Document Mariposacounty_doc_625eb469af

Time Description 9:11 a.m. Continued Meeting from October 10th Called to Order at the Mariposa County Government Center. Pledge of Allegiance Kris Schenk, Planning Director; PUBLIC WORKSHOP to Consider the Revisions Contained in the October 2006 Draft General Plan and Environmental Impact Report (EIR), Accept and Evaluate Written Comments and Oral Testimony from the Public and Provide Direction for the Final Versions of the General Plan and EIR Volumes BOARD ACTION: Kris Schenk, Sarah Williams/Deputy Planning Director, and Andy Hauge/Hauge Brueck Associates, were present. Kris Schenk advised that the October 2006 draft version of the General Plan Update is the document being reviewed. He also noted that at the end of the workshop today, the workshop will be continued to October 17th, and at the conclusion of that workshop, the consultant and staff are looking for direction to prepare the final document for the public hearings before the Planning Commission on November 17th and then the Board of Supervisors for adoption on December 6th. He advised of the set of documents being reviewed: Volume I – Final Plan Policies; Volume II – diagrams/maps with planning study areas, and he advised of the process for planning advisory committees to review the boundary issues; Volume III – Technical Background Report, and he advised that there has been no substantive changes to this document since the last meeting on this; and Volume IV – environmental analysis, and he advised that this now contains responses to comments. He advised that comments on these documents will be accepted at any time while the Board is considering these documents. He advised that this workshop provides an additional opportunity for citizens to provide input relative to concerns, issues, or questions, etc., so that staff can put together the best document possible for the public hearing. He also noted that there is a provision in the State law that allows for amendments to the General Plan up to four times a year. The existing General Plan is now twenty-five years old. Kris Schenk reviewed the direction the Board provided to staff on pending issues following the March 21, 2006, workshop relative to no down zoning, split parcels, 2 1/2 –acres in town planning areas, Native American consultation, Rural Character Protection alternative, churches and church camps, dead-end roads, Saxon Creek reference, noise standards enforcement, mining and agritourism in Ag/Working Landscape, state agency amendments, and other technical or diagram corrections. Kris Schenk advised that enlarged maps/land use diagrams were posted in the back of the room. Sarah Williams described the changes that were made as a result of the Board’s general direction for parcels greater than 40-acres in size with split land use designations; and she noted that they may not have caught all of the parcels and they will consider further amendments. The changes involve the following parcels: Touchen property off of Pendola Garden Road; two parcels for the Princeton Ranch – Aqua Fria/Mt. Bullion area; Dunn Ranch in Catheys Valley area; Benson Ranch in the Catheys Valley area; Long Ranch in the Old Highway area; Fleming property in the Ben Hur area; Radanovich property in the Ben Hur area; Bug Hostel off of Highway 140; and Hazel Green – two-40 acre parcels near Highway 120. Chairman Stetson suggested that each chapter be reviewed and that public comment be provided as each chapter is reviewed. Discussion was held. Supervisor Turpin asked how the parcels that are smaller than 40-acres with split zoning will be addressed. Sarah Williams advised that text was added in Section 5.4.02 as follows: “The Board of Supervisors has determined that existing land use densities, MARIPOSA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS CONFORMED AGENDA October 11, 2006 (Continued Meeting from October 10, 2006) ---PAGE BREAK--- 2 10-11-06 as of December 1, 2006, are consistent with the Residential land use classification. The subdivision of these lands shall be consistent with this General Plan.” Supervisor Turpin asked how this situation would be handled for the Ag/Working Landscape and the Natural Resources land use classifications; and he was advised that these sections contain the same text. Supervisor Bibby clarified that any change would be applicant driven. Supervisor Turpin asked for clarification that no one would lose their existing zoning, even with the overlay. Kris Schenk referred to Section 5.4.04 and additional language beginning with Ag/Working Landscape land use classification. Andy Hauge advised that with this policy, zoning is not guaranteed. At the time Title 17 is updated, the Board has the option to bring parcels into compliance with the General Plan. Supervisor Bibby asked about providing input on punctuation corrections, etc. Kris Schenk asked that these types of corrections be pointed out as each Chapter of the document is reviewed. He also noted that there may be people present who want to make a brief comment and not stay for the whole workshop. Chairman Stetson called for comments from the public relative to the process; and the following input was provided. Laurie Oberholtzer, planner with MERG (Mariposans for the Environment and Responsible Government), stated she would like to speak at the beginning as they did not organize comments by each chapter. Don Starchman, Starchman & Bryant Law Offices, stated he is okay with providing general comments, followed by a review of each chapter. He also stated he appreciates the Board taking the extra time to hear everyone. Discussion was held relative to the workshop process, and the Board concurred with taking general comments first. The following input was provided. Autumn Bernstein, Land Use Coordinator for Sierra Nevada Alliance, read her written statement into the record. She provided background on the Alliance, and advised that they support Alternative number 5, the Rural Character Preservation alternative as they believe that is the only alternative that will give Mariposa County the tools it needs to properly manage the growth which is projected to come to the Sierras in the coming decades. She noted a recent proposal by JG Boswell Company to build a new retirement community and resort enclave that will house 30,000 people in the remote Yokohl Valley in Tulare County; and she questioned what would happen if such a town were proposed for Mariposa County – would the General Plan be strong enough to ensure that inappropriate development doesn’t come to Mariposa County. They feel the best thing that can be done to ensure that Mariposa County stays rural is to adopt a strong General Plan that discourages speculation and that lays out clear, strong, enforceable policies for where and how future development will happen. Bart Brown, MERG Chairman, read his written statement into the record on behalf of MERG and those who support the Rural Protection Character alternative. He advised that based on two Whitcomb surveys and the visioning process in the 90’s, as well as the Planning Department open houses of the 2000’s, and the mailer they did last year and the petition of this year, it has been repeatedly shown that preservation of the environment and rural character of Mariposa County are the highest concerns of our citizens. They thanked the Board and staff for adding the Rural Protection alternative to the choices in the Environmental Impact Report (EIR). He noted that they have concerns about unnecessary sprawl, which may impact our tourism and quality of life for our residents. He advised that they will submit a list of recommendations in written form; however, they feel there is a need for assurance that large areas of open space between communities will be maintained; that in residential areas outside communities, use of a sliding scale of 5-acre to 160-acre parcel size will be assigned, depending on terrain and service availability; prevention of sprawl by not overlapping communities; and limiting clustering in remote areas where police, fire, and medical services would have difficult access and be much more costly. He advised that MERG favors self-determination of communities and supports the Plan’s use of advisory committees in creation of community plans; and they strongly support ---PAGE BREAK--- 3 10-11-06 preservation of agricultural and timber lands throughout the County. He also requested that the workshop be continued to allow further public study and input. John Gamper, California Farm Bureau Federation, on behalf of the Federation and on behalf of the Mariposa County Farm Bureau, referred to the Land Use Section Goal 5-9 – maintaining rural densities for residential development outside planning areas; and the general discussion of 5-acre density and rural character. He noted that the Residential land use classification (white areas on the new diagrams/maps) includes land that is currently zoned Ag Exclusive and also includes land that is under Williamson Act Contract restrictions. He feels that by placing a 5-acre density on these lands, it is inconsistent with the requirements of the Williamson Act. It is specified in Government Code Section 51230 that once a contract is signed within an Ag Preserve, within two years other lands in that Ag Preserve have to be restricted by zoning to uses that are compatible with agriculture. They believe 5-acre minimums are not consistent or compatible with 160-acre minimum range land classifications; and the minimum density in the Williamson Act is 40-acres for non-prime land. So they believe that a 5-acre overlay in the General Plan is inconsistent with the statute and encouraged the Board to address that in the General Plan. Specifically, he feels one issue that the Board needs to decide is if the Residential land use overlay is going to be placed over existing AE and Williamson Act ground. The other issue is to clarify in Goal 5-9a(1) for outside planning areas is the maximum allowable density for residential development which currently says one dwelling unit per 5-acres. He thinks that this should be more specific and consistent with the information earlier and the general discussion that we are not talking about residential development; but are talking about the Residential land use classification. He suggested that it should read as follows: “outside planning areas and maximum allowable density for residential development in the Residential land use classification shall be…” so at least it is consistent with the general discussion that this is not just for residential development, this is for specific land use classifications. And he hopes the Board will address the issue of actually putting a General Plan overlay in diagrams and maps that are inconsistent with State law. Supervisor Pickard suggested that since this is a workshop, that it be a little more informal and that issues be addressed as they are raised. The Board concurred with briefly addressing the issues at this time and in more detail as the appropriate chapter is reviewed. Andy Hauge reminded everyone that the reason that we don’t have the ag lands pulled out specifically is because we would have a land use diagram that would be pretty spotty – that is one of things we are trying to avoid. He stated that they could clarify in Implementation Measure 5-9a(1) that the policy excludes lands that are in the Williamson Act and lands that are zoned Agriculture. He feels that more discussion will need to be held on the recommendation relative to the overlay, as well as discussion with Attorney Bill Abbott, whom the County has retained to assist with looking at goals and policies and making sure they are consistent. Kris Casto noted that the EIR addresses handicapped access with reference to the State law requirements for public land. She would like the General Plan to go further to say that all commercial remodel and development shall provide handicapped access. The rest of her comments will be provided for Chapter 5, and she feels that most of the interest from those present is in that Chapter. Linda Dahl, Chief of Planning for Yosemite National Park, read the letter from Superintendent Michael Tollefson into the record. The Park acknowledged the outreach from County staff to Park staff to help assure that the Park’s mission and goals are coordinated with this Plan and commented on the interdependent relationship between the Park and the County. The overall comments noted that the three stated drivers of the draft Plan are economy, character, and housing; and the Park acknowledged that the Housing Element of the General Plan was adopted on January 13, 2004. The letter offered specific comments and recommendations related to housing, transportation, and other support for Park employees; maintaining rural character; and economy and regional tourism. The Park proposes that one or several areas along the Highway 140 route to the Park be considered for a clustered, residential settlement, with special interest in the Midpines area. The Park feels that it has a serious housing ---PAGE BREAK--- 4 10-11-06 dilemma. The Park recommends that a more specific implementation measure be included under the Regional Tourism Goal 13-1. One idea is for a Mariposa regional recreation and tourism roundtable that could include the County and federal planners, business interests, the Arts Council, the Visitor’s Bureau, land trusts, service clubs, private recreation providers, and any others with an interest in the quality of life and vitality of the County. The goal of this effort would be to achieve a trans-boundary system of trails, parks, and cultural amenities for the enjoyment of residents and visitors alike. Frank Berlogar stated he will speak later relative to the property he owns. As