant winter snowfall. A near record one season snowfall for the continental United States was measured at Tamarack, located in Calaveras County just a few miles west of Bear Valley - 884 inches (73.7 ft.) in 1906- 07. Snow depths at Bear Valley and Kirkwood can often exceed 20 to 30 feet. The Sierra Nevada creates a rain shadow effect that results in decreasing snowfall and precipitation as one travels from the high elevation western slopes of the Pacific crest to the lower elevations along the eastern edge of the County. Vegetation changes follow the precipitation pattern, transitioning from the relatively lush forests and high meadows of the Sierra Nevada western slope to the drier forests, sagebrush and grasslands along the eastern Sierra front. Open space and scenic vistas of valleys, mountains and meadows are the dominant elements of landscape scale character in Alpine County. Elements of the built environment (structures, roads and other man made improvements) are present; however they are clearly secondary to the dominant natural landscape elements. Within this context, development with rural character in Alpine County is defined by a combination of very small relatively compact communities, low density development outside of existing communities and large areas of undeveloped lands that include natural areas and natural resource production (timber, water, forage), and agricultural lands that include grazing areas and irrigated pastures. Physical Design of the Built Environment The physical design of the built environment includes the arrangement of land uses, site design, building mass or scale, architectural style, exterior materials and other similar design details within a defined community or neighborhood. Bear Valley and Kirkwood: Bear Valley and Kirkwood are mountain resort communities located at high elevation on the west slope of the Sierras. They serve as the primary base areas for year round outdoor recreation. Peak activity and population occurs in conjunction with winter snow sports. Year round population is low in comparison to the size of the communities as most dwelling units are second home, seasonal or vacation homes. Both communities are Page 54 of 264 ---PAGE BREAK--- characterized by a relatively high density village core surrounded by lower density residential neighborhoods. The village cores include a combination of residential, lodging and commercial uses serving residents and guests. The residential neighborhoods are dominated by detached single family homes with some lower density attached dwelling units present. Homes are larger than in most other areas of the County. Most homes are custom built. The dominant styles of exterior architecture can be categorized as rustic mountain, mountain lodge and mountain contemporary. Influence of the craftsman and traditional European alpine architectural styles are also present, particularly in the Village West plaza area at Kirkwood. All of these styles are generally more elaborate in comparison to other areas in the County. Exterior building materials will vary but are dominated by wood and stucco. Exposed heavy beams and timbers along with log and stone accents are typical. Simple rooflines that minimize areas where snow can build up and cause damage, protected entrances and heavy structural elements are necessary to withstand extreme snow accumulation. Areas for snow removal and snow storage influence site design. Markleeville: Markleeville dates to the 1860s when it served as a gateway to mining areas in the surrounding mountains and as a trade center for the ranching and lumber business, which were supplying the booming Comstock Lode mines in Virginia City Nevada. Today Markleeville is a very small community with a population of 197 persons (2000 Census) that sits in a small valley along Markleeville Creek at 5600 feet above sea level. The community is surrounded by forest and agricultural pasture lands. It is the center of County government and has a very small commercial area. The community includes the area within the Markleeville Townsite and nearby residential areas to the west along Hot Springs Road. Downtown Markleeville consists of three blocks along Main Street (Highway 89) from just north of Webster Street to the County Courthouse on the south end and one secondary block along Montgomery Street between Main and School streets. Uses within this area include government and professional offices, lodging, bar/restaurant, retail and residential. The most common building type in the downtown area is a relatively small scale wood frame structure of a simple design with wood clapboard siding and a simple gable roof. False fronts and porches are present on some buildings. Roof pitches are moderate to steep and buildings are usually one or two stories with the exception of the Wolf Creek (formerly the Alpine Hotel) which has a third story under a steeply pitched roof. Building footprints are small to fit within the small lot sizes. Two substantial public buildings - the Alpine County Courthouse and County Library (Old Webster Schoolhouse) – were built with native stone quarried from the Silver Mountain area. Both buildings were designed by Frederick DeLongchamps, one of the best known architects in the west. The architectural style is Stone Romanesque Revival. Both buildings are listed as "State Points of Historic Interest" and were recently added to the National Register of Historic Places. The Alpine County Courthouse was completed in 1928. The entire 160-acre Markleeville Townsite is included in the Markleeville Historic District Combined Zone that was adopted by the Board of Supervisors on July 15, 2008. The Markleeville Historic Design Guidelines apply within this area. The purpose of the combine zone and design guidelines is to promote preservation of historic buildings; promote the harmonious appearance of non-historic buildings and new development within the Markleeville Townsite area; and to insure that new construction and new development within the Markleeville Townsite area is compatible with the area’s historic period of architecture. The historic period of architecture refers to that style of architecture generally used in the Sierra Nevada region in the period of 1850 to 1940. Page 55 of 264 ---PAGE BREAK--- There are buildings in the downtown Markleeville area that do not conform to the historic period architecture. The Alpine County Administration Building, completed in the 1970’s, has a flat roof and a more contemporary design. However, it is largely hidden from Main Street and thus, does not significantly influence the architectural character of the downtown historic area. Cinder block is the primary exterior building material of the Markleeville Gas Station, an addition to the Markleeville General Store, and the former M’s Coffee house building. The Post Office building has metal siding. Residential areas outside of downtown Markleeville (including Laramie Street, Markleeville Creek Estates, Markleevillage and others) have a different character. Most areas are medium density. Architectural style is somewhat varied with no predominant theme. Architectural styles include New England “Cape Cod”, rustic cabin, mountain contemporary, ranch and other styles typical of many suburban areas. Woodfords: Woodfords was first established in 1847 as a frontier outpost. It is situated 5600 feet above sea level at the mouth of Woodfords Canyon, a steep gorge that contains the West Fork Carson River. Woodfords became a trading post and stage stop on the way to the gold fields in the Mother Lode. Many of these early trading posts and stage stops became rural crossroads serving travelers and the surrounding community. Today Woodfords still functions as a rural crossroads and includes a mix of commercial, residential and institutional (i.e. government) uses. Like Markleeville, Woodfords is also a very small community surrounded of approximately 170 residents surrounded by forest and agricultural lands. However, instead of small parcels in a confined downtown area like Markleeville, the commercial and institutional uses in Woodfords are more dispersed on comparatively larger parcels along Pony Express Road and Highway 89 going south towards Markleeville. The design of commercial buildings in Woodfords is somewhat similar to downtown Markleeville. The major exception is the Woodfords Inn which is a larger structure of a more contemporary design than historic buildings in Markleeville. County facilities including the Public Works yard and office buildings are also located in Woodfords. Most residential areas in Woodfords are medium density. Residences in Woodfords exhibit the same range of styles as residential areas outside of downtown Markleeville. The exception is the mobile home park at Sierra Pines which is an important source of affordable housing in the community. The Springs, Alpine Village, Sierra Pines and Manzanita areas are considered part of Woodfords. Mesa Vista/River Ranch: This area is located northeast of Woodfords along the Highway 88, Emigrant Trail and Foothill Road corridors. The area is dominated by brush covered alluvial fans, mesa or bench land areas and valley bottoms that extend from the base of the Carson Range to the West Fork Carson River. The defining development character elements of this large area are low density, rural subdivisions interspersed with agricultural lands and undeveloped areas. Residential lot sizes typically range from 2 to 20 acres with some smaller lots particularly in the Paynesville and Fredericksburg areas. In addition to single family residences, many lots include outbuildings and areas for horses or other livestock. Most of the residential development in the Mesa Vista/River Ranch area dates from the 1970s and later. Building types include ranch style and more contemporary styles typical of many suburban areas. Large custom designed homes are present in many of the rural subdivisions. Hung-A-Lel-Ti: Hung-A-Lel-Ti is a Washoe tribal community comprising 80 acres on Diamond Valley Road in the Dutch Valley area. It is situated at 5400 feet elevation on a mesa overlooking Page 56 of 264 ---PAGE BREAK--- the Carson Valley. Hung-A-Lel-Ti is under the combined jurisdiction of the Washoe Tribe of Nevada and California, and the Bureau of Indian Affairs. Its inclusion here is for reference only as the County does not have any land use jurisdiction within this community. The community includes single family residences and community buildings. Ranching Areas: Ranching areas began to be developed in the 1860’s. The historical development pattern is defined by a ranch complex that includes one or more residences, barns, outbuildings, pens and corrals surrounded by large areas of irrigated pasture, non irrigated grazing areas and undeveloped lands. Most often, the buildings within the ranch complex are grouped together within a relatively small area. This pattern persists today. Building types and materials are mixed. Traditional materials such as wood, stone and brick are found on older residences. More modern building materials are also present, including metal barns and storage buildings. Ranching areas that include permanent residences are found in the northeast portion of the County along the Highway 88/Foothill/Fredericksburg road corridors, Diamond Valley, Dutch Valley, Jubilee Ranch adjacent to Markleeville, Pleasant Valley, Carson River Road area and along Highway 89 between Markleeville and Woodfords. Some of these will overlap with the other rural lands described below. Other Rural Lands: This category makes up the majority of lands within the County and includes all areas of the County outside of the communities and areas described above. The typical pattern is scattered private lands surrounded by vast areas of public lands. The private lands may be individual isolated parcels or groups of parcels. Most of this land is undeveloped and is used for livestock grazing and other natural resource based uses (mining, water, timber production and dispersed outdoor recreation). Significant portions of this area are designated wilderness. Some areas are served by improved roads. Other areas are remote from improved roads, or have winter access over the snow. A few small developments such as Carson River Resort south of Markleeville, Sorensens Resort and subdivision near Picketts Junction and the Blue Camas subdivision in Hope Valley are found within the other rural lands. Areas within the other rural lands category include (but are not limited to) the area between Markleeville and Sierra Pines, south of Markleeville to the Wolf Creek and Ebbetts Pass areas, Indian Creek Reservoir/Alpine County airport area, Monitor Pass area, Hermit Valley, Lake Alpine area, Hope Valley, Carson Pass/Caples Lake area and the far eastern end of the County bordering Nevada. Socio-Economic Factors Population: Alpine County is the least populated county in California with a total of just over 1200 full time residents (2000 Census). The population is expected to grow to just under 1400 full time residents by 2010 (California Department of Finance estimate). Long term population estimates made by the California Department of Finance show permanent population in Alpine County growing slowly to over 1400 persons in 2020 and then decreasing from 2020 through 2050. These long term projections generally assume that current demographic trends will continue. They do not account for significant changes in development or other unexpected changes in the community that could cause dramatic changes in population. Although the County’s permanent population is very low, peak population (including permanent and second home residents, overnight visitors and day visitors) is likely in the range of 10,000 to 20,000 persons. This situation occurs during winter holidays and weekends when the Bear Valley and Kirkwood resort areas are near capacity. Community water and wastewater systems, law enforcement and emergency services within these two communities must be sized to adequately serve this larger population. Traffic congestion on the two major highways (4 & 88) serving Bear Valley and Kirkwood is probably the aspect of peak conditions that is most Page 57 of 264 ---PAGE BREAK--- apparent outside of these two communities. Traffic congestion is usually limited to a few hours in the mornings and late afternoon during the peak days. Because these peak conditions are short term and limited to just a few days each year, the overall rural character of the County is not significantly affected. With a permanent population density of less than 2 persons per square mile, Alpine County is clearly a rural community. Counties with population densities of less than 2 persons per square mile are often characterized as “frontier counties.” These frontier counties usually have very low populations, minimal services and businesses available locally, and are usually distant from major metropolitan areas and other significant population centers. This description fits Alpine County. Traffic Congestion: There are no stoplights in Alpine County. Alpine County does not experience any traffic congestion except for the peak conditions at Bear Valley and Kirkwood described previously, and some occasional minor congestion associated with construction related slow downs, accidents and winter weather conditions. All highways are two lanes, expect for the occasional passing lane. Schools: Total school enrollment in the Alpine Unified School District was 129 students in 2004/2005 (source: ACUSD School Accountability Reports). The District currently operates schools in Woodfords and Bear Valley. On the east side of the County, ACUSD students in grades 8-12 have the option of attending public schools in Douglas County, Nevada. A small number of K-7 aged children are enrolled in Douglas County Nevada or are home-schooled. High school aged students in Bear Valley have the option to attend Brett Harte Union High School in Angels Camp, approximately 45 miles west of Bear Valley. Economic and Commercial Activity: Tourism and outdoor recreation are the mainstays of the economy and commercial activity in Alpine County. Almost all businesses in the County, except for the ranching business, rely on visitors to sustain them. Many retail businesses close during the off season since there are not enough local customers to carry them through to the next busy season. The rural character of the community is reinforced by the fact that most essential businesses serving the local resident population are located outside of Alpine County. For example, the County has no bank, full service grocery store, or drug store/pharmacy. There are small health clinics located in Bear Valley, Kirkwood and Woodfords. However, most residents need to travel to areas outside of the County for full health services. The communities closest to the County that provide essential services to County residents include Arnold and South Lake Tahoe in California; and Stateline, Minden, Gardnerville and Carson City in Nevada. The larger metropolitan areas of Reno/Sparks Nevada, and Stockton and Sacramento California are locations where County residents obtain services and goods not always available in these smaller communities. In a community survey conducted by the Alpine County Planning Department in the fall of 2005, respondents supported additional businesses that are similar to those already within the community – small service and retail establishments that serve both the local population and visitors to the community. Examples include restaurants, specialty retail, convenience grocery and businesses that provide goods and services related to outdoor recreation. There was not strong support for increasing businesses and services that might be found in a larger community such as a general retail (hardware, clothing, house-wares, etc.), mini-storage warehouse and professional offices. Human Element Page 58 of 264 ---PAGE BREAK--- The social and economic diversity of the local population and the types of social interaction which take place in rural community life are equally important components of Alpine County’s character. These “human elements” of community character are generally less tangible and consequently more difficult to define. A diverse and friendly community, easy opportunities for social interaction, knowing your neighbors, small locally-owned businesses, a close association with the natural environment, easy access to outdoor recreation, a small and approachable government, and informal rather than formal institutions are some of the more important human elements of community character in Alpine County. Maintaining the rural community character associated with these human elements can be a challenge when significant growth occurs. Many rural communities, and particularly those based on tourism, have experienced growth that results in less economic diversity in the local population as the cost of living in the community rises and housing opportunities for middle and lower income households are dramatically reduced. Rapid growth can result in a loss of community identity and the traditional social interactions that define community life. In the extreme case, some popular tourism communities have changed from well rounded communities to places inhabited primarily by seasonal service workers, visitors and those wealthy enough to afford the high cost homes. Because many of the homeowners are only part time residents and most of the permanent work force does not live in the community, many of these places can become almost devoid of normal community activity during the off season, non peak times and after the end of the regular work day. Dropping school enrollment, loss of community volunteers for essential services such as the local fire department, new “boutique” or franchise type businesses catering primarily to tourists that replace or overwhelm long standing locally-owned businesses, and fewer community institutions and events for the local population are indicators that a community may be trending in the direction of these more extreme cases. Some of the trends described above are beginning to occur in Alpine County. School enrollment at Kirkwood dropped to the point that the local elementary school was forced to close. Housing prices have increased in all areas of the County to the point where a relatively high income is required to purchase a home. Fire departments in Woodfords and Kirkwood have had difficulty finding enough volunteers. However, Alpine County as a whole has not experienced the type of significant community-changing growth that has occurred in many tourist oriented communities. Most of the businesses in Bear Valley, Markleeville and Woodfords are locally-owned. The social networks for local residents are still strong. Examples include programs for local children operating in Bear Valley and Woodfords, summer picnics and homeowner gatherings in Bear Valley and Kirkwood that have strong participation from both permanent residents and long term second home owners, and community events such as the annual Halloween parade in Markleeville and the annual Diamond Valley Bike-A-Thon in Woodfords. B. GROWTH MANAGEMENT Growth management generally consists of a number of techniques to manage the amount, type and rate of development desired by the community; and to channel that growth into designated areas. The growth management policies identified in the following table add to and/or compliment other existing policies in the General Plan. The topics listed below are addressed in the table on the next page. A check mark means that the policy applies to the land use action for the column listed at the top of the table. • Protection of wildlife habitat Page 59 of 264 ---PAGE BREAK--- • Scenic highway corridors • Avalanche zones, seismic fault areas and 100 year floodplains • Proximity of proposed development to existing residential and commercially zoned areas • Retaining land that is feasible for agriculture and timber production • Requiring underground utilities • Retaining community character • Limiting the rate of new development (i.e. rate of growth) Page 60 of 264 ---PAGE BREAK--- Proposed Land Use Action General Plan Zoning Subdivision Growth Management Policy Requirement Change Change Conforms to Gen. Plan and Zoning 25.5b. The rate of new development shall be controlled in order to achieve the following community objectives: o Obtain development that is compatible with, and does not have a significant adverse effect upon existing community character as defined in the new community character section of plan. o Maintain adequate levels of public services within the community as future growth and development occur. √ √ √ 25.5c: Wildlife habitat quality shall not be significantly diminished by the proposed development or use. √ √ 25.5d: Scenic quality of designated scenic highway corridors shall not be significantly diminished by the proposed development or use. √ √ 25.5e: Areas proposed to contain structures for human occupancy shall not be located within an avalanche zone, seismic fault area or 100 year floodplain. √ √ √ 25.5f: Land proposed for development shall be located within ¼ mile of an area that is currently zoned residential; or the land must be currently zoned residential, commercial or planned development. √ √ 25.5g: If current General Plan designation is Open Space, then the land proposed for development must not be feasible for agriculture, timber production or other use allowed in the Open Space designation. √ 25.5.h: Above ground electrical or communication lines shall not be allowed; except for necessary above ground components of underground utilities, cellular and/or or wireless systems. √ √ √ 25.5i: New development shall be compatible with, and shall not have a significant adverse effect upon existing community character as defined in the new community character section of plan. √ √ Page 61 of 264 ---PAGE BREAK--- C. LAND USE MAP DESIGNATIONS State Law requires that General Plans contain Land Use Elements which "designate the proposed general distribution and general location and extent of the uses of the land for housing, business, industry, open space, including agriculture, natural resources, recreation, and enjoyment of scenic beauty, education, public buildings and grounds, solid waste disposal facilities, and other categories of public and private uses of the land". The law also requires that land use elements contain "a statement of the standards of population density and building intensity recommended for the various districts and other territory covered by the plan" (Government Code Section 65302-a). The Land Use Map Designations for the entire County are shown on the map set that follows page 38. These maps depict the following land use designations: Wilderness Description: The Wilderness land use designation applies only to the existing Mokelumne and Carson/Iceberg Wilderness Areas. Conforming uses shall be those uses permitted under Federal Law. Examples of uses that are permitted are: the public purposes of recreational, scenic, scientific, educational, conservation, and historical use, and insect and fire management. Uses prohibited include motorized travel, timber harvest, new mining claims, and road and building construction (except those needed for administration such as patrol cabins or previously permitted livestock grazing in the Wolf Creek Drainage - see Data Base Section 7.12). Population densities and building intensities shall also conform to the act. Map Location: Mokelumne and Carson/Iceberg Wilderness Areas encompass much of the south and eastern portion of the county. Stream Environment (SE) Description: The Stream Environment overlay designation is established as a means of implementing goals, policies, and objectives found within the Plan's Earth, Animal life, Culture, and Flood Hazard sections. State Law presently requires that a general plan "identify areas covered by the plan which are subject to flooding..." (Government Code Section 65302.a). In the absence of detailed flood plain map, the stream environment designation is intended to fulfill this requirement. All year-round and seasonal streams in the County are indicated on the U.S. Geological Survey Base Map that was used in preparation of the General Plan's Land Use Map. A Stream Environment designation is hereby established for areas meeting certain criteria (Data Base, Appendices J-11.0 - 11.4). Density and Intensity: No residential, commercial, industrial, or institutional structure or facility should be allowed in a Stream Environment designated area unless variance Page 62 of 264 ---PAGE BREAK--- special study provisions are satisfied. In such instances density and intensity shall be those for which the stream environment designation has been combined. Map Location: All year-round and seasonal streams are designated SE. Open Space (OS) Description: The Open Space land use designation is intended to protect and promote wise use of the County's natural resources. State Law specifically requires inclusion of an open space plan or element in general plans. (Government Code Section 65302-e). The statutory requirements for open space elements have been summarized in Data Base Section 7.11. Types of land uses allowed on (OS) designated lands should be limited to uses that would be integrally related to the wise use and protection of natural resources including, but not limited to, the protection or development of mineral resources, the growing or harvesting of forest products, ranch or farm type agricultural production, protection of important wildlife and aquatic habitats, preservation of significant view corridors and dispersed recreation such as hunting, fishing, hiking, cross-country skiing, and camping. The following types of uses should be allowed in (OS) designated areas only after a use permit or other special County approval is granted: • Mineral processing operations or mills that process more than 50 tons of ore per day. All surface mining operations are subject to approval of a surface mining permit. • Lumber mills or plants capable of processing 5,000 board feet per day. • Facilities intended to serve dispersed recreational activities such as camp grounds and trail heads and cross-country ski touring huts. • Small commercial recreational facilities which presently exist in Open Space (OS) designated areas such as pack stations or snowmobiling should be allowed to continue. Expansions of these facilities or the establishment of new commercial recreational operations should require County approval. Large recreational facilities which may draw significant numbers of persons should be allowed only in RS or PD designated areas. • Relatively intensive uses integrally related to ranch or farm type agricultural production such as slaughter houses, processing plants, and packaging plants. • Erection, construction, alteration, or maintenance of gas, electric, water, sewage treatment or disposal, communication, or transportation facilities. • Cemeteries. • Reservoirs for irrigation or small scale hydro power generation (less the 100 kilowatts). Page 63 of 264 ---PAGE BREAK--- • Wind power generation facilities if consistent with Resource Policy II K-1.3. Density and Intensity: Maximum density shall be one single family residence per twenty (20) acres, except that all legally created parcels in existence prior to December 21, 1982, in (OS) designated areas shall be allowed to contain one single family residence. Within the OS designation, two types of residential subdivision are recognized: standard and conservation. In a standard subdivision, all lots shall be a minimum of 20 acres. In a conservation subdivision, residential lot sizes may be reduced provided that the overall density of development does not exceed one residential unit per 20 acres of land included in the conservation plan with the exception that additional bonus density as provided in this section may be allowed. Lands not included in the residential lots shall be retained as open space. All lands included within the conservation plan must comprise a logical planning unit capable of being planned and developed in a cohesive and coordinated manner and must meet at least one of the following criteria: • All lands are contiguous (contiguous is defined as having at least one point in common). Property may be considered contiguous even if separated by roads, streets, utilities easements, railroad rights-of way or other similar corridors. • All lands are included within a County approved Master Plan or Specific Plan. The minimum parcel size for a residential lot within a conservation subdivision shall be the smallest parcel that can be approved based upon existing County Ordinances; General Plan Goals, Objectives, and Policies and all other applicable laws. The residential lots in a conservation subdivision shall be designed and located in a manner that provides for efficient delivery of necessary services, utilities and infrastructure. The open space within the conservation subdivision shall provide for significant conservation of one or more of the following characteristics: • Agricultural Production: Lands that are either in agricultural production or capable of sustaining agricultural production, including irrigated meadows, open range lands and timber production areas. • Cultural/Historic Value: Lands which contribute significantly to Alpine County’s history and culture including sites or areas significant to the County’s Native American history and culture, other historic sites and significant archeological sites. • Scenic Value: Lands with high aesthetic appeal which are generally visible and valued by residents and visitors to Alpine County and, through preservation, will maintain the rural mountain appearance of the County. Examples include, but are not limited to, scenic highway corridors, open meadows and range lands, significant ridge lines and mountain backdrop areas. Page 64 of 264 ---PAGE BREAK--- • Environmentally Sensitive Areas: Lands containing unique and/or sensitive ecological values including, but not limited to, significant wetland areas, riparian areas, alpine areas, rare flora, and important wildlife habitat • Unique Areas: Lands possessing unique characteristics such as unusual geology or topographic features. • Recreational Value: Lands with significant public recreational value, particularly for non motorized or passive uses such as hiking, fishing, hunting, wildlife viewing, etc. Recreation lands may also be lands that provide public access to public lands. Lands in this category shall include easements or other mechanisms which allow for public use. To accomplish conservation of one or more of these characteristics, the residential lots may be clustered together in one or more groups, or dispersed in appropriate locations on the property. A combination of clustered and dispersed lots may also be considered. Care must be taken to insure that a dispersed lot pattern does not conflict with the goal of efficient delivery of necessary services, utilities and infrastructure. Use of the open space within a conservation subdivision must be restricted to those uses which will not adversely affect the characteristics being preserved. Density Bonus: A 25 percent density bonus may be awarded to a conservation subdivision containing at least 80 acres of land provided all of the following are satisfied: • A minimum of 75 percent of the land within the subdivision is designated and protected as permanent open space. • The County determines that the open space has significant public value. • Where the proposed open space contains lands in active agricultural operations, or lands capable of supporting agricultural production, water rights sufficient to sustain agricultural production are retained on the property and dedicated for continued agricultural use. Map Location: OS is the predominant General Plan designation. Planned Development (PD) Description: The Planned Development designation is applied to areas where relatively intensive developments for human use would be desirable provided they are carefully planned and closely supervised to insure conformance with the Goals, Objectives, and Policies of the General Plan and applicable laws. The (PD) designation is intended to serve in conjunction with the County's (PD) zoning regulations. Development within (PD) areas should be preceded by the complete review and approval or application which fully discloses the nature and extent of the planned development. (Specific Plan as per State Code Section 65454). Page 65 of 264 ---PAGE BREAK--- Types of uses that would be appropriate include any residential, commercial, institutional, and recreational use or combination of uses arranged and/or designed to result in an integrated and organized development deemed acceptable by the County. Public facilities needed to serve a planned development including police and fire protection facilities, school sites, health and social service facilities, power and communication facilities, transportation facilities, solid waste collection facilities, and public sewer and water facilities may be appropriate or necessary accessories dependent upon the size and location of the planned development. In general, uses listed within the open space designation are also appropriate. Density: Gross densities shall not exceed 2.5 dwelling units per acre. Lower densities may be enforced at the discretion of the Planning Commission or Board of Supervisors depending upon factors such as timing, parcel size, and environmental constraints. Intensity: Minimum overall parcel size for a planned development should be 5 acres. The concentration of development into multi-family units or building clusters is encouraged especially where aesthetics, resource conservation, natural hazards or other concerns exist. Map Location: Planned development locations include Kirkwood, Caples Lake, Bear Valley, Lake Alpine, Sorensens Resort, East Fork Resort, Sierra Pines and the Mahalee Lodge site in Markleeville. A brief description of each of these areas is included below. • Kirkwood: A large scale year round destination resort and residential community governed by the County approved Kirkwood Master Plan or Specific Plan as may be amended. Primary uses include winter and summer recreation facilities including downhill and cross country skiing, residential and commercial development and open space. Future uses are determined by the approved Master Plan or Specific Plan. • Bear Valley: A large scale year round destination resort and residential community governed by the County approved Bear Valley Master Plan. Primary uses include residential and commercial development and open space. Future uses are determined by the approved Master Plan. • Lake Alpine: A small scale year round destination resort including limited commercial uses and lodging accommodations. Uses are currently governed by the AG-CR zoning designation. Future uses could include limited expansion of commercial and lodging facilities consistent with maintaining a small scale resort. • Caples Lake: A small scale year round destination resort including limited commercial uses and lodging accommodations. Uses are currently governed by the AG-SH and AG-CR-SH zoning designations. Future uses could include limited expansion of the Page 66 of 264 ---PAGE BREAK--- commercial and lodging facilities consistent with maintaining a small scale resort. • Sorensen’s Resort: A small scale year round destination resort and residential community including limited commercial uses, lodging accommodations and single family residences. Uses are currently governed by the PD zoning development plan and the AG-SH and RN zoning designations. Future uses are determined by the approved PD zoning development plan and RN zoning designation consistent with maintaining a small scale resort and residential community. • East Fork Resort: A small scale resort and residential community including limited commercial uses, lodging accommodations, mobile home/recreational vehicle park and small campground. Uses are currently governed by the RE-5-CR-SH zoning designations. Future uses could include limited expansion of the mobile home/recreational vehicle park and single family residential development consistent with maintaining a small scale resort and residential community. • Sierra Pines: A small scale mobile home/recreational vehicle park and neighborhood commercial development. Uses are currently governed by the NC and NR zoning designations. Future uses could include limited expansion of the existing uses and development of a small campground consistent with maintaining a small scale residential and neighborhood commercial community. • Mahalee Lodge – Markleeville Village: Gross densities shall not exceed 2.5 dwelling units per acre. Lower densities may be enforced at the discretion of the Planning Commission or Board of Supervisors depending upon factors such as timing, parcel size, and environmental constraints. (Board of Supervisors Resolution No. R2005-39) Residential High (RH) Description: The Residential High Density designation is intended for town sites and subdivisions where public sewage collection and disposal facilities and community water systems are or will be available. Careful discretion should be exercised by the County in allowing achievement of the densities suggested before adequate market demand, community support, and public services or facilities are present. Density: Maximum densities shall not exceed 4 15 dwelling units per acre. Dwellings may be constructed as multi-family units, zero lot line units, townhouses, or building clusters in which case the balance necessary to meet density requirements should be reserved for town commons or dedicated public parks or recreational facilities. Page 67 of 264 ---PAGE BREAK--- Intensity: Minimum parcel size shall be the smallest parcel that can be permitted based upon existing County Ordinances; General Plan, Goals, Objectives, Policies and all other applicable laws. Map Location: Two RH areas are designated in the established settlements of Markleeville and Woodfords where sewer and water systems are most likely to be developed or expanded. Residential Medium (RM) Description: The Residential Medium Density designation is intended for town sites or suburban type residential areas. A major purpose of the designation is to protect the single family residential neighborhood environment. Commonly, public water service should be present and sewage collection and disposal facilities should be either provided or available to (RM) designated areas. Home occupations and certain institutional uses or public facilities should be allowed providing they do not create public nuisance or hazard and they do not seriously detract from single family residential neighborhoods. Density: Maximum density shall be 4 single family dwellings per acre. Lower density limits may be upheld by the County given site specific conditions such as topography and sewage disposal capacity. Intensity: Minimum parcel size shall be the smallest parcel that can be permitted based upon existing County Ordinances, General Plan, Goals, Objectives, and Policies and all other applicable laws. When a developer intends to create parcels that would be smaller than those implied by the density requirements (10,890 square feet), the developer must set aside the balance of lands needed to meet density requirements as open space or common area. Map Location: RM areas are limited to the existing settlements of Markleeville and Woodfords where services are appropriate and the Washoe Indian settlement in Dutch Valley. Residential Low (RL) Description: The residential low density designation is intended for rural subdivisions where public sewer systems are generally not available or planned. However, public water service should be provided. County Officials should encourage thoughtful design of developments within the designation taking into consideration such concerns as local topography and scenic features as well as hazards and resource protection and utilization. Care should be taken in locating neighborhood commercial enterprises, schools, parks, or other public and quasi-public facilities all of which may be acceptable provided the other appropriate land Page 68 of 264 ---PAGE BREAK--- use symbols are present (NC. & INS.). Home occupations and cottage industries should be permitted providing they do not create public nuisance or hazard. Density: Maximum density shall be one single family dwelling per acre. Lower density limits may be upheld by the County given site specific conditions such as topography, water availability and sewage disposal capacity. Intensity: Minimum parcel size shall be the smallest parcel that can be permitted based upon existing County Ordinances, General Plan, Goals, Objectives, and Policies and all other applicable laws. In instances where a developer intends to create parcels that would be smaller than those implied by the density requirement (one acre), the developer must set aside the balance of lands needed to meet density requirements as open space or common area. The County may allow variable parcel size as long as larger parcels created are not further subdivided or developed. Map Location: RL designations are limited to the existing settlements of Markleeville and Woodfords and along Fredericksburg Road between Fredericksburg and Paynesville. Residential Rural (RR) Description: The Residential Rural designation is intended for rural estate or mini-ranch type developments where neither public sewer or water facilities are available or planned. As in areas designated for residential low density development, residential rural areas should be located within a reasonable distance of existing public facilities and commerce. Plans for all residential developments should take into consideration features of the local environment such as topography, aesthetics, hazards and natural resources. The (RR) designation may provide for limited agricultural activities as well as home occupations or cottage industries providing they do not cause public nuisance or hazard. Density: Maximum density shall be one single family dwelling unit per five acres. Lower density limits may be required given site specific conditions. Intensity: Minimum parcel size shall be the smallest parcel that can be permitted based upon existing County Ordinances, General Plan, Goals, Objectives, and Policies and all other applicable laws. In instances where a developer intends to create parcels that would be smaller than those implied by the density requirements specified above (five acres), the developer must set aside the balance of lands needed to meet density requirements as open space or common area. The County may allow variable parcel sizes so long as larger parcels are not further subdivided or developed. Map Location: RR map designations are limited to the outskirts of Woodfords and in the development corridor on either side of Highway 88 between Woodfords and Nevada. Neighborhood Commercial (NC) Page 69 of 264 ---PAGE BREAK--- Description: The Neighborhood Commercial (NC) land use designation is intended to indicate locations where grocery stores, convenience stores, delicatessens or similar "street corner" type commercial services, churches and fraternal organization meeting halls involving less than 2500 square feet would be most appropriate. More intensive types of commercial activities should be limited to other appropriately designated areas. Density & Intensity: Population densities and building intensities shall be those indicated for the land use designation with which the Neighborhood Commercial symbol (NC) is combined. The County may allow smaller parcel sizes with the approval of detailed plans or permit applications for Neighborhood Commercial developments. Such plans or permits must be deemed acceptable and in conformance with the General Plan and all other applicable laws. In no such instance shall parcel size be less than 8000 square feet. For larger parcel sizes, water and sewer may be required for Neighborhood Commercial developments in order to protect public safety and/or water quality. Map Location: NC designations are located on Washoe Tribe land north of Woodfords on Highway 88 to recognize the intended use designated in the Washoe Tribe Comprehensive Land Use Plan (1994). Commercial Description: The commercial designation indicates areas in the County where a broad range of commercial activities would be desired. Types of uses being considered as commercial for the purposes of this designation include grocery stores, hardware stores, garages, restaurants, hotels, professional offices, light industrial operations, small department stores, banks, furniture stores and similar developments or activities that would normally be considered "downtown" commercial activities. Types of activities considered "light industry" for the purpose of this designation include cabinet shops, bakeries, print shops, upholsterers or other similar small operations involving manufacturing, processing, storage or shipping and that generate minimal nuisance or environmental impact. The County Zoning Ordinance requires use permit approval for the more intensive commercial and light industrial use, such as fast food establishments, laundromats, bars, and night clubs, welding and sheet metal shops, and upholstering shops, where environmental impacts may need to be more closely controlled. A certain number of public services and facilities should exist or be developed in order to promote and serve commercial activities in areas with commercial designation. For instance, police and fire protection should be readily available. Sewer, water and parking may be necessary. Commercial areas should be in established areas near well traveled routes (collectors and arterials) yet not spread out along such routes creating strip commercial development. Page 70 of 264 ---PAGE BREAK--- The standards necessary for commercial activities are similar to those needed to serve residential high density (RH) designated areas. Downtown commercial activities should not be allowed within exclusively residential neighborhoods, however residences should be allowed to mix within concentrated commercial or business districts, with a special use permit. Density & Intensity: Densities and intensities shall be the same as those allowed for the land use designation with which the C symbol has been combined. Map Location: Three areas are designated C; Markleeville, Woodfords and the County Airport site. Industrial (IND) Description: The industrial designation is used to locate areas for development of industries such as manufacturing and warehousing that might create objectionable conditions for adjacent uses. Map Location: The only IND designation is at the county Airport site which is isolated from other uses and general view from scenic highways. Institutional (INS) Description: The institutional designation is applied to areas where public, quasi-public, or public utility developments would be appropriate. Examples of such institutional developments include schools, clinics, parks and playgrounds, public buildings, corporation yards, water and sewer collection and treatment facilities, and power sub-stations. As in other designations, careful discretion is required in allowing the location of such uses within residential high, medium, and low-density areas. Appropriate standards would include many of those listed for commercial or industrial designations. Density & Intensity: Population densities and building intensities shall not exceed those that are indicated for the land use designation with which the institutional symbol (INS) is combined unless or until plans for institutional development are approved by the County. In such instances, densities and intensities should not exceed those specified in the residential high density (RH) designation. Map Location: INS General Plan Map designations are located in Markleeville, Woodfords and