Attacment 2
Farm Bureau – Cattlemen’s GPU Meeting Notes
April 11, 2005
Location: Farm Bureau office
County Staff: Kirk Girard, Tom Hofweber, Martha Spencer (Planning); Carolyn Ruth (County Counsel)
Participants: John LaBoyteaux, Butch Parton, Jorie Brundy, Jay Russ, Lane Russ, Joe Russ, Gene Senestraro, John Rice,
Butch Parton, Johanna Rodoni, Marty McClelland, Brett, Norman and Peggy Satterlee and Katherine Zeimer
Following are the comment/questions received during a meeting on the proposed Agriculture/Timber policies for the
Draft General Plan hosted by the Farm Bureau on April 11, 2005 and staff responses to those comments.
Comment
Timber Goal:
1. Timber goal should explicitly include the word
“harvesting” to ensure that this is an activity the county
supports.
Timber Policies: Legislative
1. (T2) We would like the County to be on the same page as
CDF regarding Streamside Management Areas (SMA). I do
not want the County to be reviewing THP’s.
2. (T2) For special permits required in SMA’s, we would like
to see a lower cost permit alternative.
3. (T7) Wildland-Urban Interface – There were concerns and
questions regarding what “additional guidance” meant in
terms of the County getting involved in the THP process for
timber management next to urban areas. Comments received
implied that increased review could lead to more lawsuits for
both the County and the property owner. The attendees
requested that these areas be mapped so that there wouldn’t
be surprises if the future. More clarity in the policy option
(“additional guidance”) was also requested as to the process
the County would take for the wildland-urban interface areas.
4. A comment was received that the TPZ lands should be
identified and noticed that these lands are committed to
timber production (similar to a “Right to Farm” notification)
Timber Policies: Land Use
1. Can you still sell or swap lands designated IT in 160 acre
parcels or does it have to be at 600 acre parcel sizes?
Timber: Land Use Classifications
1. Industrial Timber Designation – There was some concern
over non-industrial timber owners being put into this
classification.
J:\PLANNING\ADVANCE\GPU\PLANTEXT\MEETINGS\COMMENT\FARM_CAT.DOC
Time: 3:00 – 5:00 p.m.
Response
Response from staff:
1. The current phrase “timber production” includes
the activity of timber harvesting; however, staff will
revise this goal to include timber harvesting as an
activity supported by the County.
Response from staff:
1. Comment noted.
2. Comment noted.
3. The County has the right to review THP’s now
under the FPA. The County has chosen not to do this.
As a part of the GP scoping phase, many comments
were received requesting that the County get more
involved in reviewing THP’s. The Board concluded
that they did not want the County involved in the TPH
process except, possibly in the urban-wildland
interface areas and directed staff to explore options to
review during the GPU process. The options that staff
are considering now is to either map these areas and
review all THP’s that are received for those areas
(comment on nuisance issues only such as hours of
operation, noise, traffic etc) or just review THP’s on a
case by case basis based upon public input. Director
Girard also noted that fire planning efforts may also
play a part in the proposed regulations for the
wildland-urban interface areas.
4. Comment noted.
Response from staff:
1. You can LLA parcel sizes of 160 acres as long as
the designation remains the same and there is an
understanding that there is no presumption that
housing units will be allowed on these parcels.
Response from staff:
1. There were about 5 – 10 owners that are non-
industrial timber operators that were classified IT.
They were completely surrounded by industrial
owners (Tom gave an example) and it made sense to
include them into IT designation.
-1-
 Attacment 2
Farm Bureau – Cattlemen’s GPU Meeting Notes
April 11, 2005

Agriculture Goals: Response from staff:

Goals okay – no comments received.

Agriculture Policies: Response from staff:

1. How are the boundaries determined between agricultural 1. Currently we use the Community Planning
areas and residential areas? Boundaries and the Service District boundaries to
distinguish between residential and agricultural areas.

2. Make it very clear that no residential subdivisions are 2. We would like to strengthen this policy in our
allowed in AE lands! Only subdivisions for agricultural General Plan.
uses.

Agriculture Land Use Classifications: Response from staff:

1. Ranchland designation – how many acres are currently 1. Approximately 300,000 acres
designated AGR?
Concerns with AGR designation:
• Would like to see the 160 acre minimum kept
Concerns regarding the AGR designation and the
Withdrawal policy:
• If there is no place suitable on your ranch to do the
density transfer, than you have lost value (from 160
acre density to 600 acre) I believe that there are a lot
of ranches that cannot meet the standards.
• Looks like a TDR program
• What about trading the development rights between
ranchers?
• What can we do to keep the 160 acre parcel size and
not see lands broken up?
• How do we preserve “cow country” for the next
generation in sizes large enough to sustain a viable
operation? This looks pretty good. I don’t want to
lose my financial interest either, but what are our
choices?
• CA Farm Bureau deals with this issue all the time!
• That’s why we did the Williamson Act – we should
strengthen that!
• 600 acres may not be a big enough size to be viable
– what happens to ranchers when this parcel size
puts them out of business because it is too big to
sell, but not big enough to do anything?
• There should be a guarantee that this type of
subdivision will work for the rancher – no net loss
of property rights.
• The County should put more effort into enforcement
to slow down this type of development – make the
penalties bigger!
• Look more to incentives to keep people in
agriculture (like Williamson Act).

J:\PLANNING\ADVANCE\GPU\PLANTEXT\MEETINGS\COMMENT\FARM_CAT.DOC -2-