a property owner and with his background with working with development in the Bay area, he sees problems with this Plan. As an example, the draft General Plan shows there is currently a zero vacancy rate for housing and that is a serious problem that he feels the Board needs to address. He feels there is a lack of affordable housing. The draft Plan proposes mostly 5-acre ranchettes and he feels they are too expensive for residents with a low to average medium income. To get a commercial project approved, the applicant has to show that there is housing for the workers. With a zero vacancy rate, how would a commercial applicant demonstrate that there is housing available, short of building his own housing project? He stated he is confused with the “ready-to-build” subdivisions. The draft Plan does not contain the current density bonus if sewer or water is provided, and he feels that it should be included. He feels that the water availability should be considered in determining the density. Without affordable housing, the children and young families will not be able to afford to stay in the County. He would like to see economic prosperity in the County and the rural character maintained. He bought two ranch properties, and he wants to develop one property to help the County to meet its housing needs. Joan Conlan, member of MERG, read her statement into the record supporting the Rural Character Protection alternative. She noted that there is still a need, as pointed out by the Plan, for each community to finish its plan, and for those without advisory committees to establish them, and for all communities to use self determination to design their communities and how each might grow. She stated she feels that as Mariposa grows and residences increase, that she hopes the Board will support a water study in the County to help make decisions concerning land owners, land uses and how and where to build. She also encouraged the Board to make the policies and implementation measures in the Plan mandatory while providing specific time periods for their implementation. She feels that “Keep Mariposa Rural” is expressing what Mariposans want in their future. Laurie Oberholtzer stated she is an environmental planner based in Nevada City and is representing MERG. She has worked with MERG for many years. She does agree that the Rural Character Protection alternative should be adopted. She referred to Nevada County’s work on their General Plan that was adopted in 1995 and the compromise that was reached. She suggested the following tweaks, and noted that most of them relate to the Land Use Element: 1) She feels it is important to include the mitigation measures recommended in the EIR. 2) In regard to the build-out and growth rate issues, there needs to be thought about the consequences of the ultimate build-out. She noted that they feel there is still some ambiguity in this Plan with a build out population range of 39,000 to 51,000, and they would like to see a single figure used versus a range. 3) She feels that the growth rate issue is also a little bit ambiguous as it is unclear whether the projected growth rate is 1, 1 ½ or 2 percent. This is another area where they think it would be good for the General Plan to be very clear, and they recommend the adoption of 1 ½ percent as a reasonable growth rate. This is growth rate that they feel the County can manage as far as providing public services in the future in an orderly way. 4) They still have a little bit of a problem with the wording of the Rural Economic land use designation. They feel this is a good concept. The problem is that the text allows for up to 20-acre parcels. A 20-acre commercial parcel allows for a 200,000 square foot shopping center, and they do not feel that was the original intent of that designation. 5) She commented on having flexibility when individual projects are proposed based on the conditions on the ground. As an example, a residential area which allows 5-acre parcels should be ---PAGE BREAK--- 5 10-11-06 worded as a 5-acre parcel minimum so that larger parcels could be permitted/allowed if the conditions didn’t warrant the 5-acres. She provided the following reasons for why she feels the Rural Character Protection alternative should be adopted: 1) the map is the heart of the General Plan and it is better and less sprawling than the previous version; 2) there are much more definitive requirements for future design guidelines; 3) there are some really solid historic preservation policies with “shalls” instead of “shoulds”; 4) there is stricter wording on development fees so that development will pay its own way; and there is even a requirement that there be a fee for State highway improvement contributions; and 5) many “shoulds” have been replaced with “shalls.” She thanked the Board for finding renewed energy to work on a compromise. Sam Hensley, representing The Barrier, an organization committed to ministering to children, read his letter into the record. He thanked the Board for including churches and camps in the latest version of the Plan and he stated this will help them to move forward with The Barrier project. However, he is concerned that through some oversight they are losing the benefit of the Mountain General zoning. They are designated as Ag/Working Landscape in the General Plan Update. This changes their minimum parcel size from 40-acres to 160-acres. They requested that this be corrected and that the land use diagram for their parcels be changed to Natural Resources. Andy Hauge clarified that existing zoning is specifically stated in the General Plan to be consistent with any of these land use designations so the zoning would only change if there is a request to change the zoning during Title 17 or another time. So the General Plan is clear that the zoning has not changed and the land uses may continue. Shirley Schmelzer, a resident for the past 37 years, read her statement into the record. She urged the adoption of the Rural Character Protection alternative because it has standards for fire prevention, fuel management, and fire suppression. She feels these standards are very important to minimize fire hazards and exposure to wildfires in Mariposa County. Thomas Infusino, a land use attorney with 17 years of experience, read his statement into the record. He commented on his work with clients in Mariposa County, and noted that they are all united in their intense love for this land called Mariposa – they love this wild and open landscape that they call home. However, there are a select few people who love this land solely for the profit they can gain by selling off tiny chunks of it to people. He feels that would allow the County’s population to more than double at build out, without ensuring adequate protections for the health, the safety, and the quality of life of Mariposa County residents. He urged support for the Rural Character Protection alternative as he feels it points the County in the direction of developing programs and standards to balance the need for future growth with the need to maintain the quality of life for the people of Mariposa County. 10:56 a.m. Recess 11:17 a.m. Chairman Stetson advised that Chapter 5 – Land Use would be reviewed first with general comments by the Board and followed by input from the public. Andy Hauge advised that the goals did not change in Chapter 5. He reviewed the following changes that were made pursuant to the Board’s direction. Policy 5-2(a) changed, and this deals with providing services for land that is going to be developed; and it went from the word “encourage” to “shall.” Supervisor Pickard asked whether the changes reflect Alternative 5. Andy Hauge noted that these changes were highlighted in a gray color in the table to indicate that they would be part of Alternative 5. He also advised that there are additions in Alternative 5 that are not included in this volume and he will point those out as the Chapter is reviewed. Andy Hauge advised that in Section 5.4, Land Use Classification, language was added to say that 40- acre parcels and larger can have different land use designations. There is additional text on page 5-19 ---PAGE BREAK--- 6 10-11-06 regarding the extent of uses within planned areas, specifically talking about the planning study areas, that when these are evaluated they need to embody greenbelt open space lands and they are to identify and preserve public lands. On page 5-20, the language was clarified in the discussion about the Mariposa Town Plan area and potential for a Bear Valley Community Planning area. Table 5-1 are the planning areas and planning areas status and some of those were modified to reflect those that are not scheduled at the present time, i.e., Greeley Hill; and that is also reflected in the text. On page 5-25, the language about the Mariposa Utility District and Saxon Creek was eliminated as not being appropriate there. On page 5-26, there are some findings that the Board is going to have to make if a land use classification changes and an additional finding was added to make a total of five, so that the findings would be consistent throughout the General Plan. On page 5-30 and in Section 5.4.02/Residential Land Use Classification, a zoning consistency for planned areas was updated to reflect existing zoning designations, and the population and building intensity for the planning areas was included. And the language that was discussed earlier today that the Board has determined that existing zoning densities, as of December 1, 2006, are consistent with the Residential Land Use Classification; and this is for purposes of subdividing these lands in the future. On page 5-32, the minimum parcel size for new subdivisions was modified to have exceptions for the Rural Residential existing land use designations that would allow the 2.5-acre minimum. And there were text changes regarding the criteria for clustering of parcels to assure that if you cluster parcels that those parcels or lands that you use in order to get the clusters cannot be subdivided in the future, and to allow the County to enforce that. There was language on road capacity to assure that when the Board looks at subdivisions in the future that access/easements to adjoining adjacent parcels are there for fire protection so that we can make sure that there is through access. On page 5-34, the word “requirements” was removed and “regulations” was inserted. In the Rural Economic Land Use Classifications, Section 5.4.03, the zoning consistency was modified to reflect existing zoning, and it was broken down by the Rural Economic and Recreation Land Use Classification, the Economic Resort Land Use Classification, and the Economic Commercial Land Use Classification because they are different and they operate differently, the zoning consistency is different in those various subclassifications. On page 4-43 under Agriculture/Working Landscape Land Use Classification, language was incorporated to clarify that the food, timber, and minerals are on parcels of 160-acres or of greater size; and there was also language added to clarify that the County’s traditional ranch lands and timber lands are in this classification. And, language was added that churches and organization camps are allowed subject to a discretionary permit. There is also language in the extent of uses about single-family dwellings on the large parcels of land for agriculture and timber. There is clarification that timber and mining production are part of the extended uses within the Agriculture/Working Landscape. On page 5-44, the zoning consistency was modified to reflect existing zoning and language was added about the December 1, 2006, existing zoning being allowed for subdivision of lands. On page 5-45, in the Criteria for New Lands to be Included, a requirement that lands proposed for timber management must be a minimum of 160-acres was added. On page 5-46, the findings for a new designation were changed to be consistent with the designation previously discussed. On page 5-47, Zoning Consistency was updated, along with language regarding existing zoning as of December 1, 2006. Also, language was added relative to the extent of uses for lands in public ownership and parcel of 40-acres or greater in size; and the language for churches and organizational camps. Supervisor Turpin stated he feels the language needs to be clarified for the criteria for lands proposed to be removed from the Agriculture/Working Landscape Land Use Classification as he feels that any piece of property could quality as open space. Discussion was held. Andy Hauge provided input. Kris Schenk suggested the Board may want to wait for further public comment on these findings before providing direction to staff on changes. Supervisor Pickard referred to page 5-38 relative to development and housing requirements for employees and asked whether this is consistent with the Housing Element, Policy 7.9. Andy Hauge advised that this language recognizes that there may be a desire to have this type of development outside of area plans. When the Planning Commission discussed this, they said that if we are going to put this type of development in an outlying area and it is going to be self-contained, which is one of the ---PAGE BREAK--- 7 10-11-06 requirements, the part of that self-containment is making sure that there is housing so that if there is a landslide or fire or flood the tourists and others can actually have somebody serving them on that site. The question to the Board is whether to maintain that policy. But he believes it is consistent and encouraged by the Housing Element. That is for when the Board is looking at a specific development at a specific location that is generally not adjacent to any existing facilities or housing. Input from the