midway between the two settlements at Turtle Rock Park which is the location of a community center and campground. Additionally, a church/school site is designated INS at Paynesville as is the County Airport. Recreational Sites (RS) Page 71 of 264 ---PAGE BREAK--- Description: Dispersed recreational activities are encouraged in open space designated areas. Concentrated small commercial recreational facilities may be allowed in (OS) areas if County approval is obtained. The (RS) designation is intended to identify areas which presently contain or may in the future contain larger recreational facilities, such as ski resorts, private parks and campgrounds, etc. which may draw to the County significant numbers of persons. Such (RS) developments in the future would require County approval of complete plans for development as well as General Plan Land Use Map revision. Consistent zoning may be (PD); however, densities should not exceed those specified below. Density & Intensity: Population densities and building intensities shall not exceed those specified for Open (OS) Land Use designation; i.e., one residential unit per 20 acres overall density. Map Location: RS designations are located adjacent to the two resort areas; Bear Valley and Kirkwood. Solid Waste Disposal Areas (WD) The (WD) symbol indicates areas of the County where solid waste disposal facilities would be most appropriate. The General Plan recommends that waste disposal or storage in the County be controlled by permit. Liquid Waste In Bear Valley and Diamond Valley, treated effluent is applied to large areas of land. This practice benefits agricultural purposes and is considered allowable in Open Space designated areas. Hazardous Waste Facility (HWF) The HWF symbol is given to 5 specific sites in the County which were identified in the Alpine County Hazardous Waste Management Plan as possibly suitable for a hazardous waste facility. The five sites include Harvey Place Reservoir; the Alpine County Airport; the Alpine County Maintenance Yard; the Leviathan Mine site; and the Mud Lake Road area (which is also designated as a WD area). The County Maintenance Yard, considered possibly suitable only for small transfer and storage facilities. The Leviathan Mine site is designated HWF to allow for on site treatment of any remaining waste on-site and to prevent the transportation of existing on-site hazardous waste along dangerous routes and through residential areas. The Mud Lake Road area has been deleted from further consideration as a location for hazardous waste management facilities due to its proximity to the Washoe Community. Scenic Highways (SH) Page 72 of 264 ---PAGE BREAK--- All State Highways in Alpine County are designated scenic highways. State Law allows County governments to designate County roads as scenic routes. (See Natural Resources and Conservation Element Goals and Objectives). D. PUBLIC SERVICES AND FACILITIES Alpine County is the least populated of California’s 58 counties. Permanent population growth has typically been very slow and steady in Alpine County. The California Department of Finance provides population estimates and projections for Alpine County. The estimated 2007 permanent resident population was 1261 persons. The permanent population is expected to grow to 1462 full time residents by 2030 and then decline to 1377 persons by 2050 (California Department of Finance projections). These long term projections generally assume that current demographic trends will continue. They do not account for significant changes in development or other unexpected changes in the community that could cause dramatic changes in population. As noted in the discussion of community character, although the County’s permanent population is very low, peak population (including permanent and second home residents, overnight visitors and day visitors) drives requirements for many public facilities and services. Police Protection The existing staff and facilities of the Alpine County Sheriff's Department are considered adequate to serve County needs. Over the long-term, department needs could change significantly depending upon the type and intensity of growth. Fire Protection In the short-term, mobile water source equipment for the eastern slope area and a continuing rotation and replacement of fire equipment County wide, is a primary requirement for fire protection in Alpine County. Bear Valley and Kirkwood are served by water systems that have or will have adequate fire flow as development continues. There are two small community water systems on the east side of the County. However, large areas of the east side are not served by any water system. Long term plans call for more static water supply in strategic locations on the east side of the County. A 50,000 gallon water storage tank is being installed at the Woodfords fire station and other locations for water storage in the Mesa Vista/River Ranch areas have been investigated. The possibility of connecting the water supply to a hydrant system in order to improve fire flow delivery within developed areas should also be investigated. The two fire departments on the east side of the County (Markleeville and Woodfords) are staffed entirely by volunteers. Ambulance and emergency response services on the east side of the County are also entirely volunteer staffing. The number of volunteers available for response at any given time can often be limited since many of the volunteers work outside of the County. Lake Valley Fire Protection District (Lake Tahoe area) and Page 73 of 264 ---PAGE BREAK--- East Fork Fire District (Douglas County, Nevada) provide mutual aid response to the east side of the County and Kirkwood. Kirkwood is served by the Kirkwood Volunteer Fire Department which operates under the umbrella of the Kirkwood Meadows Public Utility District. Bear Valley is served by a volunteer fire department operated under County direction. Mutual aid to Bear Valley is provided by the Ebbetts Pass Fire Protection District (Arnold area, Calaveras County). Public Health The existing health facility at Woodfords is considered adequate for the short-term planning period and able to handle increases in the level of services predicted during that time. Public Library System County-wide library circulations are projected to increase along the present lines, in response to population increases, demographic changes and diversification of library resources and programs. Social Services Social service programs will continue to increase steadily along with population increases and demographic changes, and with proactive identification of needs and problems. Roads and Highways County roads and State Highway needs are addressed in the Circulation Element. Schools Total school enrollment in the Alpine Unified School District was 129 students in 2004/2005 (source: ACUSD School Accountability Reports). The District currently operates schools in Woodfords and Bear Valley. On the east side of the County, ACUSD students in grades 8-12 have the option of attending public schools in Douglas County, Nevada. A small number of K-7 aged children are enrolled in Douglas County Nevada or are home-schooled. High school aged students in Bear Valley have the option to attend Brett Harte Union High School in Angels Camp, approximately 45 miles west of Bear Valley. In September 2008 the Governing Board of the ACUSD adopted school facilities fees to finance future construction and reconstruction of school facilities made necessary by growth in enrollment. Such fees are collected in conjunction with issuance of building permits for new construction. Public Buildings Page 74 of 264 ---PAGE BREAK--- County owned public buildings are located in Bear Valley, Markleeville and Woodfords. In the long-term, a comprehensive analysis of County long-term facility and infrastructure needs is necessary to establish a Capital Improvement Program. Solid Waste The three separate geographic areas of the County - Kirkwood, Bear Valley, and the east slope, each presently utilize separate solid waste disposal services. Kirkwood and Bear Valley utilize landfills in Amador and Calaveras Counties, respectively. Markleeville, Woodfords and other east slope communities utilize the Douglas County Disposal service. Use of the Amador, Douglas and Calaveras dump sites is expected to continue. The regulatory and financial requirements of operating a landfill site in Alpine County are prohibitive. Sewage Disposal The four waste-water collection and treatment systems found in Alpine County include: 1. The Markleeville Public Utility District serving Markleeville; 2. The Washoe Tribe's system serving the Woodfords Indian Colony in Dutch Valley; 3. The Kirkwood Public Utility District serving the Kirkwood development; 4. The Bear Valley Water District system serving much of the Bear Valley Planning area. The Markleeville Public Utility District system presently operates at half capacity. The system's excess capacity creates economic difficulties for the entity. Should water quality become degraded by present or added use of individual septic systems in the surrounding area, annexation and hook-ups to the Markleeville Public Utility District system could be required. Capacity could thus be attained sooner than expected and an expansion of the facility could become necessary. The Kirkwood Public Utility District system has been expanded to accommodate planned development during the short term planning period. Long term planning includes increased capacity. The Bear Valley Water District (BVWD) provides wastewater collection and treatment service for Bear Valley, Lake Alpine campground, and the Bear Valley Mountain Resort (ski area). The existing treatment facilities are currently planned to accommodate anticipated wastewater flow from current and future developments within the BVWD service area. Treated wastewater is disposed with a combination of land disposal and seasonal discharge to Bloods Creek. BVWD estimates it has disposal capacity available to serve 1,127 new EDUs. BVWD defines an EDU as a residential living unit equal to three sewer service units and defines a sewer service unit as one kitchen or full or half bath, or equivalent. Page 75 of 264 ---PAGE BREAK--- Water Systems Of five water systems being operated on Alpine County's eastern slope, only the Markleeville Mutual Water Company is on record as having problems in meeting current or projected needs. Lack of adequate year-round water supplies have lead the company to require that new developments in the Markleeville area provide wells, increased storage, and hookups. However, increased Federal and State Water Quality standards will likely place most small systems in the County in jeopardy of non-attainment of both standards and increased capacity demands. In the future, new development may be required to provide water source and infrastructure improvements to meet the increased demands it generates. (Fire protection needs addressed in the Hazards Element are not included.) On the west slope, Kirkwood anticipates future water needs for snowmaking capability and, potentially, for domestic use in both the Kirkwood planned development community and in the surrounding areas of Caples Lake. Short-term capacity increases of larger storage tanks and new wells are planned. Alpine County has applied for water appropriations for Caples Lake to meet future economic, domestic and recreational development needs in this regional area. The privately-owned Lake Alpine Water Company (LAWC) provides domestic water service in the Bear Valley area. A “Water Supply Assessment” pursuant to California law (SB 610) was recently completed for the LAWC system. The LAWC has additional water rights applications pending with the State Water Resources Control Board. It is expected that these applications will be approved and will increase the amount of water available to LAWC to 577 acre feet/year. This is sufficient water for the full development of the Bear Valley area. Power & Telephone Power and Communications facilities and services are addressed in the Circulation Element. ELEMENT III - SECTION D G. P. GOAL NO. 26 PROVIDE A LEVEL OF PUBLIC SERVICE ADEQUATE TO INSURE THE HEALTH, SAFETY, AND WELFARE OF ALPINE COUNTY CITIZENS AND PROMOTE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT POLICY NO. 26a Provide additional safety, community services, security personnel and facilities as dictated by growth and development. Page 76 of 264 ---PAGE BREAK--- OBJECTIVE NO. 26a Develop and maintain a short and long term capital improvement program. OBJECTIVE NO. 26b Establish a Capital Improvement Fund and budget annually to place monies in the fund. IMPLEMENTATION MEASURE: A Capital Improvement Program should list buildings, grounds and other public works projects to be constructed in the County. To date only fire protection needs have an adopted plan. Special Districts should annually submit their own capital improvement programs to the County. All capital improvements should be reviewed for conformance with the General Plan. POLICY NO. 26b All new commercial or residential units utilizing community sewer or water systems should be required to contain low or restrictive flow water fixtures or devices wherever possible. OBJECTIVE NO. 26c Apply to the State Water Resources Control Board for set aside of water for future needs in Bear Valley area from Lake Alpine. IMPLEMENTATION MEASURE: The appropriate steps and responsibilities for accomplishing the objective as well as a means for delivering the Lake Alpine water to users in the Bear Valley Planning Area, when deemed necessary, are presented in the Bear Valley Master Plan EIR (Gretzinger and Weatherby, Inc.), and future water supply for the Bear Valley Area of Alpine County (Bill Dendy and Associates, assisted by James M. Morris, Jr. 1982). OBJECTIVE NO. 26d Continue to pursue a set aside of water for future needs in the Kirkwood area from Caples Lake with the State Water Resources Control Board. Adequate Public Facilities and Services This section defines the minimum standards and requirements for necessary improvements, services and public facilities that must be in place to support additional development. The attachment addresses the following general categories: • Roads - capacity, construction standards and maintenance • Utilities Page 77 of 264 ---PAGE BREAK--- • Public Safety • Water and Wastewater Systems Under the concept of adequate public facilities and services, development is only allowed when the proposed project will not cause the minimum standards to be exceeded. The project may include improvements and system upgrades concurrent with the development that are necessary to meet the minimum standards. If these improvements and upgrades are not provided, the project will not be approved. The proposed requirements are divided into two major sections based on the existing General Plan land use designations. The first section is for land already designated Open Space (OS). Open Space areas have the least intensive development potential, are often remote and may not have year round road access. The second section defines the requirements in Rural Residential, Residential and Planned Development General Plan areas. These are the categories of land with the highest development potential and are where most residential, commercial and mixed use development occurs. The table is organized as follows: Column 1: Category Column 2: Minimum standard Columns 3-5: Information required to demonstrate that the minimum standard has been satisfied for each step in the process that applies to the proposed project (general plan, zoning, subdivision) Page 78 of 264 ---PAGE BREAK--- PART 1:Development in Open Space (OS) designation with density not exceeding OS (assumes no change in General Plan designation or zoning): Information Required Service Type Minimum Standard General Plan Change Zoning Change Subdivision Roads (Includes lanes and driveways) Road Capacity Maintain LOS C for all intersections at peak hour (includes all intersections back to and including the nearest intersection with a State Highway that serves the project Not applicable Not applicable May require traffic study if capacity is questionable Construction Standard Meet applicable County standards for roads, lanes and driveways as applicable to the project Not applicable Not applicable Preliminary improvement plan submitted with tentative map application must show compliance Maintenance County maintenance or equivalent; special consideration possible for areas served by existing roads with no winter snow removal Not applicable Not applicable County accepts or demonstrate equivalent; note on final map if in area with no winter snow removal Utilities Electricity Adequate capacity to serve proposed uses Not applicable Not applicable Will service letter from provider, or if off grid describe power requirements and include note on final map Propane Individual tank Not applicable Not applicable Will serve letter from provider if service deemed necessary Telephone Adequate capacity if within existing land line service area Not applicable Not applicable Will service letter from provider if within land line service area. If no land line service include note on final map - cell service may or may not be available and reliable Solid Waste Disposal Adequate provision for proper removal and disposal for the proposed uses Not applicable Not applicable Will serve letter from disposal provider if within service area. If outside of service area demonstrate that an alternative is available and include note on final map Page 79 of 264 ---PAGE BREAK--- Service Type Minimum Standard Information Required General Plan Change Zoning Change Subdivision Public Safety Law Enforcement Not applicable Not applicable If in area with no winter snow removal require acknowledgement on final map and possible waiver of liability Fire Protection Not applicable Not applicable If more than 5 miles via improved road from fire station or in area with no winter snow removal, require acknowledgement on final map and possible waiver of liability Emergency Medical Not applicable Not applicable If more than 5 miles via improved road from fire station or in area with no winter snow removal, require acknowledgement on final map and possible waiver of liability Water and Wastewater Domestic Water Adequate supply to serve the proposed uses (assumption is that OS areas will likely be served by individual wells) Not applicable Not applicable Well test(s) and data pursuant to County Health Department requirements Fire Flow Meet requirements for rural areas pursuant to CDF (2500 gallons per dwelling unit) via individual or shared storage in a location(s) acceptable to the County that is capable of delivering the required flow within the subdivision area. Not applicable Not applicable Note on final map requiring individual storage, or fire department to verify Wastewater Disposal Site suitability for all proposed lots (assumption is that OS areas will likely be served by individual on site systems) Not applicable Not applicable Percolation test, soil profile data and other documentation pursuant to County Health Department requirements Page 80 of 264 ---PAGE BREAK--- PART 2: Development in Rural Residential, Residential and Planned Development General Plan areas; includes a proposed change in the General Plan from Open Space (OS) to a more intense level of use Information Required Service Type Minimum Standard General Plan Change Zoning Change Subdivision Roads Road Capacity Maintain LOS C for all intersections at peak hour (includes all intersections back to and including the nearest intersection with a State Highway that serves the project May require traffic study if capacity is questionable May require traffic study if capacity is questionable May require traffic study if capacity is questionable Construction Standard Meet applicable County standards for roads, lanes and driveways as applicable to the project Identify potential constraints that might preclude ability to meet standards (ex. Slope, other) Show street design for Planned Development zoning; otherwise identify potential constraints that might preclude ability to meet standards (ex. Slope, other) Preliminary improvement plan submitted with tentative map application must show compliance Maintenance County maintenance or equivalent; includes snow removal for all areas except those areas of single family development in Bear Valley that do not have snow removal Identify method Identify method, include in draft CCR for Planned Development zoning County accepts or demonstrate equivalent Utilities Electricity Adequate capacity to serve proposed uses Identify proposed source Will service letter from provider Will service letter from provider Propane Individual tank Not applicable Not applicable Not applicable Telephone Adequate capacity to serve proposed uses Identify proposed source Will service letter from provider Will service letter from provider Solid Waste Disposal Adequate provision for proper removal and disposal for the proposed uses Identify proposed method of disposal Will serve letter from disposal provider if within service area. If outside of service area demonstrate that an alternative is available Will serve letter from disposal provider if within service area. If outside of service area demonstrate that an alternative is available and include note on final map Page 81 of 264 ---PAGE BREAK--- Service Type Minimum Standard Information Required General Plan Change Zoning Change Subdivision Public Safety Law Enforcement None identified Not applicable Not applicable Not applicable Fire Protection Located within 5 miles via improved road from fire station Verify location or demonstrate compliance based on known future location and timing Verify location or demonstrate compliance based on known future location and timing Verify location Emergency Medical Located within 5 miles via improved road from fire station Verify location or demonstrate compliance based on known future location and timing Verify location or demonstrate compliance based on known future location and timing Verify location Water and Wastewater Domestic Water Adequate supply and water quality to serve the proposed uses Indicate proposed source of water supply to serve the area, including estimates of the amount of water required if connection to a central water system is proposed, or information on availability of groundwater if individual wells are proposed. Indicate proposed source of water supply to serve the subdivision, including documentation of existing well permits and/or water rights that will be utilized, evidence of adequate capacity and permission to connect to an existing water supply system (if connection is proposed) Indicate proposed source of water supply to serve the subdivision, including documentation of existing well permits and/or water rights that will be utilized, evidence of adequate capacity and permission to connect to an existing water supply system (if connection is proposed); if water system show on preliminary improvement plans Fire Flow 250 gallons per minute for 2 hours within the subdivision by shared storage in a location acceptable to the County. Location must be able to deliver the required flow within the subdivision area. (NFPA standard applicable to rural areas with homes generally not larger than 3600 square feet each) Indicate proposed method to meet the fire flow requirement Indicate proposed method and location of improvements to meet the fire flow requirement Preliminary improvement plan submitted with tentative map application must show compliance (may want to require some level of pump test to verify that the system can deliver the required flow, although this may be moderated somewhat by storage capacity) Wastewater Disposal – Individual on site systems Site suitability for all proposed lots Information regarding general soils characteristics and expected suitability for on site wastewater disposal Information regarding general soils characteristics and expected suitability for on site wastewater disposal Proof of site suitability for all proposed lots (percolation and soil profile) pursuant to County Health Department requirements Page 82 of 264 ---PAGE BREAK--- Service Type Minimum Standard Information Required General Plan Change Zoning Change Subdivision Wastewater Disposal – community system Adequate capacity to serve the proposed uses and meet the applicable design and waste discharge requirements for a new (or expanded) system as administered by the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board Describe the proposed method of wastewater treatment including the estimated amount of wastewater expected if connection to a central waste water treatment plant is proposed. Describe the proposed method of wastewater treatment including the estimated amount of wastewater expected if connection to a central waste water treatment plant is proposed. New System: Indicate the design and capacity of proposed system; document ability to meet waste discharge requirements; show system layout on preliminary improvement plans Connect to existing system: evidence of adequate capacity and permission to connect to an existing wastewater treatment system that can operate in compliance with waste discharge requirements (include verification from ; show system layout on preliminary improvement plans Page 83 of 264 ---PAGE BREAK--- E. PUBLIC FINANCE Careful fiscal planning of public services and facilities has long been of importance in Alpine County where few private land holdings, limited commerce and industry, and a small population have constrained revenues. As growth occurs County-wide, both within the permanent population and within the recreation population, the ability to raise revenues to meet new demands will remain constrained due to Propositions 4 and 13. (See Data Base Section 11.2). Many County programs have in the past been accomplished with Federal and State financial assistance. Examples include social welfare programs and County roads and public building projects. Current Federal Policies include the elimination or adjustment of programs that have traditionally aided local governments. At the State level, budget surpluses which decreased for three years after the passage of Proposition 13 have become deficits. Given the specter of Federal and State cutbacks, and constraints upon the generation of local tax revenues, the County has few alternatives but to require that the costs and responsibilities for providing public services be passed more directly to the citizens being served. The County will increasingly need to decide which services it can afford to provide and eliminate or find new funding sources for others. A recent report concerning public finance by the State Office of Planning and Research reaffirms "Our conclusion is simple and dramatic: Foothill governments (and Mountain Governments - Ed.) must insure that new development pays its fair share—now and in the long-term--or risk financial collapse and further erosion of local control." Funding mechanisms currently available for the construction of public facilities and provision of on-going services are discussed in Data Base Sections 11.22, and 11.23. ELEMENT III - SECTION E G. P. GOAL NO. 27 PROVIDE AN ADEQUATE LEVEL OF PUBLIC SERVICE WHILE MAINTAINING A BALANCED COUNTY BUDGET OBJECTIVE NO. 27a Develop a long-range budget plan. IMPLEMENTATION MEASURE: The costs involved in operating all County departments should be analyzed. In general, the costs for new development shall be paid for by developers or residents of new developments. They should not become an undue burden upon existing tax base for County service levels and systems. Those departments able to charge fees for services should establish fees that would, as nearly as possible, equal the cost of services provided. The costs of operating all other departments or Page 84 of 264 ---PAGE BREAK--- services should be compared with current and projected revenues and adjusted accordingly. OBJECTIVE NO. 27b Area specific impact fees should be established in accordance with State Code Section 66000 for the Markleeville/Woodfords, Bear Valley and Kirkwood areas. Development Impact Fees are charges that are applied to new construction to cover each development’s fair share of public facilities that are required to serve that development. Development Impact Fees should be assessed for expansion of all services including fire, police, water, sanitary sewer, drainage, parks, public facilities and streets. OBJECTIVE NO. 27c Improve and maintain a Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) capable of reviewing and acting upon proposals for County annexations as well as special district formations, annexations, consolidations, dissolutions, and reorganizations. IMPLEMENTATION MEASURE: The requirements and responsibilities for Local Agency Formation Commissions (LAFCO's) are contained within State Law. The current make-up of the County's LAFCO and the assistance provided by County Staff are considered adequate for all immediate and long-term purposes. County Staff should prepare for LAFCO members a clear and concise guide to LAFCO procedures consistent with enabling statues. OBJECTIVE NO. 27d Establish a method for clearly delineating all costs associated with proposed developments and a means for assigning those costs appropriately and equitably. IMPLEMENTATION MEASURE: Include analysis of economic impacts as a standard part of all environmental analysis accomplished under CEQA. OBJECTIVE NO. 27e Alternative sources of revenues, such as business license fees, sales tax increase, court penalty assessments, and impact fees, should be reviewed as they become available through State enabling legislation for appropriateness, revenue generation capability, and cost of implementation. OBJECTIVE NO. 27f The County should require that either a homeowners association or a special district exist or be formed that would provide for the on-going costs incurred by a new development, before approving such a development - or - Page 85 of 264 ---PAGE BREAK--- the County should charge benefit assessments for the same purpose. IMPLEMENTATION MEASURE: The general procedures and responsibilities for Special District formation are summarized in Data Base Section 11.23. Examples of special districts that have been suggested during the General Plan preparation process include district formation or expansion in the Corridor, Kirkwood, and Bear Valley Planning Areas. Kirkwood has established a public utility district with broad authority to acquire, construct, and maintain electric and gas facilities and water and sewer facilities, to operate public parking, cable television, road maintenance, snow removal, fire protection, and other services. Bear Valley has formed County Service Area under which Bear Valley residents and property owners locally provide and pay for various services, including snow removal, fire protection and solid waste. Re- organizing the CSA as a community services district is under consideration. OBJECTIVE NO. 27g Lands which are located in areas designated Open Space and distant from existing developed areas should be traded for appropriately designated Federal Lands near existing communities in all possible instances. A list of specific Federal parcels that should be considered for trade is included in Data Base 7.6. A Memorandum of Understanding should be established with the Forest Districts to establish procedures for such transfers. F. PLANNING "While the General Plan sets the framework for community development, the day-to-day actions of local governments truly shape the community. Thus, the manner in which a plan is implemented is the real test of a local government's commitment to the Goals, Objectives, Policies, and programs in the General Plan, not the mere adoption of the plan itself". (California Governor's Office of Planning and Research, General Plan Guidelines, Sacramento, CA., 1990, p.161). California Government Code 65400 requires that after a County legislative body has adopted all or part of a General Plan, the Planning Agency (Commission) shall: 1. Investigate and make recommendations to the legislative body upon reasonable means of putting into effect the General Plan. Page 86 of 264 ---PAGE BREAK--- 2. Render an Annual Report on the status of the Plan and progress in its implementation, including progress in meeting its share of regional housing needs. An increasing number of statutes are requiring that local actions be consistent with the adopted General Plan. Among them, AB 1301 (1971) requires all zoning ordinances and subdivision approvals to be consistent with an adopted General Plan. Furthermore, all elements within the General Plan must be consistent with one another. The General Plan Guidelines define consistency as follows: "An action, program, or project is consistent with the General Plan if it, considering all its aspects, will further the Objectives and Policies of the General Plan and not obstruct their attainment." Zoning is the primary tool used in implementing the General Plan. Zoning is often misconstrued as the highest authority in local land use regulation. State Law, however, establishes clearly that the General Plan must set the guideline and zoning must follow. Zoning ordinances can specify standards and requirements in greater detail than those provided by General Plan Land Use designations, to regulate the timing of development. Although the general plan may allow for a use the zoning may not be changed until the timing is appropriate for the use. They must not, however, be out of conformity with the General Plan. California Government Code Sections 66473.5, 66474, 66474.60, and 66474.61 require that counties approving subdivisions must make findings that the developments are consistent with the General Plan and applicable specific plans. Government Code Sections 65401 and 65402 require that any plans for capital improvements or real property acquisitions or disposal by the County or any local government agency including school districts and special districts must be reviewed by the Planning Commission for conformity with the General Plan. The Alpine General Plan is designed to be used, kept up to date, and not shelved for revision after five or ten years time when it is determined inadequate. As times change, new facts about the County's environment will emerge and community goals and values will change. Changes or amendments to the County's General Plan will, no doubt, become necessary. Amendments to the General Plan can be initiated by the County or by the public. Avenues available to the public generally include application for approval by the County's Planning Commission or Board of Supervisors. State Law requires the General Plan not be amended more than four times per year. The Circulation Element/Regional Transportation Plan requires update every two years. Proposed amendments cannot be adopted without public hearing(s) for which adequate public notice is provided. Page 87 of 264 ---PAGE BREAK--- The Alpine County General Plan consists of the mandated Regional Transportation Plan as well as other required General Plan Elements, and a Land Use Map. All sections should be reviewed for correction or adjustment with any major amendment. The General Plan's Data Base, Environmental documents, and Appendices serve several important planning functions. First of all, they provide the background, reasoning, and justification for the General Plan's Goals, Objectives, Policies, and Land Use Map. The Data Base and Appendices can also be used as a "Master Environmental Assessment" when conducting the environmental review required for subsequent projects. The Data Base and Appendices offer background data regarding the possibilities and constraints for future projects anywhere in the County. They tell staff and officials where further study is important. The Data Base and Appendices are, in fact, merely summarizations of often far more detailed information contained within the County's Planning Library. It is suggested that County staff maintain and utilize the Data Base, Appendices, and Library for conducting initial studies upon specific projects in the future. For some projects that are found to be in conformance with the General Plan's EIR, use of Section 15067 of the Public Resources Code may suffice for allowing that no further environmental study is necessary. ELEMENT III - SECTION F G. P. GOAL NO. 28 MAINTAIN A COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING PROCESS IN ALPINE COUNTY OBJECTIVE NO. 28a Maintain consistency between all applicable County Ordinances and the County General Plan. IMPLEMENTATION MEASURE: State Law allows the County "reasonable time" within which to make zoning or other ordinances consistent with the General Plan. All County Ordinances should be reviewed with respect to the General Plan's Goals, Objectives, Policies, and the Land Use Map upon adoption. Recommendations or alternatives for revisions should be available for public review and at least one public hearing should be held before adoption. IMPLEMENTATION MEASURE: The County should continue to provide adequate funding and staff to insure that the County maintains a comprehensive Planning process. OBJECTIVE NO. 28b Maintain a comprehensive and internally consistent General Plan. IMPLEMENTATION MEASURE: Once each year in coordination with the County's budget process, the Page 88 of 264 ---PAGE BREAK--- County's Planning Commission should report to the Board of Supervisors on the status of the General Plan, the progress in its application, and whether or not revisions or amendments would be in order. Amendments to the General Plan must not exceed four per year. OBJECTIVE NO. 28c Maintain a system for clear and streamlined permit processing. IMPLEMENTATION MEASURE: State Government Code 65920 et seq. places certain requirements on local governments with respect to processing permit applications in a timely fashion. The legislation, when enacted locally, can offer benefits to the County, the general public, and project proponents by clearly spelling out responsibilities and time limits for project review and approval. The County should maintain application process descriptions that conform with requirements of AB 884 using simple schematic drawings where possible. These should show all parties the steps and time frames involved in the acceptance, review, and action upon any General Plan Amendment, Subdivision, Rezoning, Use Permit, or other application. The first step in the review of any such application should be a General Plan consistency determination. Before any application would be accepted as complete for processing the determination should be made whether or not such application is consistent with the General Plan. This determination should, in most instances, be made by qualified County Staff. However, where interpretation is difficult, the determination may need to be referred to the Planning Commission or Board of Supervisors. Where applications are submitted for projects that are clearly not in conformance with the General Plan, such applications should be returned and the applicant informed that adoption of a General Plan Amendment would be necessary to make the application acceptable. Page 89 of 264 ---PAGE BREAK--- Job's Peak Alpine County General Plan Maps Index Hawkins Peak Monitor Pass Hope Valley Mokelumne Wilderness Deer Valley Ebbett's Pass Bagley Valley Lake Alpine Highland Lakes Sonora Pass Lost Cannon Peak ´ Woodfords Markleeville Page 90 of 264 ---PAGE BREAK--- Jeep N/A Highway 88 Foothill Mud Lake Carson River Foothill Rd Diamond Valley Emigrant Trail Chambers Nevada Shakehill Sunrise Trl Wade N/A Jeep Jeep Jeep Jeep N/A N/A Jeep N/A N/A N/A N/A Highway 88 Mud Lake Jeep N/A N/A Jeep N/A N/A N/A N/A Jeep ¯ 0 0.6 1.2 0.3 Miles Legend General Plan HWF IND INS PD C NC RH RM RL RR OS RS W Streams Alpine County General Plan Job's Peak Page 91 of 264 ---PAGE BREAK--- Highway 88 Blue Lakes Jeep N/A Blue Lakes Rd Burnside Lake Rd Forestdale Rd Woods Lake Luther Pass Rd / Hwy 89 Larkspur Jeep N/A N/A N/A Jeep Jeep Jeep N/A N/A Jeep N/A N/A Jeep N/A Jeep N/A Jeep Jeep Jeep Jeep N/A Jeep Jeep N/A Jeep Jeep Jeep N/A N/A Jeep Jeep Jeep N/A N/A Jeep Jeep N/A N/A Jeep N/A Jeep Jeep ¯ 0 0.6 1.2 0.3 Miles Legend General Plan HWF IND INS PD C NC RH RM RL RR OS RS W Streams W W W W W W Water Bodies Alpine County General Plan Hope Valley Page 92 of 264 ---PAGE BREAK--- x Highway 89 Highway 88 Hot Springs Road Emigrant Trail Carson River Road Poorboy Road Diamond Valley Road Pleasant Valley Road Pony Express x x x x x x x x x ¯ 0 0.6 1.2 0.3 Miles Legend Highway Road General Plan HWF IND INS PD C NC RH RM RL RR OS RS W Streams W W W W W W Water Bodies Alpine County General Plan Hawkins Peak Page 93 of 264 ---PAGE BREAK--- Highway 89 Jeep N/A Barney Riley Leviathan Mine Road Big Springs Loop Canyon Loope Canyon Road Haypress Flat Road Leviathan Lookout Big Springs Road Jeep Jeep Jeep Jeep Jeep Jeep Jeep Jeep N/A Jeep Jeep Jeep Jeep Jeep Jeep Jeep N/A Jeep Jeep Jeep Jeep Jeep Jeep Jeep Jeep Big Springs N/A Jeep N/A Jeep Jeep Jeep N/A Jeep Jeep Jeep Jeep Jeep Jeep Jeep Jeep Jeep N/A Jeep N/A Jeep Jeep Jeep Jeep Jeep N/A Jeep Jeep Jeep Jeep Jeep N/A ¯ 0 0.6 1.2 0.3 Miles Legend General Plan HWF IND INS PD C NC RH RM RL RR OS RS W Streams W W W W W W Water Bodies Alpine County General Plan Monitor Pass Page 94 of 264 ---PAGE BREAK--- N/A Jeep Blue Lakes Highway 4 Jeep N/A Jeep Jeep N/A N/A Jeep ¯ 0 0.6 1.2 0.3 Miles Legend General Plan HWF IND INS PD C NC RH RM RL RR OS RS W Streams W W W W W W Water Bodies Alpine County General Plan Mokelumne Wilderness Page 95 of 264 ---PAGE BREAK--- Jeep Highway 4 N/A Blue Lakes Sunset Lake Pacific Valley Rd Highland Lakes N/A Jeep Jeep Jeep Jeep N/A Jeep Jeep Jeep N/A Jeep N/A Jeep Jeep N/A Jeep Jeep N/A ¯ 0 0.6 1.2 0.3 Miles Legend General Plan HWF IND INS PD C NC RH RM RL RR OS RS W Streams W W W W W W Water Bodies Alpine County General Plan Deer Valley Page 96 of 264 ---PAGE BREAK--- Jeep Highway 4 Wolf Creek Highland Lakes Rd N/A Indian Creek Road Pleasant Valley Rd Jeep Jeep Jeep Jeep N/A Highway 4 Jeep Highway 4 N/A Jeep Jeep Jeep Highway 4 Jeep Jeep Jeep Jeep ¯ 0 0.6 1.2 0.3 Miles Legend General Plan HWF IND INS PD C NC RH RM RL RR OS RS W Streams W W W W W W Water Bodies Alpine County General Plan Ebbett's Pass Page 97 of 264 ---PAGE BREAK--- Jeep Wolf Creek Bagley Valley Road Bagley Valley N/A Dixon Mine Road Jeep Jeep Jeep Jeep Jeep Jeep Jeep Jeep Jeep Jeep Jeep Jeep ¯ 0 0.6 1.2 0.3 Miles Legend General Plan HWF IND INS PD C NC RH RM RL RR OS RS W Streams W W W W W W Water Bodies Alpine County General Plan Bagley Valley Page 98 of 264 ---PAGE BREAK--- Highway 4 Jeep N/A Forest Route 7N17 Forest Route 7N01 Mount Reba Bear Valley Quaking Aspen Forest Route 7N75 Lake Alpine Rd Homestead Cub N/A N/A Jeep N/A Jeep Highway 4 Jeep N/A N/A Jeep N/A N/A Jeep Jeep ¯ 0 0.6 1.2 0.3 Miles Legend General Plan HWF IND INS PD C NC RH RM RL RR OS RS W Streams W W W W W W Water Bodies Alpine County General Plan Lake Alpine Page 99 of 264 ---PAGE BREAK--- N/A County Road 992200 Forest Route 6N06 Highland Lakes Rd Jeep ¯ 0 0.6 1.2 0.3 Miles Legend General Plan HWF IND INS PD C NC RH RM RL RR OS RS W Streams W W W W W W Water Bodies Alpine County General Plan Highland Lakes Page 100 of 264 ---PAGE BREAK--- State Highway 108 N/A ¯ 0 0.6 1.2 0.3 Miles Legend General Plan HWF IND INS PD C NC RH RM RL RR OS RS W Streams Alpine County General Plan Sonora Pass Page 101 of 264 ---PAGE BREAK--- ¯ 0 0.6 1.2 0.3 Miles Legend General Plan HWF IND INS PD C NC RH RM RL RR OS RS W Streams W W W W W W Water Bodies Alpine County General Plan Lost Cannon Peak Page 102 of 264 ---PAGE BREAK--- Highway 89 N/A Laramie Montgomery Hot Springs Barrett School Laramie St Water Cole Weber N/A N/A ¯ 0 0.04 0.08 0.02 Miles Legend General Plan HWF IND INS PD C NC RH RM RL RR OS RS W Streams Alpine County General Plan Downtown Markleeville Page 103 of 264 ---PAGE BREAK--- Highway 88 Jeep Highway 89 N/A Carson River Emigrant Trail Diamond Valley Springs Barber Pioneer Hawkside Zellmer Pine Old Hwy 89 Westfork Lower Manzanita Dr Merrill Ranch N/A N/A N/A N/A Carson River N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A ¯ 0 0.2 0.4 0.1 Miles Legend General Plan HWF IND INS PD C NC RH RM RL RR OS RS W Streams Alpine County General Plan Woodfords Page 104 of 264 ---PAGE BREAK--- ALPINE COUNTY GENERAL PLAN IV. CIRCULTATION ELEMENT/REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN Page 105 of 264 ---PAGE BREAK--- ALPINE COUNTY REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN AND GENERAL PLAN CIRCULATION ELEMENT 1999 UPDATE Prepared for ALPINE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION Page 106 of 264 ---PAGE BREAK--- LIST OF TABLES AND MAPS Tables & Charts Title Page 1 Alpine County Transportation Planning 99 2 Terms and 101 3 S.T.I.P. 113 4 County 115 5 Average Daily Traffic for State Highways....... 118 6 Alpine County Airport 137 7 Action 161 IV - 1* Transportation Improvement Programs............ 155 through IV - 6 MAPS 1 Regional 98 2 Circulation Land Use Plan 120 * Numbering corresponds to other, non-circulation elements of the General Plan. Page 107 of 264 ---PAGE BREAK--- IV. CIRCULATION ELEMENT/REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Summary of Transportation Plan The Alpine County Transportation Commission and Board of Supervisors have combined State requirements for a regional transportation plan and a general plan circulation element into one document since 1982. The plan is updated on even numbered years. The plan’s primary purpose is to insure the safe and adequate circulation of persons, goods and utilities throughout the short and long term future of Alpine County. A secondary purpose is to convey the County’s transportation needs, issues, plans and priorities to the State government. In general, the short-range Transportation Plan consists of the County’s highest priority improvement projects and those goals and policies which address the most current and important issues. The long-range Transportation Plan calls for continued, periodic improvements of State highways and some highway and bridge reconstruction. In the long-term, the need for maintenance and reconstruction of existing County roads will generally supersede the need for new roads. The scenic quality of the County’s transportation corridors will be retained. New developments will be required to construct roads to County standards and may be required to provide road maintenance. Efforts will be made to stimulate recreation and tourism thereby increasing already high percentages of out- of-county traffic. Actions may be taken to generate additional County revenues for road maintenance and other public services from the recreational visitor. The County will continue toward completion of the County Airport Master Plan. Bicycle and pedestrian facilities will be considered where reasonable in all new construction as a means of improving local travel as well as adding to the County’s recreational attractiveness. The County will continue to enforce parking requirements and may upgrade regulations to attenuate certain existing or anticipated parking problems. County policies will encourage efficient use of pipe and utility lines by measures such as combining lines to the fewest possible corridors and easements minimizing extensions to new areas consistent with the County’s land use policies. The County’s policy of requiring all utility lines to be placed underground will be maintained. The County may request use of South Tahoe Public Utilities District pipeline for development of hydro-power generation or for sewage disposal needs in the Woodfords/West Fork Carson River region. The County will not allow trans-Sierra or other major utility/transmission corridors to be constructed in Alpine County unless utilities are placed underground and provide a direct benefit to Alpine County in accordance with General Plan Goal No. 17, Policy 17f. Page 108 of 264 ---PAGE BREAK--- Page 109 of 264 ---PAGE BREAK--- TABLE 1 ALPINE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION PLANNING CALENDAR Responsible Date Agency Task Jan. 10 Controller State Controller sends preliminary STA estimate to ACTC Before Feb. 1 Auditor The County Auditor should furnish the ACTC with estimates of LTF (TDA) and State funds to be available during the ensuing fiscal year. (A.C. 6620) Before Feb. 1 ACTC Staff Draft Overall Work Programs (OWPs) for the following fiscal year should be submitted to Caltrans for review. Before Feb. 1 ACTC The ACTC should establish preliminary transit, bicycle facilities and planning/administration budgets to estimate funds that may be available for streets and roads purposes pending a determination that all unmet transit needs that are reasonable are met. During March ACTC The LTC should hold unmet transit needs hearings. The hearing(s) must be documented and afforded at least 30 days advanced public notice. If it is determined there are no unmet transit needs that can be reasonably met, LTF monies can be allocated for streets and roads or other transportation purposes. After it is determined that all unmet transit needs, that can be reasonably met, are being met, then by resolution, the LTC should transmit its conclusions regarding LTF and STA accounts allocations and expenditures to the County Auditor and Caltrans Division of Mass Transportation in Sacramento. Quarterly Auditor County Auditor reports status of LTF to Alpine County of Business, Transportation and Housing Agency (A.C. 6638). April 1 CTC CTC adopts STIP and HSOPP by this date.. (Even numbered years) April 1 Caltrans Caltrans submits its list of Route Development Plan (RDP) projects (projects needed within 7 to 12 years) to the County. The LTC should submit its comments on the RDP to Caltrans. RDP projects are then eligible for District STIP Candidate Lists. (Tent.) Before May 1 LTC Adopt OWP for following fiscal year, submit copies and subvention fund application to Caltrans. Before June 30 Auditor The ACTC should establish a budget which includes allocations for the following. Corresponding allocation instructions should be delivered to the auditor. 