Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
1Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Cattlemen's General Plan Update Meeting Notes

Cattlemen's General Plan Update Meeting Notes

Ratings: (0)|Views: 9|Likes:
Published by Rose
April 11, 2005 Attachment 2
Farm Bureau - Cattlemen's General Plan Update Meeting Notes
April 11, 2005 Attachment 2
Farm Bureau - Cattlemen's General Plan Update Meeting Notes

More info:

Published by: Rose on Nov 25, 2007
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

05/08/2014

pdf

text

original

 
Attacment 2
Farm Bureau – Cattlemen’s GPU Meeting NotesApril 11, 2005
J:\PLANNING\ADVANCE\GPU\PLANTEXT\MEETINGS\COMMENT\FARM_CAT.DOC - 1 -
Location
: Farm Bureau office
Time
: 3:00 – 5:00 p.m.
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 theDraft General Plan hosted by the Farm Bureau on April 11, 2005 and staff responses to those comments.
Comment Response
Timber Goal:
1. Timber goal should explicitly include the word“harvesting” to ensure that this is an activity the countysupports.
Response from staff:
 
1. The current phrase “timber production” includesthe activity of timber harvesting; however, staff willrevise this goal to include timber harvesting as anactivity supported by the County.
Timber Policies: Legislative
1. (T2) We would like the County to be on the same page asCDF regarding Streamside Management Areas (SMA). I donot want the County to be reviewing THP’s.2. (T2) For special permits required in SMA’s, we would liketo see a lower cost permit alternative.3. (T7) Wildland-Urban Interface – There were concerns andquestions regarding what “additional guidance” meant interms of the County getting involved in the THP process for timber management next to urban areas. Comments receivedimplied that increased review could lead to more lawsuits for  both the County and the property owner. The attendeesrequested 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 processthe County would take for the wildland-urban interface areas.4. A comment was received that the TPZ lands should beidentified and noticed that these lands are committed totimber production (similar to a “Right to Farm” notification)
Response from staff:
 
1. Comment noted.2. Comment noted.3. The County has the right to review THP’s nowunder the FPA. The County has chosen not to do this.As a part of the GP scoping phase, many commentswere received requesting that the County get moreinvolved in reviewing THP’s. The Board concludedthat they did not want the County involved in the TPH process except, possibly in the urban-wildlandinterface areas and directed staff to explore options toreview during the GPU process. The options that staff are considering now is to either map these areas andreview 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 acase 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 thewildland-urban interface areas.4. Comment noted.
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?
Response from staff:
 
1. You can LLA parcel sizes of 160 acres as long asthe designation remains the same and there is anunderstanding that there is no presumption thathousing units will be allowed on these parcels.
Timber: Land Use Classifications
1. Industrial Timber Designation – There was some concernover non-industrial timber owners being put into thisclassification.
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 industrialowners (Tom gave an example) and it made sense toinclude them into IT designation.

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->