public was provided by the following on Chapter 5 – Land Use. Laurie Oberholtzer provided MERG’s thoughts on the following pages, and advised that Tom Infusino will address some of the Rural Protection alternative policies: Page 5-30 – they still have a problem with the 2.5-acre default size and the 5-acre designation area because of rural quality concerns and because of concerns with septic systems and wells being too close together. She requested that there be further discussion on this point and that direction be provided. Page 5-31 – She feels that the issue of existing zoning land use densities and being able to subdivide to that density in the future negates what we are doing here if everyone can just subdivide to their previous zoning. She notes that this occurs in each land use classification. Page 5-39 – She questioned the need for 20-acres for D(2) the maximum acreage for rural economic commercial land use classification since this is for a project that is intended to serve a rural area. They recommend two to five acres. Page 5-46 – They feel the wording on the Ag/Working classification looks pretty good and is moving in the right direction. Tom Infusino referred to Table 2.5, General Plan Alternatives, and reviewed the changes to the Land Use Element that would form the Alternative 4 – Rural Character Protection alternative; beginning on page 3 of 46 and the discussion of the Land Use Element and those policies that would be added or modified for this alternative. The first one that he feels is important is Implementation Measure 5-1a(3) stating that land development regulations “shall” define thresholds in which uses are complimentary to the concept of rural character. On page 4 of 46, Policy 5-2(b) says that the County shall prevent premature urbanization of the expansion area within the Mariposa Town Planning Area designated in the General Plan until the Mariposa Town Plan is updated, and that no urban expansion shall occur unless water and sewage disposal from the Mariposa Public Utility District are available in the expansion area. He advised that MERG feels that Policy 5-2(b) is very important so people get an opportunity for self-determination in the Mariposa town area. On page 6 of 46, Implementation Measure 5-4c(2) standards shall be included that protect the visual character – they had hoped that the standards would actually be in the General Plan; but they feel that direction to County staff to develop those standards in the future is a good direction. On page 7 of 46, Implementation Measure 5-8a(1) directs the Board to initiate discussion with representatives from public agencies to establish a formal collaborative cooperation and planning process; and they are in favor of this. He referred to Goal 5-12: Protect significant timberlands and provide for sustainable development of timber resources; and Policy 5-12a: Protect significant timberland from conversion to non-timber related uses; and they feel these are important policies and implementations to ensure the viability of our Ag/Working Landscape. Cathie Pierce, Mariposa County Farm Bureau President, referred to the map/General Plan land use diagram; and stated they have a problem with the white (residential) that is over Agriculture Exclusive (AE) ground and Williamson Act contracted ground. They also have a concern with the other maps and diagrams for the community plans as several of the areas are so large. She referred to page 5-43, relative to the Agriculture/Working Landscape land use classification and the extent of uses that allows churches and organizational camps; and she questioned what about the AE grounds that are under Williamson Act contract because they are not a compatible use. She feels that there should be some wording that says with exception to ground that is under contract. Andy Hauge advised that the Williamson Act contract actually protects that land. Cathie Pierce noted that there are a lots of things not allowed in the contract; however, they have happened anyway because people have not paid attention to that law. So she feels it would not hurt to reference the Williamson Act contract. Andy ---PAGE BREAK--- 8 10-11-06 Hauge advised that in any review of projects, existing Williamson Act contracts need to be considered and complied with. Don Starchman followed-up on Cathie Pierce’s comment and referred to Section D. Population Density and Building Intensity; and he advised that he is okay with adding the sentence that says that “Lands under Williamson Act contract or Timber Preserve contract are subject to the terms and conditions of the contracts” throughout the document. Tolley Gorham reviewed his notes pertaining to Chapter 5: Page 5-13 – He feels that Goal 5-9 dealing with the consistency of one dwelling per 5- acres, or two with the auxiliary dwelling, has been dealt with. Page 5-31 – This is the first mention of December 1, 2006, as the date at which the current zoning becomes the guideline for the General Plan; and he questioned the date of December 1st as we are not to that date yet. He asked what will happen if changes take place between now and December 1st that causes his interpretation of what’s going to go on to change after that time and the public would be locked in to accepting whatever December 1st brings. Page 5-32 – He feels that the hillside and ridge top design should only be applied in Scenic Highway and similar overlays. He feels that ridgeline homesites are an important economic component which establishes parcel value Page 5-34 – He questioned what a 12-hour day means in the section that talks about water production. Page 5-35 – He referred to Section 5.4.02F(1) and stated he does not believe anyone can define rural character or rural lifestyle to a standard that we can actually apply; so to attempt to regulate that policy in this document could lead to several different interpretations. He asked about Section 5.4.02(F)3 relative to storage, and he asked if this will apply to existing or only to new parcels, and who would be responsible for enforcement. He referred to Section 5.4.02F(4) and he stated he doesn’t feel that there are any standards in the Noise Element that appear to relate to this. He referred to Section 5.4.02(F)7 relative to multiple dwelling units on property and asked about parcels of 10-acres or more – whether this section intends that property must be subdivided prior to maximizing housing densities as currently allowed. As an example, if he has a 10-acre parcel in Mountain Home right now, he could put four homes on that property without subdividing. However, he could not sell those homes without subdividing. Page 5-39 – He referred to Section 5.4.03E(1) and questioned why no land will be appropriately zoned unless a project is approved. Page 5-40 – He referred to Section 5.4.03E(3)c relative to rural character and landscaping with natural vegetation. Does this mean that you landscape with poison oak and chaparral? Page 5-43 – He referred to Section 5.4.04A relative to Agriculture/Working Landscape and he noted that there are a lot of parcels under 160-acres that are included in this land use classification that are in the planning areas (except Foresta and Wawona), and that doesn’t make sense to him. If the requirement is for 160-acres that is what should be required and not less. He referred to Section 5.4.04B and stated it was his understanding that a guest ranch use which is secondary to primary ag use had been recently classified as permitted. He asked that this issue be revisited. Rita Kidd, a Catheys Valley resident, stated she was speaking as a private citizen and as Chairperson of the MERG Committee for the Preservation of Catheys Valley and Hornitos; and she read her statement into the record. She thanked staff, the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors for the commitment to the General Plan effort; and especially for including the Rural Character Protection alternative. She advised that they would like the Board to reflect on the conflict between a paragraph in the General Plan on page 5-5, which describes the benefit of a 5-acre parcel, and the updated General Plan’s more permissive 2 ½-acre parcel size allowed via a density bonus. They question whether the 2 ½-acre parcel size will provide a suitable separation between wells and sewage disposal. One of the things that she feels needs to be considered is the concept that land has a carrying capacity. They applaud the addition of new language that would not permit further build out of acreage used for establishing the density bonus. However, the net effect of the current language is ---PAGE BREAK--- 9 10-11-06 that a 160-acre parcel in which 50% of the parcel is virtually unbuildable would permit 32 - 2 ½ acre parcels on the buildable 80 acres. They requested that the Board consider adding language that would limit the density bonus based on the entire parcel’s carrying capacity. On page 5-33 and 5-34, Section E(4) Potable Water Supply, they recommend that the Board insert language that differentiates a firm requirement for proof of potable and uncontaminated water for residential parcels, allowing the “buyer beware” on only non-residential parcels. She advised that it is understandable to them that land for natural resources, for ag exclusive uses or Ag/Working Landscape uses would not have the same need for proof of water prior to sale as a residential parcel might need. She asked how the County will “police” the industry to assure that all buyers fully understand the significance of the required “disclosure” for water. On page 5-34, in Section E(5) Wildland Fire Hazard and Emergency Services, they recommend the addition of language that states “By law, County wildland fire protection policies may be more stringent than the California Department of Forestry (CDF) regulations, but may not be less.” They would support a policy that makes mandatory no net loss of agricultural land inclusive of the County’s rangelands following adoption of the new land use map. And, she requested that this workshop be extended into the next week to allow for more input. Supervisor Stetson asked about the Wildland Fire Hazard and Emergency Services issue and asked for clarification of whether the County can have laws that are less stringent than CDF. Thomas P. Guarino, County Counsel, advised that it would not affect what is done with the General Plan. The General Plan has another policy that we don’t, as a County, seek to enforce other entities regulations. The County is allowed to have some more restrictive requirements in the Building Codes and such if the necessity for it is demonstrated. But the County can’t have less restrictive requirements than what the State minimums are. Kris Casto noted that the comments that are being received show that each time the Plan is reviewed, it gets better. She advised that she will provide her written comments in the next week. She referred to page 5-3, Section 5.2.02D, Economic Opportunity, and suggested that “research and development” and light industrial” be added in the section relative to job-creating businesses. She feels that we need those kinds of jobs in this County. On page 5-4, Section 5.2.02E. Agriculture, she feels that orchards should be added as other specialties. On page 5-8, Implementation Measure 5-1a(3), she feels that “will” should be inserted in place of “should” for defining thresholds for land development regulations. On page 5-31, Section 5.4.02D, Population Density and Building Intensity, she commented on the 5-acre parcel size. She believes that if you don’t have the ability of the land to develop, then, no matter what the zoning is, you shouldn’t be able to develop it. She is worried that if even some of these are deed restricted and if it is said that only ten percent of the parcels can have dwellings on them, it is going to be very confusing. She suggested that for an interim, that if the Board tries this, that there be a trial period and that they be handled through a conditional use permit or some step that will have more teeth in it in the beginning. Then the Board will have some information and benchmarks to decide if this is what the intent is and whether the codes and rules can be enforced. On page 5-31, she questioned what Rural Residential is and whether that is only in the town planning areas (TPAs). Sarah Williams advised that Rural Residential exists in areas of the County outside of TPAs, i.e., Silva Road and Bootjack. It is not in TPAs. In the current zoning, 5-acre parcels are allowed with onsite septic and wells and it actually allows 2 ½-acre parcels with a community sewage system. Kris Casto clarified that this is not going to change any of the zoning to Rural Residential. Sarah Williams advised that this is a current zoning designation which someone could apply for. Andy Hauge noted that in the Update, Rural Residential is not a consistent zoning in any of the land use designations. Kris Casto continued with concerns with the clustering concept. On page 5-32, Section E(1) Road Capacity and Access, she stated she does not understand what this means. She feels it needs to be worded more clearly. She commented on the minimum parcel size for the various land use designations, and asked if there is any protection for parcels ranging in size from 5 to 40 acres, or land use classification for protecting those. Andy Hauge advised that the land use designations are talking about new subdivisions, new areas; and he advised that all parcels have to comply with all of the goals and policies within this General Plan. Discussion was held. Kris Casto commented on mixed use and dual use zonings on existing parcels, and she noted that in other parts of the General Plan there is discussion ---PAGE BREAK--- 10 10-11-06 about some smart growth and buffers and scenic corridors, etc. She stated she feels that when you have a mix of 5-acre and 160-acre uses, it would make better sense if the findings are correct, to make it all into 40-acres so that you could have the scenic corridors, the watersheds, and the natural and seasonal rivers and be able to have open space. She feels that this would keep the preservation of the rural character and preserve the oak woodlands and habitats. Don Starchman asked if he had a 160-acre parcel with Ag/Working Landscape on the diagram and it is zoned Mountain General, after this Plan is adopted, would he be able to divide this into 40-acre parcels. Andy Hauge advised that subdivision could occur if there is compliance with General Plan policies; i.e., slope, access, and the other policies. Don Starchman stated he feels that this needs to be very clear. 