1. Salaries and mileage for members (PUC 99233.1). 2. Support for the transportation work program for planning and administration purposes (A.C. 6646 and P.U.C. 99233.1). 3. Audits and compliance reports (P.U.C. 99233.1). Page 110 of 264 ---PAGE BREAK--- TABLE 1 - Continued ALPINE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION PLANNING CALENDAR- Continued Responsible Date Agency Task Before July 1 Auditor The Alpine County LTC shall send to the Secretary of Business, Transportation, (Every three years) and Housing Agency a triennial performance audit conducted by an independent entity in 1992, 1995, 1998.(A.C. 6662.5). August 11 Controller Controller sends revised STA estimates to LTC. By Aug.1 LTC RTP update adopted. Copies sent to Caltrans and CTC. August 15 Caltrans & CTC Fund estimate showing County STIP bid target is made available by Caltrans and (Odd numbered years) CTC. Before Oct. 1 Auditor Any funds expended for non-transit related purposes shall be reported to the State Controller (A.C. 6665). Before Transit Any transit service operators claiming TDA funds Claimants shall Oct. 28 submit reports of operation to the Alpine County LTC and the State Controller (A.C. 6637). Dec. 1 ACTC RTIP due from the LTC to Caltrans and the CTC. (Odd numbered years) Dec. 1 Caltrans TTIP due from Caltrans to the LTC and CTC. (Odd numbered years) Dec. 1 Caltrans Draft HSOPP due from Caltrans to the LTC and CTC. (Odd numbered years) Dec. 30 ACTC LTC and claimant audits due to Caltrans and Controller (A.C. 6751 and 6661). Page 111 of 264 ---PAGE BREAK--- TABLE 2 LIST OF TERMS AND DEFINITIONS ADT, (Average Daily Traffic): A measure of the amount of traffic utilizing a route or corridor, passing through a point on a roadway. Bid Pot (Target): The amount of funds estimated to be available to Alpine County for construction of major new highway projects for which the County must bid through its RTP, RTIP and other means for inclusion by the CTC in the STIP. Caltrans, (The California Department of Transportation): The State level department responsible for oversight of the Statewide multi-modal transportation system, maintenance of the State Highway system, and other related tasks as assigned by the State Government. CTC, (California Transportation Commission): The CTC is a 9-member State commission appointed by the Governor and charged with advising and assisting the Legislature and the Administration in formulating and evaluating State policies and plans for transportation programs in California. Special responsibilities include adopting a State Transportation Improvement Program, HSOPP, preparing the Biennial Report t the Legislature concerning significant transportation issues, and evaluating the proposed State transportation budget. FCR, (Flexible Congestion Relief): A new State Highway Account (SHA) program for funding in the new 7-year State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) to help alleviate traffic congestion on State highways. Federal-Aid Secondary Standards, (FAS): Federal road standards that apply to certain designated rural roads and minor State highways for which Federal-Aid Secondary Funds are spent. Functional Classification: A system of categorizing the County’s roads and highways according to their function based on a nationally standardized system. Functional classifications in Alpine County include: minor arterials, major collectors, minor collectors, and local roads. The definitions for each classification are included in this table. HSOPP, (Highway System Operation and Protection Plan): New State program to rehabilitate and improve safety and operational characteristics on the SHA. HSOPP Programs are not included in the STIP. HSOP is a four-year program adopted annually. ISTEA (Intermodal Surface Transportation Enhancement Plan): 1991 Federal Law that expanded and reformed federal transportation funding. IRRS, (Inter-Regional Roadway System): The IRRS is a series of interregional State highway routes outside of urbanized areas that provides access to and between the State’s economic centers, major recreational areas, and urban and rural regions. IRRS Program: A new SHA program for funding improvements on the IRRS. Improvement projects for this program must be chosen from a 10-year IRRS Plan submitted by TABLE 2 - Continued Page 112 of 264 ---PAGE BREAK--- LIST OF TERMS AND DEFINITIONS - Continued CALTRANS to the California State Legislature in February 1990. Programming will be authorized by the biennial CTC adopted STIP. Local Roads: Routes which service primarily to provide access to adjacent land. These routes provide service to travel over relatively short distances and constitute the rural mileage not otherwise classified. LTC, (Local Transportation Commission): The LTC is established under requirements of State Government Code Section 29535 and in Alpine County is composed of the Board of Supervisors of the County. The functions of the Local Transportation Commissions are essentially: development and yearly accomplishment of the overall work program (OWP); biennial preparation of the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP); and administration of LTF funds according to the TDA; and biennial preparation of the RTIP. TDA, (Transit Development Act): For counties under 500,000 population, a pool of funds from a 1/4% of the general sales tax established by SB 325 for local transportation purposes, e.g., community level bus service, bikeways, transportation planning, and streets and roads. TSM, (Transportation Systems Management): Short range improvements to maximize the efficiency of the existing transportation system; includes traffic engineering, public transportation, traffic regulations, pricing structures, bicycle usage, and operational improvements not requiring construction of added lanes. Unmet Needs Hearing: Hearings that are required to be held annually by the RTPA to determine whether or not there are any unmet transit needs that can reasonably be met before TDA funds may be used for streets and roads or other transportation purposes (see Section 99401.5 and 99401.6, California Government Code). Page 113 of 264 ---PAGE BREAK--- A. INTRODUCTION Purpose of Plan In 1972, the legislature required that regional transportation planning agencies be formed throughout the State. Among the responsibilities of these agencies were the preparation of regional transportation plans (RTPs). The Alpine County Local Transportation Commission (Alpine County LTC) has been designated the Regional Transportation Planning Agency for Alpine County. Membership of the Alpine County LTC is the same as the Board of Supervisors. The Alpine County LTC’s first RTP was prepared by Caltrans, District 10, under the direction of the Alpine County LTC and adopted in April 1975. Required updates were also prepared by Caltrans and adopted in 1975, 1977, 1978, and 1980. On June 16, 1981, the Alpine County LTC directed the Central Sierra Planning Council (CSPC) to prepare the 1982 RTP Update in coordination with the County’s ongoing General Plan revision project. The Circulation Element has thus been prepared to serve as both the General Plan Circulation Element and the 1982 Alpine County RTP Update. In 1984 the County reaffirmed its 1982 Update as adequate. In 1986, 1988, and 1990 the Central Sierra Planning Council assisted the County in updating the RTP/Circulation Element that was adopted in 1982. State guidelines for RTPs have some differences compared to the guidelines that direct the preparation of General Plan Circulation Elements. As a consequence, the Circulation Element varies in its detail and organization from the other elements of the Alpine County General Plan. The primary requirement for the RTP is that it contain separate policy, action and financial elements and an environment assessment. According to the California Transportation Commission’s Regional Transportation Plan Guidelines, as revised October 1987, the purpose of a Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) is to: • Provide the foundation for transportation decisions by local, regional and State officials; • Document the region’s mobility needs and issues; • Identify and attempt to resolve regional issues and provide policy direction for local plans; • Document the region’s goals, policies and objectives for meeting current and future transportation mobility needs; • Set forth an action plan to address transportation issues and needs consistent with regional and State policies; Page 114 of 264 ---PAGE BREAK--- • Identify transportation improvements in sufficient detail to aid in the development of the Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP) and State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) and to be useful in making decisions related to the development and growth of the region; • Identify those agencies responsible for implementing the action plans; • Document the region’s financial resources needed to meet mobility needs; • Provide input to the California Transportation Commission in development of its Annual Report to the Legislature. According to State Government Code Section 65302 a County General Plan Circulation Element shall include “the general location and extent of existing and proposed major thoroughfares, transportation routes, terminals, and other local public utilities and facilities, all correlated with the land use element of the plan.” State requirements for a general plan circulation element parallel those for an RTP except that they add the requirement that “other local public utilities and facilities” be addressed in addition to transportation. For this reason, the RTP addresses the circulation of power, sewer, water and communications as well as people and materials. Organization The Circulation Element/RTP Update contains the following six sections: A. Introduction The Introduction provides an introduction to the plan, a list of definitions and a description of the region and the existing circulation system(s). The introduction also contains a report of progress in implementing previous plans and a discussion of the relationship of the RTP to other transportation plans. B. Needs Assessment The Needs Assessment identifies and documents existing and future transportation/circulation needs and issues in the County and region. It also discusses the trends, projections and assumptions on which the needs and issues are based. C. The Policy Element The Policy Element lists County goals, objectives, and policies addressing transportation and circulation needs and issues. They are all organized by transportation mode. D. The Action Element Page 115 of 264 ---PAGE BREAK--- The Action Element includes a description of the State and regional planning processes. It also discusses alternatives that have been considered prior to adoption of the selected plan. It then identifies the adopted plan in terms of its short (7 year), mid (7-12 year), and long range (12-20 year) elements. Transportation System Management (TSM) is addressed. The Action Element also provides an action (implementation) summary and the LTC specific transportation improvement program charts. E. The Financial Element The Financial Element lists the costs, revenues, deficits/surpluses and alternative funding sources of all programs necessary to maintain an adequate County wide transportation/circulation system. F. Environmental Review State law defines both RTP updates and general plan amendments to be “projects” and, as such, requires that they be assessed for the effects they may generate upon the environment. Part F discusses the environmental review processes and procedures followed in the assessment of the environmental impacts of this plan. Regional Setting, Population and Economic Characteristics Alpine County comprises 723 square miles of land situated along the crest of the Sierra Nevada in east-central California. The County’s topography is characterized by high rugged peaks and ridges, deep canyons, mountain meadows, and numerous streams and lakes. The County is located 15 miles south of Lake Tahoe and is bounded to the east by Douglas County, Nevada. It is crossed generally east to west by State Highways 4 and 88, and north to south by State Highway 89. Approximately ninety-five percent of Alpine County’s land area is government owned and administered by the U.S. Forest Service, the Bureau of Land Management, or Departments of the State of California. Percentagewise the County’s population increased significantly during the 1970's, growing from 484 persons in 1970 to 1100 in 1980. During the 1980's growth has slowed such that the State Department of Finance estimated total population to be 1100 on January 1, 1991. and 1,170 on July 1, 1995. (The 1990 Census listed County population as 1109 persons.) Although this figure represents the smallest county population in the State of California, it does not include the estimated 2 million seasonal residents and recreational visitors per year. Most of the population lives near or in the communities of Markleeville, Woodfords, Bear Valley, or Kirkwood. In 1997, recreation and tourism clearly stand as a mainstay of the local economy although government, agriculture, timber, and mining have and will continue to provide valuable contributions. The Traffic Circulation System Page 116 of 264 ---PAGE BREAK--- The following is a summary of the region’s traffic circulation system, more detailed description may be found in the General Plan Data Base. State highways serving the County are Routes 4, 88, 89 and 207 (see Land Use and Circulation Map). These routes are all minor arterials that provide access to and through the County for intercounty and Interstate travel except for Route 207 which is a major collector serving Bear Valley. They are all, with the exception of Route 207, sparsely connected with a network of major and minor County roads. Current and projected average daily traffic counts (ADTs) for certain locations along each highway in the County are shown on Map 1 and Table 4. Current traffic counts were prepared by Caltrans District 101 based upon sample counts and calculations. Projected ADTs were derived using past ADT estimates and trend line projections. There are approximately 134 miles of County roads in Alpine County. On Table 3 these County roads are categorized as select roads and minor roads. Select roads are defined to include all major and minor collectors. Minor roads are defined to include all other local roads. The functional classification of roadways in rural areas (arterials, major and minor collectors, local roads, etc.) Are established by the Federal government and explained on Table 2, Definitions. Alpine County also contains a number of roads located on public land administered by the Bureau of Land Management and U.S. Forest Service. Other elements of the traffic circulation system in Alpine County include aviation, transit, bicycles and pedestrians. Each transportation mode is addressed separately within later sections of the RTP. Public Utilities Circulation Public utilities circulation in Alpine County includes transmissions/conveyance systems for water, sewage disposal, communications and energy. The following is a brief summary of each system; details may be found in the General Plan Data Base. There are presently a dozen water supply systems in Alpine County. All are managed by private entities except for those operated by the Washoe Indian people, or the Kirkwood Public Utility District. Water systems on the County’s eastern slope are operated by three private entities and two governmental entities. The Markleeville Mutual Water Company, the Alpine Village Water Company, and the Sorensons Mutual Subdivision Homeowner Association System are each privately owned. Homeowners operate a system that serves the Shay Creek Tract and the Washoe Tribe operates a water system serving the Woodfords Community Council Housing Development in Dutch Valley. In the Kirkwood area one major water system has been developed that serves the Kirkwood area and another system for snowmaking that draws water from Caples Lake will be operational in 1997. Small systems exist at the Forest Service’s Caples Lake and Woods Lake Summer Home Tracts. Four major water suppliers serve the County’s Bear Valley area: 1) the Lake Alpine Water Company, 2) Mount Reba Inc., 3) the U.S. Forest Service, and 4) the Old Bear Valley Homeowner’s Association. The Sherman Acres Subdivision, located on the border of Alpine and Calaveras Counties, utilizes individual private wells. Page 117 of 264 ---PAGE BREAK--- There are presently four wastewater collection and treatment systems in Alpine County: 1) the Markleeville Public Utility District, 2) the Dutch Valley Colony System (Woodfords Community Council), 3) the Kirkwood Public Utility District, and 4) the Bear Valley Water District. All other residential areas in the County utilize individual sewage disposal systems. On the eastern slope, the Markleeville Public Utility District (MPUD) presently serves the Markleeville townsite area. The Woodfords Community Council Ditch Valley Colony is also served by a sewage system. On the east slope, the Kirkwood Meadows Development is served by a system operated by the Kirkwood Public Utility District. The Bear Valley Water District provides sewage treatment and disposal services to the Old Bear Valley Subdivision, Mount Reba, Bear Valley Ski Company, and some developments at Lake Alpine. Telephone service to the east slope of Alpine County is provided by GTE . The company’s main trunk and exchange lines nearly parallel Highways 88 and 89 as far as Sorensons and Markleeville. On the west slope, microwave telephone service to the Kirkwood-Caples Lake area is provided by the Volcano Telephone Company of Pine Grove, California. At present, service extends past Kirkwood to the Caltrans station near Caples Lake. The Pacific Telephone Company presently provides service to Bear Valley, Lake Alpine and Mount Reba. Electricity is currently provided to the County’s east slope through facilities of the Sierra Pacific Power Company. Liquid petroleum gas (primarily propane) is supplied to individual users by distributors operating out of the Gardnerville/Minden area and South Lake Tahoe. On the west slope, the Kirkwood development produces its own power utilizing diesel generators. However, due to air quality concerns and efficiency, Kirkwood has begun a study with Sierra Pacific to determine the feasibility of constructing a service line to Kirkwood. Gas is distributed throughout the Kirkwood development in underground pipelines. Supplies are contained in a 3,000 gallon bulk tank located at the resort’s maintenance yard. Electric power is provided to the Bear Valley region by the Pacific Gas and Electric Company through a distribution system. Private companies on Highway 4 in Calaveras County supply liquid propane gas to customers in the Bear Valley area. Progress in Plan Implementation A number of programs and objectives listed in the previous 1982, 1986, and 1988 and 1990 RTP and Circulation Element Updates have progressed or have been completed. After more than 10 years of consistent effort the County achieved inclusion of improvements to Highway 4 at Lake Alpine in the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP). Because the improvements are still unconstructed and the State faces serious transportation financing deficits, perseverance on this matter is important if results are expected. The current STP includes a westbound truck-climbing/passing lane in Woodfords Canyon (1997) and an eastbound passing lane in the Woods Lake to Carson Pass area (1998-1999). Caltrans has consistently rejected efforts to open Monitor Pass in winter months. The 1986 and 1988 RTP updates reflect the County’s determination to open the Monitor Pass region for winter recreation, weather permitting, and suggest that a permit process similar to the “Snow Park” program could help offset costs involved. Such a program should be managed to prevent any loss of highway parking. Page 118 of 264 ---PAGE BREAK--- As requested in the 1982 RTP, the intersection of Highway 88 and 89 in Woodfords has been improved and a hazard sign has been placed at the bottom of the Carson Spur. Five bridges on State highways have been replaced or upgraded. State Highway 88 was improved with the replacement of the Caples Creek Bridge along with some realignment of SR 88. The County has completed the first 20 of the 26 County road improvement projects listed in previous RTPs. State funding was obtained to resurface the County airport and this project was completed. The County has taken direct responsibility for the Central Sierra Stagecoach Transit Service for senior citizens. A social service transportation advisory commission has been formed. No specific bicycle, pedestrian or utility line changes have occurred. Coordination with Other Plans and Studies During development of the1997 RTP Update and Circulation Element of the General Plan, other plans, policy documents and studies addressing transportation in Alpine County were reviewed. In general all other local or regional plans or policy documents are in conformance with the 1997 RTP update and vice-versa. Several transportation planning studies have been completed which aided in development of the 1997 RTP update. These include a Four County Recreational Transit Demand and Feasibility Study Kaplan and Assoc., Walnut Creek, CA), a Through Traffic Study (California State University, Chico, CA), a Social Services Transportation Inventory and Consolidation Update (Central Sierra Planning Council, Sonora, CA) and a Public Service Transit Feasibility Study (Pat Piras, San Lorenzo, CA). Other aids include an Amador County Traffic Model which includes a portion of State Highway 88 and a Calaveras County Traffic Model and Plan which will address the Highway 4 corridor to Alpine County including Lake Alpine, Bear Valley and Mt. Reba Bear Valley Ski Area and a consultant’s report concerning transit services. Transportation “studies” are different from transportation “plans” in that studies are not adopted controlling policy documents. Transportation studies provide the information and alternatives to be considered by elected governing officials for preparing and adopting transportation plans and official policy documents such as the RTP update and the General Plan Circulation Element(s). The following is a list of other local and regional plans that were reviewed for conformity with this plan and transportation studies that were considered in preparation of this plan. • Access and Transportation in the Foothills, California Governor’s Office of Planning and Research, Sacramento, CA, January 12, 1981 • Alpine County Business Attraction/Airport Site Study, Economic Development Services, Sacramento, CA 1990 • Evaluation Report of the 1988 Regional Transportation Plans, Caltrans, Sacramento, CA 1989 • Alpine County General Plan/Transportation Plan Update, Alpine County Page 119 of 264 ---PAGE BREAK--- Board of Supervisors, Alpine County, CA 1982 • “Classification of Areas of the State as Attainment, Nonattainment, and Unclassified for State Ambient Air Quality Standards for the California Clean Air Act of 1988", State of California, Air Resources Board, Technical Support Division, Sacramento, CA, April 1989 • Environmental Impact Report for Bear Valley Master Plan, Draft prepared by Justin F. Barber and Eugene Weatherby, Jackson and Auburn, CA, Bear Valley Policy Committee, 1978 • Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Proposed bear Valley Ski Area Expansion, USDA, Forest Service, C05858, July 1995 • Final Environmental Impact Report for Kirkwood Meadows Ski Development, Draft prepared by James H. Roberts and Associates, Inc. 1974 • “Highway 88 Planning Agreement,” Counties of Amador, Alpine and El Dorado, Caltrans, USFS and FHWA, 1985 • Kirkwood Master Plan Amended 1988, Kirkwood Associates, Inc., Kirkwood, CA 1988 • Recreational Travel to the Mountains, Caltrans, District 10, Stockton, CA, June 1978 • “Transportation Development Act Statutes and Administrative Code for 1988", Caltrans, Sacramento, CA, January 1989 • Mt. Reba Bear Valley Ski Area Expansion Draft Environmental Impact Statement, USFS, Calaveras Ranger District, Hathaway Pines, CA 1991 • “AB 84" (Lancaster) - Requiring project study reports (PSR’s) for State highway projects, regional future development lists, district future development lists, and project study report development plans • “AB 3933" (Bates) - Development of intra city and intercity bicycle programs • “SB 140" (Deddeh) - Requiring additional State level transportation funding • “SCA 1" (Garamendi) - Amends Gann limit to permit collection of revenues to be expended for State transportation programs and implements provisions of SB 300 (1989) and AB 471 (1989) Page 120 of 264 ---PAGE BREAK--- • “SB 157" (Mello) - Transportation needs of elderly and handicapped persons in rural areas • “SB 498" (Green) - Requires Social Service Transit Advisory Councils • “SB 516" (Burgeson) - Allows State to contract for work on highways • 1992 Calaveras County Circulation Study, Calaveras County • 1994 Amador County RTP Update, Amador County LTC, Jackson, CA • 1996 STIP, CTC, The STIP Process The State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) Process is a short range planning process whereby candidate projects are presented to the CTC for programming in the seven-year STIP. No major ($300,000+) capacity enhancing State highway project is eligible to be worked on or funded unless it is programmed in the STIP. The process involves several steps that must be followed by the Alpine County LTC and Caltrans before any project can be delivered to the CTC for consideration. The process is summarized in chart form on Table 3 and described in further detail in the Action Element. Caltrans System Planning Caltrans is required by the statutes (G.C. Section 65086) to conduct long-term State Highway System (SHS) planning through the preparation of Route Concept Reports (RCR’s). RCR’s are the basis for properly identifying necessary future SHS improvements and possible new transportation corridors. The System Planning process also consists of the preparation of Route Development Plans (RDP’s) which identify the capacity-increasing improvements necessary to maintain an adequate level of service (LOS) on the SHS. The RDP is used to develop specific projects for inclusion in the District Candidate List then become candidates for inclusion in future RTIP’s and PSTIP’s, and ultimately in the CTC adopted STIP. RDP’s identify projects for the post-STIP 5-year period 8 through 12 years). RCR’s and RDP’s are prepared in conjunction and cooperation with Regional Transportation Planning Agencies (RTPA’s). Draft RDR’s are also circulated through affected cities and counties, for review and comment prior to finalizing. RCR’s are prepared for each SHS route, and are recycled as necessary to be representative of current conditions for each specific route. TABLE 3 Page 121 of 264 ---PAGE BREAK--- STIP – STATE TRANSPORTATION IMPORVEMENT PROGRAM PROCESS The following schedule lists the major milestones for the development and adoption of the STIP: ODD NUMBERED YEARS July 15 Caltrans presents Draft Fund Estimate to the CTC August 15 CTC adopts fund estimate December 15 Regions submit RTIP’s December 15 Regions submit ITIP’s EVEN NUMBERED YEARS February CTC STIP hearing – North March 10 CTC publishes staff recommendations April 1 CTC adopts STIP Citizen Participation Many opportunities are provided for public input into the transportation planning process in Alpine County. Citizens are encouraged to attend and speak at Board of Supervisors and LTC meetings. Any public correspondence to the Board or LTC is also read and discussed at the meetings. The Public Works Department of Alpine County is frequently used by the public as a source of information and referral concerning transportation matters. Each year public notification is sent out by the LTC to encourage participation in the unmet transit needs hearings that are held annually. The biennial RTP and its environmental document are also adopted following a public review period and public hearing that is duly noticed. Because the Alpine County RTP also serves as the County’s General Plan Circulation Element, two layers of public review are required for adoption of this document. Public hearings are appropriately noticed and held before the County Planning Commission and then the Board of Supervisors and County Transportation Commission. This is done for every RTP update. Public comments may be received in writing or they may be submitted at the public hearing. All such comments are considered and may lead to appropriate changes to the draft document before it is adopted and sent to the State. During the public review periods and hearings, the environmental effects of the plans are also considered pursuant to CEQA requirements. Page 122 of 264 ---PAGE BREAK--- TABLE 4 COUNTY COLLECTOR AND MINOR ARTERIAL - (SELECT ROADS) Paved/ Total Oiled Dirt Miles #1 Foothill 3.68* 3.68 2 School House .45* .45 3 Diamond Valley 7.30* 7.30 4 Hot Springs 3.71* 3.71 5 Blue Lakes 6.98 8.47 15.45 6 Laramie Street .30 .30 7 Airport 3.60 2.88 6.48 8 Emigrant Trail 3.95* 3.95 TOTALS: 29.97 11.35 41.32 COUNTY LOCAL ROADS - (MINOR ROADS) Paved/ Total Oiled Dirt Miles 103 Jarvis 1.58 1.58 105 Barber .35 .35* 106 Monroe Ranch Road .25 .25* 107 Saw Mill (0.25*) 2.02 2.02 108 Indian Creek 5.33 5.33 109 Mrkle Lookout 1.00 1.00 110 Morning Star 6.34 6.34 111 Silver Hill 3.18 3.18 112 Wolf Creek 3.00 2.30 5.30 113 Highland Lake 5.90 5.90 114 Sunset Lake 3.41 3.41 116 Kit Carson C.G. .34 .34 117 Alpine Mine 1.32 1.32 118 Burnside Lake 5.85 5.85 122 Woods Lake 1.26 .85 2.11 123 Montgomery Street .17 .17* 124 Webster Street .02 .02* 125 School Street .11 .11* 127 Diamond Valley .22 .22* 129 Waters Street .08 .08* 130 Chambers .84 .84* 131 Long Valley .90 .90 132 Pleasant Valley .67* 1.63 2.30 133 Leviathan 2.58 2.58 134 Camp Marklee .28 .28 135 Douglas Way .09 .09 137 Bee Gulch .31 .31 138 Shay Creek 1.14 1.14 141 Hope Valley G.C. 1.03 1.03 158 Dogwood .71 .71 Page 123 of 264 ---PAGE BREAK--- TABLE 4– Continued COUNTY LOCAL ROADS - (MINOR ROADS) - Continued Paved/ Total Oiled Dirt Miles 159 Silvertip .37 .37 160 Snowshoe Springs .15 .15 161 Twin Lakes C.G. .50 .50 162 Lake Alpine C.G. .43 .43 163 Springs C.G. .50 .50 164 Schneider Cow Camp .30 .80 1.10 175 Springs .67 .67* 176 Old Pony Express .43 .43* 177 E. Lake Alpine .35 .35 178 W. Lake Alpine .59 .59 179 Mud Lake 2.45 2.45 181 Silver Creek C.G. .80 .80 182 Leviathan Lookout 1.20 1.20 183 Big Springs Road 3.00 3.00 184 Poor Boy Creek 2.00 2.00 185 Station House .40 .40 196 Blue Lakes 5.65 5.65 198 Carson River 3.20 3.20* 199 Red Vista .20 .20 200 Odd Fellows Mont. .20 .20 212 Turtle Rock (0.25*) 1.09 1.09 213 Dixon Mine 1.30 1.30 214 Hawkside Drive .10 .07 .17* 217 Pioneer Trail Road .13 .13* 219 Cole Court .03 .03* 221 Merk Creek Court .05 .05* 222 Barrett Court .08 .08* 223 Spring Canyon .18 .18* 224 Shake Hill .36 .36* 225 River Ranch .24 .24 TOTALS: 18.12 64.76 82.88 ALPINE VILLAGE ROADS 165 Cedar Lane .04 .04* 166 Pine Avenue .12 .12* 167 Aspen Way .07 .07* 168 Sage Avenue .07 .07* TOTALS: .30 .30* MARKLEEVILLE ROADS 169 Oxbow .07 .07* 170 Pinion .23 .23* Page 124 of 264 ---PAGE BREAK--- TABLE 4 – Continued MARKLEEVILLE ROADS – Continued 171 Canon View .06 .06* 172 Lava Cap .06 .06* Paved/ Total Oiled Dirt Miles 173 Timber Lane .42 .42* 174 Indian Path .04 .04* TOTALS: .88 .88* BEAR VALLEY ROADS 186 Bear Valley 1.57 1.57 187 Quaking Aspen 1.05 1.05 188 Bloods Ridge Road .80 .80 189 Schimke .50 .50 190 Monte Wolf .46 .46 191 John Ebbetts .35 .35 192 Orvis .32 .32 193 Fremont .28 .28 194 Lake .16 .16 201 Springs Cliff .13 .13 202 Creekside Drive 1.22 1.22 203 Snowshoe .58 .58 204 Avalanche .12 .12 215 Eberhardt Circle .04 .04 216 Mule Ear .11 .11 218 No Name Road .13 .13 220 Cub Lane .06 .06 TOTALS: 7.88 7.88 MESA VISTA ROADS 205 California .45 .45 206 Topaz Place .11 .11 207 Carson View .32 .32 208 Diamond View .18 .18 209 Nevada .33 .33 210 Larson Canyon .19 .19 211 Chisholm Trail .14 .14 TOTALS: 1.72* 1.72* TOTAL 133.49* SELECT 41.32 MINOR 92.17 TOTAL MILES OF DIRT 64.92 TOTAL MILES OF PAVED 28.12 TOTAL MILES 35.03 * Numbers may vary from the Department of Transportation Maintained Mileage Report due to rounding off factor. Page 125 of 264 ---PAGE BREAK--- TABLE 5 CALTRANS DISTRICT 10 ANNUAL AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC (ADT) FOR STATE HIGHWAYS IN ALPINE COUNTY Highway Loc. (See Map 1) 1990 ADT 2010 ADT 2015 ADT 4 4 4 4 A B C D 1,500 900 600 700 2,400 1,600 1,600 1,600 2,700 1,800 1,800 1,800 88 88 88 88 F F G H 2,200 2,500 2,200 2,400 3,400 4,000 3,200 3,200 3,800 4,500 3,600 3,600 89 89 89 89 I J K L 400 700 1,700 2,600 1,200 1,200 3,000 3,500 1,300 1,300 3,200 3,800 SOURCE: CALTRANS District 10, Traffic Forecasting and Analysis B. NEEDS ASSESSMENT Introduction The RTP guidelines require that existing and future transportation needs and issues be clearly identified and documented. This part of the Alpine County RTP lists, explains and documents the transportation needs and issues that are currently most important at the local, regional and State level. This discussion of needs and issues is preceded by sections concerning trends, projections and assumptions. Trends, projections and assumptions have direct bearing on current and future transportation needs and issues. Trends and Projections As stated in the introduction, Alpine County’s population grew significantly during the 1970's, then slowed during the 80's and 90's. The State Department of Finance (DOF) estimates that resident Page 126 of 264 ---PAGE BREAK--- population will increase to 1,400 persons by 2000 and to a total of 2,000 by the year 20201. The introduction also points out the County’s resident population does not reflect the serious effect that large numbers of recreational visitors or through-county travelers have upon regional transportation facilities. The “Through Traffic Study” conducted by the California State University, Chico, during 1989 and 1990 found that 72% of traffic in the County was recreational traffic and between 45% and 70% was through traffic with no destination in the County. The County may repeat the Through Traffic surveys at a future date in order to develop trends and projections in recreational and through-county traffic. Changes in population, housing, location of commercial centers, and centers for employment may significantly affect travel patterns and the demand for various transportation facilities and services. Such trends should therefore be considered in the transportation planning process. No such changes have, however, taken place since before 1982. Alpine County is divided by the crest of the Sierra Nevada into east and west slope geographic regions. Markleeville, Woodfords, and other east slope communities tend to identify economically with Gardnerville, Carson City, Reno and other urban centers located in the State of Nevada. Kirkwood, on the west slope, tends to identify with the east slope and Nevada also because of the services available and, to a lesser degree, with South Lake Tahoe. Bear Valley residents tend to utilize lower west slope communities in Calaveras County and even the Central Valley Area for similar socioeconomic purposes. The Sierra crest becomes a most significant boundary between east and west. Alpine County during winter months when State highway 4 connecting Bear Valley with Markleeville is closed. The 35 miles between them via highway 4 becomes a 155 mile route via highways 4, 49 and 88. This distribution pattern and this set of conditions are projected to remain in effect into the foreseeable future. The County’s major sources and areas of employment and commerce are expected to grow with population, but they are not significantly changed otherwise. 1 D.O.F. Report 93 P-1, April 1993 Page 127 of 264 ---PAGE BREAK--- Page 128 of 264 ---PAGE BREAK--- Current and projected average daily traffic counts (ADTs) on the State highways have been calculated using trend line projection methods and are shown on Table 5. The functional classification of State highways and County roads change very infrequently and are reflected on the Circulation and Land Use Map (foldout, Map Indian lands in other parts of the corridor planning area could see development. The 1994 Washoe Tribe of Nevada and California Comprehensive Land Use Plan projects residential development of 20 one acre lots and 28 acres of commercial development on Indian lands along highway 88 northeast of Woodfords. The adopted Kirkwood Master Plan was amended in 1988. The planned loop of Kirkwood Drive was dropped from the plan. An easterly loop connection will be installed, but it will remain unpaved and be for emergency use only. The plan still indicates that the improvements to the intersection of Kirkwood Meadows Drive and State Highway 88 as redesigned on the Master Plan will be required by Caltrans as a condition of approval of a specific future project. According to the long term expansion plans being considered for the Bear Valley ski area, new roads and parking areas can be anticipated. Reliance on “transportation ski lifts” and increased ski area transit service are also likely components of any large scale expansion. At Bear Valley a lift is planned between the ski area and the Bear Valley subdivision. According to the ski area’s preferred plan, similar transportation lifts may one day serve expansion into the East Bowl area northeast of the present skiing facilities. The Bear Valley expansion draft E.I.S. suggests transit services could mitigate the lack of adequate parking identified with the USFS and ski area expansion proposals. Details of this plan can be obtained from Stanislaus National Forest, Dorrington Office. A weekend ski-bus service from Calaveras Co. to Bear Valley has been in operation by a nonprofit group since 1994, partially funded by Alpine County. The “Four County Recreational Transit Demand and Feasibility Study” recommends that skier transit services should be encouraged and expanded within certain parameters. Kirkwood operates an inner-ski area shuttle service to transport skiers between the parking lot or their homes and the ski area facilities. Kirkwood also provides year-round transit services for employees living in Woodfords, Markleeville, Gardnerville and South Lake Tahoe. The limited size and dispersed nature of the County’s population are a major reason that County involvement in mass transit or its expansion remains limited. As the County’s population increases the number of persons that are handicapped, disabled or otherwise unable to drive, can be expected to increase. The number of transit dependent persons will, however, remain small and travel distances and transport costs will remain too high for practical operation of a transit system. That is the reason that an on-call transit service for seniors that the County operated for a short time had to be discontinued. The Alpine County Airport serves approximately 100 aircraft annually. The Airport Manager estimates that air traffic at the facility will increase approximately 10% to 15% per year through the short term planning period (5 years). At present there are no aircraft based at the Alpine County Airport. The California Aviation System Plan (California Division of Aeronautics) projects that there will be a number of aircraft based at the airport within the long term future (20 years). These Page 129 of 264 ---PAGE BREAK--- projections could be exceeded if recommendations of the “Alpine County Business Attraction/Airport Site Study” (Moldenhauer Eng. Co., Davis, CA, 1990) are accomplished. No detailed estimates of current or projected bicycle/pedestrian use in Alpine County are available at the present time. Some special bicycle events have been growing in popularity, however, most notably the “Markleeville Death Ride.” One formal study of current and future parking needs has been conducted in the County’s Markleeville area. The County’s Public Works Director has commented that on-street parking does become congested in periods of the summer tourist season and when California Lotto jackpots bring Nevada residents into town to buy Lotto tickets. Should recreation and tourism increase in east slope communities, it may be projected that parking needs may also increase along State highways, at trail heads and in communities. A parking lot survey was also conducted at Bear Valley during the winter of 1990/91. The purpose of this survey was to determine the cause for perceived parking inadequacies. Additional parking appears necessary, however, details concerning who should be responsible for parking development and where, remains unresolved. Assumptions The 1975 Regional Transportation Plan and subsequent updates have provided assumptions on which these plans have been based. Assumptions from previous RTPs are updated and expanded in this section. Significant changes that occur in any of the listed assumptions should help signal where appropriate changes should be made in future RTP updates and General Plan amendments. Assumption 1: Population will reach approximately 2,000 by the year 2020. This increase will be distributed primarily among existing communities in the Kirkwood, Bear Valley, Markleeville and Woodfords/Fredericksburg/Dutch Valley areas. Most of the population increase will occur as a result of immigration attracted by new employment created by the expansion of Kirkwood. The composition of the County’s population will include approximately 15% elderly (65 years and over) and more than 20% Native Americans. The population projections are provided by the California Department of Finance. The assumption regarding distribution is based upon the Kirkwood and Bear Valley Master Plans and a number of circumstances that exist in the Markleeville/Woodfords/State line corridor area including the number of existing lots, plans for Washoe Tribe housing, and the availability of public services. Assumptions regarding migration and population composition are based upon trends of the 1970-80 decade as documented in the 1986 Housing Element of the Alpine County General Plan. Assumption 2: Employment will increase especially in the trade and services sector as recreation and tourism grows. Development plans for Bear Valley Ski Area and Kirkwood Meadows on the County’s west slope will provide an indication of how and where recreational development will occur. Community and business leaders are making efforts to improve recreation and tourism on the east slope as well. Some of these efforts are reflected in the goals, policies, and implementation measures of this General Plan and RTP update. Page 130 of 264 ---PAGE BREAK--- Assumption 3: Housing availability will continue to be a limiting factor in Alpine County. The lack of housing is documented in the approved Housing Element to the Alpine County General Plan. This factor may slow growth and continue to cause some persons employed in the County to commute from outside the County. An employee housing needs study for both Bear Valley and Kirkwood was accomplished in 1992 which recommends a significant increase. That study will be taken into consideration to update the resort area specific plans. Assumption 4: The greatest majority of the traffic in Alpine County will continue to be generated by out-of-county drivers. A Caltrans study conducted in 1978 indicates that up to 98% of the traffic on State highways in Alpine County is recreation traffic. The Through Traffic Study prepared for the Alpine County LTC in 1990 documented that only 2% of the traffic surveyed around a holiday weekend in summer was by local residents. This number increased to 5% during surveys conducted around a non-holiday winter weekend. Assumption 5: Modal choice will continue to be private automobile. As pointed out in the County’s 1975 RTP “The small population is spread over large areas, with relatively long distances between residences and services or employment, making trips largely dependent on the automobile.” Assumption 6: The costs of transportation related projects will escalate by an average of 4.5% per year for the next 5 years. These escalating rates are consistent with Caltrans and CTC planning documents. Assumption 7: The list of projections and assumptions will not be upset by such catastrophes as war, economic failure or major natural calamities. Needs and Issues In this section, regional and State transportation needs and issues are identified. These are the unsettled problems or matters which determine the scope and priorities of the RTP. Needs and issues provide the framework for establishing goals, policies, objectives and programs for implementation which are presented in the following Policy and Action Elements. The numbering of needs and issues is for purposes of organization and does not necessarily reflect any order of prioritization. Need/Issue No. 1 THE LTC SHOULD ENCOURAGE THE CALIFORNIA TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION TO PURSUE OPPORTUNITIES TO REDUCE HEAVY TRUCK TRAFFIC ON STATE HIGHWAY 88. Highway 88 has become a major year-round trans-Sierra route and has been added to the National Highway System with the designation of a scenic highway. In the winter it is one of only three trans-Sierra routes available and frequent slides on Highway 50 put additional pressure on its limited capacity. It is important to Interstate commerce as well as the local economy. Increased use of the narrow, Page 131 of 264 ---PAGE BREAK--- steep mountain highway by large trucks slows circulation and causes congestion. In 1985 a Highway 88 Planning Agreement was adopted by Alpine, Eldorado and Amador Counties, Caltrans, US Forest Service and the Federal Highway Administration which established an agreed to minimum hourly Level of Service (LOS) of It is important to the local economy for Alpine County to monitor actions that could affect that LOS by adding significant truck traffic to Highway 88 and encourage consideration of alternative routes. The six mile section of highway running through Woodfords Canyon between Woodfords and Picketts Junction has a long, steep westbound upgrade. Double striping requirements have severely restricted passing opportunities along this route. Need/Issue No. 2 IMPROVED WINTER ACCESS TO OR THROUGH MONITOR PASS (SR 89) WOULD AID THE DEPRESSED MARKLEEVILLE ECONOMY The Alpine County Board of Supervisors/LTC passed Resolution #81-6 seeking a snow removal class designation for Highway 89 over Monitor Pass. The State provides five levels of snow removal and ice control service on State highways (A through Highway 89 over Monitor Pass is presently classed E. Class C would provide that the pass be kept open during and after storms on a third priority basis. On the request of State Senator John Garamendi, Caltrans conducted a study of the costs involved in providing class snow and ice removal on the pass. The study concluded costs may be $100,000 to $150,000 per year. An issue that is of State concern but that was not calculated in the recent study involves safety of the route during winter months. The California Department of Transportation has subsequently responded negatively toward the local effort citing “There does not appear to be enough public demand for Monitor Pass in the wintertime to justify the significant cost of keeping it open.” (Adriana Gianturco, Director of Transportation, State of California, personal correspondence with Franklin F. Jerauld, Supervisor, Alpine County, 1981.) The County Board of Supervisors resolved that opening of the route was in the best interest of both the citizens and businesses of Alpine County and of the persons who wish to avail themselves of winter recreation opportunities in Alpine County. The route is also 17 miles shorter for travelers traveling north on Highway 395 then west on Highway 88. Needs of local business are well documented in the General Plan Data Base. Improvement of the local economy on the Page 132 of 264 ---PAGE BREAK--- eastern slope of Alpine County is a major issue addressed consistently throughout other elements of the County’s General Plan. Since the main purpose of opening the Monitor Pass region in winter is to make available recreational opportunities in the area and to provide critical off-season economic help to Markleeville, the County would consider class C snow removal only up to the pass area from the Markleeville side as a reasonable alternative to plowing all the way over the pass. This would provide access to the pass area for recreation purposes. Improvements to the route should thus be much less costly and health and safety concerns should be lessened considerably. The County should market the recreational potential of the Monitor Pass area. Need/Issue No. 3 LOCAL ECONOMIC CONSTRAINTS EFFECT ROAD AND HIGHWAY FUNDING The County’s small population and its dependence upon urban centers outside the County for many goods and services cause a significant drain of dollars generated in the local economy. This leakage hinders attempts to expand local business activity. The local government faces fiscal difficulties associated with cutbacks in Federal and State funding and new, as well as traditional, limits to its ability to generate significant property tax revenues. These and other factors have led to a greater concern for the provision of public services and facilities than has existed in the past. Need/Issue No. 4 COUNTY MINIMUMS AND OTHER TRANSPORTATION FUNDING MECHANISMS USING COUNTY POPULATION AND STATE HIGHWAY MILEAGE FOR ALLOCATION PURPOSES ARE NOT FAIR CONSIDERING THE AMOUNT OF RECREATIONAL AND THROUGH TRAFFIC USING ROADS AND HIGHWAYS IN THE