Professional Documents
Culture Documents
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 Response
Timber Goal: Response from staff:
1. Timber goal should explicitly include the word 1. The current phrase “timber production” includes
“harvesting” to ensure that this is an activity the county the activity of timber harvesting; however, staff will
supports. revise this goal to include timber harvesting as an
activity supported by the County.
Timber Policies: Legislative Response from staff:
1. (T2) We would like the County to be on the same page as 1. Comment noted.
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 2. Comment noted.
to see a lower cost permit alternative.
3. (T7) Wildland-Urban Interface – There were concerns and 3. The County has the right to review THP’s now
questions regarding what “additional guidance” meant in under the FPA. The County has chosen not to do this.
terms of the County getting involved in the THP process for As a part of the GP scoping phase, many comments
timber management next to urban areas. Comments received were received requesting that the County get more
implied that increased review could lead to more lawsuits for involved in reviewing THP’s. The Board concluded
both the County and the property owner. The attendees that they did not want the County involved in the TPH
requested that these areas be mapped so that there wouldn’t process except, possibly in the urban-wildland
be surprises if the future. More clarity in the policy option interface areas and directed staff to explore options to
(“additional guidance”) was also requested as to the process review during the GPU process. The options that staff
the County would take for the wildland-urban interface areas. 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. A comment was received that the TPZ lands should be 4. Comment noted.
identified and noticed that these lands are committed to
timber production (similar to a “Right to Farm” notification)
Timber Policies: Land Use Response from staff:
1. Can you still sell or swap lands designated IT in 160 acre 1. You can LLA parcel sizes of 160 acres as long as
parcels or does it have to be at 600 acre parcel sizes? the designation remains the same and there is an
understanding that there is no presumption that
housing units will be allowed on these parcels.
Timber: Land Use Classifications Response from staff:
1. Industrial Timber Designation – There was some concern 1. There were about 5 – 10 owners that are non-
over non-industrial timber owners being put into this industrial timber operators that were classified IT.
classification. They were completely surrounded by industrial
owners (Tom gave an example) and it made sense to
include them into IT designation.
J:\PLANNING\ADVANCE\GPU\PLANTEXT\MEETINGS\COMMENT\FARM_CAT.DOC -1-
Attacment 2
Farm Bureau – Cattlemen’s GPU Meeting Notes
April 11, 2005
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.
J:\PLANNING\ADVANCE\GPU\PLANTEXT\MEETINGS\COMMENT\FARM_CAT.DOC -2-