12:25 p.m. LUNCH 2:11 p.m. Lee Stetson, Chair; Present a Resolution and Tile Plaque to Denise Ludington for her Outstanding Service as Planning Commissioner for Supervisorial District I BOARD ACTION: The Resolution and tile plaque were presented to Denise Ludington. The Board continued with the public workshop and input from the public on Chapter 5 – Land Use. John Schroeder referred to a 62.5-acre parcel that is currently zoned Mountain Home – 5-acre minimum. It has been designated as Natural Resources, which has a 40-acre maximum density. He asked if the following is a correct assumption: that the modifications made to the new draft Plan state that when it comes times to modify Title 17, that certain zones that now exist are either compatible or incompatible with certain land use designations and that will govern the extent to which zoning changes. He stated he is not clear what will happen to his property if the current Natural Resources land use designation is maintained and Title 17 is updated to conform to the General Plan – will he end up with a 40-acre maximum density. Andy Hauge advised that the way the General Plan is currently crafted that when Title 17 is updated, they would have to place a zoning designation on the property which is consistent with the land use category and that would be the 40-acres used in this situation. However, with the language that has been added that the County will consider the existing zoning as of December 1, 2006, for purposes of subdivisions, you could subdivide the property into the 5-acre parcels even after Title 17 is changed. He agreed that the language should be improved to make the intent clear. John Schroeder asked what process and criteria was used to create the land use map; and he feels the General Plan should state what the process was. Andy Hauge advised that it was a very rigorous process. He stated that recognizing that the current General Plan is a zoning ordinance and not a General Plan; and under General Plan law, you have land use designations and there are fewer land use designations than zones. So the rigor that was placed to this, actually a number of years ago, in the first General Plan land use map that was created, was to take a look at the existing zoning, take a look at those zones that were compatible with the land use category and define what the land use category was; and then those areas were mapped accordingly. And this map now has gone through multiple modifications, both by the Planning Commission and this Board of Supervisors, specifically looking at issues and problems and trying to address those. The land use designation descriptions have been modified based on that process and can be further addressed and modified as the process continues through the public hearing in December. The land use designations also relate to a larger area and the character of the area. The Board is open to hearing recommendations for modifications. Don Starchman stated he does not feel that the map changes were made at the Board’s direction. He noted that more changes were made after the March workshop, and he feels that thousands of acres were changed without direction from the Board. He referred to the EIR, page 7-4, and discussion about modifications to the land use classifications. He stated he feels that we are looking at a map from a previous Planning Director, and he does not remember any direction to change 14,000 acres from Natural Resources to Ag/Working Landscape. Kris Schenk advised that there has been ongoing ---PAGE BREAK--- 11 10-11-06 discussion with Board members relative to the maps and changes; and they have applied the policies and looked at some of the areas and changed properties accordingly. The changes on the map reflect those discussions on a district-by-district basis on how best to represent those properties on this map. Kris Schenk asked that if there are any particular parcels that are still of concern or they are not mapped accurately, this would be the correct forum to be talking about that. Supervisor Pickard stated he would welcome input on specifics that Mr. Starchman is referring to; and he stated he recalls going through the maps and the parcels for District V, and he has reviewed those for consistency. He does not agree with Don Starchman, and he noted that there have been numerous workshops and review of the map and direction has been given to staff throughout the process. He noted that Don Starchman has been a part of those meetings. Frank Berloger stated he feels that Chapter 5 is the appropriate place to restore the 100% density bonus when water systems and wastewater disposal systems are provided. Supervisor Pickard stated he feels that would be a bit of a program shift with some of the policies that are set up in the General Plan if we are not talking about parcels in the TPA that have a water system. He feels that would be a problem with the way this General Plan has been designed. Andy Hauge advised that outside of the TPA areas, the Plan does provide for clustering given the same density that is designated by the land use classification. It doesn’t give a bonus, it just allows clustering using an approved wastewater system and a water system. Discussion was held. Sarah Williams provided input on the provision that currently exists in the zoning ordinance for planned or cluster residential development that allows an ability to ask for 100% of the bonus if you have community water and sewer service available or proposed in the Mountain Home or Rural Residential zoning designations. Supervisor Pickard asked if that policy is contained in the October 2006 Update, and whether there has been discussion on this issue. Sarah Williams advised that this density bonus is not contained in the proposed October 2006 General Plan Update. Andy Hauge stated he believes there has been discussion, but he does not recall specifically talking about the 100% density bonus. He knows that there was discussion about clustering and that an approved water and wastewater system would be required. Supervisor Pickard stated he would be in favor of looking at this issue. Frank Berloger stated he feels that it would probably add at least $100,000 in increased costs for a lot to add water and sewage treatment systems; and he asked why people would want to do this if there is no increase in allowable units. Supervisor Turpin asked for additional clarification relative to the overlay and the understanding that the zoning that people have today is what they will have under the new Plan; and he feels that with review of Title 17, that may not be the case. That concerns him, and he asked whether the zonings will be reviewed with Title 17. Andy Hauge advised that when reviewing Title 17, the Board is not mandated to change the existing zoning. There is a mandate to make sure that Title 17 is in compliance with the General Plan and the land use designations and the compatible zones within those designations. The language that is in the October 2006 Update regarding existing zoning only deals with the ability to subdivide to a smaller parcel size, but it doesn’t give the right if the zoning changes to have the same uses that you have today. This language is only tying down your right to subdivide your property. When it comes time to update Title 17, there will be a discussion of whether the zoning is appropriate and what is going to be done with the zoning on the property. Future zoning is not predetermined by the General Plan at this point in time. It is highly possible that the Board may choose to leave the zoning as it is. A page-by-page review of Chapter 5 – Land Use was held with Board input followed by input from the public. Supervisor Fritz noted that the small land use designation map in the Plan is difficult to read, and she asked that when the map is discussed, that there be an opportunity to look at the larger map on the wall. Section 5.2.01 Introduction – Don Starchman referred to his letter and expressed concern with the term “ready to build land.” He noted that at one of the sessions, there was language in the Plan that we were going to extend ---PAGE BREAK--- 12 10-11-06 utilities to the property line, and he questioned what utilities outside of the TPAs were being referred to. He asked what “ready to build” means. He noted that you cannot obtain a grading permit without a building permit, and PG&E will not install lines until they have a customer. He feels that to leave this term in the Plan is confusing. Discussion was held, and Andy Hauge pointed out sections in the Plan that define “ready to build.” Section 5.2.02 Summary of Major Findings – Tolley Gorham stated that, in keeping with the desire to make the rural character a part of our County and to make it palatable to not see a lot of things when we are driving on the major thoroughfares, such as Highway 49 or 140, he feels it would seem to be in the best interest of everyone to offer a way to allow folks to get off of the major thoroughfares and into a valley behind the hill or in a remote area for development of industrial parks, large housing developments or projects like that so that they will not be seen from the road. He suggested that the TPAs may not be the best area for these things; and that the developers should be allowed to create the resources for the projects and given the ability to put them in places that make sense for everybody. Supervisor Pickard commented on the cost effectiveness of a project for a developer if he doesn’t have to do things like install a long road that would handle the traffic and add infrastructure – he noted that the General Plan is trying to concentrate things so that traffic is minimized and projects are closer to services. However, if the findings can be made, he feels that the General Plan allows for these types of projects. Chairman Stetson noted the requested change from earlier this date to include “research and development” and light industrial” in Section D. Economic Opportunity, relative to job-creating businesses. The Board concurred with this change. Chairman Stetson noted the requested change from earlier this date to include “orchards” in Section E. Agriculture. The Board concurred with this change. Supervisor Bibby noted an earlier request to add language relative to “land carrying capacity” in Section I. Five-Acre Density and Rural Character. Andy Hauge agreed with the language change, and suggested adding “as defined by the General Plan.” The Board concurred with this change. Tolley Gorham provided input relative to Section I. Five-Acre Density and Rural Character and the discussion held earlier concerning two homes per parcel. He stated he feels that this needs to be added, or we will end up with zoning that allows only one residence per five-acre parcel. Andy Hauge clarified that the second home is allowed by state law. Discussion was held. Supervisor Bibby noted that some counties restrict the size of the secondary dwelling. Andy Hauge noted that there are potentials for restrictions in zoning. Sarah Williams noted that the only place in the County where secondary residences are not permitted is in Wawona – when the Specific Plan was adopted, the Board made findings related to the limitations of the sewer treatment plant. Supervisor Turpin commented on discussion in the Plan about the five-acre average density and asked whether that needs to be clarified; and he asked whether two and one-half acre parcels would be limited to one dwelling unit. Andy Hauge stated he does not feel that we need that level of detail at this time for this section – it is addressed under the density of each land use designation. He also advised that state law would allow a primary and a secondary unit on a two and one-half acre parcel. Supervisor Bibby noted that all of the requirements, including setbacks, would need to be met for the lot. The Board concurred with adding language in this section to reference the state law concerning secondary dwelling units. Tolley Gorham asked for further clarification of the sentence that reads “This means a twenty-acre parcel can be divided into four lots with a density of one dwelling per five acres.” He stated he does not feel that this fits with being able to have two dwellings per parcel; and he strongly objected to the language, especially this example. Andy Hauge advised that the state law has preempted the County; and he feels that by describing what the state law allows, and realizing that the County General Plan and ordinance provides for a certain density per acre or per lot, that this section will be clear. He provided input on his recommendation for adding language relative to the secondary dwelling unit issue, and the Board concurred with the adding the language. ---PAGE BREAK--- 13 10-11-06 Section 5.3 General Plan Implementation – Laurie Oberholtzer referred to Implementation Measure 5-1a(3) and suggested that if the Board