COUNTY There is an inequity in the distribution of State highway funds to rural counties that attract large numbers of recreational motorists in addition to their County population. Formulas for allocating State highway account county minimums need to be adjusted to compensate for this inequity. Neighboring Mono County has received a minimum amount of extra State Subvention (transportation planning) funds due to through traffic and its seasonal population, but Inyo, Mono, Alpine and perhaps other rural counties deserve greater State highway allocations. During 1989 and 1990, the LTC sponsored a “Through Traffic Study” which surveyed travelers in and through Alpine County. The Page 133 of 264 ---PAGE BREAK--- study analyzed survey results and concluded the following: “Of the funds allocated to northern California counties (approximately 40%, with 60% going to southern California), 75% is based on county population and 25% is based on road miles in the County. Alpine County is at a clear disadvantage under this allocation system in that it has a low population base with more than 90% of its traffic volumes with origins and destinations being out of the County. This disproportional volume of traffic to population ratio penalizes Alpine County in receiving adequate funding for State highway projects. The County should bring this inequity to the attention of the California Transportation Commission and lobby the commission to revise its formula for funding rural counties. A revised formula should include out of County traffic volumes as well as other criteria determined by the commission.” The CTC’s “Rural Counties Task Force” could be valuable in this effort. Need/Issue No. 5 COUNTY “MINIMUMS” FOR STATE HIGHWAY FUNDING ARE NOT BEING MET Senate Bill 215 adopted in 192 was to insure that a certain percentage of highway funds were to be spent in all counties including Alpine County (a practice known as “county minimums”). Legislation (AB 471 and SB 300) tightens the County minimum requirement. In the previous quinquennium, or the first quinquennium, the County was under programmed $3.2 million. This $3.2 million deficit was not carried over to the current quinquenium and therefore it was lost to the County. Recent legislation (SB 300 and AB 471) requires that County minimums must be programmed before the end of the second/third quinquennium (FY 92/93). There is, however, no similar regulation to insure that unspent county minimums will not be lost if unspent or not programmed between the third and fourth quinquennium (FY 97/98). Need/Issue No. 6 PARKING AND TRANSIT DEMAND WILL BECOME A GROWING ISSUE AT BEAR VALLEY SKI AREA AND BEAR VALLEY The Bear Valley Expansion E.I.S. documents the fact that existing parking area at the ski resort is inadequate during peak days and this creates a strain on nearby Bear Valley subdivision parking facilities. The report also describes five alternatives for expansion of the ski resort. The two most expansive alternatives which are the two recommended alternatives both fall short of providing the parking areas required for their respective projected skier demands. Both these alternatives rely upon transportation ski lifts from Bear Valley but do not propose to add parking at Bear Valley. Both alternatives Page 134 of 264 ---PAGE BREAK--- also suggest increased transit could help the situation, but make no direct requirements that assure transit will be provided. The increase in cross-country skiing at Bear Valley also impacts existing parking and Highway 4 and adds to the need for additional parking. The possibility of gaining additional parking on Forest Service Land in Bear Valley is under review, as is expansion of the Calaveras/Bear Valley Bus service. Need/Issue No. 7 WIDENING OF THE BRIDGE AT MARKLEEVILLE IS NEEDED DUE TO ITS USE BY PEDESTRIANS, BICYCLISTS, PARTICULARLY SCHOOL CHILDREN, AND ITS LACK OF SIDEWALKS. The bridge on Highway 89 over Markleeville Creek in Markleeville was built in 1928. Although it is structurally sound, it is of substandard width and it contains no space for pedestrian or bicycle traffic. Need/Issue No. 8 IMPROVEMENTS TO STATE HIGHWAYS 4 AND 88 IN CALAVERAS AND AMADOR COUNTIES ARE OF VITAL CONCERN TO ALPINE COUNTY In 1976 the Alpine County Board of Supervisors passed Resolution #76-123 which stated that certain improvements to Highway 4 in Calaveras County should be considered by the State to be a higher priority than improvements to highways in Alpine County. In 1988 Alpine County was active in the establishment of the “Ebbetts Pass Coordinating Committee” which monitors the Highway 4 corridor in Calaveras County and is similar to the Tri-Tac group which has studied Highway 88 since approximately 1978. The “Ebbetts Pass Coordinating Committee” also has representatives from Caltrans, Calaveras County, Big Trees State Park, the California Highway Patrol and Department of Forestry, and the Stanislaus National Forest. The LTC contributed transportation planning funds to help fund a Highway 4 corridor plan and circulation study. The County also feels strongly that improvements to Highway 88 in Amador County will also benefit Alpine County. East bound passing lanes have become a high priority need expressed by the Amador County LTC especially since enforcement of barrier striping requirements has impacted passing opportunities. The Alpine County LTC supports Amador County’s efforts and notes there is also a significant need for westbound passing lanes on Highway 88 in Amador County. There are presently few westbound passing lanes and minimal westbound turnouts on this 60-mile stretch of highway between the Amador/Alpine County line to Jackson. Page 135 of 264 ---PAGE BREAK--- Need/Issue No. 9 HIGHWAY 4 AND 207 BETWEEN BEAR VALLEY AND HIGHWAY 89 NEEDS A NUMBER OF SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS Highway 4 is the most direct physical link between the expanding community of Bear Valley and the County seat in Markleeville. It receives significant recreation traffic during the summer months. Improvements for purposes of safety as well as convenience are needed along the route. Alternatives for improvement of the entire route have been studied by Caltrans. (Caltrans, District 10, State Route 4 and Alpine County A Discussion of Possible Improvement Projects Stockton, CA 1979.) Caltrans listed operational/safety improvements in the 1987 and 88 RDP’s. The Alpine County Transportation Commission does not support major improvements of the full length of the highway. The Commission does, however, feel that certain limited portions of the existing route need to be upgraded for safety purposes (HSOPP). Need/Issue No. 10 THERE IS A NEED TO CAREFULLY MANAGE FUNDS FOR MAINTENANCE AND NEEDED ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS ON LOCAL ROADS Funds for maintenance of Alpine County roads come primarily from gasoline tax revenues allocated by the State Controller and National Forest Receipt Act payments. County income from Forest Receipt Act payments fluctuates each year and is declining. Until gas tax revenues increase County roads are falling farther into disrepair. As much as thirty miles of the County road system have been downgraded to minimal maintenance status. The State has encouraged local governments to try and raise local sales taxes or establish assessment districts to generate needed revenues. In Alpine County, such efforts would hurt local residents more than they would help gain in revenues from tourists. Limited Federal Exchange funds are available to the County through Caltrans for County road reconstruction (and new road) projects. State and Federal legislation defines the difference between road maintenance and road reconstruction. Other County roads continue to serve without adequate surfaces or alignments. According to the County Public Works Director, the cost of reconstructing a road can be ten times the cost of timely maintenance. In addition to the need for major reconstruction or upgrading of existing County roads, new County and private road construction will be necessary in the near and long-range future. The cost of Page 136 of 264 ---PAGE BREAK--- constructing new roads to County standards can run between $300,000 and $500,000 per mile. Once constructed, new roads in mountainous country can generate high maintenance and snow removal costs. The costs of constructing and maintaining new roads may need to be passed directly on to the public and the number of private roads in the County may grow. Need/Issue No. 11 ESTABLISHING EXTENSIVE TRANSIT SYSTEMS IN ALPINE COUNTY IS ECONOMICALLY INFEASIBLE AND COULD AFFECT SERVICE TO SENIOR CITIZENS AND DISABLED PERSONS The County’s small and widespread population means that any transportation service will serve only a small number of persons and involve long travel distances. The Alpine County LTC and the Alpine County Board of Supervisors took responsible steps toward maintaining a minimum level of service for transit dependent persons in Alpine County. In 1988 the County took over transit service formerly being provided by the Central Sierra Agency on Aging (CSAAA). This service was provided in connection with the Senior Nutrition Program and comprised, essentially, of transporting seniors for lunches at the senior center and once-a-week shopping and medical trips to Gardnerville. When the County took over the service, it met a legal dilemma with State transportation funding laws. The Transportation Development Act (TDA) provides the County with two sources of funs which can be used to help establish and maintain transit services (SYA and LTF). The Alpine County LTC allocated approximately $2,000 per year in TDA funds under Article 4.9 to provide transit services to seniors and handicapped persons on the east slope in 1990. In 1991 the service was redesignated “Public Transit” and approximately $18,000 was allocated per Article 4.0. According to the law (TDA, Article since the County took over service from the failed CSAAA, it must make services available to the general public. Under this scenario the service would have to meet the 10% farebox return requirement and be responsive to all members of the public, not just senior citizens and disabled persons. The low incomes of persons using the service and the high expense of long travel distances involved combine to make it virtually impossible for the transit system to meet the 10% fare box requirement. Record keeping, management, maintenance and other duties associated with expanded public service could create an expensive new County department. The County is reluctant to take on management of a public transit service which may not be Page 137 of 264 ---PAGE BREAK--- economically viable. Recent legislation requires the County to develop and maintain an inventory of social service transportation providers and an action plan for consolidation of such services (AB 120 and SB 826). Table 6 contains the County’s 1990 social services transportation inventory. The County’s attempt to develop a social service transportation consolidation action plan faces a number of constraints. Washoe Tribe vehicles, for example, cannot be used for the general purposes listed above. The Alpine County Social Service Transportation Inventory and Action Plan 1990 Update reports that on the basis of public surveys and interviews that were conducted it appears there may be transit needs in Alpine County that are not being met. The report concludes however, that more information is needed regarding the exact nature of these needs to determine whether or not they are reasonable to be met. The exact information needed for the LTC to consider expansion or consolidation of service includes the time service is needed, specific origins and destinations, number of riders, willingness to ride public transit, and willingness to pay 10% farebox or more. During 1988 Alpine County formed a Social Services Transportation Advisory Council as required by SB 498. In spite of the fact that the County’s small population made adequate representation difficult, the Council has met several times and has assisted the LTC in accommodating the needs of the County’s transportation disadvantaged but has been inactive since the LTC determined in 1995 that the Social Service Transit Program did not achieve the County “reasonable-to-meet” criteria, and discontinued the program (see POLICY IV D-1.4). Need/Issue No. 12 LACK OF CERTAIN FACILITIES INCLUDING FUEL, COMMUNICATIONS, AND SHELTER AT THE ALPINE COUNTY AIRPORT LIMIT ITS USE The Alpine County Airport is presently the only State designated general aviation facility within a 20-mile radius. The airstrip is of importance to the current and future welfare and development of Alpine County. In spite of recent grant funds received to maintain the airport runway, the general lack of adequate amounts of State or Federal aeronautics funds to support expansion of the County airport, is an issue that needs resolution. The State has used the aeronautics funds in other Page 138 of 264 ---PAGE BREAK--- counties. The Alpine County Airport presents an opportunity to create jobs and help reverse the flow of cash out of County and out of State that cripples the east slope economy. Other elements of the County General Plan address the potential to bring light industrial uses to the airport to share the cost to install infrastructure and help the local economy. During 1990 the State Department of Housing and Community Development funded the Alpine County Business Attraction/Airport Site Study to study this potential. The study listed the following specific needs: • There are no serviced industrial sites in Alpine County. The lack of infrastructure inhibits both business attraction and improvement of the airport by private developers and operators. • The airport site is the best location for industrial development, assuming that water can be found for the site. • A preliminary design plan calls for a 46-acre parcel to be developed for an industrial park, starting with a 15.8 acre parcel in Phase I. Estimated costs to put the infrastructure in place for Phase I are approximately $458,000. Use of interim alternative options could reduce the initial costs somewhat. • The industrial park should offer low cost, clean and functional space to small business establishments, especially for local startups and expansions. • The airport runway was repaired in FY 1991-92. Other infrastructure improvements are required, especially power, before a fixed base operator can be attracted. Interest has been expressed to provide facilities and services if the infrastructure can be provided. • A market study is needed to verify and assess demand for hangar space in the region. Service providers feel there is a demand sufficient to support airport services and hangar space. Need/Issue No. 13 THERE IS A CONCERN FOR SAFETY ON CURRENT ROADS AND HIGHWAYS THAT ARE INADEQUATE TO Page 139 of 264 ---PAGE BREAK--- HANDLE BOTH AUTOMOBILE AND BICYCLE TRAFFIC The assumption is made that, as County population grows, interest in non-motorized travel including the bicycle will increase among local residents. Bicycle touring is also part of the County’s recreation and tourism industry thereby contributing to the local economy. Hot Springs Road not only provides touring cyclists access from Markleeville to the State operated Grover Hot Springs and campground, but as population grows it will be increasingly utilized by local cyclists and pedestrians. A feasibility study to identify alternative multi-use trail configurations from Grover Hot Springs to Markleeville was initiated in 1995, funded through ISTEA, the California Bicycle Transportation Act and the Transportation Development Act. At present, Hot Springs Road is considered too narrow for bicycle traffic. State Highway 4 is also a scenic ride for touring cyclists although it is narrow, steep and winding. Highway 89 between Markleeville and Woodfords is a signed bicycle route with extra-width striping and shoulders. Need/Issue No.14 LITTLE EMPHASIS HAS BEEN PLACED ON PEDESTRIAN CIRCULATION IN ALPINE COUNTY PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT IN PAST YEARS Adequate pedestrian facilities provide for the safety and enjoyment of local residents, and if properly developed they can attract visitors to local communities and entice passing travelers to stop. Certain businesses in Markleeville voluntarily utilize the “boardwalk” concept and the Kirkwood Mast Plan addresses pedestrian circulation by proposing designated trails, separated from vehicular traffic. Hiking, jogging, cross-country skiing, and other non-motorized modes of travel are aspects of the County’s recreation industry and can be valuable to the local economy. The Trails study noted in 13, above, will include parking analysis of the Markleeville area. Need/Issue No. 15 ON-STREET PARKING IN CERTAIN AREAS OF THE COUNTY HAVE GENERATED PROBLEMS FOR SNOW REMOVAL In the Markleeville and Woodfords area inadequate parking and/or improper use of existing parking areas create problems for winter snow removal operations by narrowing the travel way and hampering snow removal equipment operation. On street parking may also have to be restricted in these areas and in other residential developments during snow periods. Page 140 of 264 ---PAGE BREAK--- Need/Issue No. 16 THERE IS A NEED FOR WINTERTIME OFF-STREET PARKING ALONG STATE HIGHWAYS IN THE COUNTY The need for off-highway parking is increasing particularly in the Hope Valley area due to the increasing popularity of winter sports including cross country skiing, snowmobiling, dog sledding, and snow play. The “snow park” permit process requiring autos to purchase permits to park in specially plowed areas has helped to alleviate this need somewhat. Better parking facilities for winter recreationists are still needed at Picketts Junction, Scotts Lake, Willow Creek and Bear Valley. Need/Issue No. 17 AGING PUBLIC UTILITY FACILITIES SERVING THE MARKLEEVILLE AREA ARE IN NEED OF SERIOUS IMPROVEMENT, YET FUNDS ARE NOT AVAILABLE The Markleeville Water Company system and the Markleeville Public Utility system were both installed more than 20 years ago with the impression that population growth in the Markleeville area would occur. Lack of assumed growth has lead to a situation where numerous maintenance and improvement needs have come due yet the revenue base is not adequate to handle the costs. Need/Issue No. 18 USE OF ALPINE COUNTY FOR MAJOR TRANS-SIERRA UTILITY LINES COULD SEVERELY IMPACT AESTHETIC, ECONOMIC AND OTHER IMPORTANT VALUES Alpine County has been subjected to proposed through-county utility lines such as the Sacramento Municipal Utility District and Sierra Pacific Power Company intertie proposal discussed in 1985 and 1986. The County does not permit the construction of major utility routes, including pipelines, across the County. By ordinance, a County permit is required for any power line intended to carry 100,000 volts or more. A trans-county power line or pipeline would be inconsistent with a number of general plan goals and policies, especially those involving scenic resources. Such goals and policies and County ordinances include the requirement that all utility lines be placed underground. An underground power line of less than 100,000 volts to serve Kirkwood is under consideration for siting alternatives. Need/Issue No. 19 HISTORICAL ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAYS SHOULD REMAIN AVAILABLE TO THE COUNTY Revised Statute (RS) 2477, is a law that was enacted in 1866 to grant rights-of-way for constructing highways across unreserved public lands. The law was repealed in 1976 with the passage of the Federal Page 141 of 264 ---PAGE BREAK--- Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA), but public highways validly acquired before 1976 were not terminated. There has been an ongoing controversy concerning the definition of “validly acquired” and the requirement for the Forest Service to allow access over such routes. Board of Supervisor’s Resolutions R93-69 and R95-59 on this issue should be pursued with the US Forest Service to establish County rights. Page 142 of 264 ---PAGE BREAK--- TABLE 7 ALPINE COUNTY AIRPORT INFORMATION 1. Airport: ALPINE COUNTY AIRPORT Route 1, Box 37 Markleeville, CA 96120 2. Airport Manager or Contact: Leonard Turnbeaugh (916) 694-2140 3. Airport Classification: Basic Utility 1 4. Airport Elevation: 5,867 5. FBO (Fixed-base-operator Facilities): None 6. Annual Operations: 100 7. Scheduled Air Carrier: None Commuter: None 8. Runway Dimensions: 50' x 4,440' 9. Runway Lighted: No 10. Number of Based Aircraft: None 11. Number of Permanent Parking Spaces (Uncovered): None 12. Number of Hangar Spaces: None 13. Number of transient parking spaces: 10 SOURCE: Leonard Turnbeaugh, Alpine County Manager, 1999 C. POLICY ELEMENT Introduction The purpose of the Policy Element is to provide direction to State and local government when making day-to-day decisions regarding transportation matters. LTC goals, objectives, and policies express the concerns and desires of the County and its communities and give decision makers guidance in developing programs or making requirements that will address transportation needs. The policy element also presents regional input for consideration in the State’s evaluation of significant transportation issues in the CTC’s annual report. Page 143 of 264 ---PAGE BREAK--- • A goal is the end toward which effort is directed; it is general and timeless. • A policy is a direction statement that guides actions for use in determining present and future decisions. • An objective is a result to be achieved by a stated point in time. It is capable of being quantified and realistically attained considering probable funding and political constraints. Objectives are successive levels of achievement in movement toward a goal, and should be tied to a time-specific period for implementation programs. • Implementation measures specify the persons or agencies responsible, the time frame and other necessary information for obtaining objectives. The goals, policies and objectives of the policy element are intended to relieve current or impending needs or issues which are identified in the previous needs assessment section of the RTP. Goals, policies, and objectives are not prioritized (improvement program priorities are found in the action element). The numbering of goals, policies and objectives is organized to be integral with other elements of the County General Plan. State Highways ELEMENT IV - SECTION C G. P. GOAL NO. 29 MAINTAIN THE EXISTING SCENIC QUALITY AVAILABLE ALONG ALL OF ALPINE COUNTY’S HIGHWAYS ELEMENT IV - SECTION C G. P. GOAL NO. 30 IMPROVE SAFETY AND CIRCULATION ON STATE ROUTE 88 TO AND THROUGH ALPINE COUNTY OBJECTIVE NO. 30 Improvements to State Highway 88 should be constructed as they are listed in the County’s Highway Improvement Program and RTIP (Action Section, Chart IV-1). IMPLEMENTATION MEASURE: The Alpine County LTC’s responsibilities for ensuring that this regional need is met includes: 1. Listing the regional highway improvement needs in RTP updates; 2. Listing the regional highway improvement needs in the RTIP; 3. Insure that a Project Study Report (PSR) is completed for the project; 4. Working with Caltrans to insure inclusion of regional highway improvement needs in Caltrans system planning, the Page 144 of 264 ---PAGE BREAK--- PSTIP and the candidate list; and 5. Lobbying the California Transportation Commission for inclusion of this project in the State’s Transportation Improvement Program (STIP). Regional highway needs are listed in the Alpine County LTC’s Highway Improvement Programs shown in the Action Element. Background and justification are addressed in the Needs Assessment Section of this RTP. The procedure to be utilized by the Alpine County LTC in influencing the STIP process is outlined on Table 3, the STIP process. It essentially involves local adoption of biennial RTPs and RTIPs, awareness of and communication with Caltrans regarding their PSTIP and candidate list, communication with CTC staff and attendance at the CTC’s STIP hearings every other year to argue consistently and factually the importance of this and other highway projects. POLICY NO. 30 The Alpine County LTC supports Amador County LTC’s policy that passing lane opportunities that are lost on Highway 88 in Amador County due to Federal and State mandated barrier striping requirements should be mitigated by construction of added passing lanes without affecting County minimums. ELEMENT IV - SECTION C G. P. GOAL NO. 31 IMPROVE SAFETY AND CIRCULATION ON STATE HIGHWAY 4 TO AND THROUGH ALPINE COUNTY POLICY NO. 31a The remainder of Highway 4 from 207 to 89 in Alpine County should be maintained and upgraded for safety and maintenance purposes as per its current status. POLICY NO. 31b Improvements to State Highway 4 in Calaveras County are important to the social and economic well being of Alpine County citizens in the Bear Valley region and they are therefore supported by the Alpine County LTC. OBJECTIVE NO. 31a The Alpine CTC’s second priority State highway improvement project is construction of a passing lane on State Highway 4 between Arnold, in Calaveras County, and Bear Valley, in Western Alpine County. IMPLEMENTATION MEASURE: The steps to help accomplish establishment of a passing lane per Objective 3.4 are listed under Implementation Measure IV A-2.11 above. If the passing lane is to be located outside of Alpine County, communication and Page 145 of 264 ---PAGE BREAK--- coordination with the LTC of the County involved is also an important step. OBJECTIVE NO. 31b A plan for the continuous upgrade of Highway 4 through Calaveras County as development occurs and supports an Angels Camp bypass would be reviewed and carried out. IMPLEMENTATION MEASURE: The Alpine County Transportation Commission will continue to send representatives to participate in the “Ebbetts Pass Group” planning activities. The Alpine County LTC will cooperate with the Calaveras County LTC in the ongoing effort to obtain State subvention discretionary funding to develop a Highway 4 plan. The issue of inadequate parking areas and transit solutions for the Bear Valley Ski Area’s expansion plans should be included in the study. There should be a survey and classification of traffic in the study as well. ELEMENT IV - SECTION C GP GOAL NO. 32 IMPROVE SAFETY AND CIRCULATION ON STATE HIGHWAY 89 TO AND THROUGH ALPINE COUNTY OBJECTIVE NO. 32a Improvements to State Highway 89 should be constructed as they are listed in the County’s Highway Improvement Program (Action Section, Chart IV-1). OBJECTIVE NO. 32b Lobby the Dept. of Transportation and CTC for the construction and installation of improvements that would be necessary to upgrade Highway 89 between Markleeville and Heenan Lake so that the route may be safe and adequate for winter travel and recreational access. IMPLEMENTATION MEASURE: Capacity enhancing State highway projects costing more than $300,000 must involve the RTIP/STIP process outlined under Implementation Measure IV A-1.11 and on Table 3. Projects costing less than $300,000 can be initiated by a resolution of the Alpine County Board of Supervisors (Minor Improvement Program). Such a request would be considered by the Caltrans District 10 Minor Program Technical Advisory Committee. OBJECTIVE NO. 32c Lobby the Dept. of Transportation to redesignate State Route 89 from the Carson River Highway 4 up to Heenan Lake as snow and ice removal class C. IMPLEMENTATION MEASURE: Caltrans District 10 is responsible for snow and ice removal up to Monitor Pass. The Alpine County Board of Supervisors and the Alpine County LTC, as well as Markleeville Page 146 of 264 ---PAGE BREAK--- businesses and citizens would be responsible for lobbying State agencies and officials to authorize Caltrans to plow to the pass area during winter months. In 1981 the Alpine County Board of Supervisors took particular steps to have the pass route designated a class winter route. The implementation of objective IC A-2.3 would involve following similar steps, only this time requesting the route be open only as far as Heenan Lake. This alternative should cost significantly less than plowing all the way over Monitor Pass. County staff should review the study of costs that was prepared by Caltrans in 1981 and the U.S. Forest Service in 1989/90 and recommend measures that could help further reduce overall cost. Local businesses and citizens should contact appropriate officials directly and explain the importance of the effort. The County should seek contractors and concessionaires who, in cooperation with the Forest Service and BLM, would help market and/or provide services in the Monitor Pass winter recreation area. OBJECTIVE NO. 32d Signs should be placed on Highway 89 warning commercial carriers that the Monitor Pass/Monitor Canyon area can be unsafe for ill- equipped vehicles, and/or prohibitions should be established limiting the size and/or weight of vehicles using the route. IMPLEMENTATION MEASURE: Highway improvements and regulations such as highway signing would fall within the authority of Caltrans. ELEMENT IV - SECTION C G. P. GOAL NO. 33 CONSTRUCT SAFE AND EFFICIENT INTERSECTIONS FOR PRESENT AND FUTURE LEVELS OF HIGHWAY USE OBJECTIVE NO. 33 Construct or improve intersections at new developments including resort communities and ski areas based upon the implementation of planned or phased development at such areas. IMPLEMENTATION MEASURE: The responsibility of constructing improved intersections at the Kirkwood and Bear Valley resort communities will be placed upon the developers constructing the development. Improved or new highway intersections are planned in the Kirkwood and Bear Valley Master Plans. Dates for the improvements are not specified. The County should work with Caltrans to insure that these improvements are installed at the appropriate time in accordance with buildout of these recreational developments and constructed to State standards. Page 147 of 264 ---PAGE BREAK--- ELEMENT IV - SECTION C G. P. GOAL NO. 34 INCREASE COUNTY MINIMUMS FOR ALPINE COUNTY OBJECTIVE NO. 34 In the effort to achieve compensation for the amount of through and recreational traffic using highways in Alpine County special legislation may be necessary. IMPLEMENTATION MEASURE: Neighboring Inyo and Mono Counties have collected traffic data over the past six years which document very high through-county and recreational traffic on local roads and highways. They have used this data to obtain an increase in the amount of formula State subvention planning funds they receive but have not convinced the State that additional highway or road funds should be allocated to them. In FY 89/90 Alpine County completed a similar through-county study and determined that Alpine County has generally the same disfavorable ratio of local traffic to through traffic as was found in Inyo and Mono Counties. The survey and resultant report should be used in cooperation with Inyo and Mono Counties to urge the CTC and if necessary the State Legislature to adjust the County minimum formula for very rural counties. ELEMENT IV - SECTION C G. P. GOAL NO. 35 ENSURE COUNTY MINIMUM AMOUNTS ARE SPENT IN ALPINE COUNTY OBJECTIVE NO. 35 Ensure that the system of county minimums is maintained and the amount of highway funds due to Alpine County under county minimum formulas is spent in as directed by Alpine County. IMPLEMENTATION MEASURE: The Alpine County LTC must consistently use every effort to ensure that the CTC maintains their policy of “county minimums” and that the CTC programs enough projects to be sure Alpine County’s minimums are met. The LTC should maintain communications with Caltrans District 10 to be sure they construct highway improvement projects on schedule as programmed. The Alpine LTC should ask its legislators and the CTC Rural Counties Task Force to support requirements that would ensure county minimums are maintained and adhered to in the future. Local Roads ELEMENT IV - SECTION C Page 148 of 264 ---PAGE BREAK--- G. P. GOAL NO. 36 PROVIDE FOR THE COST OF MAINTENANCE ON NEW AND EXISTING COUNTY ROADS OBJECTIVE NO. 36a In an effort to preserve existing roads and save long-term costs of reconstruction, maintain a road maintenance schedule. IMPLEMENTATION MEASURE: Prior to the work begun in 1982-83, no in-depth street and road inventory information had been recorded for roads in Alpine County. In 1985-86, a consultant prepared a physical inventory of the street and road system. In 1987-88 this was converted to usable computer form. A computerized street and road inventory management system allows for continual update and development as a transportation planning development tool. A pavement management system (PMS) has been established to coordinate maintenance improvements. POLICY NO. 36a Consider the inclusion of road maintenance costs in any proposals for County service area formation. POLICY NO. 36b Impact fees will be required with the approval of any industrial, commercial, residential, or other development permit for the purpose of improving affected local roads. IMPLEMENTATION MEASURE: In order to charge a developer a traffic impact fee the County must adopt a County wide traffic mitigation fee ordinance based upon a reasonable plan for the expenditure of such fees. Such fees can only be collected at the time individual building permits or occupancy permits are issued and the funds collected must not be co-mingled with other County funds. An exception to this law may apply wherein a developer agrees to pay a traffic mitigation fee through a formal development agreement with the County. POLICY NO. 36c The County may require that either a homeowners’ association or special district exist or be formed that would provide for the costs of road maintenance or that fees such as benefit assessments may be charged for the same purpose before approving any subdivision application. OBJECTIVE NO. 36b The County should take every available opportunity to lobby the Department of Transportation for more funds to conduct County road maintenance. IMPLEMENTATION MEASURE: The following are examples of ways Page 149 of 264 ---PAGE BREAK--- in which the State could make additional road maintenance funds available to the County: 1. TEA dollars should be available for the maintenance and reconstruction of existing roads as well as construction of new roads. 2. After completion of the Federal Interstate Highway System, Federal fuel tax should be returned to local states and counties to take care of improvements to federal aid primary and federal aid secondary road systems. 3. The State should levy a tax upon recreational vehicles (campers, trailers, motor homes, etc.), and/or recreational equipment and the money should go for local roads in recreation areas. 4. The State should consider indexing the gasoline tax to the inflation rate in road construction and maintenance costs. ELEMENT IV - SECTION C G. P. GOAL NO. 37 UPGRADE EXISTING ROADS AND ADD NEW ROADS TO THE COUNTY SYSTEM THAT MEET PROJECTED NEEDS AND PLANNED FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATIONS AND INSURE THAT PRIVATE ROADS DO NOT BECOME A BURDEN OR THREAT TO THE HEALTH, SAFETY, OR WELFARE OF THE GENERAL PUBLIC OBJECTIVE NO. 37 Implement the County Road Improvement Program outlined in the Action Element. IMPLEMENTATION MEASURE: The primary means for funding County road construction projects is provided through ISTEA funds (see Financial Section). Requests for exchange funds should be in conformance with the County’s road improvement program (Action Section, Chart IV-3). Such requests are followed by field reviews conducted by the County and the State and they conclude with appropriate agreements and a resolution by the Board of Supervisors. POLICY NO. 37a Existing roads should be maintained and upgraded as a priority over the establishment of new roads to new areas except where the public benefit clearly outweighs overall costs. POLICY NO. 37b The County should maintain road standards which will insure that new and upgraded roads meet the intent of Goal IV C-2. Transit ELEMENT IV - SECTION C Page 150 of 264 ---PAGE BREAK--- G. P. GOAL NO. 38 PROVIDE FOR THE TRANSIT NEEDS OF THE COUNTY IN A TIMELY AND ECONOMIC FASHION OBJECTIVE NO. 38a Reassess unmet transit needs and the feasibility of reasonably fulfilling such needs in conjunction with the annual budget process. IMPLEMENTATION MEASURE: State law requires the Alpine County LTC to conduct at least one public hearing to consider unmet transit needs before LTF can be spent for purposes other than bicycles, pedestrians or public transportation. Provisions for fulfilling this requirement are included on Table 1, the Transportation Planning Calendar. After the LTC determines that all unmet transit needs that can be reasonably met are being met, remaining LTF can be spent for streets and road purposes. Transit and road funding are discussed further in the Financial Element. OBJECTIVE NO. 38b Establish guidelines and procedures for administration of TDA and STA funds. IMPLEMENTATION MEASURE: The Alpine County LTC is the responsible transportation planning agency for Alpine County. In addition to other responsibilities, they are the administrators of funds generated by the Transportation Development Act (TDA) of 1971, as amended (SB 325), and for funds generated by the State Transit Assistance Program (STA SB 620). This responsibility includes all aspects of accountability, apportionment, claim review and approval, allocation, fiscal performance and compliance audits, and annual reports. POLICY NO. 38a The Alpine County LTC will consider claims for use of LTF funds for the provision of transit services in accordance with applicable State laws and the County’s Transit Improvement Program (California Public Utilities Code commencing with Section 99200, Calif. Administration Code commencing with Section 6600, and Action Element). POLICY NO. 38b The Alpine County LTC will only honor transit claims which also meet its adopted “reasonable-to-meet” criteria. The Alpine County LTC reasonable-to-meet criteria are $7.00 per passenger per one-way trip, a 10% fare box return and a reasonable ratio of passengers to distance traveled. POLICY NO. 38c In order to be adequate for Alpine County LTC assessment, input regarding unmet transit needs should be put into a form that includes time service is needed, specific origin(s) and destination(s), Page 151 of 264 ---PAGE BREAK--- number of riders, willingness to ride public transportation service, and willingness to pay 10% farebox or more. POLICY NO. 38d Avoid costly duplication of service effort and promote efficiency by consolidating transit services in accordance with the provisions of State Assembly Bill 120 and the County’s adopted consolidated social service transit action plan. Monitor transit needs of the elderly and handicapped to identify potential for meeting “reasonable-to- meet” criteria. IMPLEMENTATION MEASURE: Table 1, the Transportation Planning Calendar, includes dates for submission of draft and final “Annual Overall Work Programs.” The Annual Overall Work Program lists, explains and allocates funds for maintaining the RTP and carrying out necessary related transportation planning studies. OBJECTIVE NO. 38e Obtain more detailed information in accordance with Policy IV D-1.5 from the SSTAC, the biennial social service transportation inventory and action plans and progress reports, through the unmet needs hearings process and by other sources. Aviation ELEMENT IV - SECTION C G. P. GOAL NO. 39 ESTABLISH SAFE AND ADEQUATE AVIATION FACILITIES OBJECTIVE NO. 39a Continue periodic improvements to the Alpine County airport in accordance with the County Airport Master Plan and the County Airport Improvement Program (Action Section, Chart IV-5). IMPLEMENTATION MEASURE: The construction of improvements to the Alpine County airport is the responsibility of the County Public Works Department. Amount and type of improvements that can be accomplished in a given year are constrained by fiscal considerations which are addressed in the Financial Section. POLICY NO. 39a Continue to utilize State funding as programmed in the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) to obtain funds to improve the County airport and investigate availability of federal funds. OBJECTIVE NO. 39b Through cooperation with private industry, develop the Alpine County airport into a clean-industry job center for the community. IMPLEMENTATION MEASURE: Testing should be done as soon as possible to determine a water source and soil conditions, in order to Page 152 of 264 ---PAGE BREAK--- assess the overall site suitability. IMPLEMENTATION MEASURE: The County should pursue funding opportunities for infrastructure development. IMPLEMENTATION MEASURE: The County needs to decide what role it desires in the development process and what staff and financial resources it is willing to commit to this process. IMPLEMENTATION MEASURE: Once funding is obtained and development determined, a marketing plan must be prepared. IMPLEMENTATION MEASURE: If the airport site is not feasible for further development, the County should designate another site for future industrial development. Bicycles ELEMENT IV - SECTION C G. P. GOAL NO. 40 DEVELOP BICYCLE CIRCULATION AND SUPPORT FACILITIES WHERE SAFE AND REASONABLE OBJECTIVE NO. 40 Improve County wide bicycle circulation in accordance with the Alpine County bicycle circulation improvement program and long- range transportation plan. (Action Element and Land Use Map) IMPLEMENTATION MEASURE: Implementation of the Bicycle Circulation Improvement Program involves responsibilities of both the County and the State as specified on the program and in the Financial Section. POLICY NO. 40a Each agency or developer involved with street, road, and highway improvements or maintenance should consider the needs of bicyclists in projects designed to upgrade, make operational changes upon, or maintain such facilities with particular emphasis on adopted or recognized bike routes. POLICY NO. 40b Bikeways should be in conformance with standards adopted by Caltrans where feasible and required by Section 2375 and 2376 of the Streets and Highways Code. Encourage Caltrans to develop specific standards for mountain terrain. POLICY NO. 40c Local agencies, employers, businesses, and developers should provide safe and secure bicycle storage facilities to promote maximum utilization of the bicycle for utilitarian purposes and Page 153 of 264 ---PAGE BREAK--- tourism. Pedestrian ELEMENT IV - SECTION C G. P. GOAL NO. 41 DEVELOP PEDESTRIAN CIRCULATION FOR THE BETTERMENT OF LOCAL COMMERCE AS WELL AS THE SAFETY AND CONVENIENCE OF LOCAL CITIZENS OBJECTIVE NO. 41 Provisions that promote pedestrian circulation and facilities should be included in design review criteria outlined in the Natural Resource and Conservation Element of the County General Plan. IMPLEMENTATION MEASURE: Objective II L-1.6 of the General Plan’s Natural Resources and Conservation Element provides for the establishment of a Design Review Board which is to review and make suggestions upon all building permits in the Markleeville area. The measure is an effort to enhance the town’s attractiveness both for residents and visitors. The parameters for design suggestions therein should include pedestrian facilities such as covered walkways, courtyards, and benches. Parking ELEMENT IV - SECTION C G. P. GOAL NO. 42 FULFILL THE PARKING NEEDS OF LOCAL CITIZENS AND VISITING TRAFFIC OBJECTIVE NO. 42a Construct and maintain off-street parking facilities as needed along State Highway 88 and/or 89 to serve winter recreationists in the Hope Valley area. IMPLEMENTATION MEASURE: The construction and maintenance of off-street parking facilities along a State highway for winter recreation could require intergovernmental coordination between the County, Caltrans and the U.S. Forest Service. Caltrans maintenance crews normally do not plow for off-highway parking. POLICY NO. 42a The Bear Valley Ski Resort should be encouraged to investigate the feasibility of the proposed ski lift between the Bear Valley subdivision and the ski area as an immediate priority to reduce traffic impacts on Highways 4 and 207 and provide more day skier parking at the ski area. POLICY NO. 42b Any adoption of significant expansion plans at Bear Valley should Page 154 of 264 ---PAGE BREAK--- include conditions requiring the ski area to provide transit from out- of-county to minimize parking problems and excessive traffic. Winter Recreation ELEMENT IV - SECTION C G. P. GOAL NO. 43 ESTABLISH WINTER TRAILS FOR CROSS-COUNTRY SKI AND SNOWMOBILE USE OBJECTIVE NO. 43 Prepare a County Winter Trails Plan to define appropriate locations and standards for trail improvements, maintenance and grooming. Public Utilities ELEMENT IV - SECTION C G. P. GOAL NO. 44 DEVELOP, MAINTAIN, AND USE PIPELINE, POWER LINE AND COMMUNICATION FACILITIES IN A WISE AND EFFICIENT MANNER OBJECTIVE NO. 44 Obtain revenues necessary to upgrade public utilities serving the Markleeville area. IMPLEMENTATION MEASURE: The agencies responsible for achieving this objective are the Markleeville PUD and Markleeville Water Company. The mechanisms available for use include increased rates of assessments, loans, or grants. Serious efforts in each of these areas are necessary because each of the funding mechanisms has its limits yet the problem persists. POLICY NO. 44a Future development should be designed and located so that it does not require the extension of utilities that would increase costs to existing rate payers or taxpayers or generate significant negative effects upon natural resources. POLICY NO. 44b Future development should be designed and located so that it shares existing or planned utility corridors or facilities wherever possible. POLICY NO. 44c No trans-Sierra utility corridors including power lines, pipelines and other utility transmission facilities shall be allowed in Alpine County unless utilities are placed underground and provide a direct benefit to Alpine County in accordance with General Plan Goal No. 17, Policy 17f. (See Need/Issue #18 in Section B, Needs Assessment.) D. ACTION ELEMENT Introduction Page 155 of 264 ---PAGE BREAK--- The Action Element sets forth a plan of action to address identified issues and needs in accordance with the RTP’s goals, objectives and policies. The Action Section of the 1990 Regional Transportation Plan includes the following sections: 1. A description of the State and regional planning processes which explains State level transportation planning and Alpine County’s transportation planning responsibilities under the processes; 2. A description of the alternative plans that were considered in deriving the County’s first Regional Transportation Plan; 3. An explanation of the LTC’s 7 year, 12 year and 20 year circulation plans; 4. A discussion of Transportation System Management (TSM) which involves the management of existing transportation facilities to their greatest potential; 5. A summary of LTC actions that are necessary to achieve the goals, policies, and objectives of the RTP; and 6. Transportation improvement programs which list and prioritize specific projects by transportation mode. State and Regional Planning Processes 1. Regional Planning Process In response to AB 69 (1972), the regional transportation planning process was initiated throughout California. The Alpine County Local Transportation Commission (ACTC) was designated by the Secretary of the Business, Transportation and Housing Agency as the Regional Transportation Planning Agency (RTPA) for Alpine County. In compliance with State statutes, the ACTC or Local Transportation Commission (LTC) is comprised of the County Board of Supervisors. A primary responsibility of the ACTC/LTC, is to adopt and update the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) in accordance with State law. The current schedule requires that the RTP be submitted to the CTC and Caltrans on even numbered years. The LTC is also responsible with obtaining community input for determining the priorities for all proposed transportation facilities shown in the RTP. This includes a public hearing prior to adoption of the RTP. Each fiscal year the LTC approves an Alpine County Transportation Work Program (OWP). This document outlines the transportation planning work to be accomplished, including responsible agencies and funding, in order to ensure an adequate and up-to-date RTP is maintained. The Work Program must be approved by Caltrans before State subvention funds can be used for transportation planning studies or administration. The State may provide “State Subvention Funds” for up to 70% of the funding to support work program activities. The remaining 30% comes from local sources such as cash or in-kind services. In general, the transportation planning process focuses on the annual OWPs which are intended to ensure the continuous update and improvement of RTPs. The OWP should program preparation of each RTP update. It may also program funding to carry out various background studies to improve the RTP update and transportation in Alpine County. Such studies are usually concentrated in areas Page 156 of 264 ---PAGE BREAK--- where current or possible future circulation problems are perceived although they may also be directed at making existing systems more efficient. Some examples of specifics studied and their relations to transportation are: population, employment, land use, traffic, transportation circulation facilities, housing, and transit. During or after a study is completed, a draft report is usually prepared. These draft reports are usually made available for citizen and staff review and input. After the LTC has evaluated public and staff input, it directs that a “final” report be prepared. Data from thee final reports are usually then carried into the RTP Update and General Plan Circulation Element which are the official “adopted” transportation policy documents of the County. To the extent possible, all such documents should be consistent with one another and with the State planning process. 