goes with alternative five that “shall” replace “should” for land development regulations defining thresholds. Andy Hauge noted that the Planning Director suggested that there be discussion about the additional policies of alternative five after discussion of Chapter 5 is concluded; or they could be discussed as Chapter 5 is reviewed. Chair Stetson suggested that they be discussed as the Chapter is reviewed. Discussion was held. Kris Schenk noted that there were comments questioning whether this was a mitigation, and if there is seriousness about the term “rural character,” there needs to be assurance through the General Plan that it will be defined as to what that means when you deal with some of the regulations. The use of “shall” would make a commitment versus “should” and that is a decision for the Board to make. Andy Hauge clarified that mitigation measures from the EIR are in alternative five. Further discussion was held relative to defining the thresholds that are complimentary to the concept of rural character. The Board concurred with flagging this issue for further discussion. Caroline Wenger Korn referred to the previous discussion concerning two and one-half acre lots and five acre lots and allowance for two residences on each lot. She commented on her observations over the past sixty years relative to the impacts development has had on wells and septic systems, and the difficulty that some areas of the County has in supporting wells and septic systems on small areas; and she suggested that the General Plan address this concern. Supervisor Pickard noted that permit requirements still need to be met. Don Starchman referred to Policy 5-2a – Ensure that development shall occur first where services are located; and he stated he does not understand what this says and asked that a better example be provided. Andy Hauge referred back to Goal 5-2 that the County is going to create land use density and development patterns to manage growth in patterns avoiding sprawl. He advised that a part of that is the land use map that has been developed with the planning areas in order to avoid sprawl; the policy is that development is going be assured that it is going to occur where services are located; and the implementation measure which makes that happen is that the development shall grow outward from the planning areas and residential areas with available services. The second implementation measure is that established land development regulations defining permitted uses and establishing standards for close to service development; and this implementation measure goes back to Title 17 and setting up the procedures for approval for new land development that will make sure that the permitted uses are compatible and services are close to that development as a part of the package of “ready to build.” Frank Berloger referred to Goal 5-2 and stated he doesn’t see any provision for a piece of property that has the ability to provide a water and wastewater disposal facility; and he asked where that occurs in the priority of development. Andy Hauge advised that there are additional policies in the General Plan, especially about subdivision and where you can subdivide, and it also talks about denser subdivisions in areas within TPAs. He noted that if you have a parcel that is currently not designated a planned area, but you feel it has the proper land capability and you can do the things listed in the subdivision section of the General Plan, the approach would be to come in and ask for that to be designated as a planned area. The planned areas that are currently on the map are based on existing areas that are somewhat developed and we can see them intensifying. The discussion in Chapter 5 also talks about how you can add additional planned areas to the General Plan. Supervisor Turpin noted that the original language was to encourage and he feels that would fit the interpretation better. Kris Schenk noted that three members of the Board and an alternate serve on the Local Agency Formation Commission; and if someone comes in to start expanding in particular places, that is something which will require a set of approvals by the Commission. Discussion was held. Andy Hauge provided input relative to the discussion and direction the Board provided at the March 2006 workshop. Tolley Gorham referred to Goal 5-2 and he stated it appears to him that this is aimed primarily at commercial and he feels that perhaps residential development should be considered. Supervisors Pickard and Bibby provided input relative to discussion on this matter. ---PAGE BREAK--- 14 10-11-06 Don Starchman stated it would be good to include this if someone comes forward with an application to rezone. He referred to the Glossary and stated that if you build a house, you have a development. So he feels “development” needs to be defined. Discussion was held. Andy Hauge noted that you have to read the whole General Plan in context, and a single-family home is a development; but on an existing lot, it is a use by right and building permit requirements need to be met. There are several types of development and when the Board is considering development, this policy is saying to look first inward and make a determination that this is where the development should occur. If somebody comes in with a really good reason that a project shouldn’t be next to one of the existing urbanized or planned areas, the Board will need to evaluate that and make the findings outlined in the General Plan. Further discussion was held. Frank Berloger referred to alternative 5 under the rural character protection and asked for clarification of the statement that the County shall prevent premature urbanization of the expansion area within the Mariposa TPA designated in the General Plan until the Town Plan is updated. Andy Hauge advised that in the Town Plan, there is an adopted Town Plan, the adopted area plan, and the planning study areas; and those are areas that when the Town Plan is updated, they need to be looked at for consideration in the TPA. Those are areas that have current zoning and will remain with the current zoning until such time as the Town Plan is undated. Discussion was held. Supervisor Pickard noted that there are significant issues with trying to expand the Mariposa TPA, including consideration of the MPUD service area. Laurie Oberholtzer asked for clarification that these are EIR mitigations; and she was advised that they are. Don Starchman noted that a little further on that same point, it does talk about sewage disposal and water being available for Mariposa Public Utility District (MPUD); and it may be that through the LAFCo process, it is decided that they don’t want an area included and there are other vehicles that can be used such as doing a packaged wastewater plant and water system. So he doesn’t feel the door should be closed to allowing that type of development unless MPUD expands their boundary. Supervisor Fritz asked for clarification from Don Starchman as to whether he feels it would be best to take out the reference to MPUD; and he responded in the affirmative as we do not know who the provider will be. Discussion was held. Supervisor Bibby noted that there may be decisions in the future to place some of the area in question between Mariposa and Mt. Bullion in the Mt. Bullion study area. Andy Hauge advised that Policy 5-2(c) deals with utilities and he feels the intent of the policy is, especially in an urbanized area like Mariposa, to avoid having a number of wastewater and water systems operating independently in a small area; but to have one manager of the system(s). However, this is a policy question for the Board of whether to maintain a consistency in the management of the systems in a TPA. Further discussion was held relative to consideration of a language change. Andy Hauge suggested that MPUD could be left in the text and to meet the intent, language could be added to say “or other coordinated wastewater system;” and he stated he could work on better wording. The Board concurred with flagging this issue for further discussion. Tom Infusino asked what the decision was on Policy 5-2(b); and Chairman Stetson advised that it is staying in the Plan. Supervisor Pickard referred to Goal 5-4 and noted that in the EIR alternative 5, there is a mitigation as a result of comments that is recommended for 5-4a(1); and he asked Andy Hauge to elaborate on Implementation Measure 5 of 46. Andy Hauge advised that there were a number of comments wanting to make sure that commercial, health care, and financial services stayed within TPAs. At this time, this is not a mandatory policy, it is a “should” and “encourage” and the recommendation is that it be a “shall” policy. Supervisor Turpin commented on the rapid growth that is occurring in the Don Pedro area and he noted that there is a potential for a TPA and the possibility of high density and commercial development before a Town Plan is adopted; and he asked whether the potential for development is ---PAGE BREAK--- 15 10-11-06 being eliminated with this language. Andy Hauge advised that the commercial-zoned property is still there and will remain based on the way the General Plan has been written, so development is not prohibited. He further noted that fire and police services are allowed anywhere in the County. Andy Hauge asked for clarification of whether modified policy 5-4a(1) in alternative 5 remains in the document. Discussion was held. Kris Schenk suggested that County Counsel provide input on the issue of changing “shall” and “should” throughout the document. He feels that if there are things that the Board is committed to doing then “shall” should be used. 3:47 p.m. Recess 4:11 p.m. Chairman Stetson stated he would like to try and finish review of Chapter 5 before breaking for dinner. Supervisor Stetson referred to the issue of Williamson Act contracted land and agriculture, and he asked for clarification of consideration of additional language in Goal 5-9. Andy Hauge advised that they plan to discuss this with counsel; however, for purposes of this workshop, he suggested adding language to policy 5-9a – “One house per five acres is the County’s rural density excluding agricultural areas with Williamson Act contracts.” County Counsel noted that the Williamson Act contracts are independent documents which have state law requirements. He suggested that if the Board wants a reference, that the language in this Goal say “unless restricted by agreement or contract such as the Williamson Act” versus just specifying the Williamson Act, as there are other types of contracts such as timber, that equally affect the ability to do these types of things. Supervisor Bibby asked for clarification of the language in Implementation Measure 5-9a(1) relative to referencing the residential land use designation so that it couldn’t be misinterpreted for Ag Exclusive land use. Discussion was held. Don Starchman suggested that the sentence in Section 5.4.04 that states that “Lands under Williamson Act contract or Timber Preserve contract are subject to the terms and conditions of the contracts” be used. John Gamper stated he feels that Goal 5-9 should be clarified to reflect that we are not just talking about any residential development; but residential development in the residential land use classification; and he does not feel that Williamson Act needs to be mentioned. Don Starchman asked about the status of rural residential land use classifications that exist outside of the TPAs, and he stated he feels that these areas need to be covered to protect existing zoning. Andy Hauge referred to the language in the residential land use designation that allows for the two and one-half acres, and that is to recognize that the rural residential zoning that exists today can be carried forward based on the Board’s direction. He noted that the EIR did count the number of acres and parcels that could be created if every one of those units were developed, so that has been incorporated into the findings. Sarah Williams provided input on the areas where there is rural residential zoning today. Following further discussion, the Board concurred with Andy Hauge working with County Counsel to add section M in the previous section, relative to existing state law and agreements to clarify determination for any single parcel. Andy Hauge suggested that it may also be good to add language relative to the Board’s decision to acknowledge existing zoning for purposes of subdivision and acknowledge that the policies have been adjusted to allow for these things to occur in the future to clarify what the Board’s direction is for zoning as of December 2006; and the Board concurred. Frank Berloger referred to Goals 5-9 and 5-10 and he asked for clarification of when a division is a subdivision and when it is not. Andy Hauge provided clarification of the number of parcels that are considered a subdivision and a minor subdivision. Anything beyond a parcel map is a subdivision. Sarah Williams stated her understanding is that these goals would apply to both major and minor ---PAGE BREAK--- 16 10-11-06 subdivisions, and the difference is the type of map that is submitted. Andy Hauge suggested that this be clarified to reflect that it pertains to both major and minor subdivisions, and the Board concurred. Frank Berloger referred to Goal 5-10 that requires new subdivisions to be “ready to build.” Don Starchman clarified that the Board agreed to add new sections – and Supervisor Turpin asked for clarification of the difference between major and minor subdivisions, and Sarah Williams responded. Andy Hauge referred to page 6 of 46 of alternative 5 relative to rural character, Implementation Measure 5-4c(2), that the standards shall be included that protect visual character. Supervisor Pickard clarified that there will be further discussion of setting the standard for viewsheds. The Board concurred with the Implementation Measure. Supervisor Pickard referred to Implementation Measure 5-8a(1) and suggested changing “should” to “shall” for initiating discussions with representatives from public agencies to establish a formal collaborative cooperation and planning process. Andy Hauge referred to Implementation Measure 5-11a(1) and modification under the rural character protection to clarify that there is an exception for major transient rental activities in the rural portions of Yosemite West. Kris Schenk advised that the draft Yosemite West Special Plan, which will be coming to the Board after the adoption of the General Plan, does have a special way of dealing with different sizes of transient rental occupancy, so there is flexibility in the General Plan to have the latitude to deal with the Special Plan as necessary. Supervisor Stetson noted that the Special Plan can be more restrictive. Supervisor Pickard referred to page 7 of 46, Goal 5-12 and Policy 5-12a and Implementation Measure 5-12a(1), and he asked if these are in response to comment. Andy Hauge advised that this is the mitigation recommended in the land use section of the EIR with the intent to prevent the conversion of private timber lands into non-timber growing uses. Discussion was held. The Board concurred with changing “development” to “management and harvesting.” Section 5.4 Land Use Classification – Supervisor Pickard referred to the last bullet relative to parcels of 40 acres or larger in size, and asked if the characteristics of the land use designation will be used that covers the greater percentage of the property; and he was advised that is the case, also for those parcels of 40 acres or less in size. Kris Schenk also noted a typographical error with the word “follow.” John Gamper referred to development on page 8 of the EIR, page 8 of 46/Implementation Measure 5-12a(1), and asked for clarification to Supervisor Turpin’s suggestion to change “development” to “management and harvesting” with the timber preserves. Supervisor Turpin advised that he was referring to page 7 of 46. John Gamper stated he feels that “development” on page 8 of 46 has a different meaning from the use of “development” on the previous page. Andy Hauge advised that the policy that is being referred to is the Timber Preserve zoning district within the Ag/Working Landscape and Natural Resource Land Use classifications to limit development in areas of identified potential timber resources; and in that case, “management” is not appropriate and “development” is the appropriate term. Andy Hauge asked for clarification relative to Supervisor Pickard’s previous reference to the last bullet concerning parcels of 40 acres or larger in size and language that he wanted to add. Supervisor Pickard noted that the change in the land use diagram for parcels smaller than 40-acres was covered, but it is not covered here. The Board concurred with including language regarding policies for subdivision of parcels smaller than 40-acres which have multiple classifications. ---PAGE BREAK--- 17 10-11-06 Supervisor Turpin suggested that “organized recreation camps” be included with churches as conditional uses; and the Board concurred with this change. Don Starchman referred to the Catheys Valley Community Planning Area and stated he does not feel it is appropriate to state that the residents prefer to preclude special districts and to rely on individual wells and onsite sewage disposal systems when you talking about two and one-half acre zoning – he feels that will actually necessitate having shared systems. Discussion was held and no change was made. Ken Baker stated he represents property owners in the Catheys Valley area, and he stated that if there is going to be a study area for Catheys Valley, he feels that the language that the residents prefer to preclude special districts and individual wells and sewage disposal systems should not be included. He feels that there should be a study to decide what the community really wants, and he questioned how the “community” would be defined at this time since it will become a study area. Bob Benson, Catheys Valley, asked for an explanation of the sentence that state that area plans should embody greenbelts and open space lands to preclude rural sprawl; and he stated he can’t abide by this. He referred to the next sentence that refers to protecting agricultural land; and he asked how the agricultural land will be protected. Supervisor Pickard referred to the Ag/Working Landscape classification and Land Conservation Contracts for protection of the agricultural land, and discussion was held relative to the language changes made during the March 2006, workshop. Laurie Oberholtzer stated she agrees with Supervisor Pickard, and she noted that Alternative 5 includes a compromised land use map and that one of their concerns all along has been the size of the area plans. The additional wording that adds open space and greenbelt into the consideration for area plans is something that they are comfortable with and she urged the Board to keep the language in the Plan. Cathie Pierce advised that the Farm Bureau does not have a problem with the language relative to area plans embodying greenbelts, and they agree with it. When it comes to the Catheys Valley Community Planning Area, it has been about ten years and she was in on the very beginning when they sent out over 600 questionnaires to try and do what the people want, and she agrees with Supervisor Bibby that this is the language that the people want. Supervisor Turpin stated he feels that we want to make sure that the greenbelt and open space lands stay in agricultural production; and discussion was held. Andy Hauge noted that throughout the document there is discussion that agriculture is the open space for Mariposa County. 5:03 p.m. DINNER 6:10 p.m. Chairman Stetson advised of a request received from a member of the audience who traveled a long distance to address the Board on agricultural issues; and he advised that the Board would return to Chapter 5 after the following input. Chapter 10 – Agriculture: John Gamper commented on the consistency of the following three implementation measures of the Chapter: Implementation Measure 10-2a(3) concerning substandard parcels; and he stated he feels that this is different text than Implementation Measure 10-6a(1); and he asked what the difference is between “common ownership” and “held” and he referred to the next Implementation Measure 10- 6a(2). He asked whether “held” should be used or just common ownership for Williamson Act contracts. And just because they are historic parcels, he feels they should be under common ownership. County Counsel advised that the language was added during the last review of the Plan either after or contemporaneously with another matter that the Board resolved with respect to historic parcels. It is his recommendation that with respect Implementation Measure 10-6a(1) that the Board consider ---PAGE BREAK--- 18 10-11-06 prohibiting the construction of residences on parcels that are subject to Williamson Act contract; and not limit it to simply historic parcels. Current Williamson Act contracts do prohibit the construction of residences under certain circumstances based on the language of the contract. Since the Board has two separate contracts that are out there, it would not be his recommendation to focus on that particular aspect. He advised that “owned” and “held” have separate legal meaning, and he feels it is ambiguous and recommended that one of the terms be used. Although it is permitted currently for multiple owners to be under a single Williamson Act contract, the Board could provide direction for new contracts. Andy Hauge provided input relative to the language change and suggested that he work with County Counsel and determine the appropriate language. Supervisor Turpin questioned if this is the correct place to try and address this as the Williamson Act contract concerns will be coming to the Board as a separate matter. John Gamper stated he believes this is the right place to address the policy of having residences on historic parcels on land that is under Williamson Act contract. However, he respectfully disagrees with County Counsel, he feels that the Board of Supervisors cannot contract away their police power. If you want to sign it off in a contract and say that you can’t ever change anything in the policies because you signed a contract, he does not feel that is how the Courts would look at it. He referred to the case of DeLucchi v. the City of Santa Cruz where it was determined that you cannot contract away your police power or the police power of future Boards to change policy or to deal with changing situations. County Counsel stated he agrees with Supervisor Turpin that these three items do attempt to fine tune focusing on the Williamson Act alone. It is the Board’s prerogative to put into this General Plan a recognition of limitations imposed on parcels by the existence of Williamson Act contracts; however, he disagrees and it is not his recommendation that the Board is contracting away its police power by doing this. He noted that this issue is one that the Board was presented with in a recent appeal along with other matters, and the urgings of the Farm Bureau in this matter have not been fully litigated in the Courts and he believes the litigation is still pending with respect to the police power issue and the Williamson Act contracts. John Gamper stated the DeLucchi case in Santa Cruz was of the Third District Court of Appeals in the 1980’s, so he believes it is settled. He noted that there is a Superior Court decision that is problematic. He feels that it is important to have consistent language in these sections and that historic parcels should be dealt with in this Plan. County Counsel clarified that it was not his recommendation that the Board not deal with historic parcels. It was his recommendation that the Board not feel constrained to limit itself to historic parcels only because there are many parcels in the County under Williamson Act contract. In order to have the full recognition of the contract, limiting it to historic parcels denies the breath of the statement that could be made by not doing so. Don Starchman referred to the DeLucchi case and its discussion in terms of police power, but he feels that you can’t single out Williamson Act contracts; and advised that there are other court cases. He doesn’t feel that there was direction by the Board for this matter as they were still under appeal with their case. He noted that all of the lands under Williamson Act contract or Timber Preserve contract are subject to the terms and conditions of the contract; and he feels that those are the implementation measures. He does not feel that there is any provision under the law for placing additional burdens. Supervisor Pickard suggested simply addressing the issue of parcels, which would include historic parcels, as County Counsel suggested – i.e., remove the words “historic patent” and the last portion of the sentence from Implementation Measure 10-6a(1). Discussion was held. John Gamper provided additional input relative to the historic parcel and substandard parcel issues. He noted that we are talking about a policy that will protect the viability of agriculture when ---PAGE BREAK--- 19 10-11-06 historic parcels are found, especially on contracted land and he feels that this will resolve the problem and that there will be a further discussion on the DeLucchi case in the future. The Board concurred with the changes suggested by County Counsel and Supervisor Pickard to delete “historic patent” from Implementation 10-6a(1). Supervisor Pickard initiated further discussion relative to Implementation Measure 10-2a(3) and the language that is proposed. County Counsel stated he feels that this is aimed at historic parcels in part because that is when you have most of your substandard-sized parcels that are created when they are broken up with the patents after the Williamson Act contract has been issued. Another concern is when it talks about “enforceably managed with other (standard) contiguous contracted parcels under common ownership” – this is really a specific statement that is being added to what is being done with Williamson Act at this time; and he deferred to the Planning Department on what the past practice has been. If it is going to be changed, the Board may want to consider that it be something, in part, that is applied to substandard-sized parcels and they should be treated the same. Discussion was held, and Supervisor Pickard suggested that this issue be further discussed later in the process. Andy Hauge suggested that they come back at the workshop scheduled for the next week with information on this; and the Board concurred. Supervisor Bibby requested that the terms “owned” and “held” also be reviewed and “compliance with state law” issues. County Counsel advised that if the Board adopts these terms, we would be required to include them in any new contracts that are issued. His concern is that he does not know how this would impair existing contract rights – that is the police power authority issue. He is not saying that the Board should contract that away or does contract that away; but the legal issue is after you enter into a contract, do you still have the authority under the police power to change that existing contract and that is still in dispute. Sharon Dickinson stated she does not want to see Mariposa change. She commented on the air quality implications of the proposed Plan and alternatives. She referred to a book written