2. State Planning Process Programming of State projects is accomplished through two planning processes which serve to identify improvement projects as they are needed, the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) process and the Caltrans system planning process. The STIP is a list of projects selected for financing within a 7 year period by the California Transportation Commission (CTC). The process of deciding which projects should be included in the STIP involves input from both Caltrans and Local Transportation Commissions. The CTC is a nine-member commission appointed by the Governor and charged with advising and assisting the Legislature and the Administration in formulating and evaluating State policies and plans for transportation programs in California. Special responsibilities include adopting and updating the STIP, preparing the Biennial Report to the Legislature concerning significant transportation issues, and evaluating the proposed State transportation budget. Caltrans is the State’s Transportation Department and is responsible for oversight of the statewide multi modal transportation system, maintenance of the State highway system, and other related tasks as assigned by the State Government including the CTC. The relationship can be compared to that between the Alpine County LTC and the Alpine County Transportation Department except, of course, for size and scale. Caltrans formulates its input to the CTC for STIP projects in the form of a Proposed STIP (PSTIP). Local input is accomplished by listing locally preferred highway projects in the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) and the Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP). Both of these input sources should ideally evolve to become one agreed upon prioritized project list which can be submitted to the CTC consideration. The Alpine County LTC should attempt to coordinate with Caltrans all efforts aimed at the CTC although this coordination is not mandatory and agreement between Caltrans and the Alpine County LTC is not always expected. Tables 1 and 3 contain a list of important dates and a flow chart which help to explain the biennial (2 year) STIP process. It is difficult but not impossible for the LTC to have a project included in the STIP that is not first contained on the candidate list. To do this the LTC has to show that the project is a well justified, high priority need identified and documented in the RTP and RTIP and it has to appeal directly to the CTC and the CTC staff for its inclusion in the STIP. Under the new requirements of AB 84, Page 157 of 264 ---PAGE BREAK--- projects also cannot be included in the STIP unless they first have a project study report (PSR) completed. PSRs are typically prepared by Caltrans however AB84 includes provisions whereby local governments or an LTC may prepare PSRs. HSOPP stands for Highway Systems Operation and Protection Plan. HSOPP is a four-year program maintained by Caltrans for highway operations, safety and rehabilitation projects. HSOPP projects are not included in the STIP but most of the funds they involve do count against county minimums. The State also has a long-term planning process called Caltrans System Planning, which was initiated by Caltrans in 1983. This process involves an individual study of the long-range (20 year) concept of each State route. Called a Route Concept Report (RCR), draft RCRs are circulated through RTPAs, cities, counties and various Caltrans departments for comments. All comments received are considered in preparation of the final RCRs. RCRs are recycled as necessary to be representative of changing conditions. The Route Development Plan (RDP) is also a part of the System Planning Process. RDPs are prepared annually and identify improvements which are potential candidates for future STIPs. The RDP feeds and includes candidate list projects. The RDP uses several funding scenarios to show what could be accomplished in improving the State Highway System with different fund levels. County minimums are considered in preparation of the RDP and input is requested from RTPA’s and local agencies in District 10. Caltrans expects that the RDP will be useful to the LTC in the preparation of their RTPs and RTIPs. To be effectively thinking ahead in its efforts to influence Candidate Lists and STIP funded projects, the LTC should be actively involved in the RDP, route concept report development and other aspects of Caltrans system planning process. Alternative Plan Alpine County’s first Regional Transportation Plan (1975) was developed through a planning process which required the consideration of four major alternative plans. The four plans included: 1. A financially unconstrained plan; 2. A financially constrained plan; 3. A “do-nothing” or “no-build” plan; 4. A “Clean air” plan. Each plan was based on definitive assumptions and addressed all available modes of transportation. RTP guidelines state that alternatives need not be reinvented for the purpose of RTP updates unless major changes have occurred. For this reason, no further description is provided of the alternatives that were not chosen. The plan that was selected by the Alpine County Transportation Commission (LTC) in 1975 was an expansion of the improvements proposed in the constrained plan. It continues to serve Alpine County as the long-range plan. Although certain assumptions and projections have changed and some reordering of projects has taken place through the update process, financial constraints continue to require planners and local officials to be conservative in their outlook. Page 158 of 264 ---PAGE BREAK--- Short, Mid & Long-Range Plans The long-range plan is summarized in the introduction. It is also graphically displayed on the Land use Map. In keeping with State guidelines short-range (7 year) and mid-range (12-year) phases of the long range plan are identified on the Transportation Improvement Program charts shown at the end of this Action Element. Transportation System Management (TSM) The goal of “transportation System Management” (TSM) is to achieve maximum efficiency and productivity from the existing transportation system by coordinating the various modes of transportation through policies that affect both the public and private sectors. State guidelines recognize that TSM options are limited in rural areas where traffic congestion and demand for capacity enhancing projects are not great. TSM measures that may be applicable in Alpine County include: 1. Provisions for bicycle and pedestrian facilities; 2. Use of transit services as ski areas grow; 3. Strict enforcement of parking restrictions; 4. Encouragement of car pooling and ride sharing; 5. Consolidation of social services transportation. Action Summary Table 8 contains the most important LTC actions necessary to achieve the goals, policies and objectives of the 1990 RTP Update/Circulation Element. Table 8 and Table 1 are intended to provide an “at-a-glance” view of the implementation measures that include LTC responsibilities identified in the Policy Element. Transportation Improvement Priorities Under new legislation (SB 300 and AB 471) rural counties are now required to prepare “Regional Transportation Improvement Programs” (RTIPs). Alpine County, has for many years, included lists of prioritized transportation improvements for each mode of transportation within its RTP updates. The following Alpine County Transportation Improvement priorities specify projects which will help fulfill goals, objectives, and policies found within the Policy Element. The priorities can be changed as conditions in the County change, however, care should be taken to retain consistency with other elements of the General Plan and each project should undergo environmental review to ensure consideration of potential impacts including increased use. Mid-range projects and long- range projects (1997-2010) are differentiated from short range projects (1990-1997) by the use of asterisks and footnotes. Page 159 of 264 ---PAGE BREAK--- CHART IV-1 - ALPINE COUNTY STATE HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENT PRIORITIES Caltrans State Project Current Cost Proj. No. Priority Program Route Mile Location Improvement Year in $1000’s Source 112 1* HB4C 88 2.2- Between 2.2 & 3.2 mi.s Construct eastbound 99/2001 1,170 3.2 east of Amador County passing lane N/A 2* HB4C 4 N/A Highway 4 in Calaveras County Construct passing lanes 2002/ 3631 (Between Arnold and Bear Valley) 2003 229D 3* HB4C 88 63.3- E/O Cooks Station to Construct westbound 2003- 6,500 65.7 Silver Lake in Amador passing lanes 2005 County (portions) N/A 4* HB4C 89 Hwy. 395 Monitor Pass Improve for year round ASAP N/A To Hwy. 4 operation N/A 5 HB4C 88 N/A W/O Cooks Station to Construct westbound 2006/ N/A Jackson Passing lane(s) 2008 112N 6 HB4C 88 8.5- 2.4/1.9 mi. W/O Blue W/B passing lane 2009- N/A 9.0 Lakes Rd. From Hope Valley 114N 7 HB4C 89 23.1- 0.7 mi. N/O Picketts N/B truck climbing lane 2010- N/A Junc./Luther Pass Sat. (Portions) N/A 8 HB4C 89 3.5-4.5 3.5 mi N/O Luther Pass S/B truck climbing lane 2012- N/A * Mid-range improvements (1997 - 2002) Sources: 1990 STIP, 1992 Candidate List (Dated 3/91), Locally requested project Page 160 of 264 ---PAGE BREAK--- CHART IV-1 - ALPINE COUNTY SUPPORTED HIGHWAY SYSTEM OPERATION AND PROTECTION PLAN (HSOPP) PRIORITIES Caltrans State Project Current Cost Proj. No. Priority Program Route Mile Location Improvement Year in $1000’s Source N/A 1 HSOPP 89 BR # Markleeville Creek Bridge Widen and Install Ped. 97/2002 100 31-02 N/A 23 HSOPP 89 0.0- From Heenan Lake to Install improvements 97/2002 100 9.96 State Highway 4 necessary for winter (Portions) travel and winter recreational use 117 32 HB4N 88 14.7- Between Woodfords and Widen existing pavement 97/2002 524 (HSOPP) 15.7 Pickett’s Junction Add shoulders (Portion) N/A 4 HSOPP 88 BR# 31 W. Fork Carson River Br. Install rails and widen N/A N/A 5 HSOPP 4 R7.4- From 0.1 mi. E/O Jackass Install safety imp.s 97/2002 N/A R12.7 Gulch to N. Fork Mokelumne River (Portions) N/A 6 HSOPP 4 12.6- From N. Fork Mokelumne Install safety imp.s 97/2002 N/A 18.2 River to Ebbetts Pass Summit (Portions) * Mid-range improvements (1997 - 2002) Sources: 1990 STIP, 1992 Candidate List (Dated 3/91), Locally requested project Page 161 of 264 ---PAGE BREAK--- CHART IV-3 ALPINE COUNTY - COUNTY ROAD IMPROVEMENT PRIORITIES Est. Cost Available With Revenues County Project Escalation Funding (In Road Location Length Improvement Year (In $1000s) Source $1000s) 1.Blue Lakes Rd. Hwy 88 to Lower 11.6 mi. Const/pave 2003-2004 7500 Forest Highway 7500 Blue Lake 2. Turtle Rock Road Turtle Rock Park 0.5 mi. Reconst/Overlay 2000 100 Exchg 3. Montgomery Street Markleeville 0.3 mi. Overlay 2001 100 Exchg 4. Laramie Stree Markleeville 0.4 mi. Overlay 2001 75 Exchg 5. Various Roads Bear Valley Overlay 2005 600 Exchg 6. Diamond Valley Road Overlay NOTE: Project list will be updated to include mid-range projects. Page 162 of 264 ---PAGE BREAK--- CHART IV-4 ALPINE COUNTY TRANSIT IMPROVEMENT PRIORITIES Estimated Projected Project Costs Available with escalation in Revenues Gap Possible Project In $1000s Funding In In Location Type of Service Provider(s) Year Establish Maintain Source $1000s $1000s Bear Valley Bear Valley Bear Valley LT* NA NA Fares Highway 4 West on Hwy 4 Kirkwood and Provide scheduled Kirkwood LT* NA NA Fares Points East service to Kirkwood Assoc. Inc. Or West * Mid-range to long-range future projects 1999-2010 Page 163 of 264 ---PAGE BREAK--- CHART IV-5 ALPINE COUNTY AVIATION IMPROVEMENT PRIORITIES Project Cost Project with Escalation Revenues Funding Gap Facility Improvement Year Factor in $1000 in $1000 Source in $1000 1. County Airport Install Well LT 25 25 CAAP 0 2 County Airport Bring in Power and Telephone Lines LT 225 225 County/Private 195 3. County Airport Construct Runway Extension LT* 500 500 STIP/CAAP 483 4. County Airport Construct Taxi-Way LT* NA NA NA NA 5. County Airport Construct Airport Security Fence LT* NA NA NA NA * LT = Long Term Page 164 of 264 ---PAGE BREAK--- CHART IV-6 - ALPINE COUNTY - MULTI-USE TRAIL IMPROVEMENT PRIORITIES Proj. Cost (With Available Responsible Proj. Escalation) Revenue Funding Gap Location Improv. Length Entity Year in $1000 In $1000 Source In $1000 1. Highway 88 between Markleeville Bicycle 0.5 mi State 90/91 22 Caltrans 22 & new Highway Construction Shoulder Minor Project 2. Highway 4, Bicycle 3.0 mi State 2002/03 250 STIP Bear Valley to Lake Alpine 3. Hot Springs Rd. County Rd. #4 Multi-use 3.5 mi County 2005/07 4,500 LTF/County 4500 Trail Development Exactions 4. Highway 88 portions between Bicycle 6.8 mi State 2005/07 STIP Woodfords and Picketts Junction Shoulder (portions) 5. Highway 88 portions between Bicycle (portions) State 2008/10 Caltrans Caples Creek and Kirkwood Shoulder Minor Project Page 165 of 264 ---PAGE BREAK--- TABLE 8 - ACTION SUMMARY The Action Summary is a compilation of implementation measures and policies drawn from the Policy Element. 1. The LTC must submit an RTIP in each odd-numbered year and use it to communicate with Caltrans concerning its Candidate List. Early in each even numbered year, the LTC should send representatives to meet with CTC and CTC staff in Sacramento to discuss the County’s State highway needs. All such discussions should consistently reflect priority projects as they are specified in the RTP and RTIP including requests for STIP programming to improve the Alpine County airport. 2. Project Study Reports (PSRs) are required for all highway projects before they are eligible for programming in the STIP. The LTC must consistently urge Caltrans, Dist. 10, to complete PSRs for local priority highway projects (see Chart IV-1). 3. Passing lane opportunities on Highway 88 in Calaveras and Amador Counties will be among the priorities specified in discussions with Caltrans and the CTC representatives (see Policy No. 30 - Element IV., Section 4. The LTC should use the “Through Traffic Study” in cooperation with Inyo and Mono Counties to lobby the CTC and State legislature for additional highway funding. 5. The LTC will participate in the Ebbetts Pass planning group to insure the Calaveras County circulation plan addresses improvements on Highway 4 that will meet Alpine County’s needs. 6. The LTC should continue to work with Caltrans to complete specified improvements on Highway 4 between Lake Alpine and Markleeville and on Highway 89 between Markleeville and Monitor Pass. 7. The LTC should, by resolution, request Caltrans to provide class snow removal between Markleeville and Monitor Pass. 8. Unmet transit needs hearings should be conducted each year. Requests for new transit service should be measured against the LTC’s adopted “reasonable-to-meet” criteria (Policy IV D-1.4). After all reasonable needs are met remaining LTF funds should be provided for specified street and road or other transportation purposes (see IMPLEMENTATION MEASURE under Objective No. 38a). Page 166 of 264 ---PAGE BREAK--- E. FINANCIAL ELEMENT Estimates of project costs and projected revenues for most of the Alpine County Transportation Improvement programs are provided in the right-hand columns of Tables IV-1 - IV-6 as shown in the Action Element. The Financial Element contains more detail regarding costs and revenues. Each of the following categories are discussed: State highway construction, county road construction, county road maintenance, transit, aviation, and bicycle circulation. Each discussion generally contains a brief analysis of the funds that have been used to finance projects in each category in the past and projection of how funding resources should be used over the short-term (5 years) planning period in order to achieve the RTP’s goals and objectives. The projected revenues are compared with the projected costs of planned transportation projects and new possibilities for funding are suggested where revenue gaps are disclosed. State Highways Allocations for major State highway improvements are made through the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) as outlined in the Action Element (State and regional planning process). Other State programs provide for highway operational, safety, and rehabilitation improvements (HSOPP). The amount of funding that will be allocated for future highway projects will generally equal the amount of County minimums allocated. The State’s gasoline tax provides most of the funds used for State highway projects. The State’s share of this 9 cents per gallon has been approximately 4.61 cents since beginning in 1983. The County receives the other 4.39 cents for local roads. Local Roads Construction The Federal government receives 14 cents per gallon gasoline tax, a percentage of which is distributed back to the State of California. California matches these funds by half the amount received and allocates part of the total to counties for road construction projects. These funds are referred to as Federal and Secondary (FAS) Road Funds. Counties receiving less than 1% of the total allocation to all counties may exchange its apportionment for an equal amount of non-federal funds from the State Highway Account. To date, Alpine County has elected to utilize the latter source of funding which are commonly referred to as “Exchange Funds.” Exchange dollars are the primary source of funds used for county road construction. Other available revenues including the local share of the State gas tax and Forest Receipt Act payments are generally used for road maintenance and department operations. Gas tax revenues will increase due to Proposition 111 as explained in the Needs Assessment. Forest Receipt Act payments vary from year to year. Chart IV-3 in the Action Element shows allocation of these funds to various remaining short-range county road improvement projects. Chart IV-3 indicates the County has not yet determined the projects or costs involved in their mid or long-term County Road Improvement program. Assuming that gas tax revenues, Forest Receipt Act payments, and other funds are utilized for road Page 167 of 264 ---PAGE BREAK--- maintenance and department operations and assuming that Transportation Development Act (TDA) funds are reserved for transit and non-motorized travel, it would appear that exchange dollars are an adequate source to finance the County’s road construction projects, at least during the short-term. There is, however, concern that gas tax and Forest Receipt Act payments may not meet the increasing costs of maintenance and operations over the long term. County Road Maintenance Funds for the maintenance of county roads come primarily from gas tax revenues and National Forest Receipt Act payments. Other funds that have been utilized include traffic fines, fees, rents, and interest. The State gasoline tax provides Alpine County gasoline sales receipts plus an allotment per maintained mile of county road. In FY 1988-89 gas tax revenues to Alpine County totaled $186,469. In FY 1989-90 they were $199,677. If revenues average the same for the next five years almost a million dollars in revenues could become available. Due to the passage of Proposition 111 (SCA-1) the gas tax fund will likely exceed a million dollars. Forest Receipt Act payments equal 25% of all revenues generated in National Forests that have land in Alpine County. Receipt Act payments to the County must be split evenly between public schools and county roads. The share of Receipts Act payments that went to county roads in FY 89-90 was $504,325, but by FY 96-97 had dwindled to $150,000. Traffic fines and other income for road purposes equaled approximately $10,000 in the last two years. Using a five-year projection as done above, approximately $50,000 could be generated over the next five years. It must be noted that the estimates of road maintenance costs do not consider inflation or overhead costs such as capital expenditures or management and clerical staff salaries and benefits. The federal threat of reducing Forest Receipt Act payments could reduce the county road maintenance budget by as much as 50% or 60%. Possible additional sources of revenues for county road maintenance include Transportation Development Act (TDA) funds and changes in Federal, State, or local regulations. The Policy Element contains objectives and policies relating to funding for county roads and suggests changes in State regulations and funding allocations (Goal IV C-11). Transit The County presently utilizes State Transportation Development Act (TDA) funds to help finance transportation services for senior citizens in eastern Alpine County. TDA funds are made up of State Transit Assistance (STA) funds and Local Transportation Funds (LTF). STA funds are allocated to counties on the basis of population (SB 620, 1979). As of April 1991, Alpine County’s STA account had accrued $2,804 including interest. The full amount was allocated for use by the County for transit purposes. Page 168 of 264 ---PAGE BREAK--- Aviation Alpine County was awarded $94,000 in California aid to airport program funds for use in repaving and preserving the County airport runway (Task #1 of the Airport Improvement Program). Projected income from CAAP grants for the next five years is $25,000, not including interest. The airport and surrounding areas are presently designated commercial by the County General Plan Land Use Element which allow some industrial uses and could improve commerce and also support needed improvements. The Airport Improvement Program intends to utilize future CAAP funds, County revenues, and private funding to develop the airport and establish an industrial/commercial facility as a mutually beneficial effort. Bicycle Implementation of the Bicycle Circulation Improvement Program involves action by both the County of Alpine and the Department of Transportation. The County has never expended funds solely for construction of bicycle facilities. Funds available for such purposes include the Transportation Development Act (TDA) the Bicycle Lanes Account (BLA) and competitive grant funds available for commuter bicycle facilities made available by Proposition 116. The County should continue to pursue multi-use trails where feasible. At the request of the Board of Supervisors, Caltrans signed and striped bike lanes on the section of State Highway 89 between Markleeville and Woodfords. The State’s policy is to maintain or improve bicycle and pedestrian facilities wherever feasible in conjunction with State highway projects. The County’s Bicycle Improvement Program suggests that Caltrans should provide shoulders of adequate width with other improvements for bicycles and pedestrians at the same time they construct new highway projects listed in the State Highway Improvement Program (see Action Element, Chart IV-1). This is highly appropriate since most cyclists are seen on State highways and they come from other areas of the State. Funds available to Caltrans that would insure completion of bike lane improvements include California Federal Aid Funds, (Section 217, Title 23, United States Code - - 2.5) and the State Highway Account. It is possible that, if commuter bicycle demand develops, the LTC could apply for funds to develop or obtain bicycle facilities under the provision of Proposition 116. Public Utilities As identified in the Needs Assessment, the public utilities in greatest need of financial assistance are the Markleeville Water Company (water system) and the Markleeville PUD(sewer system). The Markleeville Water Company system is in need of more than $1 million for pipe replacement and other upgrades and improvements. Funds obtained through fees charged to existing lots and parcels in the Markleeville area have been insufficient to maintain and upgrade the system. The company is considering joining the Markleeville PUD or otherwise becoming a public agency rather than a private company. This will allow the entity to qualify for grants and other financial resources it might not otherwise be able to get. The Alpine County Board of Supervisors is presently assisting with the search for grant funds to raise needed revenues. Page 169 of 264 ---PAGE BREAK--- F. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW Pursuant to the California Government Code, the RTP is a “project” and is thereby subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Under these requirements an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was prepared by Caltrans District 10 staff and the Local Transportation Commission (LTC) staff for the original RTP adopted in 1975. In 1982 a new EIR was prepared when the RTP was significantly upgraded as part of the Countywide General Plan Update. These EIRs were to determine the significance of potential changes which would take place when the proposed transportation plan was introduced into the environmental setting. The 1975 EIR and the 1982 EIR were extensive and in-depth studies of the environmental and social setting of Alpine County. The 1975 analysis of environmental impacts was done “in the alternative”; that is, the potential environmental impacts were segregated under the headings of 1) a financially unconstrained plan, 2) a financially constrained plan, 3) a do-nothing or no-build plan, and 4) a clean-air plan. Each alternative was then evaluated. Since conditions have changed little in the County and the LTC has carried forward the same alternative that was selected in 1975 (the financially constrained plan), the 1975 EIR still applies to the 1990 project. The EIR that was prepared for the Alpine County General Plan/Transportation Plan is of even greater applicability for purposes of discussing social, economic and environmental effects for this RTP update. This is because the changes to the plan and to the County have been even less since 1982 than they have been since 1975. The 1982 Draft and Final EIR for the Alpine County General Plan and Transportation Plan, are hereby incorporated by reference (530 pages). Page 170 of 264 ---PAGE BREAK--- ALPINE COUNTY GENERAL PLAN V. HOUSING ELEMENT REVISIONS TO THIS SECTION: ENTIRE ELEMENT BOARD OF SUPERVISORS RESOLUTION NO. 2004-17, MARCH 30, 2004 Page 171 of 264 ---PAGE BREAK--- V. HOUSING ELEMENT A. INTRODUCTION The Housing Element is a State mandated element of the Alpine County General Plan intended to guide development of housing in the County. There are four main components to the Housing Element. They are: an assessment of housing needs in the County; an inventory of housing resources and constraints relevant to meeting those needs; a statement of goals, quantified objectives and policies; and a housing program. The assessment of housing needs includes an analysis of population and employment trends, and current household characteristics including level of payment compared to ability to pay and overcrowding. The inventory of housing resources and constraints includes an inventory of land suitable for residential development as well as an analysis of housing development constraints such as local fees, land use controls, the price of land and construction costs. The statement of goals, quantified objectives and policies provides guidance for meeting the needs and is directed at maintenance, preservation, improvement and development of housing. The housing program is a schedule of actions which the County should undertake to implement the policies and achieve the goals and objectives of the housing element. Requirement for Housing Element Updates In 1992 the California Department of Housing and Community Development certified the Alpine County Housing Element. This certification expires on December 31, 2003. Section 65588 of the California Government Code requires that local government shall review their general plan housing elements “as frequently as appropriate to evaluate the following: The appropriateness of the housing goals, objectives, and policies in contributing to the attainment of the State housing goal. The effectiveness of the housing element in attainment of the community’s housing goals and objectives. The progress of the city or county in implementation of the housing element. The State housing goal, as expressed in Section 65580 of the California Government Code is the attainment of decent housing and a suitable living environment for every Californian. In striving to meet this goal, the State requires that local governments play a key role in expanding opportunities for housing and that particular emphasis is needed to meet the housing needs of low and moderate income households. Local governments are thus directed by the State to use their vested powers to facilitate the improvement and development of housing in order to meet the needs of all economic segments within their communities. Public Participation Informal discussions of the housing element update and general housing issues in the community began at the Alpine County Planning Commission meeting in April 2003 and have continued regularly through the update process. The County received a Planning and Technical Assistance (PTA) grant through the State’s Community Development Block Grant Program Page 172 of 264 ---PAGE BREAK--- (CDBG). The purpose of this grant was to prepare a housing needs assessment and to do an affordable housing feasibility analysis. This work completed through the PTA grant directly supports the housing element update. An informal advisory committee was formed and met to provide input on the PTA grant tasks. This committee included citizens and representatives from community service providers. An attempt was made to get low income household and native American community representation on the committee, but none came forward. Consultants working on the affordable housing feasibility analysis met with numerous community members to discuss local housing issues in the process of completing their work. A duly noticed public hearing was held with the Alpine County Planning Commission on February 26, 2004, prior to the Commission making a recommendation on the housing element update. The Board of Supervisors also held a public hearing on March 30, 2004, prior to taking action on the update. The housing element update and its related environmental review documents were made available for review from the County Planning Department and County Clerk. Information on the update was also posted on the Alpine County website. Consistency with Other General Plan Elements Planning law requires the general plan to be an internally consistent document, consisting of compatible policies, objectives, standards, etc. and housing element law further requires the housing element to describe how consistency is achieved and maintained. As part of this update process, the housing element, including goals, policies, objectives and programs has been reviewed for consistency with the rest of the general plan. The County will maintain consistency upon general plan amendments being approved and will consider general plan consistency as part of its annual progress report required under Government Code Section 65400. Data Sources The primary sources of data contained in this housing element update are: Template for the Preparation of Housing Elements for Frontier Counties – Alpine County. California Department of Housing and Community Development, August 2003. County of Alpine Housing Needs Assessment. Prepared for the Alpine County Planning Department by Laurin Associates, December 2003. Alpine County General Plan Housing Element. 1992 1990 US Census 2000 US Census B. HOUSING NEEDS Population Page 173 of 264 ---PAGE BREAK--- Since 1980, Alpine County has experienced relatively slow steady growth. Current population (2003) is estimated at 1223 persons. The population is expected to increase 3.7% to 1268 persons by 2008. Permanent population in Markleeville and Woodfords is expected to grow faster than other communities and the county as a whole. Table 1 below shows recent population trends and projections through 2008. TABLE 1: RECENT POPULATION TRENDS ALPINE COUNTY AND COMMUNITIES CHANGE 2003-08 JURISDICTION 1990 2000 2003 2008 Number Percent Alpine County 1,113 1,208 1,223 1,268 45 3.7% Bear Valley* NA 133 135 138 3 2.2% Kirkwood* NA 96 97 99 2 2.1% Markleeville* NA 197 199 207 8 4.0% Woodfords* NA 219 223 234 11 4.9% Source: U.S. Census, 1990, 2000; CA Dept. of Finance, 2003; Datum Populus, 2003 *Census Data for 1990 not available in the community According to the California Department of Finance, the County population is expected to continue growing in the future at a faster pace than recent history, increasing to approximately 1400 persons in 2010 and 1700 persons in 2020 (Department of Finance, July 1, 2000 county population projections). Employment In 2000 Alpine County had 614 employed residents, an increase of 22% over 1990 levels (see Table Recreation and tourism is the dominant economic activity in the County. This is reflected in the employment numbers for arts, entertainment, recreation and services; and retail trade. Secondary to recreation and tourism is education and government as reflected in the educational, health and social services; and public administration categories. Together, recreation, tourism, education and government account for almost two-thirds of the employment within the County. The largest employers within the County are the Kirkwood Mountain Resort, Bear Valley Mountain Resort, Alpine County Government and the Alpine County Unified School District. It is expected that the mix of employment by industry will remain relatively constant through 2008. Service workers make up a large proportion of the employees in the tourism and recreation industry. Many of these positions are seasonal and part time. Typical wages range from $8 to $14 per hour. Due to a number of factors, many service workers live outside the County. Among the most significant factors are the part time and seasonal nature of the employment, housing cost and limited availability of housing within the County, the desire to be in a more urban environment (South Lake Tahoe or Minden/Gardnerville/Carson City Nevada) that is closer to services and other urban amenities that are lacking in Alpine County, and the employment location of other household members. Page 174 of 264 ---PAGE BREAK--- TABLE 2: EMPLOYMENT BY INDUSTRY (1990 AND 2000) - ALPINE COUNTY 1990 2000 Industry Type Number Percent Number Percent Agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting, and mining: 24 4.7 23 3.6 Construction 79 15.3 58 9.2 Manufacturing 21 4.1 21 3.3 Wholesale trade 11 2.1 10 1.6 Retail trade 48 9.3 44 7.0 Transportation and warehousing, and utilities: 13 2.5 25 4.0 Information 0 0 6 1.0 Finance, insurance, real estate and rental and leasing: 14 2.7 14 2.2 Professional, scientific, management, admin. 39 7.6 30 4.8 Educational, health and social services: 58 11.3 104 16.6 Arts, entertainment, recreation, and services: 33 6.4 179 28.5 Other services 121 23.7 30 4.8 Public administration 53 10.3 84 13.4 TOTAL 514 100.00 628 100.00 Source: Census Bureau (1990 Census; 2000 Census, SF3: P49) Household Characteristics Household Income Table 3 shows household income within the County. In 2000 the median household income for a family of four was $41875 per year. Between 1990 and 2000, the number of households earning more than $50,000 per year has increased more than other income groups. The largest increase has been in households earning more than $75,000 per year. There has been a reduction in the number of households earning between $5,000 and $35,000 per year during this same time period. Page 175 of 264 ---PAGE BREAK--- TABLE 3: ALPINE COUNTY HOUSEHOLDS BY INCOME 1990 2000 CHANGE (1990-2000) INCOME GROUPS Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent <$5,000 29 6.3% 32 6.2% 3 10.3% $5,000-$14,999 78 17.0% 57 11.1% -21 -26.9% $15,000- $24,999 123 27.9% 61 11.8% -62 -50.4% $25,000- $34,999 59 12.9% 49 9.5% -10 -16.9% $35,000- $49,999 68 14.8% 99 19.3% 31 45.6% $50,000- $74,999 73 15.9% 118 23.0% 45 61.6% $75,000 + 28 6.1% 98 19.1% 70 250.0% TOTAL 458 100.0% 514 100.0% 56 12.2% Median Income $29,400 $41,875 25,900 88.1% Source: U.S. Census, 1990, 2000; Alpine County Housing Needs Assessment, 2003 In 2003 according the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, the median family income (MFI) in Alpine County is $55,300. Household Growth and Tenure The following three tables show household trends since 1990 and a projection of total households in 2008. Since 1990, the most significant change has been the increase in two person households from 153 to 189 (Table There has also been a notable increase in large households persons) since 1990. However, average household size in the County has remained stable since 1990 at 2.5 persons. TABLE 4: ALPINE COUNTY HOUSEHOLD TRENDS Year Households Change Percent Change Simple Annual Percent Change 1990 458 72 18.6% 1.9% 2000 483 25 5.4% 0.5% 2003 514 31 6.4% 2.1% 2008 567 53 10.3% 2.1% Source: U. S. Census, 1980 – 2000; CA Dept. of Finance, 2003; Alpine County Housing Needs Assessment, 2003 Page 176 of 264 ---PAGE BREAK--- TABLE 5: RECENT HOUSEHOLD TRENDS IN ALPINE COUNTY COMMUNITIES CHANGE 2003-08 JURISDICTION 2000 2003 2008 Number Percent Bear Valley 67 68 70 2 2.9% Kirkwood 19 19 20 1 5.3% Markleeville 92 93 97 4 4.3% Woodfords 57 59 62 3 5.1% Source: U.S. Census 2000; CA Dept. of Finance, 2003; Alpine County Housing Needs Assessment, 2003 TABLE 6: ALPINE COUNTY PERSONS PER HOUSEHOLD TRENDS 1990 2003 Change Household Number Percent of Total Number Percent of Total Number Percent 1 person 137 29.9% 142 27.7% 5 3.6% 2 person 153 33.4% 189 36.8% 36 23.5% 3 person 67 14.6% 79 15.3% 12 17.9% 4 person 46 10.0% 46 9.0% 0 0.0% 5 person 38 8.3% 24 4.7% -14 -36.8% 6 person 11 2.4% 22 4.1% 11 100.0% 7+person 6 1.3% 12 2.4% 6 100.0% TOTAL 458 100.0% 514 100.0% 56 12.2% Ave. Household Size 2.5 2.5 0 0.0% Source: U.S. Census, 1990 – 2000; CA Dept. of Finance, 2003;Alpine County Housing Needs Assessment, 2003 Tables 7 and 8 show household tenure data for the County. The number of owner occupied households has increased significantly since 1990. In 2000 over 2/3 of the households in the County were owner occupied. The mix of ownership and rentals varies by community. The high percentage of renter households in Kirkwood (over 84%) is consistent with the seasonal employment that occurs within this resort community. Page 177 of 264 ---PAGE BREAK--- TABLE 7: HOUSEHOLDS BY TENURE (1980 – 2000) - ALPINE COUNTY 1980 1990 2000 Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Owner 238 61.7% 258 57.3% 328 67.9% Renter 148 38.3% 192 42.7% 155 32.1% TOTAL 386 100.0% 450 100.0% 483 100.0% Source: Census Bureau (2000 Census, SF 3: H7), (1990 Census, SF 3: H8) and 1980 Census TABLE 8: ALPINE COUNTY AND COMMUNITIES HOUSEHOLDS BY TENURE, 2000 Alpine County Bear Valley Kirkwood Type Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Owner 351 68.3% 40 59.7% 3 15.8% Renter 163 31.7% 27 40.3% 16 84.2% Markleeville Woodfords Type Number Number Number Percent Owner 63 68.5% 40 70.2% Renter 29 31.5% 17 29.8% Source: US Census 2000 Overcrowding Overcrowding is defined by the Census as a household with more than one person per room. For purposes of determining overcrowding, “room” includes the living room, dining room, kitchen, bedrooms and finished recreation room or den. Table 9 illustrates overcrowding. Overcrowding is not a significant situation in Alpine County with only 7.5 percent of the total households classified as overcrowded. Two-thirds of the overcrowding occurs in renter households. The total rate of overcrowding in Alpine County is approximately one-half of the statewide rate of 15.2 percent. Page 178 of 264 ---PAGE BREAK--- TABLE 9: OVERCROWDED HOUSEHOLDS (2000) - ALPINE COUNTY Households Owners Renters TOTAL TOTAL HOUSEHOLDS 328 155 483 Total Overcrowded Households 12 24 36 1-1.5 Persons per Room 11 19 30 1.5 or More Persons per Room 1 5 6 County Overcrowding Rates 3.6% 15.5% 7.5% Statewide Overcrowding Rates 8.6% 23.9% 15.2% Source: Census Bureau (2000 Census SF 3: H20) Overpayment Households are considered to be overpaying for housing if total shelter costs (mortgage or rent plus basic utilities) exceeds 30 percent of household gross income. Table 10 shows data on overpayment for the County. Overall in 2000, 99 households were overpaying for shelter. Overpayment for renter and owner households is 35.4 and 25.3 percent, respectively. A total of 82 low and very low income households are overpaying for shelter. There is variation of overpayment within the different communities in Alpine County. The Markleeville area has the highest percentage of households overpaying at just over 32 percent. No households in Kirkwood are classified as overpaying. Page 179 of 264 ---PAGE BREAK--- TABLE 10: OVERPAYMENT FOR HOUSING Income Range Paying 30-34% of Income Paying 35% + of Income Total Overpaying RENTER HOUSEHOLDS, 2000 Percent of Renter Households Very Low 2 37 39 30.0% Low 2 4 6 4.6% Moderate 1 0 1 0.8% Above Moderate 0 0 0 0.0% TOTAL 5 41 46 35.4% OWNER HOUSEHOLDS, 2000 Percent of Owner Households Very Low 2 20 22 10.5% Low 5 10 15 7.2% Moderate 5 4 9 4.3% Above Moderate 6 1 7 3.3% TOTAL 18 35 53 25.3% Source: US Census 2000 Housing Stock Characteristics Housing Units by Type The 2000 census counted 1514 housing units in Alpine County. The distribution of those units by type of unit is shown in Table 11. This table also shows data for 1990, 2003 and projected growth through 2008. According to the 2000 census 499 of the 579 multi family housing units are vacant. Most, if not all, of these vacancies are probably due to units that are classified as vacation homes or second homes that are not part of the housing stock available to permanent residents of the County. Between 1990 and 2003, the County issued building permits for 241 single family homes and 178 multi family dwelling units. It is expected that multi family construction will be a larger portion of the total within the next five years. This is due to recent approval of a new Specific Plan for Kirkwood which emphasizes development of multi family units, and the recent approval of a large condominium project in Bear Valley. However, almost all of the housing units in these projects are expected to be vacation or second home properties. Construction of single family homes is expected to continue at a relatively slow and constant rate over the next five years. No new mobile homes are expected to be located in the County in the next five years. Overall, housing units are expected to increase by 170 units over the next five years, which is an increase of 2% annually. Page 180 of 264 ---PAGE BREAK--- TABLE 11: ALPINE COUNTY, CURRENT AND PROJECTED HOUSING TYPES 1990 2000 2003 Five Year Projected Growth to 2008 Housing Type No. % No. % No. % Annual Change Additional Units Single Family 865 65.6 887 58.6 973 60.2 0.5% 23 Multifamily 2-4 Units 64 4.9 35 2.3 35 2.2 0.0% 0 Multifamily 5+ Units 91 6.9 530 35.0 545 33.7 5.4% 147 Mobile Homes 70 5.3 49 3.2 62 3.9 0.0% 0 Other 229 17.3 13 0.9 0 0.0 0.0% 0 TOTAL 1,319 100 1,514 100 1,615 100 2.1% 170 Housing Stock Conditions A housing conditions survey was conducted in Alpine County in May and June 2003. A total of 1143 housing units in the County were surveyed. The survey focused on the communities and immediate surroundings of Bear Valley, Kirkwood, Markleeville and Woodfords. Scattered housing in outlying rural areas was not included in the survey. Units were classified as follows: SOUND No repairs needed, or only one minor repair needed such as exterior painting or window repair. MINOR Two or more minor repairs needed, such as patching and painting of siding, roof patching or window replacement; or one major repair needed, such as roof replacement. MODERATE Two or three minor repairs needed, such as those listed above, or a combination of minor and major repairs. SUBSTANTIAL Repairs generally needed to all surveyed items: foundation, roof, siding, window, and electrical. DILAPIDATED The costs of repair would exceed the cost to replace the residential structure. The results of the survey are contained in Table 12. Over 95% of the housing stock surveyed is in sound condition. Page 181 of 264 ---PAGE BREAK--- TABLE 12: ALPINE COUNTY HOUSING CONDITIONS Condition Number Percent Sound 1093 95.6 Minor Rehabilitation 34 3.0 Moderate Rehabilitation 15 1.3 Substantial Rehabilitation 0 0 Dilapidated 1 0.1 Source: Alpine County Housing Needs Assessment, 2003 Table 13 shows housing conditions by community area. The Sierra Pines mobile home community within the Woodfords area has the highest concentration of units in need of rehabilitation at 17. The one dilapidated unit found in the survey is an older mobile home in Sierra Pines. Given the results of the survey, the County will be further evaluating the need and feasibility of a housing rehabilitation program focused on the Sierra Pines mobile home community. Most of the residents of this community are within the very low and low income household categories. TABLE 13: HOUSING CONDITIONS BY COMMUNITY AREA Bear Valley Kirkwood Markleeville Woodfords Condition No. % No. % No. % No. % Sound 584 99.8 278 100 119 86.2 114 90.3 Minor 1 0.2 0 0 17 12.3 14 9.9 Moderate 0 0 0 0 2 1.5 13 9.2 Substantial 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Dilapidated 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0.7 TOTAL 585 100 278 100 138 100 142 100 Source: Alpine County Housing Needs Assessment, 2003 According to the 2000 census, there are 404 housing units in Alpine County that were constructed prior to 1950. Given the results of the housing conditions survey described above, it can be fairly concluded that most of these units are still in sound condition. The worst case is that up to 10 of these units may need minor or moderate rehabilitation. Special Housing Needs Persons with Disabilities According to the 2000 Census, 182 persons were with a disability, representing 15.9 percent of the population. Most people were either employed (6.2 percent) or over the age of 65 (5.4 percent). Page 182 of 264 ---PAGE BREAK--- TABLE 14: PERSONS WITH DISABILITY BY EMPLOYMENT STATUS (2000) - ALPINE COUNTY Number Percent Age 5-64, Employed Persons with a Disability 71 6.2% Age 5-64, Not Employed Persons with a Disability 49 4.3% Persons Age 65 Plus with a Disability 62 5.4% Total Persons with a Disability 182 15.9% Total Population (Civilian Non-institutional) 1,147 100.0% Source: Census Bureau (2000 Census SF 3: P42) TABLE 15: PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES BY DISABILITY TYPE (2000) - ALPINE COUNTY Number Percent Total Disabilities Tallied 307 100.0% Total Disabilities for Ages 5-64 190 61.9% Sensory Disability 34 11.0% Physical disability 53 17.3% Mental disability 18 5.9% Self-care disability 19 6.2% Go-outside-home disability 20 6.5% Employment disability 56 18.2% Total Disabilities for Ages 65 and Over 117 38.1% Sensory Disability 32 10.4% Physical disability 24 7.8% Mental disability 14 4.6% Self-care disability 12 3.9% Go-outside-home disability 35 11.4% Source: Census Bureau (2000 Census SF 3: P41) Seniors According to the 2000 Census, 72 senior households (age 65 or over) reside in Alpine County, which is 14.9 percent of the total households. Of the 72 senior households, only 6 were renters, indicating a strong ownership trend among seniors. Table 16 summarizes householders by age and tenure. There are currently no programs within the County that are specifically directed at housing for seniors. Given the high percentage of homeownership among seniors, specific programs are probably not needed. Also, housing specifically for seniors is best located within nearby urban communities where health care and other necessary services are more convenient than in rural Alpine County. Page 183 of 264 ---PAGE BREAK--- TABLE 16: HOUSEHOLDERS BY AGE AND TENURE (2000) - ALPINE COUNTY Householder Age Owners Renters Total 15-24 years 5 23 28 25-34 years 30 21 51 35-64 years 227 105 332 65-74 years 40 6 46 75 plus years 26 0 26 TOTAL 328 155 483 Source: Census Bureau (2000 Census SF 3: H14 and P87) Large Families Large households are defined as households with more than five persons. In some circumstances, where the housing market does not meet large household housing needs, overcrowding can be a result of the lack of adequate housing. As discussed earlier, overcrowding is not a significant housing need, with overcrowded situations representing only 7.5 percent of the households. TABLE 17: HOUSEHOLD SIZE BY TENURE (2000) - ALPINE COUNTY 1-4 persons 5+ Persons Total Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Owner 296 61.3% 32 6.6% 328 67.9% Renter 133 27.5% 22 4.6% 155 32.1% TOTAL 429 88.8% 54 11.2% 483 100.0% Source: Census Bureau (2000 Census SF 3: H17) Farmworkers The most current accurate data on farmworkers is the USDA 1997 Census of Agriculture. According to this data, there were 12 farmworkers on 5 farms in Alpine County in 1997. Ranches are included as farms in this data. The 2000 census data lists 23 persons employed in the combined category of agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting, and mining. The eastern side of the County contains a small number of ranches which graze livestock and grow hay crops. Currently there are approximately six separate ranching operations in this area. Many of these operations will employ seasonal or part time agricultural workers that live in housing provided on the ranch or commute from the nearby Carson Valley area in Nevada where there are additional employment opportunities. It is expected that the number of ranching operations and associated agricultural workers in the County will remain stable through 2008. However, as the total Page 184 of 264 ---PAGE BREAK--- population and number of households in the County continues to increase, agricultural workers will comprise a smaller proportion of these totals. Female-headed Households According to the 2000 census, there were 56 female headed households in the County in 2000. Of these, 31 included children less than 18 years of age, and 17 had household incomes below the poverty level. Table 18 is a summary of the data regarding female headed households. There is no housing in Alpine County specifically targeted to female headed households or low income households with children. There are eight households in the community that utilize the HUD Section 8 rental assistance program. Four of these are female headed households. TABLE 18: FEMALE HEADED HOUSEHOLDS AND POVERTY (2000) - ALPINE COUNTY Householder Type Number Percent Total Households 483 Female Headed Households 56 11.6% Female Heads with Own Children 31 6.4% Female Heads without Children 25 5.2% Total Households Under the Poverty Level 36 7.5% Female Headed Householders Under the Poverty Level 17 3.5% Source: Census Bureau (2000 Census SF 3: P10 and P90) Families and Persons in Need of Emergency Shelter According to the Alpine County Department of Health and Human Services, there are no homeless families or homeless persons in Alpine County. The South Lake Tahoe Women’s Center provides services in Alpine County. They have a full service shelter in South Lake Tahoe that can accommodate four or five families at one time. Additionally, they have arrangements with the Woodfords Inn in Alpine County to provide a one night stay in a motel room on an emergency basis before transferring clients to the South Lake Tahoe facility. C. RESOURCES AND CONSTRAINTS Regional Housing Need The central intent of State Housing Element Law legislation is to attain the state’s housing goal through the cooperation of government entities. Multi-jurisdictional agencies, or Councils of Governments (COGs), are given the responsibility of distributing the State’s housing needs in an equitable manner that attempts to avoid the disproportionate distribution of low and very-low income households. Page 185 of 264 ---PAGE BREAK--- Alpine County falls under the jurisdiction of the Central Sierra Planning Council – a four county region that includes all the incorporated and unincorporated areas within Alpine, Amador, Calaveras and Tuolumne counties. The Council uses a predominately demographic formula to allocate the regional housing needs within the four-county region. This process results in a Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA), and the number reflected in that assessment must be considered when the housing element is prepared. For the period 2001 to 2008, Alpine County’s housing need allocation is 45 new housing units. The specific need by income group is depicted in Table 19. TABLE 19: ALPINE COUNTY REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS ALLOCATION (RHNA) BY INCOME GROUP 2001 – 2008 Income Group Income Range (4-person household) RHNA Very-Low <$27,650 10 Low $27,651 - $44,250 7 Moderate $44,251 - $66,360 9 Above-Moderate >$66,361 19 TOTAL 45 Source: Central Sierra Planning Council – 2003 Regional Housing Needs Plan From January 2001 through November 2003, a total of 97 dwelling units have been completed within the County. Table 20 shows the distribution of these units by income group. Building permits have been issued for 108 dwelling units that are expected to be completed by the end of 2008. Additionally, planning approvals have been granted for 109 additional multi family units, one second family dwelling unit and 39 single family lots. Table 21 shows the anticipated distribution of these units by income group. Appendix A contains a more detailed listing of units for the very low, low and moderate income categories for both completed and expected units. The remaining housing need by income category is shown in Table 22. It is expected that the regional need within the low and above moderate income categories will be met during the planning period (January 2001 to December 2008). Additional programs are necessary to satisfy the regional need for very low and moderate income households. The housing program (Chapter 5) will be targeted to satisfying the regional need for these two income categories. Housing programs should also continue to promote or provide for adequate housing for low income households. Page 186 of 264 ---PAGE BREAK--- TABLE 20: UNITS CONSTRUCTED (JANUARY 2001 TO NOVEMBER 2003) Income Group Number of Units Constructed Very Low 3 Low 2 Moderate 1 Above Moderate 89 TOTAL 97 Source: Alpine County Building Department TABLE 21: ANTICIPATED CONSTRUCTION IN THE ENTITLEMENT PROCESS (NOV. 2003 TO DEC. 2008) Income Group Number of Units Anticipated Very Low 0 Low 10 Moderate 2 Above Moderate 205 TOTAL 217 Source: Alpine County Building and Planning Departments TABLE 22: PROGRESS TOWARD THE REGIONAL HOUSING NEED (JAN. 2001 TO DEC. 2008) Income Group Regional Housing Need Units Constructed Units Anticipated Remaining Housing Need Very Low 10 3 0 7 Low 7 5 10 0 Moderate 9 1 2 6 Above Moderate 19 92 205 0 TOTAL 45 101 217 13 Source: Alpine County Building and Planning Departments; Central Sierra Planning Council – 2003 Regional Housing Needs Plan Land Inventory Table 23 contains the vacant land inventory and the estimated realistic development capacity for those vacant lands. Factors considered in evaluating capacity include typical built density by zoning district, availability of water and sewer service, slope constraints, flood prone areas, seismic hazards and road access. A typical built density for each zoning district (except for PD) has been calculated by first determining the total number of residential units on the developed parcels within each zoning district and then calculating the average number of units per acre or density within the built parcels. Page 187 of 264 ---PAGE BREAK--- The estimated realistic development capacity within each zoning district is based on the typical built density and then adjusted based on one or more of the factors described below. Availability of Water and Sewer: Limited availability of water and sewer service is a major constraint to affordable housing and to development in general. Parcels that cannot be served with central sewer were assumed to have a maximum density of one unit per acre which is generally considered to be the minimum parcel size that can accommodate an on site wastewater treatment system (typically a septic system with leach field) that meets all applicable design standards and regulations. Specific limits for the Markleeville Mutual Water Company and the Bear Valley Water District have been factored into the estimated realistic development capacity for those specific areas. The notes in the table explain how these limits affect development capacity. Slope Constraints: Slope is a major constraint to development in Alpine County. The following factors were applied to vacant lands: Slope less than 15%: 100% of typical built density Slopes greater than 15%, less than 30%: 75% of typical built density Slopes greater than 30%, less than 45%: 50% of typical built density Slopes greater than 45%: 0% of typical built density Flood Prone Areas: Alpine County does not participate in the National Flood Insurance Program and does not have any detailed flood insurance rate maps. However, the California Department of Water Resources has recently completed “Awareness Floodplain Maps” for Alpine County. In general, flood prone areas in Alpine County are limited to narrow areas immediately adjacent to stream channels. This is due, in large part, to the steep gradient of streams in the County. Most parcels within potential flood areas would still include significant area that would not be subject to flooding. Also, there are very few areas where small parcels are located entirely within a potential flood area. For this reason, development capacity was not reduced along flood prone areas. Seismic Hazards: Seismic hazards do occur in many areas along the eastern Sierra front. Most of Alpine County is within seismic hazard zone 3. Typically, development can occur within these areas subject to building and design requirements as required by the Uniform Building Code. Development capacity was not reduced due to seismic hazard. Road Access: Road access was evaluated as a potential development constraint that might result in reduced density. Most of the developable private lands in the County are located within ½ mile of an improved state highway or county road. More remote lands were likely already discounted due to slope constraints. Therefore it was assumed that distance from an improved road would not, by itself, be a constraint. For comparison purposes, Table 23 shows the maximum potential residential development capacity is shown for each zoning district. This maximum capacity can only be achieved under ideal circumstances where adequate infrastructure is available; there are no physical or environmental constraints, or other conditions present that would not support the maximum capacity. The analysis Page 188 of 264 ---PAGE BREAK--- shows that an additional 1616 housing units are possible given the existing zoning and development constraints within the County. Of most interest from an affordability standpoint, are the 165 units that are possible within the RN zoning district. This district has the smallest potential lot size and is most likely to support housing that might be affordable to low and moderate income households. Within the RN zoned areas of Markleeville/Woodfords there are 48 vacant lots in existing subdivisions or developed communities areas that are served by either central water or both central water and central sewer. These lots should be considered the most likely available sites for new single family homes that could be affordable to low and moderate income households. Two examples included in Appendix A illustrate the possibilities. A home under construction in the Alpine Village subdivision will have an estimated market value of approximately $158,000 which is within the affordable range for a low income household. Alpine Village is zoned RN and is served with central water only. The estimated market value includes estimates of all costs needed to complete and occupy the home, including installation of a septic system. There are five additional vacant lots within this subdivision. The second example is a recently completed home in the Marklee Village subdivision. This home has an estimated market value of $198,000 which is within the affordable range for moderate income households. Marklee Village is zoned RN and is served by central water. Like the Alpine Village example, the estimated market value of the Marklee Village home includes estimates of all costs needed to complete and occupy the home. There are over 35 additional vacant lots within Marklee Village. Additionally, there are four vacant lots within the town of Markleeville that have central water and sewer service available. Market value of homes within this area should be within the range of the Alpine Village and Marklee Village examples. Page 189 of 264 ---PAGE BREAK--- TABLE 23 LAND INVENTORY AND ESTIMATED REALISTIC DEVELOPMENT CAPACITY BY ZONING DISTRICT Zoning Density Range* # of Parcels Range of Parcel Size (in acres) Total Acreage Parcels Built Acres Built Typical Built Density* Parcels Unbuilt Acres Unbuilt Maximum Potential Capacity Services Available Est. Realistic Capacity RN 1.5 to 15 704 0.03 to 27.71 372.58 436 208.76 2.08 266 163.94 656 See Notes 165 RN-20 Up to 2.0 29 0.04 to 43.20 94.62 14 51.06 0.27 15 43.56 87 No 12 RN-30 Up to 1.5 1 27.42 27.42 0 0.00 NA 1 27.42 41 No 1 RE Up to 1.0 15 .01 to 31.97 67.36 6 18.33 0.33 9 49.03 49 NA 13 RE 1-5 Up to .67 50 1.27 to 3.33 123.16 29 70.14 0.41 21 53.02 35 NA 22 RE-1 Up to 1.0 46 0.17 to 34.15 127.44 30 35.35 0.85 16 92.09 92 NA 76 RE-2 Up to .50 3 0.94 to 31.42 45.00 0 0.00 NA 3 45.00 22 NA 3 RE-4 Up to .25 22 2.95 to 6.18 112.21 17 88.09 0.19 5 24.12 6 NA 5 RE-5 Up to .20 93 0.29 to 82.64 884.43 35 317.01 0.11 58 567.42 113 NA 58 RE-5 CR Up to .20 1 154.37 154.37 1 154.37 0.01 0 0.00 0 NA 0 RE-10 Up to .10 8 8.75 to 10.51 77.69 5 48.10 0.10 3 29.59 2 NA 2 AG Up to .05 310 0.09 to 826.26 20344.44 113 6564.43 0.02 197 13780.01 693 NA 251 PD .20 to 2.5 450 .01 to 190.16 987.15 149 142.05 NA 301 845.10 2556 See Notes 1008 TOTAL 1732 N/A 23417.87 835 7697.69 NA 895 15720.3 4352 1616 * units per acre Notes: RN zone: The RN zoned area in Bear Valley contains 142 vacant parcels. The Bear Valley wastewater treatment plant currently has capacity for only 50 additional connections. Fore purposes of this analysis, the remaining capacity was assigned within the PD zoned portion of Bear Valley (see next note). The RN zoned portion of the Markleeville area contains approximately 56 vacant parcels. Due to limitations in water service, only 1 unit per parcel was assigned as a realistic development capacity. 17 units were assigned to the approved Morrison subdivision near Markleeville. The remaining 24 acres of vacant RN zone was assigned realistic development capacity of 1 unit per acre due to lack of any central services for these parcels. Total realistic development capacity is 266-142+24+17= 165. PD zone: The PD zone includes all of Kirkwood, a portion of Bear Valley and two smaller areas near Woodfords. Within Bear Valley the unbuilt parcels have a maximum development potential of 1389 units based on the 1978 Bear Valley Master Plan. Estimated realistic development capacity has been reduced to 50 units due to current limitations in the wastewater treatment plant. The estimated realistic development capacity within the Kirkwood PD area is 930 units. Page 190 of 264 ---PAGE BREAK--- Governmental Constraints Land Use Controls Land use controls in Alpine County are typical of a rural area. There are very few requirements beyond the basic standards for density, lot size, setbacks, building height and parking. Setback requirements may appear quite excessive compared to more urban areas. These larger setback areas have been established to provide a minimum defensible space around structures needed due to the high wildfire hazard that occurs throughout most of Alpine County. Table 24 below shows the basic development standards within the primary residential zoning districts in the County. TABLE 24: DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR PRIMARY RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS Zoning District RN RE AG PD Density Range 1.5 units/acre to 15 units/acre 1 unit/10 acres to 1 unit/acre Up to 1 unit/20 acres Up to 2.5 units per acre Setbacks (F/S/R) 30/20/20 30/30/30 30/30/30 Varies Lot Coverage No limit No limit No limit Varies Minimum Lot Size 8000 sq ft. 1 acre 20 acres Varies Minimum Unit Size 600 sq. ft. 600 sq.ft. 600 sq. ft. 600 sq. ft. Parking 2/unit 2/unit 2/unit SF 2/unit MF 1-2/unit based on # bdr. Height Maximum 34-40 feet 34-40 feet 34-40 feet 65 feet Open Space Requirement None None None None Source: Alpine County Zoning Ordinance Codes and Enforcement Alpine County has adopted and enforces the State Uniform Building Code and has also adopted amendments which are more restrictive than the State codes including requirements for Class B siding on exterior walls, plumbing insulation in unconditioned areas, and Class A roofing. These requirements are needed for fire and freeze protection. According to the County Building Inspector, they will result in an increase to the cost of home construction in the County, but the increased cost is not substantial and amendments are considered essential to upholding health and safety given Alpine County’s unique climatic conditions. Further, Alpine County conducts code enforcement on a compliant basis. Page 191 of 264 ---PAGE BREAK--- On/Off Site Improvements The County’s requirements for on and off site improvements for new development are intended to address the basic service needs created by the new development and are not considered a constraint on development. Included are basic requirements for construction of roads, drainage improvements and installation of necessary utilities. For example, basic road standards are 54 foot right of way, 20-24 foot pavement width with 4-6 foot shoulders (depending on road classification). Off site improvements are generally limited to road improvements such as turning lanes on state highways needed to access a new development. Fees and Exactions Table 25 lists the planning and development fees that are applicable to new development. In accordance with State law, fees for processing and review are intended to cover the actual costs borne by the County. With the exception of the California Department of Fish and Game environmental review fee and the impact fees listed in the table, the fees collected for review are in the form of a deposit, with actual costs charged to the applicant. These costs include the cost of required public notices, staff time for review and preparation of necessary reports and documents and other costs directly attributable to the application. Page 192 of 264 ---PAGE BREAK--- TABLE 25: PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT FEES PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION FEES Fee Category Fee Amount ZONING AND GENERAL PLAN Preliminary Review (Optional) 500.00 Variance 400.00 Conditional Use Permit 500.00 General Plan Amendment 1500.00 Zone Change 1500.00 Architectural/Site Plan Review 1500.00 Development Agreement 1500.00 Subdivision Preliminary Review (Optional) 500.00 Tentative Subdivision Map 2000.00 Tentative Parcel Map 1000.00 Final Subdivision Map 1000.00 Final Parcel Map 600.00 Certificate of Compliance 250.00 Lot Line Adjustment 250.00 Vesting Tentative Map Same as tentative map ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW Initial Environmental Study/Negative Declaration 500.00 California Fish & Game Negative Declaration/EIR 1250.00/850.00 IMPACT FEES Fire (outside Kirkwood Meadows PUD) .30/sq. ft. Fire (within Kirkwood Meadows PUD) .47/sq. ft. Water Storage 2500.00 TOTAL Estimated Proportion of Total Development Costs – Single Family 2.4% Source: Alpine County Planning and Building Department Table 26 shows the County fees associated with a typical single family subdivision of 10 lots for single family units in the Markleeville area. Fees are approximately 2.4% of the total estimated market cost of a new home in this area. Since other areas have higher housing costs, fees will be a smaller proportion of the total cost. Fees for multi family development are not significantly higher than those applicable to a single family development. The only additional County fees will be Page 193 of 264 ---PAGE BREAK--- $500.00for a conditional use permit for the entire project. There have been no new multifamily dwellings constructed outside Kirkwood in many years. Therefore, it is difficult to estimate the cost of multifamily dwellings in other areas in the County. Within Kirkwood, the cost of multifamily units is very high, beyond what would be considered affordable to almost all county residents (See Table 29). For any project the cost of environmental review will increase significantly if an environmental impact report is required. However, most residential projects in Alpine County are very small and have typically been approved with an initial study and negative declaration. TABLE 26: ALPINE COUNTY FEES AS A PROPORTION OF HOUSING COST – 10 UNIT SINGLE FAMILY HOME SUBDIVISION EXAMPLE Processing and Permit Procedures Permit processing timelines for discretionary reviews are shown in Table 27. The typical approval process for a single family development involves a preliminary review, initial study/negative declaration, tentative subdivision map and final subdivision map. For most multifamily development a conditional use permit will be required in addition to the steps listed for single family development. A small number of residential projects may require a change in zoning. With the exception of the adoption of a new Specific Plan for Kirkwood in 2003, no residential development in the last 10 years has required a general plan amendment. Category Total Cost Per Unit Cost Preliminary Review 500.00 50.00 Tentative Subdivision 2000.00 200.00 Initial Study/Negative Declaration 500.00 50.00 Final Subdivision Map 1000.00 100.00 Fire (outside Kirkwood Meadows PUD) 540.00 Water Storage 2500.00 Building Permit 4500.00 Total Fees 7940.00 Market Cost of Housing 327,840.00 Fees as a Proportion of Market Cost 2.4% Source: Alpine County Planning Department Page 194 of 264 ---PAGE BREAK--- TABLE 27: TIMELINES FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW PROCEDURES Category Typical Processing Time ZONING AND GENERAL PLAN Preliminary Review (Optional) 4 weeks Variance 6 weeks Conditional Use Permit 8 weeks General Plan Amendment 8-12 weeks Zone Change 8 -12 weeks Architectural/Site Plan Review 4 weeks Development Agreement 8-12 weeks SUBDIVISION Preliminary Review (Optional) 4 weeks Tentative Subdivision Map 8-12 weeks Tentative Parcel Map 8 weeks Final Subdivision Map 4 weeks Final Parcel Map 4 weeks Certificate of Compliance 4 weeks Lot Line Adjustment 3 weeks Vesting Tentative Map 8-12 weeks ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW Initial Environmental Study/Negative Declaration 6-8 weeks Environmental Impact Report 26-52 weeks or longer Source: Alpine County Planning Department The classification of residential uses (permitted, conditional, not allowed) by zoning district is shown in Table 28. Most of the residential development within the County is located in one of four zoning districts – Residential Estate (RE), Residential Neighborhood (RN), Agriculture (AG) and Planned Development (PD). Residential development is also allowed in Commercial and Neighborhood Commercial (NC) zones. Within these two commercial zones, living quarters that are directly related to a commercial use are permitted by right, whereas residential use that is not directly related to a commercial use requires a conditional use permit. Second family dwellings are allowed in both the RE and RN zoning districts. Recent changes in California law have mandated that second family dwellings be categorized as permitted uses rather than conditional as was the case in Alpine County prior to the new law. Page 195 of 264 ---PAGE BREAK--- Mobile home parks are only possible within the RN zoning district with a conditional use permit. Placement of a mobile home (pre 1974 HUD certification) on an individual lot or parcel outside of a mobile home park is not allowed. In accordance with California law passed in 1988 (Government Code Section 65852.3) manufactured and modular homes meeting UBC and local building code requirements are not distinguished from site built housing and, as such, may be located wherever residential dwellings are allowed. However, the Alpine County Zoning Ordinance does contain a section requiring special review for manufactured homes. This ordinance section needs to be repealed since it has been superceded by California law. The County will allow temporary residence in a recreational vehicle for up to one year on a lot or parcel where a home is under construction with a valid building permit. Camping in a recreational vehicle is allowed for up to 16 days per calendar year on any lot or parcel in the County. Longer periods are possible in emergency situations that are justified by public health and safety concerns. Employee housing necessary to maintain an active agricultural operation (i.e. farm or ranch workers) is allowed by conditional use permit in Agricultural (AG) and Agricultural Preserve (AP) zoning districts. Although there are none in the County currently, emergency shelters, transitional housing and other forms of group housing are allowed by conditional use permit in the Residential Estate (RE), Residential Neighborhood (RN), Commercial and Neighborhood Commercial (NC) zoning districts. In accordance with California law, group or community housing for six or fewer residents is permitted as a single family use wherever single family development is allowed. Conditional uses are a discretionary review. The process requires a public hearing and public notice provided to the owners of surrounding properties. Conditional use permits can be approved by the Alpine County Planning Commission. The decision of the Planning Commission can be appealed to the Alpine County Board of Supervisors. The Alpine County Zoning Ordinance establishes decision criteria for conditional use permits. Approval of a conditional use permit requires affirmative findings that the proposed location, uses and conditions of operation: • Will not be detrimental to the health, safety or welfare of the persons residing or working in the neighborhood, the general public or property in the vicinity. • Will be in conformity with all pertinent county ordinances and the purpose of the zone district where the site is located. • Are in conformity with all elements of the General Plan and any specific plan adopted for the area. • Will not overload utilities and will not generate more than the acceptable level of traffic on the streets in the vicinity. Page 196 of 264 ---PAGE BREAK--- • Will complement and harmonize with existing and proposed land uses in the vicinity, and be compatible with physical design, land use intensities and dwelling unit densities of the neighborhood The decision criteria described above have not been found to be overly burdensome. For example, between 1986 and 2003 the County approved conditional use permits for twenty two second family dwelling units. No application that met basic code requirements was denied. In the period between 1990 and 2000, conditional use permits for 178 multifamily dwellings were approved. During this same time period there were no denials of conditional use permits for multifamily dwellings. TABLE 28: RESIDENTIAL USE BY ZONING DISTRICT Zoning District Single family dwellings Multifamily dwellings Mobile Homes Second family units Employee housing Group/ Transitional 6 or more residents Residential Estate P NA NA P NA C Residential Neighborhood P C C P NA C Agriculture P NA NA NA C NA Planned Development P C NA P P C Commercial C C NA NA P C Neighborhood Commercial C C NA NA P C Source: Alpine County Zoning Ordinance; P=Permitted, C=Conditional, NA=Not Allowed Planned Development Planned Development is utilized to foster creativity in developing land while still insuring protection of Alpine County’s unique character and environmental quality. A planned development also provides for the possibility of flexible development standards that can be customized to the unique conditions and circumstances of a specific development proposal. Planned Development is an optional process available through the County’s zoning ordinance. Approval of a planned development is a discretionary decision made by the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors. Design Review Design review is conducted on a very limited basis in two area: Kirkwood and Markleeville, as follows: Page 197 of 264 ---PAGE BREAK--- Kirkwood – Construction on all lots within the scenic view corridor from Highway 88 are subject to a design review process that evaluates exterior colors and materials. There is an accepted palette of colors and materials intended to achieve development that blends with the background view. This review does not get into architectural style or details. Review is by a technical advisory committee with representatives from each of the three counties in which Kirkwood is located – Alpine, Amador and El Dorado. No development applications have been denied due to these design standards. Markleeville – The County Zoning Ordinance establishes a historic design combined zone that applies to the core commercial area in Markleeville. A design historic committee reviews all proposed building permits. The ordinance designates a period of architecture 1850-1900. New construction must be compatible with the scale and general design of buildings from this period. The primary land use within this combined zone is commercial. Some residential predates the ordinance. Mixed use residential/commercial is also possible. No development applications have been denied due to these design standards. Potential Constraints on Persons with Disabilities The Alpine County does not have specific references to individuals with disabilities and the County refers to the 2001 California Building Code for processing and permitting. Requests for reasonable accommodation would be handled by the building official and detailed on the plan submittal. Upon request, the building department would provide any needed information and assistance on codes and guidelines. Retrofits or other home modifications to accommodate disabilities are handled over the counter by the building official. The County does not have any specific conditions or regulations for group homes with less than 6 persons, including site plans, distances between facilities or definitions of family. The County does not have provisions in the zoning code to allow deviation from parking standards for residential care facilities demonstrating less need for parking. Group homes over six persons are allowed and no special conditions are placed on their development. Alpine County has adopted the 2001 Uniform Building Code. The County has not adopted any amendments to the code that diminish or constrain the development, maintenance or improvement of housing for persons with disabilities. Non-Governmental Constraints 1. Availability of Housing: As of 2003, there are an estimated 1615 housing units in the County compared to 1319 in 1990 (22.4% increase). Of this total, over 60% are seasonal vacation or second homes that are not occupied year-round and are normally not available for workforce or County resident housing. When these units are factored out of the housing stock, the vacancy rate of for sale and rental units combined is estimated at 5.7%, or approximately 92 units. A five percent vacancy rate is considered ideal in providing households with a good range of choices for housing. Page 198 of 264 ---PAGE BREAK--- 2. Affordability To a large extent, the cost of housing is influenced by market factors that are beyond the scope or control of government. Within Alpine County, the housing market can be separated into three distinct geographic areas – Bear Valley, Kirkwood and the east side (which includes the communities of Markleeville and Woodfords as well as surrounding rural areas). The housing market in all three of these areas is strongly influenced by forces outside the county. In the Bear Valley and Kirkwood areas, the most significant factor is the vacation/second home market. The east side of the county is heavily influenced by a regional housing market that includes the South Lake Tahoe and Carson Valley Nevada areas. A snapshot survey conducted in the summer of 2003 found 37 single family units for sale in the county with a median asking price of $419,000. The prices ranged from $150,000 for a two- bedroom cabin to $1,875,000 for a seven-bedroom home with large acreage. Given the small number of units for sale at any one time and the wide range of housing within the county (small cabins to luxury/custom homes), it can be expected that the average asking price of housing for sale within the county will vary substantially. A November 2003 review of real estate listing prices for each of the County’s three housing market areas is contained in Table 29. Based on these listings, the county median asking prices are $595,000 for a single family home and $482,000 all housing types. There were a total of 34 residential dwelling units listed for sale – 21 single family residences and 13 multifamily units. Twenty-nine lots were listed for sale, with a county median asking price of $189,000. Housing prices have increased substantially since the early 1990s when single family homes ranged in price from approximately $75,000 for an older home in the Markleeville/Woodfords area up to approximately $200,000 for a home in Bear Valley. Likewise, lot prices during this same time period ranged from $25,000 in the Markleeville/Woodfords area up to $60,000 in Bear Valley and Kirkwood. For comparison, the average sales price of homes in Douglas County Nevada, the closest housing market to the Markleeville/Woodfords area, increased by 65% from July 1997 to July 2003 (Community Builder insert to the Gardnerville Record-Courier, Fall 2003). Page 199 of 264 ---PAGE BREAK--- TABLE 29 ALPINE COUNTY REAL ESTATE LISTING PRICES – NOVEMBER 2003 Vacant Lots Single Family Homes Multifamily Units Community Range Median Range Median Range Median Bear Valley 85,000 – 230,000 150,000 359,000 – 789,000 550,000 132,000- 165,000 148,500 Kirkwood* 269,000 - 498,000 300,000 695,000 - 2,595,000 1,675,000 175,000 – 479,000 339,500 Markleeville/ Woodfords 80,000 – 349,000 229,000 237,500 – 995,000 459,000 None None Sources: Internet real estate listings from the following sources: Realtor.com, Bear Valley Realty, Prudential California Realty, Kirkwood Real Estate, Coldwell-Banker Itildo Realtors * Data for Kirkwood is for resales only, includes the Alpine and Amador county portions of Kirkwood, fractional share ownership not included. The cost of developing housing varies among the different communities in Alpine County. Table 30 illustrates single family development costs for four different examples that are typical of current conditions with the county. Subdivision development costs are not shown separately and are assumed to be captured within the lot price. The variation in home size reflects the typical homes being constructed in these communities. The most significant variables are lot size and construction costs. Construction cost in the Markleeville and Woodfords area is estimated at $125 per square foot. Construction costs in Bear Valley and Kirkwood are estimated at $250 per square foot. The higher cost is due to a number of factors, the most significant of which are remote locations which increases transportation costs for materials and contractors, more difficult sites, limited length of the building season at higher altitudes and snow load (up to 300 lbs./sq. ft.). Page 200 of 264 ---PAGE BREAK--- TABLE 30: TYPICAL DEVELOPMENT COSTS FOR SINGLE FAMILY HOMES Cost Component Bear Valley Kirkwood Markleeville Woodfords Typical Home Size (sq.ft.) 2000 4000 1800 1800 Lot Price 150000 300000 60000 120000 On site well (300 feet @ $25/foot) 0 0 0 7500 Septic System 0 0 8000 8000 Misc. Plan Preparation/Arch. Fees 10000 20000 5000 5000 Misc. Grading/Site Preparation 8000 10000 5000 5000 Misc. Engineering/Permit Costs 8000 10000 5000 5000 Utility Connections (power, phone) 10000 15000 5000 8000 Construction Cost 500000 1000000 225000 225000 Building Permit of const. cost) 10000 20000 4500 4500 Water/Sewer Connections 8000 8000 5000 0 Water Storage Fee 0 0 0 2500 Fire Impact Fee (.30/sq ft, except .47 per sq.ft. in Kirkwood) 600 1880 540 540 Financing/Transaction Cost (approx. 1.5% of total) 10000 20000 4800 6000 TOTAL 714,600 1,404,880 327840 397,040 Data on rental rates within the County is difficult to obtain due primarily to the small number of long term rentals that are available. Rents in the Markleeville/Woodfords area are estimated to start at approximately $500 per month for an older mobile home or a small studio or one-bedroom apartment. Rental rates exceeding $1000 per month can be expected for single family homes. Housing units in Kirkwood that are restricted to employees only have rental rates ranging from $170 per month for dormitory type housing up to $600 per month for a two bedroom apartment. Clearly there is a need for affordable housing in the County. According to the 2000 Census, 35.4 percent of renters and 25.3% of homeowner households in the County are overpaying for shelter (based on the HUD standard of no more than 30% of gross income paid for shelter, including utilities). A household income of approximately $115,000 is needed to afford the median priced Page 201 of 264 ---PAGE BREAK--- home ($459,000) currently for sale in the Markleeville/Woodfords area where most full time residents live (assumes 10% down, 30 year mortgage @ typical real estate taxes, homeowners insurance and utility costs). Higher household incomes would be necessary to afford the median priced home in Bear Valley and Kirkwood. Table 31 shows housing affordability by income group using the following assumptions: 4 person household with the maximum income for the category; maximum shelter cost is 30% of gross income; 10% down payment; 30 year mortgage @ 6% annual interest; $600.00 per year homeowners insurance; $300.00 per month average utility cost (electric and propane); and, typical county rate for property taxes. TABLE 31: HOUSING AFFORDABILITY BY INCOME GROUP Income Category Maximum Income Maximum Shelter Cost/Month Maximum Purchase Price of House Very Low $27,650 $691 $80,000 Low $44,240 $1106 $170,000 Moderate $66,360 $1659 $250,000 Source: Alpine County Planning Department 3. Availability of Water and Sewer Services Limited availability of water and sewer service is a major constraint to affordable housing and to development in general. Bear Valley, Kirkwood and Markleeville have central water and sewer service. A recent Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for Kirkwood found sufficient water and sewer capacity to serve the full development of the community (assuming timely expansion of the Kirkwood Meadows wastewater treatment plan as evaluated in the EIR). The wastewater treatment plant at Bear Valley only has capacity for 50 additional connections. A major plant expansion will be needed to accommodate full development of the community as approved in the Bear Valley Master Plan. Water service in Markleeville is provided by a private mutual water company. This company has very limited resources and is not able to provide new hook ups (beyond what has already been allocated) or fund expansion of the system. A small wastewater treatment plant serves Markleeville. The public utility district that operates this plant also has limited resources and insufficient funds for any significant plant expansion. One subdivision in Woodfords (Alpine Village) has central water provided by a small private mutual water company. There are no central wastewater treatment facilities in Woodfords. All outlying rural areas of the county are served by on site well and septic systems. Well depths are variable, with an average around 300 to 350 feet. Well depths exceeding 400 feet are not uncommon. On site septic systems are generally feasible in the county. However, soil and geologic conditions are highly variable throughout the county. The cost of installing an individual system can exceed $10,000 on more difficult sites with poor soils, inadequate soil depth to bedrock or seasonal high groundwater. Units At-risk of Converting to Market Rate Uses Page 202 of 264 ---PAGE BREAK--- According to HCD and Regional Housing Need Plan, there are no State or Federally assisted unit in Alpine County at-risk of converting to market rate uses in the planning period. This analysis includes units with subsidy from the Federal HUD, USDA), State HCD, LIHTC, CalHFA) and local density bonus, RDA, inclusionary) levels Energy Conservation Energy costs can have impacts on a household’s ability to pay for shelter and consequently energy efficiency can be a key component of affordability. Alpine County enforces the provisions of Title 24, California Code of Regulations through its building permit process. All new construction must comply with the most recent energy standards. To create energy savings, Alpine County will continue to implement the most recent standards under Title 24. D. REVIEW AND REVISE The following is a review of the most recent housing element’s goals, policies and programs in order to determine their appropriateness in the current planning period. ELEMENT V - SECTION D G. P. GOAL NO. 45 PROVIDE ADEQUATE HOUSING FOR ALL PRESENT AND FUTURE RESIDENTS REGARDLESS OF AGE, RACE, INCOME, SEX OR RELIGION POLICY NO. 45a Assist and encourage the development of housing to meet the needs of low and moderate income households. IMPLEMENTATION MEASURE: State Government Code Section 65915 requires local governments to grant a density bonus of at least 25 percent and an additional incentive, or financially equivalent incentive, to a developer of a housing development agreeing to construct at least: a) 20% of the units for lower income households; or b) 10% of the units for very low income households; or c) 50% of the units for senior citizens. State law also requires that each jurisdiction adopt an implementing ordinance which includes a procedure for evaluating preliminary applications and the types of developer incentive to be provided. The Board of Supervisors shall direct County planning staff to draft a density bonus ordinance for adoption pursuant to State Government Page 203 of 264 ---PAGE BREAK--- Code Section 65915 which meets State requirements but also considers public safety and health issues in the County such as provisions for adequate fire, water and sewer services. As discussed in Section H, there are water, sewer and fire protection service constraints which may be encountered by developers of higher density projects. Comment: The density bonus ordinance has not been pursued, nor have other incentives been identified. Service/infrastructure limitations are a significant constraint to higher density development outside of Kirkwood and Bear Valley. Additionally, there is currently a significant deficiency in wastewater treatment capacity in Bear Valley. Within Kirkwood there is an employee housing ordinance that mandates housing be made available for local employees, often maximizing densities. Density bonuses are not requested due to their lack of practical applicability in Alpine County; and the effectiveness of the mandate given the County’s unique circumstances and conditions is not evident. At the same time, State Density Bonus Law does require local governments to have a density bonus ordinance and the County must comply with the law. Consequently, the County will amend its zoning code to comply with Density Bonus Law, although this amendment will not be a top priority. IMPLEMENTATION MEASURE: The Alpine County Board of Supervisors shall assist the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) in its efforts to establish a Section 8 subsidy program for the County Comment: The Section 8 program in place and all vouchers are currently allocated. The program is administered by the state. The County will continue to support the use of Section 8 vouchers and certificates. POLICY NO. 45B Encourage and assist in the development of employee housing in the ski resort communities of Bear Valley and Kirkwood. OBJECTIVE NO.45A Increase the employee/unit ratio in Kirkwood and in Bear Valley. IMPLEMENTATION MEASURE: Complete the Kirkwood Master (Specific) Plan revision and identify appropriate employee housing ratio and implementation measures. Page 204 of 264 ---PAGE BREAK--- Comment: A new Specific Plan for Kirkwood has been adopted which includes a new employee housing ordinance requiring that housing be provided for at least 30% of average peak season employment. New employee housing has been constructed in Kirkwood - Youth Hostel, KMPUD, Lost Cabin, Meadowstone (under construction). No employee housing has been constructed in Bear Valley. Pine Tree Condominiums in Bear Valley will include 8 employee units when completed. IMPLEMENTATION MEASURE: The Alpine County Board of Supervisors shall appoint an employee needs task force to determine if an employee housing agreement shall be developed to require a ratio of employee housing units to guest units be built in Bear Valley (as required in Kirkwood). If determined necessary the task force shall draft an employee housing agreement for consideration and adoption by the Alpine County Board of Supervisors. Comment: No action. POLICY NO. 45c Periodically update ordinances and policies to remove unreasonable governmental constraints to construction of affordable housing. IMPLEMENTATION MEASURE: The County Board of Supervisors shall periodically review their government policies and ordinances to determine if there are any unreasonable constraints to the construction of affordable housing. Comment: Initiating a comprehensive review of the county zoning ordinance is on the Planning Department’s 2003/2004 work program. This review will include review of unreasonable constraints. Other constraints may include development standards and policies that are outside of the scope of the county zoning ordinance POLICY NO. 45d Promote the provision of adequate housing for all residents, regardless of race, income, age, sex or religion. IMPLEMENTATION MEASURE: The County Clerk shall obtain information on fair housing laws from the State Department of Housing and Community Development. Copies of the information shall be made available for distribution to the public at the County Clerk’s office, Department of Social Services and County Library. Page 205 of 264 ---PAGE BREAK--- Comment: No action, County Clerk not aware of this measure. G. P. GOAL NO. 46 PROMOTE A CHOICE OF HOUSING BY LOCATION, TYPE, PRICE AND TENURE POLICY NO. 46 Continue to provide adequate sites for housing development on the General Plan Land Use and Zoning Map. Comment: Evaluation of adequate sites is required in the housing element update currently underway. G. P. GOAL NO. 47 PROMOTE A BALANCED RESIDENTIAL ENVIRONMENT WITH ACCESS TO EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITIES, COMMUNITY FACILITIES AND ADEQUATE SERVICES POLICY NO. 47a Seek to provide public services such as water, sewer, roads, streets, fire protection, etc. IMPLEMENTATION MEASURE: The County Public Works Department shall continue to assist private water companies in pursuing funding needed to improve the water services in the County. Comment: The possibility of grants and low interest loans to fund infrastructure has been evaluated by County staff on an ongoing basis. A CDBG grant recently funded upgrade of an existing wastewater treatment plant for the Sierra Pines mobile home community. This area provides significant housing for lower income households . However, additional capacity could not be added due to a number of constraints. The most likely funding for other infrastructure improvements is a low interest loan through the USDA Rural Utility Service program. CDBG grant funding is unlikely since most areas in the County will not have a high enough proportion of low and very low income households. However, the County will continue to look for opportunities to seek and apply for infrastructure funding POLICY NO. 47b Encourage the provision of emergency housing for the homeless. IMPLEMENTATION MEASURE: The County Planning Commission shall review the General Plan Land Use Element and Zoning Ordinance and recommend to the Board of Supervisors appropriate land use designations/zones in which to allow emergency and transitional housing for the homeless in the County. The Board of Page 206 of 264 ---PAGE BREAK--- Supervisors shall adopt amendments to the Land Use Element and Zoning Ordinance as determined appropriate to allow said uses. Comment: No action. However, the County will amend its zoning code to allow emergency shelters and transitional housing as part of its zoning code review on the 2003/2004 work program. G. P. GOAL NO. 48 PROMOTE PRESERVATION AND IMPROVEMENT OF THE EXISTING HOUSING SUPPLY POLICY NO. 48 Encourage the reconstruction or rehabilitation of existing dwellings. OBJECTIVE NO. 48 Rehabilitate 22 units occupied by or affordable to lower income households. IMPLEMENTATION MEASURE: The County Board of Supervisors shall apply for CDBG or other funding available to establish a housing rehabilitation program in the County. Comment: Rehabilitation program done in the 1980s. The County has minor rehabilitation needs (see pages 9 and 10) and will be evaluating the feasibility of pursuing additional rehabilitation funds in this planning period. E. HOUSING PROGRAM Housing Goal The attainment of safe and decent housing for all members of the Alpine County community through the availability of sites, assistance to the development community, addressing local constraints, conserving existing stock and promoting equal opportunity. Policies • Assist and encourage the development of housing to meet the needs of low and moderate income households • Promote the development of adequate employee housing to meet the needs in the County’s ski resort communities • Provide zoning which results in adequate sites with development standards for a variety of housing types to meet the County’s share of Page 207 of 264 ---PAGE BREAK--- housing needs • Pursue infrastructure to facilitate a variety of housing types to meet the County’s share of the regional housing need • Support and facilitate the rehabilitation and conservation of Alpine County’s existing housing stock • Address constraints to the development, maintenance and improvement of housing • Prevent housing discrimination and promote equal opportunities for all persons IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAMS Implementation Program 1: Employee Housing Requirements Program Description: The Kirkwood and Bear Valley resorts are major employment centers in Alpine County. Employment within these areas is highly seasonal, resulting in a unique need for housing. Objectives: The County will continue to require employee housing development at Kirkwood in accordance with the Kirkwood Housing Ordinance. As new development occurs in Bear Valley, the County will require employee housing patterned after the requirements at Kirkwood and in stride with specific needs in Bear Valley. Responsible Agency: Alpine County Planning Department Numerical Objective: 18 (16 low income, 2 moderate income) Funding Source: Private development Completion Dates and Milestones: On-going Implementation Program 2: Second Units Program Description: Second units are a valuable form of affordable housing for a variety of housing needs while utilizing existing infrastructure. The County has ample agriculturally