by John Muir, entitled “My First Summer in the Sierra” that recalls his earliest days in Mariposa County and the good air quality. She wants the air quality to be good well into the future; and commented on the changes in air quality and the health consequences of smog and particulates. She encouraged the Board to adopt the Rural Character Alternative and the air pollution mitigation measures. Cathie Pierce referred to Section D. Maintaining the Rural Character of the County, and expressed concern with the last paragraph. She feels that this statement, along with the size of the community plan area for Catheys Valley, is of concern. They have a lot of Ag Exclusive ground in the area and Williamson Act contracts ground and a very open-ended statement that could set this up to be a lot of residential ground in the future. Supervisor Bibby asked for clarification of this section relative to town plans versus community plans. Cathie Pierce advised that they are looking for language that would not allow for a misinterpretation of the intent to keep the land protected. Discussion was held. Chairman Stetson advised that he would like to finish Chapter 5, and then come back to this Chapter, and the Board concurred. The review of Chapter 5 continued with Section 5.4 Land Use Classification. Supervisor Pickard referred to the paragraph that states that “Area plans are not mandated to provide lands for uses inconsistent with the principles of the planning area…” and he asked whether those adopted planning areas such as Wawona and Fish Camp would be required to revisit the greenbelts and open space issues. Andy Hauge noted that at the time that those plans are updated, this could be looked at. Supervisor Pickard noted that those two areas could not sprawl due to being surrounded by U. S. Forest and National Park Service, so this is not a concern. Don Starchman stated he feels that some form of clustering needs to be looked at; and hopefully, with bonus density. He noted that there has been input from others on this issue; that is ---PAGE BREAK--- 20 10-11-06 something that is contained in Title 17; and that there are people who do not want to maintain two and one-half acres or five-acres, but want open space. He referred to Section D. Population Density and Building Intensity and reference to one dwelling unit per existing parcel; and he stated he would like to see a provision that if the parcel is twice the size of the minimum density for its existing zoning, that you would be allowed to have that one additional residence. This would still be far more restrictive than what is allowed today, but would give flexibility for the property owner. He also stated he feels that the language needs to be clearer relative to what is allowed on a parcel versus a subdivided parcel. He referred to the “rural residential” issue and Andy Hauge’s earlier comments that when Title 17 is reviewed that something will need to be done with those existing zoned parcels that are inconsistent with the zoning land use classification. He questioned whether we are protecting the two and one-half acre parcels that exist. Andy Hauge advised that those existing “rural residentials” are under the language about December 1, 2006 date that those parcels are there. Discussion was held. Andy Hauge advised that the language allows, even if the parcel is not zoned rural residential in 2007, the land owner to subdivide the land to a rural residential density at some point in the future. But they do not have the rural residential land use characteristics as far as the uses, they have to comply with the new zoning that will be applied to the property. We are only guaranteeing that the person who has the right to divide that down to five-acre parcels continues to have that right to divide those into five-acre parcels into the future, but there is no guarantee that the rural residential zone will continue to exist as a term or as a zone. Further discussion was held relative to the dwelling density issue. Kris Schenk provided input on the problems they have encountered when people try to divide their land to sell a dwelling and there is no way to legally create a separate parcel. Supervisor Pickard stated he would like more discussion on this issue and asked staff to bring back more information for allowing one additional dwelling unit, in addition to the secondary residence allowed by the State, when a parcel is at least twice the minimum parcel size for its existing zoning; and the Board concurred with this. Don Starchman noted that there is already some language for this in the Ag/Working Landscape land use classification. Further discussion was held relative to this issue. County Counsel noted that he has been approached by one developer that discussed doing this kind of development and leasing the underlying land on a long-term lease and allowing someone to build a structure on the land and the banks were looking at whether the long-term lease was sufficient security; so there are some creative minds that are looking at this. 6:58 p.m. Recess 7:07 p.m. Don Starchman continued with expressing concern with the issue of newly created subdivisions and appropriate easements for future through road connections to adjacent developable parcels. He stated he feels that this is a taking of a private property for the neighbors’ use; and he stated that unless it can be shown that protection by looping the road is for the benefit of the developing parcel, he does not feel that a nexus can be found and so this could not be legally enforced. He noted that there is a Proposition on the ballot that could make it a requirement for the County to pay for those. County Counsel referred to a previous discussion on this issue and the problems with dead-end roads, and concerns where the easement didn’t go from property line to property line. Kris Schenk provided input on the dead-end road issues that they are dealing with. He does not feel that this is a “taking” issue as easements are placed on parcels all of the time to get proper access to adjoining parcels. He feels that this provides for a reasonable ability for someone to have access to their property and to be able to meet fire safe standards. If there is better language to get to this goal, he is willing to look at that. Don Starchman stated he does not have any problem with the concept; however it is fire safe standards for the property and not fire safe standards for the neighbor. He commented on two land divisions where the families wanted to subdivide and met all of the requirements on site and didn’t want extra easements; and in these cases he does not feel that the nexus requirement can be met. He expressed concern with the current wording and who will say where the road goes and whether it will affect building sites; and he feels it is too-open ended. County Counsel stated the language in the Plan “as appropriate” would include the nexus requirement. ---PAGE BREAK--- 21 10-11-06 Don Starchman referred to section F(2) Traffic Generation, and he stated he feels that there needs to be a higher threshold for home-based business. Home enterprise and rural home industry are the backbone of the economy of the County; and he does not feel conditional use permits should be required to create a job. Supervisor Bibby commented on the need to address concerns she receives with increased traffic for home-based business where there is a road association and the home-based business increases the maintenance impact on the road. Don Starchman suggested tripling the threshold; he feels that doubling it is way too low. He noted that we still do not have any reasonable expectations to be able to create a job in any kind of an industrial park or area; and he feels that this is something that we still need to come back to. Discussion was held relative to the threshold. Supervisor Stetson noted that doubling the traffic could create serious problems for some roads, and he suggested that perhaps percentage numbers should be considered. Andy Hauge suggested that they come back with information on the average numbers used for a house for further discussion of this issue. Supervisor Turpin asked Don Starchman to provide input on the concern he had with the ridge top design requirements. Don Starchman stated he feels the Board addressed this at the last workshop and that the Board provided direction concerning the language; however, the wording in this document is still the same. As a practical and environmental matter, he feels that building on the ridge tops cuts down on the amount of cut and fill and is a more suitable location for the septic system. He also noted that for the most part, we only have hillsides and ridge tops in the County. He does not feel someone should make a decision of where he can build and he has a concern of who will make that decision and the impact that will have in terms of processing a permit, including grading permits. Supervisor Bibby asked if there is a mitigation measure for this. Andy Hauge noted that these regulations deal with “new” subdivisions and it doesn’t say that you are prohibited from building on the hilltop, but it goes through a series of criteria. The criteria are to encourage development to be done in a safe and environmentally sound manner and one that also might protect the views. This does not affect existing parcels. Rita Kidd asked for clarification about the process for providing input on this Chapter. Chairman Stetson advised that he would like that anyone wishing to speak to the topic that is being discussed to provide input during the discussion of that topic as each chapter is being reviewed. Rita Kidd asked for clarification on the decision making process during this workshop. Chairman Stetson advised that during this workshop, the sense of the Board is being obtained on items that are discussed; and if the items need to be revisited, they will be; or if there is additional input, that can be provided during the process. The Board continued with taking input on the hilltop design issue. Ken Gosting, speaking as an individual, cautioned the Board to carefully review this issue. He stated that many communities with similar circumstances as Mariposa have found it to be an economic detriment once there was development on the hillsides. He noted that in Boulder, Colorado, the City of Boulder purchased the ridge tops so that there would not be a taking, but at the same provide for protection of the property values of the people in the low lands. Supervisor Turpin asked how guidelines would be developed to give staff good direction on the ridge top design. Further discussion was held with Andy Hauge on this issue. Don Starchman referred to bullet number 4 relative to visual impact of the subdivision and its building sites. Supervisor Fritz provided input on this bullet, and advised that she does not feel that a neighbor should be able to object to a neighboring building site. Kris Schenk suggested deleting the last portion of the bullet; and the Board concurred with this change. Supervisor Turpin asked that the fifth bullet relative to the design of subdivision roads and building sites be made the first bullet because it is a high priority; and the Board concurred with this change. Rita Kidd initiated discussion relative to the issue of “carrying capacity” of the land, and she stated she feels that this could be included in Section E. New Subdivisions. She noted that if there are a ---PAGE BREAK--- 22 10-11-06 large number of two and one-half acre parcels on the only buildable land, the unbuildable land is still used for the calculation as though it is fully buildable. She is suggesting that if the land didn’t have any carrying capacity, the calculation needs to be on the basis of the smaller, more buildable property. She feels we have a recipe here for real congestion in the way this policy is stated in the Plan at this point. Discussion was held relative to the issue and potential examples. Andy Hauge provided input on the issue, and stated he feels the issue for the Board is how to define what “carrying capacity” is. He feels that what Rita Kidd is suggesting is that the density be reduced allowed on that parcel based on the fact that if the parcel could not handle those units in the beginning, they should not get them in the future. The clustering policy takes the other approach, which is saying if the land can’t handle it, we are going to try and work with the owner to allow for those units. So this is a policy choice for the Board; and with enough money any parcel could be built on. Further discussion was held. Rita Kidd stated she feels that we need to set some standards for this; and perhaps include an implementation measure that says that we will establish those standards. She also noted that she feels that there are some really good reasons for clustering and for the smaller parcel size; but at the same time the land can’t always have the capacity. Supervisor Bibby asked how she would arrive at and define “carrying capacity.” Rita Kidd responded and stated she would happy to provide information on wording for a definition. Further discussion was held. Andy Hauge noted that the General Plan sets up a number of policies that are in fact defining what the “carrying capacity” of the County is, part of those are the land use designations and you have the 40 and 160-acre parcels because there is recognition that those lands need those kinds of designations. And then there are the policies dealing with the ridge tops, sewer, water, the road systems, and soil conditions that do in fact define the “carrying capacity” of the County. So he feels that the General Plan builds this in and as a total is defining what the “carrying capacity” is. So each parcel is looked at and each