zoned lands that can accommodate important housing needs while not impacting the County’s rural character and environmental resources. Objectives: The County will amend the zoning ordinance to allow second units in the agricultural zoning district and comply with recently enacted amendments under Government Code Section 65852.2. The County will remove its conditional use permit process for second units and will Page 208 of 264 ---PAGE BREAK--- further evaluate its second unit ordinance for further opportunities to encourage second units, including consolidating ordinance requirements for all accessory dwelling types and making the ordinance more user-friendly. It should be noted that second units will still have to meet all applicable site specific requirements (adequate water/sewer, off street parking, size limits, building code, etc.). Responsible Agency: Alpine County Planning Department Numerical Objective: Facilitate development of 5 second units (projected rents: 2 very low income, 3 low income) Funding Source: Alpine County Completion Dates and Milestones: Amend the zoning ordinance by June 2005 Implementation Program 3: Zoning ordinance Review and Amendment Program Description: The County zoning ordinance needs to be updated for a variety of State requirements, such as manufactured homes, allowing emergency shelters and transitional housing and including a density bonus ordinance. Objectives: Government Code Section 65852.3 requires manufactured homes on permanent foundations to be permitted by-right in single family zoning districts. The County will amend its zoning ordinance to comply with Government Code Section 65852.3. The County will also amend its zoning ordinance to include a density bonus provisions in compliance with Government Code Section 65915. Further, the County will change its zoning ordinance to allow for emergency shelters and transitional housing. Responsible Agency: Alpine County Planning Department Numerical Objective: Not applicable Funding Source: Alpine County Completion Dates and Milestones: Amend the zoning ordinance by June 2005 Implementation Program 4: Mixed Use Development Program Description: Outside of the resort communities of Bear Valley and Kirkwood where mixed use is a common type of development, Alpine County has very small commercial areas. Facilitating development of mixed uses (residential and commercial) in these small commercial areas promotes more efficient use of land and resources and, thus, is an effective way of attaining affordable housing. Objectives: Amend the zoning ordinance to clearly allow mixed use residential and commercial projects in commercial zones as a principal permitted use, not requiring a conditional use permit. Evaluate the zoning ordinance and development standards for opportunities to encourage mixed development. Page 209 of 264 ---PAGE BREAK--- Responsible Agency: Alpine County Planning Department Funding Source: Alpine County Numerical Objective: Not applicable Completion Dates and Milestones: Amend zoning ordinance by June 2005 Implementation Program 5: Assist in the Development of Housing for Low and Moderate Income Households Program Description: Infrastructure and financing are major constraints to housing that is affordable to lower income households. Objectives: The County will explore opportunities to build partnerships to expand infrastructure and obtain funding to develop a variety of housing types affordable to low and moderate income households. The County will meet with stakeholders, including community representatives, interested landowners, developers and infrastructure providers annually to discuss and identify opportunities, including funds to expand infrastructure and develop affordable housing. Identified opportunities will be presented to the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors for public review and direction. The County will pursue identified opportunities as directed by the Board of Supervisors on an annual basis. Responsible Agency: Alpine County Planning Department (as facilitator) Numerical Objective: 10 housing units (5 very low, 5 low) Funding Source: HCD, USDA, other Completion Dates and Milestones: Annually meet with developers and pursue opportunities as identified Implementation Program 6: Direct Assistance to Residents and Homebuyers Program Description: Home price and development trends in Alpine County indicate that housing affordable to the work force and other local residents is becoming more difficult to obtain. There are a number of potential programs to directly assist residents and potential homebuyers available through the State and Federal governments and non governmental agencies. Objectives: The County will explore opportunities to provide direct assistance to potential residents and homebuyers through Federal, State and non governmental programs that provide down payment assistance, favorable financing, sweat equity projects and other methods of making housing more affordable. The County will compile a list of available programs and investigate the feasibility of making such programs available within the community. Identified opportunities will be presented to the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors for public review and direction. The County will pursue identified opportunities as directed by the Board of Supervisors on an annual basis. Responsible Agency: Alpine County Planning Department (as facilitator) Page 210 of 264 ---PAGE BREAK--- Numerical Objective: not applicable Funding Source: HCD, HUD, California Housing Finance Agency, Habitat for Humanity, others Completion Dates and Milestones: Annually review with Planning Commission and present opportunities to the Board of Supervisors Implementation Program 7: Affordable Housing Requirements Program Description: Home price and development trends in Alpine County indicate that housing affordable to the local work force is becoming more difficult to obtain. Requiring major new development to participate in increasing the supply of affordable and/or work force housing can be an effective way to provide more affordable housing. Objectives: The County will consider the variety of opportunities to require housing affordable to low and moderate income households to be provided in conjunction with major new development. The County will contact the Department of Housing and Community Development to assist in exploring the variety of options and select the best alternatives for County consideration and action. Alternatives will be presented to the Alpine County Planning Commission for public review and discussion. Responsible Agency: Alpine County Planning Department, HCD Numerical Objective: Not applicable Completion Dates and Milestones: Contact HCD by June 2005; identify and present alternatives to the Alpine County Planning Commission by December 2005. Implementation Program 8: Persons with Disabilities Program Description: To encourage the development, maintenance and improvement of housing for persons with disabilities, the County evaluated its zoning, permit procedures and building codes and found the County should pursue a reasonable accommodation procedure and further investigate the feasibility of parking reductions for residential care facilities. Objectives: Adopt a formal reasonable accommodation procedure and investigate and implement parking reductions for residential care facilities. Responsible Agency: Alpine County Building and Planning Departments Numerical Objective: Not applicable Funding Source: Alpine County Completion Dates and Milestones: Adopt a reasonable accommodation procedure by 2006 and investigate parking reductions as part of the amendments to the zoning ordinance by December 2005. Page 211 of 264 ---PAGE BREAK--- Implementation Program 9: Code Enforcement and Conservation Program Description: The health of the County housing stock is a vital component serving the County’s existing housing needs. Objectives: The County will continue its code enforcement activity and encourage private activities to conserve housing stock, including remodeling and weatherization efforts through technical assistance and educational efforts. The County will also consider the feasibility of obtaining grant funds for rehabilitation of older mobile homes within the Sierra Pines community Responsible Agency: Alpine County Building and Planning Departments Numerical Objective: 10 units rehabilitated if determined to be feasible Completion Dates and Milestones: Ongoing for code enforcement, technical assistance and educational efforts. December 2006 for feasibility evaluation for housing rehabilitation. Implementation Program 10: Fair Housing Information and Referral Program Description: The County seeks to remove discrimination in housing Objectives: The County will direct persons with complaints of housing discrimination to the appropriate state and federal agencies that handle complaints. Information regarding housing discrimination will be made available at the County Library, post offices, community centers, civic buildings and other areas appropriate to reach the entire community of Alpine County. The County will periodically contact the Department of Fair Employment and Housing to maintain current materials on fair housing issues. Responsible Agency: Alpine County Planning Department Numerical Objective: Not applicable Completion Dates and Milestones: Contact the Department of Fair Employment and Housing annually; handle complaints and maintain fair housing materials on an on- going basis Implementation Program 11: General Plan Progress Report Program Description: The General Plan is required to be internally consistent and the County is required to report on the implementation of the General Plan on an annual basis, pursuant to Government Code Section 65400. Objectives: The County will annually review the General Plan’s implementation programs and Page 212 of 264 ---PAGE BREAK--- prepare a report on their progress. This annual report will also include the housing element and summarize the County’s progress toward its share of the regional housing need. The annual report will also address the internal consistency of the General Plan. Responsible Agency: Alpine County Planning Department Completion Dates and Milestones: Prepare a report annually by October and submit to the Office of Planning and Research and the Department of Housing and Community Development. Quantified Objectives TABLE 32: QUANTIFIED OBJECTIVES INCOME GROUP NEW CONSTRUCTION REHABILITATION CONSERVATION AND PRESERVATION Very Low 11 5 Low 29 5 Moderate 10 Above Moderate 120 TOTAL 170 10 Source: Alpine County Planning Department, Alpine County Housing Needs Assessment Page 213 of 264 ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix A: Newly Constructed and Entitled Housing Units (2001-2008) Very Low: Rentals Max Shelter Cost: 2 person hhld - $552/month; 4 person hhld - $691/month For sale maximum price (utilities factored in): $80,000 Completed Units: 3 KMPUD – 2 one bedroom @ 400/month with $200/month utility credit; 1 two-bedroom @ 600/month with $200/month utility credit Entitled Units: None Low Rentals Max. Shelter Cost: 2 person hhld – 883/month; 4 person hhld – 1160/month For sale maximum price (utilities factored in): $170,000 Completed Units: 2 KMPUD – 2 one bedroom @ 600/month; 3 two-bedroom @800/month Entitled Units: 10 Pine Tree Village (6 units) – 3 studios @500/month; 3 one-bedroom @650/month (estimated rent, does not include utilities which are expected to be $150-$200/month) Caples View Townhomes (1 unit) – 1 two-bedroom employee unit @800/month (estimated rent, does not include utilities which are expected to be $150-$200/month) Meadows Condominiums (2 units) – 1 one-bedroom unit @600/month; 1 two-bedroom employee unit @800/month (estimated rent, does not include utilities which are expected to be $150- $200/month) 58 Aspen Way (1 unit) – single family home estimated market value $158,000 Moderate Rentals Max. Shelter Cost: 2 person hhld – 1325/month; 4 person hhld – 1659/month Page 214 of 264 ---PAGE BREAK--- For sale maximum price (utilities factored in): $250,000 Completed Units: 1 50 Lava Cap – Estimated market value 194,000 Entitled Units: 2 Meadowstone – 2 employee units for sale @ 205,000 each Page 215 of 264 ---PAGE BREAK--- ALPINE COUNTY GENERAL PLAN VI. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ELEMENT Page 216 of 264 ---PAGE BREAK--- VI. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Economic development is the process by which people, finances, physical and natural resources are mobilized to produce marketable goods and services. Unique local factors determine whether on not it is necessary for normal entrepreneurial activity to be assisted by government actions for the benefit of the entire community. In communities where economic activity is robust, government may not need to take any action and instead focus on other community concerns such as preserving or improving the environment. Other communities may need to take actions to stimulate economic growth to maintain community balance if government revenues are not keeping pace with community service needs. Alpine County needs to both promote economic development and preserve its environment. The alpine environment of the County is not only a primary reason for the high quality of life enjoyed by residents, but also the most important economic resource of the County due to its attraction of tourism and recreation which are the strongest components of the economy. Two economic studies have been completed for the County which are included in the General Plan Data Base 11.4 and 11.5. These studies document a lack of industry and declining retail businesses in the County. Consequently, dependence upon urban centers outside the County for goods and services cause a significant drain of local economy dollars. This leakage hinders attempts to expand local business activity and, as a result, local government revenue is also declining. Cutbacks in Federal and State funding and reduction of timber revenues add to the problem of providing services for a small population which generates correspondingly low property tax revenues. Summary results of the studies which characterize Alpine County economic activity follow: 1. The proportion of tax revenue the County receives from property taxes predominates at more than 68%. Room Taxes contribute 17%, with mining approximating 10% and retail sales providing only 2. More than 70% of County employment is in services, primarily associated with tourism/recreation. Most of this employment consists of seasonal, minimum-wage and low-benefit jobs. 3. The potential for residential or commercial growth is restricted due to limited sewer and water systems. Expansion of all other County services are also problematic due to low revenues. 4. There are no serviced industrial sites available in the County, including at the County airstrip. This lack of infrastructure inhibits both business attraction and improvement of the airstrip by private developers or operators. 5. There is a high rate of small business failure. Unemployment ranges from 5% to 27% following the employment cycle of the ski resorts. Business activity in Markleeville recedes to a minimal amount during the winter when closure of Monitor and Ebbetts Passes prevents through traffic. Page 217 of 264 ---PAGE BREAK--- 6. Dependence on one economic sector - tourism/recreation, makes the economy susceptible to extreme fluctuations due to weather conditions affecting segments of the winter tourism industry and road closures which isolate Markleeville. ELEMENT VI G.P. GOAL NO. 49 ESTABLISH A BALANCED ECONOMY THAT IS CONSISTENT WITH SUSTAINABLE ENVIRONMENTAL PRESERVATION OBJECTIVE NO. 49a Identify programs to help diversify the economy. OBJECTIVE NO. 49b Identify programs to help reverse the trend of failing or stagnating businesses and recruit new businesses. OBJECTIVE NO. 49c Identify programs to improve services to support economic growth. IMPLEMENTATION MEASURE: Establish an Economic Development Advisory Committee to identify and recommend appropriate programs to the Board of Supervisors. Members should include a Supervisor, a Planning Commissioner, a Chamber of Commerce representative, the BOS Assistant, the Planning Director and the Public Works Director. Page 218 of 264 ---PAGE BREAK--- ALPINE COUNTY GENERAL PLAN VII. DEFINITIONS Page 219 of 264 ---PAGE BREAK--- VII. DEFINITIONS ADT, (Average Daily Trip) A measure of the amount of traffic being generated from a source, utilizing a route or corridor, and/or arriving at or through a destination or point. Arterial A major street carrying the traffic of local and collector streets to and from freeways or other major streets, with controlled intersections and generally providing access to properties. Aquatic Habitat The plants and other environment within a body of water. Cluster Development A development pattern in which residential land uses are grouped or "clustered" rather than spread evenly throughout a development area or a parcel as in conventional lot-by-lot development. Conservation The management of natural resources to prevent waste, destruction, or neglect and; Wise Use of resources over time, providing for the replenishment of Natural Resources. Contiguous Property is contiguous if boundaries are coterminous at any point, even if separated by roads, streets, utility easement or railroad rights- of-way. Cottage Industry A manufacturing activity carried on, as in the early part of the industrial revolution, by farming out work to be done in the worker's homes and; Any relatively small-scale business operation carried on as from the home. County Planner The agent of the Planning Commission and the County appointed by the Board of Supervisors. Cumulative Impacts Impacts which may be limited when viewing an individual project or parcel split, but which become significant when added to others. Decibels (DB) A unit used to measure the amplitude of sound. Each increasing unit is measured by a logarithmic scale rather than a usual arithmetic scale. See also Ldn. Development The improvement of land for the purposes of accommodating land uses. Development Plan Plans required for proposed development in a Planned Development Zone which guide development and control land uses on site. Page 220 of 264 ---PAGE BREAK--- Required items to be shown on development plans are listed in Section 18.28 of the Alpine County Zoning Code. Dwelling Unit One room, or a suite of two or more rooms, equipped with sleeping, and bath facilities, and designed for legal use by one or more families, but not including any tent or camping shelter, or any boat, camper, motor coach, vehicle, or trailer, dormitory or labor camp. Environmental Impact Report (EIR) An informational document required by State Government Code 2100 - 2108 for proposed activities which may significantly impact the environment. The EIR provides public agencies and the general public with detailed information about the effect an activity is likely to have on the environment, so they can make an informed decision. Erosion The process by which soil and rock are detached and moved by running water, wind, ice and gravity. Escarpment A steep slope formed by erosion or faulting. Fault A fracture in the earth's crust forming a boundary between rock masses that have shifted. Active Fault A fault which has exhibited surface displacement within the last 11,000 years. Potentially Active Fault A fault that showed evidence of surface displacement within the last 1.6 million years. Inactive Fault A fault which shows no evidence of movement within the last 11,000 years. Flood Plain A lowland or relatively flat area adjoining inland or costal waters that is subject to a one-percent or greater chance of flooding in any given year (i.e. 100-year flood). Geothermal Energy Energy derived from the heat of the earth's interior such as found in hot springs, volcanoes, etc. Goal The ultimate purpose of an effort stated in a way that is general in nature and immeasurable. Habitat The natural environment of a plant or animal. Habitation (Structure Intended Page 221 of 264 ---PAGE BREAK--- for Human Habitation) Residence, year-round or seasonal Hazardous Material An injurious substance, including pesticides, herbicides, toxic metals and chemicals, liquefied natural gas, explosives, volatile chemicals, and nuclear fuels. Industry Any land use or activity that involves the production of finished goods from raw materials or natural resources. Ldn Day/Night average level. The average equivalent day-weighted level during a 24 hour day, obtained after addition of 10 decibels to sound levels in the night before 7 a.m. and after 10 p.m. See also decibels (D6). Lead Agency The public agency which has the principal responsibility for carrying out or approving a project. Leg A level of noise exposure measured over a certain period of time, typically one hour. Loam A rich soil composed of clay, sand and some organic matter. Ministerial Action A land use activity not subject to rezoning, use permit, subdivision or other County approval which would not require environmental review. National Fire Danger Rating A system developed and used by National Forest Services in Alpine County to evaluate and categorize special factors that affect fire hazard including general fuel type, rate of spread, resistance to control, vegetation, slope and access. Natural Fire Management Areas Designated Wilderness Areas in which natural fires meeting certain criteria are allowed to burn with close monitoring in order to carry out their natural role in the ecosystem. Parcel Map A map of a type of subdivision as defined in the Alpine County Subdivision Ordinance, containing complete engineering date, and prepared in accordance with the conditions of approval of a tentative map and in acceptable form for processing and filing for record, as provided in the Subdivision Ordinance. Planned Development A form of development which, before construction, requires County review and approval of detailed plans. A planned development may include a number of housing units, clustered buildings, common open space, and a mix of building types and land uses. Page 222 of 264 ---PAGE BREAK--- Policy A specific statement guiding action and implying clear commitment. Prime Agricultural Land All land which qualifies for rating as Class I or Class II in the Soil Conservation Service land use capability classifications, (Alpine Soils are predominantly Class VII); Land which qualifies for rating 80 through 100 in the Storie Index Rating, (it is not expected that any exist in Alpine County); Land which supports livestock used for the production of food and fiber which has an annual carrying capacity equivalent to at least one animal unit per acre ad defined by the United States Department of Agriculture; Land planted with fruit or nut-bearing trees, vines, bushes, or crops which have a non-bearing period of less than five years and which will normally return during the commercial bearing period on an annual basis from the production of unprocessed agricultural plant products an annual gross value of not less than $200 per acre for three of the previous five years". (Government Code Section 51201-c). Private Road Roads on private lands not accepted into the County road system. Public Roads County, State, or Federally maintained roads, roads offered for dedication, roads intended to remain private but which have become public through use over a number of years. Renewable Natural Resources Resources that can be replaced by natural ecological cycles or sound management practices forests, plants, fish, and wildlife). Riparian Habitat The land and plants bordering a watercourse or lake. Scenic River A State designation given to rivers with special visual qualities and which protects them from the construction of dams, reservoirs, diversions or water impoundments unless the State determines such facilities are needed for water supply or will not adversely affect free flowing conditions. Shall Implies an unequivocal directive. Should Signifies a less rigid directive to be honored in the absence of compelling, countervailing considerations. Significant (Significant Effect Upon the Page 223 of 264 ---PAGE BREAK--- Environment) A substantial or potentially substantial, adverse change in any of the physical conditions within the area affected by the activity including land, air, water, minerals, flora, fauna, ambient noise, and objects of historic or aesthetic significance. (California Administrative Code, Section 5040). Silt A fine-grained sediment with particles in size between those of sand and clay, carried or laid down by moving water. Special Study Zones Zones delineated by the California Division of Mines and Geology which encompass traces of active faults where surface displacement has occurred within the last 11,000 years. These zones were delineated as a requirement of the Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone Act of 1972. Threatened, Rare or Endangered Plants and Wildlife Species Plant and animal species designated threatened, rare or endangered as determined by the California Fish and Game Commission or determined by The Secretary of the Interior or Secretary of Commerce. Timber Trees of any species maintained for eventual harvest of forest product purposes, whether planted or of natural growth, including Christmas trees, but not including nursery stock. Timber Preserve Zone A zone designated in the Alpine County Zoning Code to preserve timberland. A timber preserve zone is a 10 year restriction on the use of land which is automatically renewed each year unless or until the affected property owner wishes to initiate withdrawal proceedings. In return for said restrictions, the taxation of timberland under this zone will be based on such restrictions in use. Use Permit A permit granted by the Planning Commission pursuant to the provisions of Section 18.76 of the Alpine County Zoning Code authorizing uses not allowed as a matter of right in a zone. Utility Corridor A linear strip of land without definite width, but limited by technological, environmental, and topographical factors, and containing one or more utility. Page 224 of 264 ---PAGE BREAK--- ALPINE COUNTY GENERAL PLAN SUMMARY OF GOALS, POLICIES, OBJECTIVES AND IMPLEMENTATION MEASURES REVISED: FEBRUARY 2009 Page 225 of 264 ---PAGE BREAK--- SUMMARY OF GOALS, POLICIES, OBJECTIVES AND IMPLEMENTATION MEASURES I. CONSERVATION ELEMENT A. EARTH ELEMENT I - SECTION A G. P. GOAL NO. 1 CONSERVE SOIL AND RELATED RESOURCES POLICY NO. 1 Require soils and geologic reports for all land development projects. OBJECTIVE NO. 1 Adopt a comprehensive erosion control and grading ordinance. IMPLEMENTATION MEASURE: Such an ordinance should require County approval for significant grading or vegetation removal operations. It should contain standards for on and off-site erosion control including re-seeding. G. P. GOAL NO. 2 PROTECT THE MINERAL RESOURCES OF ALPINE COUNTY AND PROMOTE THEIR WISE USE POLICY NO. 2a Existing mines and mineral deposits shall be protected from encroachment by incompatible land uses in accordance with California Public Resources Code 2710 et seq. (Surface Mining and Reclamation Act). POLICY NO. 2b Maintain open space buffer zones around existing or possible future mining sites to prevent encroachment and help mitigate noise, dust, vibration, and visual impacts and protect public safety. POLICY NO. 2c All costs and responsibilities for controlling off-site effects generated by mining and associated operations should be Page 226 of 264 ---PAGE BREAK--- attenuated by mine operators and developers to the satisfaction of the County. POLICY NO. 2d All surface mined lands should be reclaimed following completion of surface mining operations to a usable condition which is readily adaptable to alternative land uses. B. AIR ELEMENT I - SECTION B G. P. GOAL NO. 3 MEET OR EXCEED FEDERAL AND STATE AIR QUALITY REGULATIONS POLICY NO. 3 The County should continue to consult with the Great Basin Unified Air Pollution Control District regarding any proposed project which has the potential to adversely affect ambient air quality. C. WATER ELEMENT I - SECTION C G. P. GOAL NO. 4 MAINTAIN ADEQUATE SUPPLIES OF SURFACE WATER IN ALPINE COUNTY FOR ALL CURRENT AND FORESEEABLE NEEDS POLICY NO. 4a Alpine County should remain opposed to any reduction in quantities of surface water presently administered to users in the County for in county uses under the final decree issued by the District Court for the District of Nevada involving the United States of America versus Alpine Land and Reservoir Company (1980) unless or until reasonable alternatives for supply of water for County's agricultural needs are secured. POLICY NO. 4b Development on lands draining to the Carson River should not significantly diminish the present supply of surface water to any tributary or channel of said river segments. POLICY NO. 4c Analysis of run off from new land developments should consider individual or cumulative increased flows of existing stream or river channels and down stream users. Page 227 of 264 ---PAGE BREAK--- POLICY NO. 4d Acquire and maintain water rights to protect the County’s interest and future needs. G. P. GOAL NO. 5 MAINTAIN ADEQUATE SUPPLIES OF GROUNDWATER IN ALPINE COUNTY FOR ALL CURRENT AND FORESEEABLE NEEDS POLICY NO. 5a Groundwater withdrawals should not exceed or significantly draw- down groundwater supplies. POLICY NO. 5b Alpine County should oppose any significant reduction in quantities in groundwater in the County due to extractions by wells that serve areas outside of the County. POLICY NO. 5c Coverage of land that would reduce infiltration from run off or surface water should be minimized in areas important for groundwater recharge including coarse (gravelly) deposits along mountain fronts and stream or river channels. POLICY NO. 5d No parcel should be created or development approved that may involve structures intended for human occupancy unless an acceptable means of water supply has been established. G. P. GOAL NO. 6 IMPROVE AND MAINTAIN THE QUALITY OF ALPINE COUNTY’S SURFACE WATER RESOURCES IN COOPERATION WITH THE LAHONTAN AND CENTRAL VALLEY REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARDS G. P. GOAL NO. 7 MAINTAIN SAFE, CLEAN GROUNDWATER SUPPLIES THAT ARE ADEQUATE FOR ALL CURRENT AND FORESEEABLE BENEFICIAL USES POLICY NO. 7a The County should notify, inform, and provide adequate time for response to the appropriate Regional Water Quality Control Board regarding all projects for which County approval is necessary except those for which waiver provisions have been granted. POLICY NO. 7b No parcel should be created or development approved that may involve structures intended for human occupancy unless an acceptable means of sewage disposal has been proven available. POLICY NO. 7c Residential developments utilizing individual sewage disposal systems should not be allowed to accumulate in a given area in Page 228 of 264 ---PAGE BREAK--- such concentrations that they collectively pose a threat to groundwater quality. D. WETLANDS ELEMENT I - SECTION D G. P. GOAL NO. 8 PRESERVE AND PROTECT WETLAND AREAS POLICY NO. 8 Minimize development in or conversion of wetlands. IMPLEMENTATION MEASURE: Require the submittal of detailed wetland delineation, performed by a qualified biologist, for development projects proposed in or near suspected wetland areas. IMPLEMENTATION MEASURE: Require proponents of development projects in wetland areas to mitigate impacts on wetlands such that, at minimum, there will be no net loss of either wetland habitat values or acreage. IMPLEMENTATION MEASURE: Require U.S. Army Corps review prior to County approval of projects impacting wetlands. IMPLEMENTATION MEASURE: No use that would involve significant vegetation removal or earth disturbance should be allowed in stream environment designated areas. Due to the generalized standard used to delineate stream environments, variances in the above standards should be allowed where it can be proven projects will not generate unmitigable significant adverse effects upon the following features: groundwater recharge, surface water quality, aquatic or riparian habitat, wetlands, archaeological sites, aesthetics, and cliff or stream bank erosion. The County may approve projects that would impact designated stream environment areas where it is found that negative effects upon any of the listed parameters are outweighed by public need or concern. However, variance provisions should not apply to streams presently serving or intended to serve as habitat for threatened trout species. The County may require developers to dedicate land or easements to and along streams that support fisheries for the protection of stream environments or their public use. Page 229 of 264 ---PAGE BREAK--- E. PLANT LIFE ELEMENT I - SECTION E G. P. GOAL NO. 9 PROTECT AND INCREASE THE POPULATIONS OF THREATENED, RARE, OR ENDANGERED PLANT SPECIES POLICY NO. 9 Areas containing or suspected of containing rare, endangered, or threatened plants should not be disturbed without providing the California Department of Fish and Game a reasonable period of time within which to investigate, remove, or otherwise protect them. F. AGRICULTURE ELEMENT I - SECTION F G. P. GOAL NO. 10 PRESERVE AND PROTECT AGRICULTURAL PRACTICES IN ALPINE COUNTY OBJECTIVE NO. 10 Establish tax incentives or other means of preservation of Agriculture in Alpine County. IMPLEMENTATION MEASURE: Implement state enabling legislation, “The Williamson Act,” to provide prime agricultural land owners with the option of reduced taxes to preserve agricultural uses through ten-year contracts with the County. The eligible area to be identified in an implementing ordinance should include all areas of 15% or less slope which are designated Open Space (OS) and zoned Agricultural (AG). G. P. GOAL NO. 11 Encourage clustering of development proposed for agricultural lands to minimize loss of productive lands to agriculturally uneconomical parcel sizes. G. FORESTS ELEMENT I - SECTION G G. P. GOAL NO. 12 PROMOTE WISE FOREST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES AND FIRE PROTECTION ON ALL EXISTING OR POTENTIAL COMMERCIAL TIMBER LANDS Page 230 of 264 ---PAGE BREAK--- POLICY NO. 12 Property owners should be encouraged to apply for timber preserve zoning and be thereby granted an opportunity for property taxation based upon timber yields. OBJECTIVE NO. 12 Work with the California Department of Forestry toward the adoption and implementation of special timber harvest management practices for east slope timber resources. IMPLEMENTATION MEASURE: It is a policy of the State Board of Forestry that counties try to improve existing State rules covering timber harvest practices rather than adopt their own. Alpine County is part of the Southern Forest for forest practice purposes as specified in Section 909 of the California Administrative Code. Section 952 et seq. specifies forest practice rules which apply to the entire Southern Forest District. Special rules could be added which address conditions that are unique to the Sierra Nevada east slope including fire danger (refer to Safety Element - Fire). H. ANIMAL LIFE ELEMENT I - SECTION H G. P. GOAL NO. 13 PROTECT THE CRITICAL HABITAT OF ALL FEDERAL OR STATE LISTED SENSITIVE, THREATENED, RARE, OR ENDANGERED WILDLIFE POLICY NO. 13 The County should provide the California Department of Fish and Game notice of all development that may encroach upon the critical habitat of sensitive, threatened, rare or endangered species with reasonable time for the Department to respond with recommendations for project alternatives and mitigation measures. G. P. GOAL NO. 14 PROTECT IMPORTANT DEER HABITATS AND MIGRATION ROUTES TO THE GREATEST EXTENT FEASIBLE POLICY NO. 14a The County should provide the California Department of Fish and Game with notice of all development projects located within known or suspected critical summer or winter range or deer migration corridors with reasonable time for the Department to respond with recommendations for project alternatives and mitigation measures. Page 231 of 264 ---PAGE BREAK--- POLICY NO. 14b The County should encourage cluster development to protect wildlife habitats and migration routes by placing them in permanent open space in conjunction with approved cluster development. G. P. GOAL NO. 15 PROTECT AND ENHANCE FISHERIES INCLUDING THE EXISTING AND PROPOSED HABITATS FOR THREATENED PAIUTE AND LAHONTAN CUTTHROAT TROUT POLICY NO. 15a Protect the aquatic habitat along the East Fork of the Carson River to maintain the fishery in the designated Wild Trout Management Area upstream from Wolf Creek. POLICY NO. 15b Cooperate with the Department of Fish and Game in implementing their East Fork of the Carson River Wild Trout Management Plan. POLICY NO. 15c The County should acquire easements to and along rivers, streams, and lakes which provide viable fish habitats wherever feasible and appropriate to maintain fishing access. POLICY NO. 15d Cooperate with other agencies in the development of an overall drainage management plan for the East and West Forks of the Carson River and their tributaries. POLICY NO. 15e Support acquisition of water rights at Heenan Lake, Red Lake, Caples Lake, Twin Lake, and Meadow Lake Hydro System. Oppose the transfer of water rights or diversion of water within Alpine County that would adversely impact fisheries and recreational uses. I. ENERGY ELEMENT I - SECTION I G. P. GOAL NO. 16 ACHIEVE MAXIMUM LEVELS OF ENERGY CONSERVATION THROUGH PROPER CONSTRUCTION, DESIGN, AND PLACEMENT OF ALL NEW DEVELOPMENTS POLICY NO. 16a All new public, private facilities and residences should be designed to meet requirements of Title 24 of the State Energy Code. Page 232 of 264 ---PAGE BREAK--- POLICY NO. 16b In approving development permits the County should set requirements and/or make recommendations wherever possible that would improve energy conservation and save long-term costs. POLICY NO. 16c New residential development which creates significant demand for public facilities and services should be located adjacent to areas where the necessary services and facilities are available; or in locations where such services can easily be extended and where necessary facilities are easily accessed. An exception to this policy shall be allowed for residential development not exceeding one unit per 20 acres gross density that is located within the OS Open Space designation of this plan. G. P. GOAL NO. 17 DEVELOP ENERGY RESOURCES INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO SOLAR, WIND, GEOTHERMAL, AND SMALL HYDRO WITHOUT SACRIFICE TO AESTHETICS OR THE EXISTING NATURAL OR SOCIOECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT POLICY NO. 17a Small scale hydro electric power generation facilities should be developed where dams, canals, or pipelines exist or are constructed provided any losses of water to present beneficial uses can be determined to be insignificant. POLICY NO. 17b Existing and proposed special service districts should consider power generation using locally available hydro, wind, or other resources among the services and facilities they would intend to provide. POLICY NO. 17c All new lots or parcels intended to contain structures for human occupancy should be designed to allow for and protect maximum utilization of available solar and wind resources. POLICY NO. 17d The investigation and development of geothermal resources on Alpine County's eastern slope should be encouraged. POLICY NO. 17e Opportunities for generating electricity using wasted heat from future industrial, commercial, or manufacturing processes (co- generation) should be considered where feasible and appropriate. POLICY NO. 17f Trans-Sierra utility corridors including power lines, pipelines and other utility transmission facilities that do not provide direct benefits to Alpine County and its residents should not be allowed Page 233 of 264 ---PAGE BREAK--- in Alpine County. In no event shall new overhead transmission and utility lines be permitted. Where the County does not have jurisdiction to prohibit such facilities, they should be discouraged to the greatest degree possible. J. CULTURE ELEMENT I - SECTION J G. P. GOAL NO. 18 PRESERVE AND PROMOTE THE ARCHAEOLOGY AND HISTORY OF ALPINE COUNTY POLICY NO. 18a The County should cooperate with the Washoe and the MiWok Tribes to develop policies for the identification and protection of significant archeological sites. POLICY NO. 18b The County should provide notice and necessary information to the Regional Officer governing archaeologic sites of any development project that may have the potential to affect an archaeological site. The officer should be allowed reasonable time to determine whether the project involves an archaeological site and respond with project alternatives and/or mitigation measures which would lessen or mitigate any identified negative effects. POLICY NO. 18c The proponents or applicants for development projects in areas known or suspected of containing historic artifacts should be required to protect any historic sites and/or artifacts that may be found. POLICY NO. 18d The County should assist the public in locating and obtaining grants for low interest loans for the preservation and enhancement of historic buildings. POLICY NO. 18e The County should promote proactive planning to avoid cultural resource impacts and promote historic preservation through appropriate standards, incentives and easements. K. AESTHETICS ELEMENT I - SECTION K G. P. GOAL NO. 19 MAINTAIN AND IMPROVE EXISTING AESTHETIC RESOURCES IN Page 234 of 264 ---PAGE BREAK--- ALPINE COUNTY POLICY NO. 19a Maintain scenic highway designation for Highways 4, 88 and 89. IMPLEMENTATION MEASURE: Highways 4, 88 and 89 are designated scenic routes on the Land Use map. The County’s scenic highway ordinance should be applied to these routes. POLICY NO. 19b Protect steep slopes from grading, vegetation removal, road construction or other developments or activities that may impact the viewshed from any designated scenic route. IMPLEMENTATION MEASURE: The County’s scenic highway ordinance should be revised to clearly define what is meant by protection including a definition of steep slopes and clear guidelines for protection. POLICY NO. 19c Protect open areas, ridges, peaks and other skyline features from structures that may impact the viewshed from any designated County or State scenic route. IMPLEMENTATION MEASURE: The County’s scenic highway ordinance should be revised to clearly define what is meant by protection including definitions of open areas, ridges, peaks and other skyline features, and clear guidelines for protection. POLICY NO. 19d Regulations and guidelines for protection of any designated scenic highway routes shall not, by themselves, result in the prohibition of construction of a single family home on any parcel within the County, or the prohibition of any use which is listed as permitted within the various zoning districts that are defined in the County’s zoning ordinance. POLICY NO. 19e Continue to maintain a design review committee to review and make recommendations upon building permits and development plans in the town of Markleeville. POLICY NO. 19f Protect nighttime views by minimizing outside lighting. POLICY NO. 19g Encourage voluntary application of the scenic highway corridor design requirements contained in the County Zoning Ordinance throughout all areas in the County. II. SAFETY ELEMENT Page 235 of 264 ---PAGE BREAK--- A. FIRE ELEMENT II - SECTION A G. P. GOAL NO. 20 MINIMIZE THE THREAT TO LIVES AND PROPERTY POSED BY THE POSSIBILITY OF WILDLAND AND STRUCTURAL FIRES WITHIN THE WILDLAND URBAN INTERFACE IN THE COUNTY. OBJECTIVE NO. 20A: Reduce fuel loading to a low risk level within the wildland urban interface. IMPLEMENTATION MEASURE: 20a-1: The County shall coordinate with the Fire Safe councils to distribute informational materials for homeowners regarding wildland fire hazards, defensible space requirements and other measures that can done by homeowners to reduce wildland fire hazard and fuel loading on individual lots and within existing neighborhoods. These materials should be included in the building permit packet and made available to the general public at county libraries, other public offices within the County and on the County’s web site. IMPLEMENTATION MEASURE: 20a-2: The County shall work with the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection to assertively implement the defensible space requirements of Public Resources Code 4291. This includes implementation of the requirements for individual lots and a periodic inspection program to monitor compliance and correct deficiencies. IMPLEMENTATION MEASURE: 20a-3: The County and/or Fire Safe councils shall pursue public and private funding, where available, to assist private landowners in implementing fuels reduction and defensible space measures in order to achieve a low risk condition. IMPLEMENTATION MEASURE: 20a-4: The County shall require vegetation management plans for all new development that, at a minimum, include provisions for implementation and maintenance of fuels reduction and defensible space; and which meet the minimum clearance standards pursuant to Public Resources Code 4290 (14 CCR 1270). Consideration should be given to maintaining healthy vegetation, minimizing the potential spread of noxious weeds, habitat for wildlife and visual impacts in formulating these vegetation management plans. For purposes of this policy, new development includes parcel maps and subdivisions that create new lots or building sites, planned developments and conditional use permits that entitle Page 236 of 264 ---PAGE BREAK--- new structures. Requirements for ongoing maintenance of vegetation management plans shall be addressed in conditions of approval and/or CC&Rs for the development. A mechanism for enforcement of the maintenance requirements shall also be implemented. IMPLEMENTATION MEASURE: 20a-5: The County shall work with public land management agencies to pursue fuel modification and reduction in addition to prescribed burning projects to reduce risks on public lands in areas both within and surrounding existing communities. Priority areas for this type of project are identified in the Alpine Community Fire Plan. OBJECTIVE 20B: Improve water supplies for fire protection in developed areas within the wildland urban interface. IMPLEMENTATION MEASURE: 20b-1: The County shall work in conjunction with the Fire Safe councils, CDF, fire departments and other agencies with responsibility for fire protection to establish uniform minimum water supply standards for new development. The standards shall meet or exceed the requirements of Public Resources Code 4290. These standards shall be officially adopted by the County. Variances, waivers and/or exceptions to the minimum standards shall only be allowed when an alternative that can be documented to provide an equivalent or better level of protection is required. When compliance with the water supply standards specified in Public Resources Code 4290 is not possible, mitigation measures or alternatives shall be included to achieve fire safe goals as an exception in accordance with 14 CCR 1270.03. IMPLEMENTATION MEASURE: 20b-2: The County shall encourage long range planning for improved water supplies for fire protection throughout the County. This planning process should involve the Fire Safe councils, local area residents, fire departments, CDF and other agencies with responsibility for fire protection. IMPLEMENTATION MEASURE: 20b-3: The County and/or Fire Safe councils shall pursue public and private funding to improve water supply for fire protection throughout the County. OBJECTIVE 20C: All new development in Alpine County shall be provided with adequate access for emergency response vehicles and an emergency egress route for evacuation. IMPLEMENTATION MEASURE: 20c-1: The County shall work in Page 237 of 264 ---PAGE BREAK--- conjunction with the Fire Safe councils, CDF, fire departments and other agencies with responsibility for fire protection to establish uniform minimum access standards for new development. The access standards shall meet or exceed the requirements of Public Resources Code 4290, except as specifically provided in Item 20c-2, 20c-3 and 20c-4. These standards shall address driveways and roads and shall include minimum standards for the number of access points into and out of the development area, driving lane width, grade, curve and cul de sac radius, dead end roads, turn arounds, emergency access/escape routes, home addressing and signing. These standards shall be officially adopted by the County. Variances, waivers and/or exceptions to the minimum standards shall only be allowed when an alternative that can be documented to provide an equivalent or better level of protection is required. IMPLEMENTATION MEASURE: 20c-2: Where through roads or dual access to new development is not feasible or desirable due to significant environmental constraints or legal access rights, mitigation measures shall be required. Possible mitigation measures could include, but not be limited to, increased road width, more frequent turn outs and/or turn around locations, increased water supply requirements for fire protection and sprinkler requirements for structures. IMPLEMENTATION MEASURE: 20c-3: The standards established through implementation of 20c-1 should include special consideration for land uses that customarily rely on remote locations and existing parcels in remote locations that do not have road access or are served by roads that may not meet minimum standards. Examples of these land uses that rely on remote locations include, but are not limited to, backcountry ski huts, pack stations, dispersed recreation sites and campgrounds. Some examples of existing parcels in remote locations with roads that do not meet minimum standards include, but are not limited to, private lands in the Poor Boy Road, Wolf Creek, Willow Creek, Forestdale Road, Blue Lakes and Leviathan Mine areas. IMPLEMENTATION MEASURE: 20c-4: When compliance with the access standards specified in Public Resources Code 4290 is not possible, mitigation measures or alternatives shall be included to achieve fire safe goals as an exception in accordance with 14 CCR 1270.03. OBJECTIVE 20D: Obtain the best possible level of fire protection and emergency response services for all communities in Alpine County. Page 238 of 264 ---PAGE BREAK--- IMPLEMENTATION MEASURE: 20d-1: The Board of Supervisors should continue to contribute stable funding from the County general fund at recent historical levels for fire protection and emergency services. IMPLEMENTATION MEASURE: 20d-2: The County shall support efforts by each fire department within the County to obtain lower ISO ratings for structure fires within all fire protection areas. IMPLEMENTATION MEASURE: 20d-3: To the extent allowable by law, the County shall support efforts to implement the recommendations of the Eastern Alpine Fire Services Plan in a timely manner. Further, and also to the extent allowable by law, the County should consider providing funding for completing preliminary studies and other documentation necessary to place a measure on the ballot regarding Option 9 as described in the Eastern Alpine Fire Services Plan and endorsed by the Board of Supervisors. IMPLEMENTATION MEASURE: 20d-4: The County shall support efforts to utilize the Alpine County Airport as a base of operations for the Bureau of Land Management SEAT planes and associated fire suppression equipment. IMPLEMENTATION MEASURE: 20d-5: No new development shall be approved unless the County can make a finding that the development can be provided with adequate fire protection and emergency services. For purposes of this policy, new development includes parcel maps and subdivisions that create new lots or building sites, planned developments and conditional use permits that entitle new structures. IMPLEMENTATION MEASURE: 20d-6: To the extent possible by law, the County shall require all new parcel maps, subdivisions and planned developments to participate in any prospective or existing benefit assessment district or other similar organization or entity that will develop and improve water supply or other fire protection capabilities in the area where the new development is proposed. IMPLEMENTATION MEASURE: 20d-7: The County shall work in conjunction with the Fire Safe councils, CDF, fire departments, and other agencies with responsibility for public safety and fire protection to establish designated safe emergency evacuation routes and early warning systems. Page 239 of 264 ---PAGE BREAK--- IMPLEMENTATION MEASURE: 20d-8: The Community Fire Plan should be completed, adopted and updated on a regular basis. IMPLEMENTATION MEASURE: 20d-9: The Alpine County Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan should be reviewed on a regular basis and updated if necessary as provided for in the plan. IMPLEMENTATION MEASURE: 20d-10: The County shall support completion of a Master Fire Protection Plan to identify long term capital facility and operational needs for fire protection services in all areas of Alpine County. This plan should include minimum fire protection service standards based on NFPA (National Fire Protection Association) criteria. IMPLEMENTATION MEASURE: 20d-11: The County Board of Supervisors should evaluate available options and consider establishing the functions of a Fire Marshall within all areas of Alpine County. IMPLEMENTATION MEASURE: 20d-12: The County shall support the continued location of the Sierra Front Interagency Fire Dispatch Center and associated fire fighting resources at the Minden-Tahoe Regional Airport. IMPLEMENTATION MEASURE: 20d-13: The County shall designate a suitable site between Woodfords and the Nevada state line for a future fire station and related facilities such as water storage, so that all existing residences and lots that have road access entirely within Alpine County and that are between Woodfords and the Nevada State line will be within five miles of either the Woodfords fire station or the designated site. IMPLEMENTATION MEASURE: 20d-14: The County shall evaluate the current and future transportation system and identify opportunities to incorporate fire infrastructure elements such as turn outs, heliports and safety zones. IMPLEMENTATION MEASURE: 20d-15: The County shall incorporate or reference the most current fire hazard mapping from CDF for both the SRA (State Responsibility Area and (Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones) in Local Responsibility Areas if applicable. IMPLEMENTATION MEASURE: 20d-16: The County shall encourage Page 240 of 264 ---PAGE BREAK--- the local fire protection agencies to conduct pre wildfire attack planning that includes consideration of structures, fuel breaks, back fire areas and staging areas that will support safe fire suppression. B. SEISMIC ELEMENT II - SECTION B G. P. GOAL NO. 21 INFORM RESIDENTS OF THE CORRIDOR AREA OF SEISMIC RISKS THAT ARE LOCATED IN THE AREA POLICY NO. 21a Any parcel map, or subdivision map, subdividing lands near the potentially active faults located along the eastern escarpment of the Sierra Nevada as shown on the Land Use Map shall contain a notation warning that said area may be subject to seismic activity. POLICY NO. 21b All new development proposed within or adjacent to a "Special Study Zone" as identified on the Official Map prepared by the State Mines and Geology and shown in Appendices R-8 through R-10 in the Alpine County General Plan, shall require a geologic report. Human occupied structures shall not be constructed across traces of active faults as identified in a required geologic report. C. UNSTABLE SLOPES ELEMENT II - SECTION C G. P. GOAL NO. 22 LOCATE AND DESIGN ALL NEW DEVELOPMENT TO PREVENT THREAT DUE TO LANDSLIDE OR AVALANCHE POLICY NO. 22a All developments intended for human use or occupation shall address potential hazards by natural or construction related landslides. POLICY NO. 22b All developments intended for human use or occupation shall address avalanche hazard assessment where the following conditions occur: treeless or sparsely vegetated slopes, gullies, and bowls steeper than 30 percent; and/or any history or evidence of avalanche occurrence susceptibility. D. FLOOD ELEMENT II - SECTION D Page 241 of 264 ---PAGE BREAK--- G. P. GOAL NO. 23 LOCATE AND DESIGN ALL NEW DEVELOPMENT TO PREVENT THREAT FROM FLOOD OCCURRENCE POLICY NO. 23a Subdivision Maps shall identify 100 year flood zones. Uses which include overnight human occupancy, storage or processing of hazardous materials, or encroachments into the flood plain which could adversely affect the velocity, volume or direction of flood flows in a manner which could create threat to public health and safety shall be prohibited in those zones. POLICY NO. 23b No living quarters shall be allowed at ground level and commercial, industrial, and other human activities shall be controlled within areas possibly subject to flood inundation due to possible dam failure. POLICY NO. 23c Dam and irrigation ditch failure hazard assessments and emergency plans shall be prepared before any development which may subject persons or property to hazards associated with dam failure is approved. POLICY NO. 23d Any parcel map, or subdivision map subdividing lands near drainage in Alpine County, shall contain a notation warning that said area is possibly subject to flash flood occurrence. E. NOISE ELEMENT II - SECTION E G. P. GOAL NO. 24 REDUCE OR MINIMIZE THE NUMBER OF NUISANCES CREATED BY NOISE AFFECTING CITIZENS OF ALPINE COUNTY POLICY NO. 24a No development shall be allowed that would subject persons living in existing or planned residential areas to unhealthful noise levels. POLICY NO. 24b New development of noise-sensitive uses shall not be allowed where the noise level due to non-transportation noise sources will exceed the noise level standards shown in the chart below, as measured immediately within the property line of the new development, unless effective noise mitigation measures have been incorporated into the development design to achieve the standards specified. Noise created by new proposed non-transportation noise sources shall be mitigated so as not to exceed the noise level standards as measured Page 242 of 264 ---PAGE BREAK--- immediately at the property line of lands designated for noise- sensitive uses. Noise sensitive uses include hospitals, clinics, schools, libraries or residences. This policy shall not apply to noise sources associated with agricultural operations on lands zoned for agricultural uses, residential units established in conjunction with industrial or commercial uses or snow-making in ski resort areas. NOISE LEVEL PERFORMANCE STANDARDS FOR NOISE SENSITIVE USES AFFECTED BY NON-TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS Noise Level Daytime Nighttime Descriptor (7 a.m to 10 p.m.) (10 p.m. to 7 a.m.) Hourly Leq, 50 45 Maximum level, dB 70 65 POLICY NO. 24c The Planning Commission may allow noise level standards to be exceeded for temporary activities. POLICY NO. 24d New development of noise-sensitive land uses will not be permitted in areas exposed to existing or projected levels of noise from transportation noise sources which exceed the levels specified in the following chart, unless the project design includes effective mitigation measures to reduce noise in outdoor activity areas and interior spaces to the levels specified. F. HAZARDOUS MATERIALS ELEMENT II - SECTION F G. P. GOAL NO. 25 PROTECT CITIZENS AND PROPERTY FROM DAMAGE BY HAZARDOUS MATERIALS INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO HARMFUL CHEMICALS, RADIATION LEVELS, GASES, EXPLOSIVES AND HAZARDOUS WASTE POLICY NO. 25a Ensure the hazardous waste materials used in business and industry are properly handled and that information on their handling and use is available to fire and police protection agencies. IMPLEMENTATION MEASURE: Continue to enforce hazardous materials provisions in the County Zoning Code. POLICY NO. 25b Ensure the hazardous waste generated in the County is properly Page 243 of 264 ---PAGE BREAK--- planned for, handled, treated and disposed of. IMPLEMENTATION MEASURE: Enact provisions of the implementation plan provided in the Alpine County Hazardous Waste Management Plan. IMPLEMENTATION MEASURE: Comply with the California Integrated Waste Management Act which directs counties to prepare an Integrated Waste Management Plan consisting of the following elements: A. Source Reduction & Recycling B. Household hazardous Waste C. Nondisposal Facility D. Siting E. Summary Plan POLICY NO. 25c Ensure that Alpine County does not become a corridor for transporting hazardous materials, including nuclear waste. IMPLEMENTATION MEASURE: The Alpine County Board of Supervisors should consider adopting a resolution to establish a hazardous material and nuclear waste transport free County. III. LAND USE ELEMENT A. COMMUNITY CHARACTER ELEMENT III - SECTION A POLICY NO. 25.5a New development shall be compatible with, and shall not have a significant adverse effect upon existing community character as defined in the community character section of General Plan. POLICY NO. 25.5b The rate of new development shall be controlled in order to achieve the following community objectives: OBJECTIVE NO. 25.5a Obtain development that is compatible with, and does not have a significant adverse effect upon existing community character as defined in the community character section of General Plan. OBJECTIVE NO. 25.5b Maintain adequate levels of public services within the community as future growth and development occur. IMPLEMENTATION MEASURE 25.5a: Adopt an ordinance which regulates the rate of new development on the east side of the County. Page 244 of 264 ---PAGE BREAK--- D. PUBLIC SERVICE AND FACILITIES ELEMENT III - SECTION D G. P. GOAL NO. 26 PROVIDE A LEVEL OF PUBLIC SERVICE ADEQUATE TO INSURE THE HEALTH, SAFETY, AND WELFARE OF ALPINE COUNTY CITIZENS AND PROMOTE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT POLICY NO. 26a Provide additional safety, community services, security personnel and facilities as dictated by growth and development. OBJECTIVE NO. 26a Develop and maintain a short and long term capital improvement program. OBJECTIVE NO. 26b Establish a Capital Improvement Fund and budget annually to place monies in the fund. IMPLEMENTATION MEASURE: A Capital Improvement Program should list buildings, grounds and other public works projects to be constructed in the County. To date only fire protection needs have an adopted plan. Special Districts should annually submit their own capital improvement programs to the County. All capital improvements should be reviewed for conformance with the General Plan. POLICY NO. 26b All new commercial or residential units utilizing community sewer or water systems should be required to contain low or restrictive flow water fixtures or devices wherever possible. OBJECTIVE NO. 26c Apply to the State Water Resources Control Board for set aside of water for future needs in Bear Valley area from Lake Alpine. IMPLEMENTATION MEASURE: The appropriate steps and responsibilities for accomplishing the objective as well as a means for delivering the Lake Alpine water to users in the Bear Valley Planning Area, when deemed necessary, are presented in the Bear Valley Master Plan EIR (Gretzinger and Weatherby, Inc.), and future water supply for the Bear Valley Area of Alpine County (Bill Dendy and Associates, assisted by James M. Morris, Jr. 1982). OBJECTIVE NO. 26d Continue to pursue a set aside of water for future needs in the Kirkwood area from Caples Lake with the State Water Resources Page 245 of 264 ---PAGE BREAK--- Control Board. E. PUBLIC FINANCE ELEMENT III - SECTION E G. P. GOAL NO. 27 PROVIDE AN ADEQUATE LEVEL OF PUBLIC SERVICE WHILE MAINTAINING A BALANCED COUNTY BUDGET OBJECTIVE NO. 27a Develop a long-range budget plan. IMPLEMENTATION MEASURE: The costs involved in operating all County departments should be analyzed. In general, the costs for new development shall be paid for by developers or residents of new developments. They should not become an undue burden upon existing tax base for County service levels and systems. Those departments able to charge fees for services should establish fees that would, as nearly as possible, equal the cost of services provided. The costs of operating all other departments or services should be compared with current and projected revenues and adjusted accordingly. OBJECTIVE NO. 27b Area specific impact fees should be established in accordance with State Code Section 66000 for the Markleeville/Woodfords, Bear Valley and Kirkwood areas. Development Impact Fees are charges that are applied to new construction to cover each development’s fair share of public facilities that are required to serve that development. Development Impact Fees should be assessed for expansion of all services including fire, police, water, sanitary sewer, drainage, parks, public facilities and streets. OBJECTIVE NO. 27c Improve and maintain a Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) capable of reviewing and acting upon proposals for County annexations as well as special district formations, annexations, consolidations, dissolutions, and reorganizations. IMPLEMENTATION MEASURE: The requirements and responsibilities for Local Agency Formation Commissions (LAFCO's) are contained within State Law. The current make-up of the County's LAFCO and the assistance provided by County Staff are considered adequate for all immediate and long-term purposes. County Staff should prepare for LAFCO members a clear and concise guide to LAFCO procedures consistent with enabling statues. OBJECTIVE NO. 27d Establish a method for clearly delineating all costs associated with Page 246 of 264 ---PAGE BREAK--- proposed developments and a means for assigning those costs appropriately and equitably. IMPLEMENTATION MEASURE: Include analysis of economic impacts as a standard part of all environmental analysis accomplished under CEQA. OBJECTIVE NO. 27e Alternative sources of revenues, such as business license fees, sales tax increase, court penalty assessments, and impact fees, should be reviewed as they become available through State enabling legislation for appropriateness, revenue generation capability, and cost of implementation. OBJECTIVE NO. 27f The County should require that either a homeowners association or a special district exist or be formed that would provide for the on-going costs incurred by a new development, before approving such a development - or - the County should charge benefit assessments for the same purpose. IMPLEMENTATION MEASURE: The general procedures and responsibilities for Special District formation are summarized in Data Base Section 11.23. Examples of special districts that have been suggested during the General Plan preparation process include district formation or expansion in the Corridor, Kirkwood, and Bear Valley Planning Areas. Kirkwood has established a public utility district with broad authority to acquire, construct, and maintain electric and gas facilities and water and sewer facilities, to operate public parking, cable television, road maintenance, snow removal, fire protection, and other services. Bear Valley has formed County Service Area under which Bear Valley residents and property owners locally provide and pay for various services, including snow removal, fire protection and solid waste. Re-organizing the CSA as a community services district is under consideration. OBJECTIVE NO. 27g Lands which are located in areas designated Open Space and distant from existing developed areas should be traded for appropriately designated Federal Lands near existing communities in all possible instances. A list of specific Federal parcels that should be considered for trade is included in Data Base 7.6. A Memorandum of Understanding should be established with the Forest Districts to establish procedures for such transfers. F. PLANNING ELEMENT III - SECTION F Page 247 of 264 ---PAGE BREAK--- G. P. GOAL NO. 28 MAINTAIN A COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING PROCESS IN ALPINE COUNTY OBJECTIVE NO. 28a Maintain consistency between all applicable County Ordinances and the County General Plan. IMPLEMENTATION MEASURE: State Law allows the County "reasonable time" within which to make zoning or other ordinances consistent with the General Plan. All County Ordinances should be reviewed with respect to the General Plan's Goals, Objectives, Policies, and the Land Use Map upon adoption. Recommendations or alternatives for revisions should be available for public review and at least one public hearing should be held before adoption. IMPLEMENTATION MEASURE: The County should continue to provide adequate funding and staff to insure that the County maintains a comprehensive Planning process. OBJECTIVE NO. 28b Maintain a comprehensive and internally consistent General Plan. IMPLEMENTATION MEASURE: Once each year in coordination with the County's budget process, the County's Planning Commission should report to the Board of Supervisors on the status of the General Plan, the progress in its application, and whether or not revisions or amendments would be in order. Amendments to the General Plan must not exceed four per year. OBJECTIVE NO. 28c Maintain a system for clear and streamlined permit processing. IMPLEMENTATION MEASURE: State Government Code 65920 et seq. places certain requirements on local governments with respect to processing permit applications in a timely fashion. The legislation, when enacted locally, can offer benefits to the County, the general public, and project proponents by clearly spelling out responsibilities and time limits for project review and approval. The County should maintain application process descriptions that conform with requirements of AB 884 using simple schematic drawings where possible. These should show all parties the steps and time frames involved in the acceptance, review, and action upon any General Plan Amendment, Subdivision, Rezoning, Use Permit, or other application. The first step in the review of any such application should be a General Plan consistency determination. Before any application Page 248 of 264 ---PAGE BREAK--- would be accepted as complete for processing the determination should be made whether or not such application is consistent with the General Plan. This determination should, in most instances, be made by qualified County Staff. However, where interpretation is difficult, the determination may need to be referred to the Planning Commission or Board of Supervisors. Where applications are submitted for projects that are clearly not in conformance with the General Plan, such applications should be returned and the applicant informed that adoption of a General Plan Amendment would be necessary to make the application acceptable. IV. CIRCULATION ELEMENT / REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN C. POLICY ELEMENT ELEMENT IV - SECTION C G. P. GOAL NO. 29 MAINTAIN THE EXISTING SCENIC QUALITY AVAILABLE ALONG ALL OF ALPINE COUNTY’S HIGHWAYS G. P. GOAL NO. 30 IMPROVE SAFETY AND CIRCULATION ON STATE ROUTE 88 TO AND THROUGH ALPINE COUNTY OBJECTIVE NO. 30 Improvements to State Highway 88 should be constructed as they are listed in the County’s Highway Improvement Program and RTIP (Action Section, Chart IV-1). IMPLEMENTATION MEASURE: The Alpine County LTC’s responsibilities for ensuring that this regional need is met includes: 1. Listing the regional highway improvement needs in RTP updates; 2. Listing the regional highway improvement needs in the RTIP; 3. Insure that a Project Study Report (PSR) is completed for the project; 4. Working with Caltrans to insure inclusion of regional highway improvement needs in Caltrans system planning, the PSTIP and the candidate list; and 5. Lobbying the California Transportation Commission for inclusion of this project in the Page 249 of 264 ---PAGE BREAK--- State’s Transportation Improvement Program (STIP). Regional highway needs are listed in the Alpine County LTC’s Highway Improvement Programs shown in the Action Element. Background and justification are addressed in the Needs Assessment Section of this RTP. The procedure to be utilized by the Alpine County LTC in influencing the STIP process is outlined on Table 3, the STIP process. It essentially involves local adoption of biennial RTPs and RTIPs, awareness of and communication with Caltrans regarding their PSTIP and candidate list, communication with CTC staff and attendance at the CTC’s STIP hearings every other year to argue consistently and factually the importance of this and other highway projects. POLICY NO. 30 The Alpine County LTC supports Amador County LTC’s policy that passing lane opportunities that are lost on Highway 88 in Amador County due to Federal and State mandated barrier striping requirements should be mitigated by construction of added passing lanes without affecting County minimums. G. P. GOAL NO. 31 IMPROVE SAFETY AND CIRCULATION ON STATE HIGHWAY 4 TO AND THROUGH ALPINE COUNTY POLICY NO. 31a The remainder of Highway 4 from 207 to 89 in Alpine County should be maintained and upgraded for safety and maintenance purposes as per its current status. POLICY NO. 31b Improvements to State Highway 4 in Calaveras County are important to the social and economic well being of Alpine County citizens in the Bear Valley region and they are therefore supported by the Alpine County LTC. OBJECTIVE NO. 31a The Alpine CTC’s second priority State highway improvement project is construction of a passing lane on State Highway 4 between Arnold, in Calaveras County, and Bear Valley, in Western Alpine County. IMPLEMENTATION MEASURE: The steps to help accomplish establishment of a passing lane per Objective 3.4 are listed under Implementation Measure IV A-2.11. If the passing lane is to be located outside of Alpine County, communication and coordination with the LTC of the County involved is also an important step. Page 250 of 264 ---PAGE BREAK--- OBJECTIVE NO. 31b A plan for the continuous upgrade of Highway 4 through Calaveras County as development occurs and supports an Angels Camp bypass should be reviewed and carried out. IMPLEMENTATION MEASURE: The Alpine County Transportation Commission will continue to send representatives to participate in the “Ebbetts Pass Group” planning activities. The Alpine County LTC will cooperate with the Calaveras County LTC in the ongoing effort to obtain State subvention discretionary funding to develop a Highway 4 plan. The issue of inadequate parking areas and transit solutions for the Bear Valley Ski Area’s expansion plans should be included in the study. There should be a survey and classification of traffic in the study as well. GP GOAL NO. 32 IMPROVE SAFETY AND CIRCULATION ON STATE HIGHWAY 89 TO AND THROUGH ALPINE COUNTY OBJECTIVE NO. 32a Improvements to State Highway 89 should be constructed as they are listed in the County’s Highway Improvement Program (Action Section, Chart IV-1). OBJECTIVE NO. 32b Lobby the Dept. of Transportation and CTC for the construction and installation of improvements that would be necessary to upgrade Highway 89 between Markleeville and Heenan Lake so that the route may be safe and adequate for winter travel and recreational access. IMPLEMENTATION MEASURE: Capacity enhancing State highway projects costing more than $300,000 must involve the RTIP/STIP process outlined under Implementation Measure IV A-1.11 and on Table 3. Projects costing less than $300,000 can be initiated by a resolution of the Alpine County Board of Supervisors (Minor Improvement Program). Such a request would be considered by the Caltrans District 10 Minor Program Technical Advisory Committee. OBJECTIVE NO. 32c Lobby the Dept. of Transportation to redesignate State Route 89 from the Carson River Highway 4 up to Heenan Lake as snow and ice removal class C. IMPLEMENTATION MEASURE: Caltrans District 10 is responsible for snow and ice removal up to Monitor Pass. The Alpine County Board of Supervisors and the Alpine County LTC, as well as Page 251 of 264 ---PAGE BREAK--- Markleeville businesses and citizens would be responsible for lobbying State agencies and officials to authorize Caltrans to plow to the pass area during winter months. In 1981 the Alpine County Board of Supervisors took particular steps to have the pass route designated a class winter route. The implementation of objective IC A-2.3 would involve following similar steps, only this time requesting the route be open only as far as Heenan Lake. This alternative should cost significantly less than plowing all the way over Monitor Pass. County staff should review the study of costs that was prepared by Caltrans in 1981 and the U.S. Forest Service in 1989/90 and recommend measures that could help further reduce overall cost. Local businesses and citizens should contact appropriate officials directly and explain the importance of the effort. The County should seek contractors and concessionaires who, in cooperation with the Forest Service and BLM, would help market and/or provide services in the Monitor Pass winter recreation area. OBJECTIVE NO. 32d Signs should be placed on Highway 89 warning commercial carriers that the Monitor Pass/Monitor Canyon area can be unsafe for ill-equipped vehicles, and/or prohibitions should be established limiting the size and/or weight of vehicles using the route. IMPLEMENTATION MEASURE: Highway improvements and regulations such as highway signing would fall within the authority of Caltrans. G. P. GOAL NO. 33 CONSTRUCT SAFE AND EFFICIENT INTERSECTIONS FOR PRESENT AND FUTURE LEVELS OF HIGHWAY USE OBJECTIVE NO. 33 Construct or improve intersections at new developments including resort communities and ski areas based upon the implementation of planned or phased development at such areas. IMPLEMENTATION MEASURE: The responsibility of constructing improved intersections at the Kirkwood and Bear Valley resort communities will be placed upon the developers constructing the development. Improved or new highway intersections are planned in the Kirkwood and Bear Valley Master Plans. Dates for the improvements are not specified. The County should work with Caltrans to insure that these improvements are installed at the Page 252 of 264 ---PAGE BREAK--- appropriate time in accordance with buildout of these recreational developments and constructed to State standards. G. P. GOAL NO. 34 INCREASE COUNTY MINIMUMS FOR ALPINE COUNTY OBJECTIVE NO. 34 In the effort to achieve compensation for the amount of through and recreational traffic using highways in Alpine County special legislation may be necessary. IMPLEMENTATION MEASURE: Neighboring Inyo and Mono Counties have collected traffic data over the past six years which document very high through-county and recreational traffic on local roads and highways. They have used this data to obtain an increase in the amount of formula State subvention planning funds they receive but have not convinced the State that additional highway or road funds should be allocated to them. In FY 89/90 Alpine County completed a similar through-county study and determined that Alpine County has generally the same disfavorable ratio of local traffic to through traffic as was found in Inyo and Mono Counties. The survey and resultant report should be used in cooperation with Inyo and Mono Counties to urge the CTC and if necessary the State Legislature to adjust the County minimum formula for very rural counties. G. P. GOAL NO. 35 ENSURE COUNTY MINIMUM AMOUNTS ARE SPENT IN ALPINE COUNTY OBJECTIVE NO. 35 Ensure that the system of county minimums is maintained and the amount of highway funds due to Alpine County under county minimum formulas is spent in as directed by Alpine County. IMPLEMENTATION MEASURE: The Alpine County LTC must consistently use every effort to ensure that the CTC maintains their policy of “county minimums” and that the CTC programs enough projects to be sure Alpine County’s minimums are met. The LTC should maintain communications with Caltrans District 10 to be sure they construct highway improvement projects on schedule as programmed. The Alpine LTC should ask its legislators and the CTC Rural Counties Task Force to support requirements that would ensure county minimums are maintained and adhered to in the future. G. P. GOAL NO. 36 PROVIDE FOR THE COST OF MAINTENANCE ON NEW AND EXISTING COUNTY ROADS Page 253 of 264 ---PAGE BREAK--- OBJECTIVE NO. 36a In an effort to preserve existing roads and save long-term costs of reconstruction, maintain a road maintenance schedule. IMPLEMENTATION MEASURE: Prior to the work begun in 1982-83, no in-depth street and road inventory information had been recorded for roads in Alpine County. In 1985-86, a consultant prepared a physical inventory of the street and road system. In 1987-88 this was converted to usable computer form. A computerized street and road inventory management system allows for continual update and development as a transportation planning development tool. A pavement management system (PMS) has been established to coordinate maintenance improvements. POLICY NO. 36a Consider the inclusion of road maintenance costs in any proposals for County service area formation. POLICY NO. 36b Impact fees will be required with the approval of any industrial, commercial, residential, or other development permit for the purpose of improving affected local roads. IMPLEMENTATION MEASURE: In order to charge a developer a traffic impact fee the County must adopt a County wide traffic mitigation fee ordinance based upon a reasonable plan for the expenditure of such fees. Such fees can only be collected at the time individual building permits or occupancy permits are issued and the funds collected must not be co-mingled with other County funds. An exception to this law may apply wherein a developer agrees to pay a traffic mitigation fee through a formal development agreement with the County. POLICY NO. 36c The County may require that either a homeowners’ association or special district exist or be formed that would provide for the costs of road maintenance or that fees such as benefit assessments may be charged for the same purpose before approving any subdivision application. OBJECTIVE NO. 36b The County should take every available opportunity to lobby the Department of Transportation for more funds to conduct County road maintenance. IMPLEMENTATION MEASURE: The following are examples of ways in which the State could make additional road maintenance funds available to the County: Page 254 of 264 ---PAGE BREAK--- 1) TEA dollars should be available for the maintenance and reconstruction of existing roads as well as construction of new roads. 2) After completion of the Federal Interstate Highway System, Federal fuel tax should be returned to local states and counties to take care of improvements to federal aid primary and federal aid secondary road systems. 3) The State should levy a tax upon recreational vehicles (campers, trailers, motor homes, etc.) And/or recreational equipment and the money should go for local roads in recreation areas. 4) The State should consider indexing the gasoline tax to the inflation rate in road construction and maintenance costs. G. P. GOAL NO. 37 UPGRADE EXISTING ROADS AND ADD NEW ROADS TO THE COUNTY SYSTEM THAT MEET PROJECTED NEEDS AND PLANNED FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATIONS AND INSURE THAT PRIVATE ROADS DO NOT BECOME A BURDEN OR THREAT TO THE HEALTH, SAFETY, OR WELFARE OF THE GENERAL PUBLIC OBJECTIVE NO. 37 Implement the County Road Improvement Program outlined in the Action Element. IMPLEMENTATION MEASURE: The primary means for funding County road construction projects is provided through ISTEA funds (see Financial Section). Requests for exchange funds should be in conformance with the County’s road improvement program (Action Section, Chart IV-3). Such requests are followed by field reviews conducted by the County and the State and they conclude with appropriate agreements and a resolution by the Board of Supervisors. POLICY NO. 37a Existing roads should be maintained and upgraded as a priority over the establishment of new roads to new areas except where the public benefit clearly outweighs overall costs. POLICY NO. 37b The County should maintain road standards which will insure that new and upgraded roads meet the intent of Goal IV C-2. Page 255 of 264 ---PAGE BREAK--- ELEMENT IV - SECTION C G. P. GOAL NO. 38 PROVIDE FOR THE TRANSIT NEEDS OF THE COUNTY IN A TIMELY AND ECONOMIC FASHION OBJECTIVE NO. 38a Reassess unmet transit needs and the feasibility of reasonably fulfilling such needs in conjunction with the annual budget process. IMPLEMENTATION MEASURE: State law requires the Alpine County LTC to conduct at least one public hearing to consider unmet transit needs before LTF can be spent for purposes other than bicycles, pedestrians or public transportation. Provisions for fulfilling this requirement are included on Table 1, the Transportation Planning Calendar. After the LTC determines that all unmet transit needs that can be reasonably met are being met, remaining LTF can be spent for streets and road purposes. Transit and road funding are discussed further in the Financial Element. OBJECTIVE NO. 38b Establish guidelines and procedures for administration of TDA and STA funds. IMPLEMENTATION MEASURE: The Alpine County LTC is the responsible transportation planning agency for Alpine County. In addition to other responsibilities, they are the administrators of funds generated by the Transportation Development Act (TDA) of 1971, as amended (SB 325), and for funds generated by the State Transit Assistance Program (STA SB 620). This responsibility includes all aspects of accountability, apportionment, claim review and approval, allocation, fiscal performance and compliance audits, and annual reports. POLICY NO. 38a The Alpine County LTC will consider claims for use of LTF funds for the provision of transit services in accordance with applicable State laws and the County’s Transit Improvement Program (California Public Utilities Code commencing with Section 99200, Calif. Administration Code commencing with Section 6600, and Action Element). POLICY NO. 38b The Alpine County LTC will only honor transit claims which also meet its adopted “reasonable-to-meet” criteria. The Alpine County LTC reasonable-to-meet criteria are $7.00 per passenger per one- Page 256 of 264 ---PAGE BREAK--- way trip, a 10% fare box return and a reasonable ratio of passengers to distance traveled. POLICY NO. 38c In order to be adequate for Alpine County LTC assessment, input regarding unmet transit needs should be put into a form that includes time service is needed, specific origin(s) and destination(s), number of riders, willingness to ride public transportation service, and willingness to pay 10% farebox or more. POLICY NO. 38d Avoid costly duplication of service effort and promote efficiency by consolidating transit services in accordance with the provisions of State Assembly Bill 120 and the County’s adopted consolidated social service transit action plan. Monitor transit needs of the elderly and handicapped to identify potential for meeting “reasonable-to-meet” criteria. IMPLEMENTATION MEASURE: Table 1, the Transportation Planning Calendar, includes dates for submission of draft and final “Annual Overall Work Programs.” The Annual Overall Work Program lists, explains and allocates funds for maintaining the RTP and carrying out necessary related transportation planning studies. OBJECTIVE NO. 38e Obtain more detailed information in accordance with Policy IV D- 1.5 from the SSTAC, the biennial social service transportation inventory and action plans and progress reports, through the unmet needs hearings process and by other sources. G. P. GOAL NO. 39 ESTABLISH SAFE AND ADEQUATE AVIATION FACILITIES OBJECTIVE NO. 39a Continue periodic improvements to the Alpine County airport in accordance with the County Airport Master Plan and the County Airport Improvement Program (Action Section, Chart IV-5). IMPLEMENTATION MEASURE: The construction of improvements to the Alpine County airport is the responsibility of the County Public Works Department. Amount and type of improvements that can be accomplished in a given year are constrained by fiscal considerations which are addressed in the Financial Section. POLICY NO. 39a Continue to utilize State funding as programmed in the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) to obtain funds to Page 257 of 264 ---PAGE BREAK--- improve the County airport and investigate availability of federal funds. OBJECTIVE NO. 39b Through cooperation with private industry, develop the Alpine County airport into a clean-industry job center for the community. IMPLEMENTATION MEASURE: Testing should be done as soon as possible to determine a water source and soil conditions, in order to assess the overall site suitability. IMPLEMENTATION MEASURE: The County should pursue funding opportunities for infrastructure development. IMPLEMENTATION MEASURE: The County needs to decide what role it desires in the development process and what staff and financial resources it is willing to commit to this process. IMPLEMENTATION MEASURE: Once funding is obtained and development determined, a marketing plan must be prepared. IMPLEMENTATION MEASURE: If the airport site is not feasible for further development, the County should designate another site for future industrial development. G. P. GOAL NO. 40 DEVELOP BICYCLE CIRCULATION AND SUPPORT FACILITIES WHERE SAFE AND REASONABLE OBJECTIVE NO. 40 Improve County wide bicycle circulation in accordance with the Alpine County bicycle circulation improvement program and long- range transportation plan. (Action Element and Land Use Map) IMPLEMENTATION MEASURE: Implementation of the Bicycle Circulation Improvement Program involves responsibilities of both the County and the State as specified on the program and in the Financial Section. POLICY NO. 40a Each agency or developer involved with street, road, and highway improvements or maintenance should consider the needs of bicyclists in projects designed to upgrade, make operational changes upon, or maintain such facilities with particular emphasis on adopted or recognized bike routes. Page 258 of 264 ---PAGE BREAK--- POLICY NO. 40b Bikeways should be in conformance with standards adopted by Caltrans where feasible and required by Section 2375 and 2376 of the Streets and Highways Code. Encourage Caltrans to develop specific standards for mountain terrain. POLICY NO. 40c Local agencies, employers, businesses, and developers should provide safe and secure bicycle storage facilities to promote maximum utilization of the bicycle for utilitarian purposes and tourism. G. P. GOAL NO. 41 DEVELOP PEDESTRIAN CIRCULATION FOR THE BETTERMENT OF LOCAL COMMERCE AS WELL AS THE SAFETY AND CONVENIENCE OF LOCAL CITIZENS OBJECTIVE NO. 41 Provisions that promote pedestrian circulation and facilities should be included in design review criteria outlined in the Natural Resource and Conservation Element of the County General Plan. IMPLEMENTATION MEASURE: Objective II L-1.6 of the General Plan’s Natural Resources and Conservation Element provides for the establishment of a Design Review Board which is to review and make suggestions upon all building permits in the Markleeville area. The measure is an effort to enhance the town’s attractiveness both for residents and visitors. The parameters for design suggestions therein should include pedestrian facilities such as covered walkways, courtyards, and benches. G. P. GOAL NO. 42 FULFILL THE PARKING NEEDS OF LOCAL CITIZENS AND VISITING TRAFFIC OBJECTIVE NO. 42a Construct and maintain off-street parking facilities as needed along State Highway 88 and/or 89 to serve winter recreationists in the Hope Valley area. IMPLEMENTATION MEASURE: The construction and maintenance of off-street parking facilities along a State highway for winter recreation could require intergovernmental coordination between the County, Caltrans and the U.S. Forest Service. Caltrans maintenance crews normally do not plow for off-highway parking. POLICY NO. 42a The Bear Valley Ski Resort should be encouraged to investigate the feasibility of the proposed ski lift between the Bear Valley subdivision and the ski area as an immediate priority to reduce Page 259 of 264 ---PAGE BREAK--- traffic impacts on Highways 4 and 207 and provide more day skier parking at the ski area. POLICY NO. 42b Any adoption of significant expansion plans at Bear Valley should include conditions requiring the ski area to provide transit from out-of-county to minimize parking problems and excessive traffic. G. P. GOAL NO. 43 ESTABLISH WINTER TRAILS FOR CROSS-COUNTRY SKI AND SNOWMOBILE USE OBJECTIVE NO. 43 Prepare a County Winter Trails Plan to define appropriate locations and standards for trail improvements, maintenance and grooming. G. P. GOAL NO. 44 DEVELOP, MAINTAIN, AND USE PIPELINE, POWER LINE AND COMMUNICATION FACILITIES IN A WISE AND EFFICIENT MANNER OBJECTIVE NO. 44 Obtain revenues necessary to upgrade public utilities serving the Markleeville area. IMPLEMENTATION MEASURE: The agencies responsible for achieving this objective are the Markleeville PUD and Markleeville Water Company. The mechanisms available for use include increased rates of assessments, loans, or grants. Serious efforts in each of these areas are necessary because each of the funding mechanisms has its limits yet the problem persists. POLICY NO. 44a Future development should be designed and located so that it does not require the extension of utilities that would increase costs to existing rate payers or taxpayers or generate significant negative effects upon natural resources. POLICY NO. 44b Future development should be designed and located so it shares existing or planned utility corridors or facilities wherever possible. POLICY NO. 44c No trans-Sierra utility corridors including power lines, pipelines and other utility transmission facilities shall be allowed in Alpine County unless utilities are placed underground and provide a direct benefit to Alpine County in accordance with General Plan Goal No. 17, Policy 17f. (See Need/Issue #18 in Section B, Needs Assessment.) V. HOUSING ELEMENT Page 260 of 264 ---PAGE BREAK--- D. REVIEW AND REVISE ELEMENT V - SECTION D G. P. GOAL NO. 45 PROVIDE ADEQUATE HOUSING FOR ALL PRESENT AND FUTURE RESIDENTS REGARDLESS OF AGE, RACE, INCOME, SEX OR RELIGION POLICY NO. 45a Assist and encourage the development of housing to meet the needs of low and moderate income households. IMPLEMENTATION MEASURE: State Government Code Section 65915 requires local governments to grant a density bonus of at least 25 percent and an additional incentive, or financially equivalent incentive, to a developer of a housing development agreeing to construct at least: a) 20% of the units for lower income households; or b) 10% of the units for very low income households; or c) 50% of the units for senior citizens. State law also requires that each jurisdiction adopt an implementing ordinance which includes a procedure for evaluating preliminary applications and the types of developer incentive to be provided. The Board of Supervisors shall direct County planning staff to draft a density bonus ordinance for adoption pursuant to State Government Code Section 65915 which meets State requirements but also considers public safety and health issues in the County such as provisions for adequate fire, water and sewer services. As discussed in Section H, there are water, sewer and fire protection service constraints which may be encountered by developers of higher density projects. IMPLEMENTATION MEASURE: The Alpine County Board of Supervisors shall assist the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) in its efforts to establish a Section 8 subsidy program for the County. POLICY NO. 45B Encourage and assist in the development of employee housing in the ski resort communities of Bear Valley and Kirkwood. OBJECTIVE NO.45A Increase the employee/unit ratio in Kirkwood and in Bear Valley. Page 261 of 264 ---PAGE BREAK--- IMPLEMENTATION MEASURE: Complete the Kirkwood Master (Specific) Plan revision and identify appropriate employee housing ratio and implementation measures. IMPLEMENTATION MEASURE: The Alpine County Board of Supervisors shall appoint an employee needs task force to determine if an employee housing agreement shall be developed to require a ratio of employee housing units to guest units be built in Bear Valley (as required in Kirkwood). If determined necessary the task force shall draft an employee housing agreement for consideration and adoption by the Alpine County Board of Supervisors. POLICY NO. 45c Periodically update ordinances and policies to remove unreasonable governmental constraints to construction of affordable housing. IMPLEMENTATION MEASURE: The County Board of Supervisors shall periodically review their government policies and ordinances to determine if there are any unreasonable constraints to the construction of affordable housing. POLICY NO. 45d Promote the provision of adequate housing for all residents, regardless of race, income, age, sex or religion. IMPLEMENTATION MEASURE: The County Clerk shall obtain information on fair housing laws from the State Department of Housing and Community Development. Copies of the information shall be made available for distribution to the public at the County Clerk’s office, Department of Social Services and County Library. G. P. GOAL NO. 46 PROMOTE A CHOICE OF HOUSING BY LOCATION, TYPE, PRICE AND TENURE POLICY NO. 46 Continue to provide adequate sites for housing development on the General Plan Land Use and Zoning Map. G. P. GOAL NO. 47 PROMOTE A BALANCED RESIDENTIAL ENVIRONMENT WITH ACCESS TO EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITIES, COMMUNITY FACILITIES AND ADEQUATE SERVICES POLICY NO. 47a Seek to provide public services such as water, sewer, roads, streets, fire protection, etc. Page 262 of 264 ---PAGE BREAK--- IMPLEMENTATION MEASURE: The County Public Works Department shall continue to assist private water companies in pursuing funding needed to improve the water services in the County. POLICY NO. 47b Encourage the provision of emergency housing for the homeless. IMPLEMENTATION MEASURE: The County Planning Commission shall review the General Plan Land Use Element and Zoning Ordinance and recommend to the Board of Supervisors appropriate land use designations/zones in which to allow emergency and transitional housing for the homeless in the County. The Board of Supervisors shall adopt amendments to the Land Use Element and Zoning Ordinance as determined appropriate to allow said uses. G. P. GOAL NO. 48 PROMOTE PRESERVATION AND IMPROVEMENT OF THE EXISTING HOUSING SUPPLY POLICY NO. 48 Encourage the reconstruction or rehabilitation of existing dwellings. OBJECTIVE NO. 48 Rehabilitate 22 units occupied by or affordable to lower income households. IMPLEMENTATION MEASURE: The County Board of Supervisors shall apply for CDBG or other funding available to establish a housing rehabilitation program in the County. VI. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ELEMENT ELEMENT VI G.P. GOAL NO. 49 ESTABLISH A BALANCED ECONOMY THAT IS CONSISTENT WITH SUSTAINABLE ENVIRONMENTAL PRESERVATION OBJECTIVE NO. 49a Identify programs to help diversify the economy. OBJECTIVE NO. 49b Identify programs to help reverse the trend of failing or stagnating businesses and recruit new businesses. OBJECTIVE NO. 49c Identify programs to improve services to support economic growth. Page 263 of 264 ---PAGE BREAK--- IMPLEMENTATION MEASURE: Establish an Economic Development Advisory Committee to identify and recommend appropriate programs to the Board of Supervisors. Members should include a Supervisor, a Planning Commissioner, a Chamber of Commerce representative, the BOS Assistant, the Planning Director and the Public Works Director. Page 264 of 264