parcel, the way this is written, has the opportunity to build every single lot that is defined by that land use designation. But then, it has to be proven up that the land capacity can meet build-out based on all of the other goals and policies and implementation measures of the General Plan. He feels that what Supervisor Pickard suggested is that the policies and goals be reviewed to make sure that they in fact define the “carrying capacity” the way Rita Kidd would like it defined in Mariposa County. Supervisor Bibby asked if Andy Hauge has ever seen a “carrying capacity” based on services that can be provided; and he responded in the affirmative and advised that he wrote a plan that was totally performance based. Rita Kidd referred to Section E(4) Potable Water Supply and comments in the letter that she presented this morning that she feels that we need to differentiate the “buyer-beware” disclosure. She feels the requirement to record a disclosure statement is an “out” for a developer where water is not proven prior to sale. She feels that this is a “buyer-beware” statement essentially; and if you are building residential properties, that this statement may be out of line. She suggested that this be limited to non-residential properties. Supervisor Pickard noted that this is in addition to what is otherwise required in the five earlier steps to prove water. Rita Kidd stated she is okay with the language with this explanation. Rita Kidd referred to Section E(5) Wildland Fire Hazard and Emergency Services and stated they would like to have a statement added that by law the County can have more stringent requirements than California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CDF), but not less. She referred to a statement made earlier today that this Board that sits here today isn’t going to be the only Board that ever sits here, and that this Board is setting in motion a plan that future Boards can use and that we and the community can be sure that the words are there that help guide them. Over the last ten years, we have had differences of opinion between the County and CDF over what the State’s regulations are. She cited a recent example where there are no water tanks required for part of the subdivisions in an area, but are required for others; and that is because those approvals got caught in that gap between differences of opinion over what was required. She feels it is critical that everyone who implements this General Plan knows that CDF’s fire regulations prevail and that in the wildlands fire areas, that they have to be served according to those regulations and that the County doesn’t have the prerogative of having somebody suddenly giving someone instruction to follow a different path. Supervisor Pickard provided input on his interpretation of this section that building will comply with State ---PAGE BREAK--- 23 10-11-06 standards of CDF and will also comply with Uniform Building Code that is enforced by our Building Department; and CDF has been charged by the State legislature to enforce the fire safe standard codes and that is their responsibility. Supervisor Bibby suggested adding “County” before Fire Department. Andy Hauge suggested also adding “County” before Building Department. The Board concurred with these changes. Don Starchman initiated further discussion on the issue of clustering and direction to staff relative to the density bonus issue. He urged staff to look at Title 17 and he noted that there are three pages of requirements; and he stated he feels there are areas next to TPAs where these requirements could be met, but perhaps the services are not ready to be extended to them and yet packaged plants can be put in and water systems can be put in. He feels that this also creates a bit of a safety valve for the County for some of the development pressures. He agrees that this doesn’t solve all of the problems, but it is another tool. Supervisor Pickard referred to his support for this, and he stated he believes that subdivisions like Lushmeadows, Ponderosa Basin and Mariposa Pines are examples of good subdivisions that he feels there is a demand for and they should be able to be considered in the future. He noted that changes in state law for septic system requirements may make smaller parcel size and clustering with higher density necessary in order to make some of the subdivisions viable and affordable. He feels that this may be an issue for future consideration in the General Plan. Don Starchman asked that there be some reference to this in the General Plan. He referred to the supplemental standards in Title 17 Section 17.108.100 and the language that is used and he feels it is well thought out. He feels that we could create even better subdivisions now with the requirements for the greenbelts and the common water and sewer systems. The small lot subdivisions in the past have created some problems and those concerns have been addressed with the changes. Supervisor Pickard noted that two and one-half acres is the smallest lot size that is allowed for clustering in this Plan. He noted that affordable housing is another issue, and with some incentives, perhaps smaller parcels sizes could be considered in the future; however, at this point he feels that we need to move forward with the adoption of this General Plan Update. Don Starchman provided input on the concern he has with the Ag/Working Landscape as opposed to Natural Resources. He referred to Section A. Purpose for Ag/Working Landscape Land Use Classification and the definition; and to Section A. Purpose for Natural Resource Land Use Classification and the definition. He also referred to the differences in Section B. Extent of Uses for the two land use classifications. He questioned whether everything is turned around in the easterly and northerly part of the County on the map versus the actual land uses. He suggested that Supervisors Stetson and Turpin work with staff and look at the map to review these two land use classifications to determine whether the appropriate zoning is applied. He stated he doesn’t want to take anything away from the Ag Exclusive (AE) zoning, but he feels that this needs to be reviewed. Supervisor Pickard agreed with looking at those areas further to see if anything was missed. Supervisor Turpin advised of his discussion with Andy Hauge on the concern over the potential loss of ag lands; and he noted that by looking at the new diagram, there may be a few pieces of AE or Mountain Preserve land. He asked if there is a way of adding language that would allow for those pieces of land, even if they are overlaid with Natural Resources which is a 40-acre minimum that they would not be able to downsize. Don Starchman noted that if there are contracts on the land, the contracts prevail. Discussion was held. Supervisor Bibby referred to Section F(1) Separation between the Location of the Rural Economic Land Use Classification and the requirement for a minimum separation of three miles and a service population of 1,000; and she asked whether all of the uses that are designated as Rural Economic/Commercial meet this criteria. Sarah Williams commented that the examples the Planning Commission used when they established that criteria were Lushmeadows store and Woodland store and Triangle Market. Supervisor Bibby clarified that the developed area is not to exceed 35 percent of the total gross land area for the Rural Economic land use, including commercial, recreation and resort land uses. Supervisor Bibby asked how the one mile separation was reached for a minimum separation between a planning area or another Rural Economic land use classification if the site is located adjoining a recreation facility and separated by a topographic change. Supervisor Turpin commented ---PAGE BREAK--- 24 10-11-06 that he felt that consideration was given to the future potential of development around Lake McClure. Supervisor Bibby clarified that this refers to any and all recreational facilities. Don Starchman stated he has no problem with protecting AE land, but he is concerned with the five criteria in Section G. Criteria for Lands Proposed to be Removed from the Agriculture/Working Landscape Land Use Classification. He feels that the Board gave direction that this be simplified and that has not occurred; he feels it has been tightened even more. He expressed concern that we have such a large area included in this land use classification and that the criteria could not be met if someone wanted to reclassify a parcel; and with the requirement that the land can’t be used for open space. He noted that there are no other lands within the proposed land use classification available for a destination resort proposal or a similar project. Yet, within the Plan we are encouraging destination hotels and tourism; and he feels that destination hotels are a big part of the future of tourism. He feels that we need to make it possible for these types of developments to be considered for approval. Andy Hauge noted that the intent is to preserve the Ag/Working Landscape; and the purpose of this General Plan also is to have the land that new uses radiate out from the TPAs and extra areas. Discussion was held. Don Starchman asked if the distinction could be made that there are exceptions for parcels outside of AE. Further discussion was held. Andy Hauge advised that if the Ag/Working Landscape in some of the areas was turned into Natural Resources, the implications would be additional development, traffic impacts and other things that would need to be reviewed to see what that really means. Anita Starchman Bryant provided input and noted that the majority of the dark blue area on the map is Forest Service land; and she advised that they are concerned with the parcels that are in the small green areas within the blue and are now caught up in this Ag/Working Landscape land use classification that is currently zoned 40-acre minimum. She does not feel that they would be able to meet the five criteria that have been discussed to be removed from this land use classification to develop a resort. Supervisor Bibby asked if there is a specific parcel that they are addressing. Anita Starchman Bryant responded that there are homes on some of the parcels that already have roads; and she provided additional input and stated she does not feel there is consistency. Supervisor Pickard noted that there is very little likelihood that a resort commercial development could occur on those parcels based on the criteria of the General Plan without being off of a State highway or a major County road. Don Starchman stated he feels that there should be set criteria for this as there are for the others. Supervisor Turpin referred to an example of land in Anderson Valley with good access and 40-acre minimum; however, they could not meet the five criteria to be able to develop. Kris Schenk noted that it is true that it would be very difficult to remove land from Ag/Working Landscape and a lot of parcels will not be able to get out because of physical characteristics of the property. However, they do want to encourage destination resorts at appropriate locations. So he suggested including an exception of some language that could be brought back for the Board to review to say that if you bring in a project for a destination resort and findings could be made as an exception, that as long as the land is not AEZ or TPZ land, then the Ag/Working Landscape would not prevent the Board from making findings that it should become a destination resort. Chairman Stetson asked staff to bring the proposed language back for the continued workshop, and he stated he would be willing to meet with Don Starchman on this matter. Kris Schenk emphasized that a project would need to be submitted for this to be considered. Further discussion was held relative to the issue and the land use maps. Chairman Stetson thanked everyone for their participation in this workshop. Supervisor Turpin referred to the land use maps displayed on the wall and asked what the dark red areas would be called – existing TPAs or study areas? Sarah Williams noted that some of the areas have adopted plans like Wawona, Fish Camp, Mariposa, and Coulterville. On the other maps the existing TPA land use designations are shown in red, with an exception of a small portion of Princeton Ranch that is proposed to be entirely with the expanded Mariposa TPA that is not shown in red; and the outer boundary of these are called planning study areas. Supervisor Turpin asked for clarification on whether the solid red color areas are being adopted now or the expanded study areas; and that they are two and one-half acre parcels. Andy Hauge advised that the adopted plan areas are already adopted, so they are just being carried forward. The areas outside of the adopted plan areas are being incorporated as ---PAGE BREAK--- 25 10-11-06 planned study areas. He also reaffirmed that they are two and one-half acres. Kris Schenk noted that the interior red areas reflect the existing Town Planning zoning. Chairman Stetson stated he would like to start the continued workshop next week with reviewing issues from this workshop that remain; and then proceed with review of Chapter 10, followed by the rest of the Plan. Supervisor Pickard referred to the notice of the workshop on October 17th as being a continuation of this workshop and he noted that more input could be provided on Chapter 5. Supervisor Bibby thanked everybody for their participation in this process. 9:00 p.m. The workshop to consider the revisions contained in the October 2006 Draft General Plan and Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was continued to October 17, 2007, at 2:00 p.m.; and the meeting was adjourned. Respectfully submitted, MARGIE WILLIAMS Clerk of the Board